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

Permit Number: DP15-0055
Parcel: 113082660

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP15-0055
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/21/2015 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/21/2015 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved Conditions of approval were reviewed and approved by Patricia
05/26/2015 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Denied Project requires Architectural Mitigation Plan (AVP) and Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) review by the city Design Professional. FD
05/29/2015 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)


FROM: Ada Griffin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: May 29, 2015


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

DP15-0055- PARK MODERN TENTATIVE PLAT

_

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS:


" GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS, AND THE BASIS OF BEARING.

" OWNERSHIP DOES NOT MATCH OWNERS OF RECORD. Our records indicate the owners as:

BPDIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-2620
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-263A
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-263B
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-2640
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-265A
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-2660
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-2670
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-268B
PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC for 113-08-268C



NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
05/29/2015 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207





ROBIN FREIMANADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 724-9512


TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW by M. Nowak

SUBJECT:
DP15-0055 TENTATIVE PLAT FOR PARK MODERN-2nd Review

DATE:
May 29, 2015








The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:


1.Upon further review the private streets ---Common Areas A, B, C will need to be named. (Streets longer than 100’ must be named.) Private streets ---Common Area B and Common Area C will be a “Place” or “Court” since they are cul-de-sacs.

To avoid duplication of street names, please e-mail name choices in alphabetical order to: Addressing@pima.gov


Note: Street names are other than English (ie: Spanish, Italian, French streets, etc) require written foreign language review and need to be submitted to Addressing.
06/03/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
06/03/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 05, 2015
DUE DATE: June 19, 2015
SUBJECT: Park Modern Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 3016 N Tyndall Avenue
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0055


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (Cypress Civil Development, 17MAR15), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Cypress Civil Development, 30MAR15) and Geotechnical Evaluation (Wright Engineers, 19FEB15). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) Complied.

2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.2.C: Revise the development plan package and the Title Block to include the descriptions for all of the Common Areas that are proposed. Since the proposed subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development it shall be noted in the Title Block. Providing the description as a General Note does not meet the requirement and the FLD description was not added, revise.

3) Complied.
4) Complied.
5) Complied.

6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide a General Note on the plan (DP15-0055) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

7) Complied.

8) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label all on-street parking spaces with the required dimensions per UDC Article 7, Sec.7.4.6.D.2.c and TSM Sec.10-012.4.A. The proposed on-street parking must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. Written approval from TDOT for the on-street parking is required, an email is acceptable.

9) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the proposed driveway setback from the adjacent driveway along Hedrick Drive per Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code Sec.25-38. It is acknowledged that a TSMR has been applied for to reduce the radii, however TDOT has not approved the request at this time, revise the plan set to show the preferred standard driveway apron with the correct detail call out. Provide a General Note on the plan (DP15-0055) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable)

10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site. Since the development plan package is being prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat street dedication in accordance with the Major Streets & Routes Plan may be required for Park Avenue. Provide written approval from TDOT Planning if street dedication will be required at the Final Plat submittal. If the dedication is required revise the development plan package to show the new half right-of-way width for Park Avenue with all associated improvements. Written approval from TDOT was not included within the revised package. It needs to be verified that TDOT looked at the right-of-way and still does not require it.

11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package and the future right-of-way detail to correctly dimension the 6-foot sidewalk width that is required for MS&R streets. The detail still shows 5-feet, revise.

12) Complied.

13) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Provide a General Note on the (DP15-0055) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
06/04/2015 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP15-0055
3016 N. Tyndall Avenue
Tentative Plat - Lots 1-37 and Common Areas A -D

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 22, 2015

DUE DATE: April 4, 2015

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.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of
the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is March 21, 2016.

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

Comment .1 - Follow up to previous comment 3: Add the information in the title block as noted before.
2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted. If the subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), a condominium, or a similar type of residential subdivision utilizing special provisions of the UDC, it shall be so noted;

03. COMMENT: Add a note to the title block of all plan sheets that this is a Flexible Lot Development. Label the type of common areas, i.e., private streets, drives, open spaces etc.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

Comment .2 - Follow up to previous comment 11 and 12: Include any notes, development criteria etc in the DP plan. If necessary to distinguish the requirements, conditions lot numbers, add a general note that is specific to the Design Professional's review.
2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; re-zonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

11. COMMENT: A Flexible Lot Development Option is an Overlay and is subject to additional development criteria that must be addressed and incorporated into the development plan. In some cases the FLD is reviewed by the PDSD Design Professional for such items as privacy mitigation. If this is the case for this project additional comments may be forthcoming from the DP and must be addressed and noted on the plans.

12. COMMENT: If during the Design Professionals review, he finds that mitigation is required specific lots may be required to comply with any conditions. If so, list the lot numbers affected by such requirements.

Comment .3 - Follow up to previous comment 18: The previous comment will remain until the TSMR is approved or denied or if approved conditionally. Address as required prior to final approval of the tentative plat.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation
2-06.4.9.H.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections.

Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC).

18. COMMENT: The proposed street cross section does not match any acceptable street cross sections or the closest Cross Section for a 0-1000 ADT roadway in the Technical Standards Section 10-1. A TSMR will be required for the proposed private street which includes, proposed header curb and no sidewalks within the roadway area, and the proposed one way street. The potential for a turnaround for the two dead end streets may also have to be approved through a TSMR. See the PDSD Engineering and Fire Plans review comments.

The cross section detail drawing on sheet 5 should be labeled as Common Area "A" private street or Access Lane etc.

Comment .4 - Follow up to previous comment 21: The second paragraph of this standard is indicating that the Right of way will be required. I t may not be necessary to develop the street cross section to the maximum width at this time but the development requirements must be addressed as if the street design is in place, Specifically the building setbacks along Park Avenue.

2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.

Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

21. COMMENT: Park Avenue is listed as a Collector street on the MS&R plan. The maximum R of W width is to be 64 feet. Currently it appears to be 60 feet in width. Additional dedication of R of Way will be required as part of the final Plat Process. (Inquire with TDOT with regards to this standard.)

Comment .5 - Follow up to previous comment 22: Related to comment 4. (It is acknowledged that the future right of way has been depicted on the plans.)

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

22. COMMENT: If the additional land is to be dedicated for the right of way, remove the future site detail drawing on sheet 6 and revise the plans to include the future right of way conditions including building setbacks, sidewalks, landscaping and sight visibility triangles.

Comment .6 - Follow up to previous comment 26: The previous comment will remain until the TSMR is approved or denied or if approved conditionally. Address as required prior to final approval of the tentative plat.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

26. COMMENT: As noted in comment 18, the proposed interior street design does not match any of the cross sections in the Technical standards design. The location of the pedestrian circulation appears to be a viable location option that provides the circulation but will have to be approved per a TSMR.
Demonstrate pedestrian circulation to the dumpster locations.

Comment .7 - Follow up to previous comment 28: Per your response to previous comment 28, mail service is to be grouped together. The assumption is that the mail service will be several locations on the site. Draw and label the potential or proposed locations for the gang mailboxes. Ensure that pedestrian access is provided to the mail service locations and that the mailboxes do not infringe on the to use the sidewalk or PAAL.

2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

28. COMMENT: Indicate by note or detail drawing if postal service is proposed via Gang mailboxes or individual mail boxes to each unit.

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

2-06.5.2 Tentative Plat Required
An FLD proposing to subdivide the project site into two or more lots must prepare a tentative plat. Tentative plats for FLDs must be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.0.0, Development Package, including Section

2-06.5.3 Additional Information
The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable:

Comment .8 - Follow up to previous comment 32: The previous comment will remain until the D.P. has completed his review and approved or denied the proposed design. Include any notes applicable to the Design Professionals

2-06.5.3. A. Reduced Perimeter Yards
Street perimeter yards along interior street rights-of-way and perimeter yards between interior lots may be modified in accordance with Section 8.7.3.L, Perimeter Yards on Interior Lots, of the UDC. Applicants requesting a perimeter yard reduction must indicate what the required and reduced perimeter yards are and their locations. Applicants requesting a reduced street perimeter yard must provide a written description of how the reduced yard will enhance the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and submit a transportation statement, or if required by the Department of Transportation, a traffic impact analysis;

32. COMMENT: Currently there is no Cross Section for an Access Lane in the Technical standards or the UDC that provides access to private property as depicted on the DP. The typical street building setback within a new subdivision is based on the ADT. In this proposed development there are three interior roadways with ADT from 0 to 1000 based on 10 trips per SFR. The minimum street building setback requirement varies as noted in Table 6.5.4.C-1. As noted in comment 25 the street building setbacks cannot be met based on the design of the subdivision. However per Article 8 section 8.7.3.L.2 the street may be administratively reduced by the PDSD Director. Review section 8.7.3.L.2 for more info on the reduced street building setback.

Comment .9 - Follow up to previous comment 40: Same as below.

40. COMMENT: additional comments may be forthcoming based on the changes or other required processes due to deficiencies in design, such as B of A variances, TSMR, FLD Compliance etc. List any additional process application case numbers in the lower right corner of all plan sheets, List as a general note the case number, date of approval and any conditions of that approval.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
06/11/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Based on the revised manhole rim elevations and the revised first floor elevations, the only lot that will not require the installation of a backwater valve appears to be lot #36; verify this and make any corrections that are required. [Initial comment: Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Indicate on the utility drawing which lots will require the installation of backwater valves. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.]
06/17/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

Residential Subdivisions

The landscape borders must be recorded as common areas
Identify landscape common areas on the landscape plans.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
06/19/2015 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
06/19/2015 DAVID RIVERA ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
06/22/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. The followings items must be resubmitted:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan
06/22/2015 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The resubmittal of the Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Dept. and will require revisions to reflect the TSMR regarding the turning movements once the TSMR is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/16/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed