Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP12-0141
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/05/2013 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/07/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Hacienda at Wrightstown Development Package/Rezoning (2nd Review) DP12-0141 & C9-12-10 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 11, 2013 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 August 23, 2013 The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers on the plan adjacent to the title block on all sheets, S13-007. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O The provided setback details are not correct. As there is a Common Area shown along the east side of the proposed subdivision the required perimeter yard setback should be shown as 21' or the Height (H) of the structure to the nearest edge of travel lane, per a Zoning Administrator determination and LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B and Table 3.2.6.I and also shown as 6' or 2/3 the height (H) of the proposed exterior building wall to the east interior property line. The minimum perimeter setback would be the most restrictive of the two. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O The provided setback details are not correct. As there is a Common Area shown along the south side of the proposed subdivision the required perimeter yard setback should be shown as 20' to the perimeter boundary and 6' or 2/3 the height (H) of the proposed exterior building wall to the south interior property line. The minimum perimeter setback would be the most restrictive of the two. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O The provided setback details are not correct. The street perimeter yard setback to the house should be shown based on an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of less than 140. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O The provided setback details are not correct. Based on am ADT of less than 140 the garage setback should be based on LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B.2.b. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O As the perimeter yard setback requirements are different from the east and south parcels provide a setback detail for the southern lots. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.T Show the required sidewalk along the proposed street. Zoning acknowledges that a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is proposed but as a DSMR is for modification of a standard not elimination show what modification is proposed on the plan. If the DSMR is approved provide the DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What was Approved, and any Conditions of Approval, on the plan. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.U Rezoing condition 20 allows for access from Lot 8 to Brown Avenue. Show the proposed access on the plan and on the requested plot plan for Lot 8. The screen wall required by rezoning condition 13 should run along the east side of Lot 8 except where the access is proposed. An access easement is required across the common area. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.U Rezoing condition 21 calls for a 10' wide trial in the utility easement west of Brown Avenue, show the proposed trial on the plan. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.V Once the sidewalk requirements have been clarified show that the minimum sidewalk widths are maintained around the proposed mailbox. For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. 12. Zoning acknowledges that the lot was listed incorrectly Provide a plot plan for lot 8 showing how the existing house meets the requirements of an R-1 zoned parcel on the plan. The plot plan will show the setbacks, lot coverage etc. 13. There is a dashed line shown around the perimeter of the development, clarify what this line is. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP12-0141 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 03/07/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/13/2013 | MPADILL1 | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP12-0141 Mahalo Properties - Wrightstown Rd. () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-12-11 Mahalo Properties -Wrightstown Rd. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Wrightstown Neighborhood Plan and the General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: March 18, 2013 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER:msp 791-5505 Planning and Development Services Department Community Planning Section DP12 0141 - Mahalo Properties - Wrightstown Road March 12, 2013 Based on the applicant's request; a concurrent review is in process for Development Plan 12-0141 and Rezoning Case C9-12-11, a request to change land use zone from RX-1 to R-1 to allow a residential subdivision with 12 lots. Development plan DP12-0141 is required to be in full compliance with rezoning case C9-12-11, rezoning conditions. Staff offers the following comments: 1. Please revise Development Plan 12-0141, sheet C4 of 15, rezoning condition #20 to read verbatim as per rezoning condition #20 - C9-12-11 Ordinance 11047. 2. Please revise Development Plan 12-0141, sheet C4 of 15, wall detail i/C-4 to include rezoning condition # 15 language stating wall shall be, "graffiti-resistant." 3. Please revise Development plan and landscape plan where appropriate (including sheet C-4 detail J/C4 to comply withy rezoning condition #21, show 10-foot wide trail in the utility easement located west of Brown Avenue. 4. Please revise Development plan and landscape plan to comply with rezoning condition # 20 and 21, show break in perimeter wall to indication location of access point for lot 8 onto Brown Avenue. |
| 03/14/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | Denial pending response to the requirements of the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance. |
| 03/18/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/19/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/19/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEWSD PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, BY M. NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP12-0141 THE HACIENDA @ WRIGHTSTOWN/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: March 18, 2013 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project, with the condition all comments from Comment Letter 9/10/12 are completed on the Final Plat. 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. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 03/19/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DP Package is conditionally approved. The proposed DSMR that has been submitted DS13-04 must be approved prior to final approval of the DP12-0141. The DSMR is to modify the sidewalk requirement (other form of pedestrian access to meet the Wrightstown Neighborhood Plan) for the new proposed roadway. If the DSMR gets approved the DP documents must be revised to reflect the modifications to the required sidewalk in plan view and on the detail. Also a DSMR Note must be added to the Note Section and is to include the DSMR Case Number, date of approval and any conditions placed on the DSMR per the agency reviews. JG |
| 03/20/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This submittal has been completed. Resubmittal is required. Please include the following items: 1) 3 rolled copies of the revised plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) Any documents that have been reviewed to approve the plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2013 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/28/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |