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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP16-0008
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/19/2016 | EGALLET1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/19/2016 | BVIESTE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approv-Cond | January 19, 2016 Dear Ms. Gehlen, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP16-0008 Development Package, Mordasini Villas; a development plan review application for an approximately 1.92 acre site located on the northwest corner of South Stone Avenue and East 17th Street. The proposed land use is residential. This site is within the Tucson International Airport public disclosure area and traffic pattern airspace. The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following condition of approval, as noted below. This condition should be identified in the general notes of the approved development plan. Condition of approval: "That prior to the City's approval of any construction permit for a permanent building, the property owner shall record the Airport Disclosure Statement form that discloses the existence, and operational characteristics of the Tucson International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property and further conveys the right to the public to lawfully use the airspace above the property. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided." "That development shall not cause or potentially affect aviation in the vicinity of the site, including but not limited to, physical obstructions to aircraft operations, interference with operations by way of electrical static, visual obstructions through emissions or glare, and/or the open storage of petroleum products, explosive materials, or materials which attract or lead to the concentration of wildlife." The property owner should forward a copy of the recorded Airport Disclosure Statement form to: Scott Robidoux Airport Planner Tucson Airport Authority 7250 South Tucson Boulevard Suite 300 Tucson, AZ 85756 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520-573-4811. Respectfully, Scott Robidoux, Airport Planner cc MS file |
| 01/19/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | Note from Tom Porter on 01/14/2016 PC RWRD does not need to review these plans. |
| 01/21/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Mardasini Villas Lots 1-11 Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0008 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 22, 2016 DUE DATE: February 12, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). 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 & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 January 13, 2017. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat; 1. COMMENT: The title block should include a statement about the "RESUBDIVISION OF TUCSON BLOCK 240 LOTS 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 18". 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; 2. COMMENT: The title block should include a statement about the proposed FLD. 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 3. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 4. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP16-0008, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 5. COMMENT: Clarify what reference case number "C10-05-21" is in reference to. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 6. COMMENT: The proposed use listed under PERMITTING NOTE 3 is not correct. Per UDC Tables 4.8-3 & 4.8-4 the use should be listed as FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO USE SPECFIC STANDARD 8.7.3. 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; rezonings; 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. 7. COMMENT: As it appears that a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will be required, once approved provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on each sheet and a general note stating the TSMR case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable any conditions of approval. 2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 8. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating "THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOMENT". 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 9. COMMENT: Under "UDC DATE", "ALLOWBLE SITE COVERAGE" provide the proposed percentage of site coverage. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 10. COMMENT: There is an "EXISTING 25' INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILTIY EASEMENT, DKT 13421, PG 1428" shown along the west side of the proposed development. As improvements, retaining walls, are proposed within the existing easement, abandonment of the easement or written permission from easement holder(s) is required prior to approval of this plan. 11. COMMENT: There is an "EXISTING 18' INGRESS, EGRESS EASEMENT, DKT 13421, PG 1428" shown to be abandoned. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the final plat. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.B - Identify each block or lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. 12. COMMENT: There is an "EXISTING PRIVATE ALLEY" shown on the plan that on the COT GIS maps is shown as right-of-way. You reference a 1938 plan that does show the alley as private but I have been able to find documentation that shows this as City property. Contact John Gentry, City Surveyor, phone (520) 794-5100, email John.Gentry@tucsonaz.gov to verify if this is private or City owned. If City owned and right-of-way it will need to be abandoned prior to approval of this plat. 13. COMMENT: The is what appears to be a small parcel located west of proposed lots 8 & 9, highlighted in pink sheet 4, that appears to be a small stand alone parcel. Clarify what is happening in this area and who will have ownership. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 14. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels south of 17th Street. 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). 15. COMMENT: As the proposed private street does not meet the typical street cross sections a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) must be applied for and approved prior to approval of the development package. 16. COMMENT: As the proposed private street cross section with visitor parking backing out into the street does not meet the typical street cross sections a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) must be applied for and approved prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on 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. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 17. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Based on TSM Section 10-01.9.0 Figure 1 the required number of visitors vehicle parking is 1 space per dwelling unit within the subdivision. That said ten (10) visitor vehicle parking spaces are required. 18. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.5.C Reduction Based on On-Street Parking for Certain Residential Uses On-street parking for single-family dwellings, mobile home dwellings, and Residential Care Services with ten or fewer residents may be counted on a space-for-space basis toward the total required amount of parking up to 50% if the on-street parking is located on the same side of the street as the use and does not extend beyond the street frontage of the subject property. That said as there are seven (7) lots that front on the proposed private street and no vehicle parking is proposed on the private street you need to show seven (7) vehicle parking spaces in a common area. 19. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.5.C Reduction Based on On-Street Parking for Certain Residential Uses On-street parking for single-family dwellings, mobile home dwellings, and Residential Care Services with ten or fewer residents may be counted on a space-for-space basis toward the total required amount of parking up to 50% if the on-street parking is located on the same side of the street as the use and does not extend beyond the street frontage of the subject property. That said Lot 2 is required to have at least one (1) of the required vehicle parking spaces on site. 20. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan that the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces along 17th street meet the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.c. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 21. COMMENT: There appears that some of the existing access shown along the west side of the project will require some type of easement across Common Area "B", see blue highlight sheet 4. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 22. COMMENT: Provide a typical perimeter yard setback detail for lots 4 - 10 on the plan. 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. 23. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A Width All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said it does not appear that the sidewalks, stairs and ramps shown on detail 5 sheet 7 meet this requirement. Provide a fully dimensioned detail. 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. 24. COMMENT: Clarify what type of mail service is proposed. If a gang mailbox is proposed provide the above information on the plan. 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, and the following developable area information: 2-06.5.2.B - Show the maximum developable area of each lot (i.e., building footprint). 25. COMMENT: Provide the above information on the plan. 2-06.5.3 Additional Information 2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. 26. COMMENT: Provide a copy of the proposed CC&Rs with your next submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package & proposed CC&Rs. |
| 01/21/2016 | 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: Janice Wagner GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: January 20, 2016 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: TENTATIVE PLAT MORDASINI VILLAS - DP16-0008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ____X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: " THE TITLE BLOCK MUST SHOW RESUB OF CITY OF TUCSON BLOCK 240 IN BK 03/070 M&P. THE TOWNSHIP NUMBER IS INCORRECT AND SHOULD BE SHOWN AS SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 14, RANGE 13E IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. " THE PARCEL NUMBERS DISCLOSED IN "PERMITTING NOTES" NEED TO BE CORRECTED. OUR RECORDS INDICATE PARCEL 117-14-257B TO BE IN NAME, ALL OTHER PARCELS ARE NOT IN NAME FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. 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. |
| 01/22/2016 | BVIESTE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO. |
| 01/25/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | Request for Corrections—please see attach plans with Addressing comments 01/25/16 Comments are in PRO |
| 01/26/2016 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Mardasini Villas Lots 1-11 Accessibility Review - On Site Only Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0008 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 22, 2016 DUE DATE: February 12, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. Per IBC 1103.1 Sites, buildings, structures, facilities, elements and spaces, temporary or permanent, shall be accessible to persons with physical disabilities. That said the center sections of the basin area, shown on detail 5 sheet 7, is accessible to the general public of this subdivision therefore must be accessible to persons with physical disabilities. Demonstrate on the detail how the accessibility is addressed. 2. Demonstrate on the plans that the requirements of ICC A117.1, Sections 304.3, 405.7, 405.8 & 505 are met for the ramps/landings, shown on detail 5 sheet 7 are met. 3. Demonstrate on the plans that the requirements of ICC A117.1, Sections 504 & 505 are met for the stairs, shown on detail 5 sheet 7 are met. |
| 01/26/2016 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. The location of the proposed development will have no impact to any ADOT facilities. Thank you. |
| 01/29/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See approval letter in PRO/SIRE |
| 01/29/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/05/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Provide protection for trees (and/or fences and walls) proposed along the southern boundary of the subdivision. UDC 7.6.4.H "Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls (fences), or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site." UDC 7.6.4.B.2 Areas where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular or pedestrian traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls. 2) Show and describe existing and proposed screen walls on the landscape plan. 2-10.4.2.A.3 3) UDC 8.7.3.H requires that "One canopy tree shall be provided every 40 feet of pedestrian circulation systems, excluding crossings with streets, alleys, and driveways" Provide an explanation if this is not achievable and how the proposal meets the alternative requirements. |
| 02/09/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/10/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Drainage Report Provide an exhibit clearly showing existing conditions and existing drainage patterns. Show pre-development discharge quantities for all parts of the proposed subdivision. Offsite areas that discharge to the site should also be shown. Provide hydrologic data sheets for both the existing conditions and proposed conditions. Clearly demonstrate that all areas of the project are accounted for. The areas for each data sheet must be indicated on the applicable exhibit. Clearly demonstrate there will be no increase in peak discharge or show how no adverse impact on adjacent properties will be ensured. Additional comments on the drainage report and tentative plat/development package may be forthcoming once the revised drainage report is submitted and reviewed. Development Package TP/GP Remove Elizabeth Leibold from the contact list. She no longer works for PDSD and the storm sewer system is administered by TDOT. I recommend removing Richard Leigh's name from note 16 and elsewhere in the plans. Any staff in Permits and Codes may assist with right-of-way permits. On sheet C1.1 general notes 9, 22 and 41 are not required by code and may be omitted. On sheet C1.1 general notes 8, 33, 38, and 44 say different versions of the same thing. Consider combining the required elements into a single note. On sheet C1.1 note 41, only a soils engineers report and certification will be required before final inspection. Revise this and other effective notes to reflect this. Grading note 6 is no longer effective. The City of Tucson doesn't require re-seeding bonds. On sheet C1.1 revise general note 29 and grading note 11 to allow for deeper water harvesting areas as shown on the plans. The private street will require curb return radii of 18 feet, TSM 10-02.3.C. The proposed grades exceed two feet above existing grade in areas of the development.. Approval from the Director of PDSD is required. Follow the procedure in TSM 10-02. |
| 02/11/2016 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | Subdivision under 20 lots. No AVP required. |
| 02/11/2016 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP16-0008 Tentative Plat - FLD - Mordasini 02/11/16 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (X) Approval (X) No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp DATE: 02/11/16 COMMENTS Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as Existing Neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods are primarily developed and largely built-out residential neighborhoods and commercial districts in which minimal new development and redevelopment is expected in the next several decades. The goal is to maintain the character of these neighborhoods, while accommodating some new development and redevelopment and encouraging reinvestment and new services and amenities that contribute further to neighborhood stability. Plan Tucson supports infill and redevelopment projects that reflect sensitivity to site and neighborhood conditions and adhere to relevant site and architectural guidelines. Project in compliance with Plan Tucson. |
| 02/12/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | POLICE | REVIEW | Approved | I have no issues with this. Thank you, Kara Curtis Community Service Officer Tucson Police Department Operations Division Midtown 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov (520) 837-7428 >>> DSD_CDRC 1/19/2016 11:53 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP16-0008 Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1 / C-3 / O-3 Proposed Use: SFR - 11 lots / FLD design Due Date: February 12, 2016 |
| 02/12/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See attachments in PRO/SIRE No objections/adverse comments. See attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data reflect the views and opinions of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to create and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 02/12/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | From TDOT Zelin Canchola Mordasini Villas DP16-0008 February 12, 2016 TDOT does not recommend approval of the development plan. The roadway entrance does not meet any type of roadway standard. Unclear if this is a driveway or driveway. |
| 02/12/2016 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov >>> DSD_CDRC 1/19/2016 11:53 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP16-0008 Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1 / C-3 / O-3 Proposed Use: SFR - 11 lots / FLD design Due Date: February 12, 2016 |
| 02/16/2016 | ARUIZ1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 02/16/2016 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/16/2016 | ARUIZ1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 02/16/2016 | ARUIZ1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 02/16/2016 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: MORDASINI VILLAS – TENTATIVE PLAT DP16-008 Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the tentative plat submitted for review on January 19, 2016. Costs for the relocation or removal of existing TEP facilities will be billable to the developer. In order for an electrical design to be completed, please provide a copy of the Approved Tentative Plat and the subdivision AutoCAD file to mburke@tep.com. Easements for TEP facilities must be shown on the Final Plat before TEP can approve the plat. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 917-8744. Thank you, Mary Burke Right of Way Agent Tucson Electric Power Co. Mail Stop HQE613 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Office - 520-917-8744 Cell - 520-401-9895 mburke@tep.com |
| 02/17/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | Patricia, The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has reviewed Development Package DP16-0008 for the proposed residential development along Mordasini Drive in Tucson, Arizona from a solid waste storage and collection standpoint. ES currently provides solid waste and recycling storage and collection for residential customers in the Mordasini Drive / 17th Street service area. The proposed residential parcels will be served by ES which will provide refuse and recycling containers and collection of solid waste. Access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 for solid waste collection can be provided from 17th Street along the east side of these parcels. Access to Lots 4 through 10 for solid waste collection can be provided from Mordasini Drive along the north side of these parcels and access to Lot 11 can be provided from Mordasini Drive along the south side of this parcel. ES does not anticipate any issues with accessing the proposed residential parcels for collection of solid waste. Conventional waste containers for refuse and recycling materials can be properly located on each residential subject parcel inside the garage or outside in a screened location. The right-of-way widths and traffic speeds will allow for efficient refuse truck access to the waste container locations. There are no issues associated with waste container use or storage on the subject parcels. Based on this analysis, ES does not anticipate any technical issues for the proposed development at the above-described residential parcels along 17th Street and Mordasini Drive along from a solid waste storage and collection standpoint. Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review. Thomas G. Ryan, P.E. City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 02/17/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 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 these plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/22/2016 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |