Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D11-0012
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/08/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/09/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 06/13/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tanque Verde At Wrightstown Development Package (2nd Review) D11-0012 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 13, 2011 DUE DATE: June 22, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is May 01, 2012. 2. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.4.B Identify Tanque Verde Creek on the project location map. 3. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Remove all references to "SCENIC" as Tanque Verde Road is not a scenic route in this area. 4. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Per LUC Section 3.2.9 the following areas are not counted in the lot coverage, "POOL RAMADA, POOL DECK & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION". Revise the lot coverage calculation. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B All existing easements that are "TO BE ABANDONED" need to be abandoned prior to approval of this development package. 6. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 7. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E As this project encompasses 6 parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with your next submittal. 8. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.4.B.2 A motor vehicle off-street parking space shall have a minimum width of ten (10) feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said demonstrate on the plan how the proposed vehicle parking spaces adjacent to the proposed garages meet this section of the code. 9. This comment was not addressed. Provide a dimension on the plan that shows that the 10' width is met. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.4.B.2 A motor vehicle off-street parking space shall have a minimum width of ten (10) feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said demonstrate on the plan how the vehicle parking space adjacent to the proposed gated entry, called out under keynote 39, Sheet C4.1, meets this section of the code. 10. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the 3'-0" minimum dimension from the back of spur to the wall for the southern back-up spur. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a There are two (2) back-up spurs that don't meet the requirements of Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.D. Show all required radii and the required distance to the wall on the south back-up spur. 11. Based on the hatched pattern shown on the plan the carports still encroach into the required 1'-0" setback to the PAAL. Either provide a 1'-0" setback at all carports shown on the plan or provide a typical detail. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.1.a Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least one (1) foot from an open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closed part of the structure or roof overhang. That said demonstrate on the plan how proposed carport structures meet this section of the LUC. 12. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.2 Access lanes and PAALs shall be setback at least two (2) feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction. That said show how the proposed garages meet this section of the LUC. 13. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a vehicle parking space calculation that includes the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. This calculation should be based on Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.4.2. 14. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Show both the required Short-Term and Long-Term bicycle parking facilities on the development package. Provide a fully dimensioned detail for the Short-Term bicycle parking. See Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.9 for design criteria. 15. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a bicycle parking space calculation for both Short-Term and Long-Term that includes the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided on the development package. This calculation should be based on Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B. 16. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O Once comment #18 has been addressed the required perimeter yard setbacks can be verified. 17. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O Keynote 35 calls out a "29' BUILDING SETBACK", this appears to be incorrect. Based on the scale shown on the plan of 1" = 20' this setback line shown is approximately 15', please clarify. 18. This comment has been addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the height of each structure within the footprint of the building(s). 19. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. If David Rivera and Craig Gross approved the DG path provide written documentation from either David or Craig that supports your response. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R The proposed "STABILIZED DG PATH" called out under keynote 9 does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.5.1.C. 20. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.0 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just east of buildings #34 & 35 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 21. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.0 the striped area located just east of building #44 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking space. 22. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.0 the striped area located southeast of building #56 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces. 23. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.0 the striped area located northwest of building #83 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces. 24. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.0 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just east of buildings #55 & 56 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 25. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.0 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just west of buildings #57 & 58 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 26. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just north of buildings #75 & 77 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 27. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just north of buildings #71 & 73 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 28. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located north of building #90 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces. 29. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located east of building #86 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces. 30. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just west of buildings #11 & 13 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 31. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just west of buildings #01 & 04 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 32. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except a crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.2 the striped area located north of building #22 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces. 33. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except a crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.2 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just north of buildings #28 & 30 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 34. This comment was not addressed. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except a crosswalks. The striped areas in question direct pedestrian circulation into a vehicle use area and present a hazard. The DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet C4.1 the striped area located between the two (2) vehicle parking spaces, located just south of buildings #78 & 79 is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle parking spaces. 35. Depending on how the above comments are addressed additional comments may be forth coming. 36. As a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is proposed the DSMR must be approved prior to approval of the Development Package. If approved on the plan provide the; DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What Was Approved, and any Conditions of Approval. 37. D.S. 2-01.3.3 The Development Package number shown in the lower right-hand corner of all sheets is not correct. This number should be "D11-0012" If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D11-0012 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tanque Verde At Wrightstown Development Package (2nd Review) T11BU00568 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 13, 2011 DUE DATE: June 22, 2011 GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 06/13/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/14/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D11-0012 TANQUE VERDE AT WRIGHTSTOWN CASITAS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: June 13, 2011 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. On the final Development Plan, delete all the adjacent tax codes and recording information. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 06/16/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Jackson Jenkins Director 201 N. Stone Ave., 8th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 PH: (520) 740-6500 FAX: (520) 620-0135 June 14, 2011 To: NICK WESTPHAL DOWL HKM Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: TANQUE VERDE AT WRIGHTSTOWN CASITAS (7777 E. TANQUE VERDE ROAD, TUCSON, AZ 85715) Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D11-0012 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:______ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager |
| 06/20/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/21/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required. DS 2-03.2.1.A.15 Basically this means that an easement for joint use and maintenance would be required where the code requires a screen wall and the proposal is to use an existing off-site wall. Revise the site/landscape plans to include the reference to the recorded easement or agreement. It is advisable to request a cursory review from PDSD staff prior to recording the document to ensure that the terms and form are acceptable. |
| 06/22/2011 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | CDRC Review Planning and Development Services Dept. - Community Planning Review D11-0012, Tanque Verde at Wrightstown, 2nd submittal Comments Due: 6/22/11 Items reviewed: Revised Development Plan Package DS11-07 2495 N. Desert Links Drive - Associated rezoning case is C9-91-19B, Lewis-Tanque Verde Road, C-2. Ordinance 10876 (adopted 2/8/2011) amended Ordinance 9892, including the rezoning conditions established on 9/22/2003, for the commercial (southern) portion of the site. - Not an FLD project - Not on a Gateway or Scenic Route - Satisfies annexation conditions as per zoning Ordinance 7428, adopted on 6/11/1990 Comment: The plans are approved, contingent upon approval of DS11-07. No resubmittal is required to the Community Planning Section. Reviewed by: J. Hershenhorn, 6/22/11 837-6976, joanne.hershenhorn@tucsonaz.gov F:\Sharedir\UPDfiles\DevRev\CASE_REVIEW\CDRC\2011_Cases\D11-0012a_TanqueVerdeWrights.doc |
| 06/22/2011 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | The dev. pkg. has been denied pending the resolution of the DSMR's (DS11-07) that are in denied status. PM. 06-22-2011. |
| 06/23/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address June 22, 2011 D11-0012 TANQUE VERDE AT WRIGHTSTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, The proposed development plan for Case No. D11-0012, TANQUE VERDE AT WRIGHTSTOWN, DEVELOPMENT dose not the meet the minimum requirements for Environmental Services, Solid Waste Disposal Standard 6-01. The Tentative Plat must include recycle containers and must be shown and labeled on the site plan. All containers will require masonry enclosures with gates, and a detailed of the enclosures must be shown and dimensioned on the plans in accordance’s with the must current Development Standard No. 6-01.0. 3. Containers location must be clearly shown on the Plans and labeled for their intended us being Solid Waste or Recycle materials. A detail plan for the container enclosures must be shown on the plans with the inside dimension between the bollards. The minimum inside dimension must not be less than 10’- 0”. As shown on the must current Development Standard No. 6-01.0. . All enclosures must show the gates installed and mounted on the end of the CMU walls or mounted on separate post as show on Solid Waste Standards. The minimum inside dimension between the gates must not be less then 12’-0”. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/24/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 24, 2011 Nick Westphal DOWL HKM 166 W. Alameda St. Tucson, Arizona 01 Subject: D11-0012 TANQUE VERDE AT WRIGHTSTOWN Development Package Dear Nick: Your submittal of May 2, 2011 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and 4 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, Landscape, ESD, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 624-0384 |