Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP17-0297
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/02/2018 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | SUENO HERMOSA, LOTS 1-6 DP17-0297 July 2, 2018 Zelin Canchola TDOT The plan is acceptable however the references to standard details shall be per PAG Standard Specifications. Change all references to PAG, including key notes. zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/06/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Reqs Change | July 6, 2018 Alexandra Hines Lead Planner City of Tucson Public Works Buildings - 201 North Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ. 85701 RE: DP17-0297 Sueno Hermosa, Lots 1-6 / 3rd Submittal, Received June 15, 2018 Dear Ms. Hines, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP17-0297, Sueno Hermosa, Lots 1-6; 3rd Submittal, a Tentative Plat application for a Minor Subdivision with Site/Grading of an approximately 1.5 acre site located southeast of the intersection of East Alvord Road and South Randall Boulevard. The zoning for the project site is residential (R-2) and will remain unchanged. This project site is proposed to be developed into single family homes. This site is within the Tucson International Airport avigation easement requirements and public disclosure area, FAA traffic pattern airspace, and FAA Part 77 airspace. The Tucson Airport Authority submitted a previous comment letter on submittal on the 1st submittal of this project, comment letter dated 12/27/17. The Tucson Airport Authority recognizes the comment pertaining to the Avigation Easement was incorporated into the General Notes of the revised development plan but discovered Note 22 contains errors. Note 22 shall be revised as identified below. 1. The reference to "Aviation Easement" in Note 22 shall be updated to instead read "Avigation Easement." The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following conditions of approval, as noted below. These conditions shall be identified in the general notes of the revised development plan. Conditions of approval: 2. "According to the FAA Notice Criteria Tool, this project is located in proximity to a navigation facility and could impact navigation signal reception. The applicant shall file Form 7460 with the FAA at least 45 days before construction activities begin for the project. It is highly recommended that the applicant file earlier than 45 days to provide the applicant with sufficient time to respond to any concerns which are identified by the FAA. Any cranes used which are used must also be identified with Form 7460. Please file Form 7460 at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp" 3. "The developer shall provide the Airport Disclosure Statement form, at time of sale, to the new property owners with new unit purchases. In the event the development of any residential uses does not involve the sale of new units, but is instead offering rental residential units to the public, the new tenant of the rental unit shall be provided a copy of the Airport Disclosure Statement form. The intent of the Airport Disclosure Statement form is to educate and notify the new residents that they are living near an airport. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided." 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, Senior Airport Planner cc file |
| 07/10/2018 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval. |
| 07/11/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/11/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Sueño Hermosa, Lots 1- 6 and Common Areas A, B, C Development Package (3rd Review) DP17-0297 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 11, 2018 DUE DATE: July 16, 2018 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. 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 December 18, 2018. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 1. The last comment was not addressed on sheets 7 through 12. The legal description in the lower right corner of sheets 7 - 12 must be consistent with the legal description listed on sheets 1 - 6. Revise as required. Previous Comment: The legal description on each sheet must include the following, "Tentative Plat for Sueño Hermosa, Lots 1-6 & Common Areas, A, B, & C, A re-subdivision of Los Ranchitos Number 6 Lot 246 Exc. W135' of the N150' Thereof, as recorded in Map & Plat Bk. 8 at Pg. 41". Relocate the legal description note on sheet one to the lower right corner of the cover sheet and add the same legal description note on all sheets in the same location. 2. The last comment was not addressed in its entirety. List the DP case number in the lower right corner of sheets 7 - 12. Previous Comment: The DP case number must be listed on all plan sheets next to the title block. Add the case number on sheets 2 and 7 through 12. Relocate the DP case number on sheet four for legibility. 3. Label the square footage of Common Area "B" on the site sheets. Previous Comment: It is still not clear on the site plans if there is a utility easement proposed along the frontage of each lot. There is a note with an arrow pointing to a dashed line and callout for a Common Area. If this is a common area, it shall be enclosed with a solid line and is to be labeled with the purpose of the common area and square footage. Keep in mind that if this is what is proposed the lot areas will decrease and in some cases the minimum lot size may be insufficient for two dwellings. If the area identified as common area c is to be for utility placement, it is best to reserve the area as a utility easement. If so label the width of the area and remove any annotation related to common area c. Label the square footage of Common Area "A". If the area labeled as Common Area C is to remain revise the line work to a solid dark line and annotate the use and square footage. 4. Label the on the site plan sheets, the center line to Property line, curb to property line and sidewalk width for Alvord and Randall roads. Previous Comment: The information requested per the previous comment was not added to the site plan sheet 3. Add the information as required by the standard below. 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 5. Approval of the interior street proposed street cross section is required through a TSMR. Contact Steve Shields Zoning Manager for more information on the TSMR. The TSMR caser number will have to be listed in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. The TSMR case number will also have to be listed as a general note that includes the date of approval and conditions of approval. Previous Comment: The previous comment was not addressed in its entirety. The requirements for visitor parking have not been addressed. Address the visitor parking requirement on the plans. 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. PREVIOUS COMMENT: It is noted that the street within the subdivision will be a private street. Streets must be designed with parking on both sides of the street. If proposing no on street parking, visitor parking can be provided in a common area at a ratio of one space per unit, in this case 12 visitor parking spaces would be required if provided in a common area that complies with the parking lot design criteria in UDC 7.4.6. Visitor parking is based on a ratio of .25 spaces per dwelling when on-street parking is provided. When a street is designed with parking on both sides of the street, the number visitor parking space requirement is usually met. As noted above, a street must be designed with parking on sides of the street. When not providing on street parking a street must be designed with 24 foot drive lanes and vertical curbs, see T.S. 10-01.9.0 Figure 1 for street design criteria. 6. Label the 18-foot dimension for the parking spaces in front of the carports. The 18-foot parking space must be entirely on the property. Also label the number of bedrooms per dwelling in order to verify the number of parking spaces required per duplex. Previous Comment: Annotate the required and visitor parking on sheet 3. Assure that the spaces are not proposed beyond the property line. A minimum of an 8.5' x 18' space is required for each parking space. 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. PREVIOUS COMMENT 27: All lots must be provided with a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit on site. A total of four spaces must be depicted on the plans. Tandem parking is allowed for single family dwelling development but all vehicles must be located on site and within a parking space length of 18 feet to the property line and 19 feet from the back of the sidewalk. No part of the parking spaces may overhang onto the private street / pedestrian areas. It does not appear that all lots have been designed to comply with the onsite parking requirement. 7. The building setbacks along the interior perimeter and subdivision boundary perimeter is the greatest of 6 feet or 2/3 the height of the structure. While there are no building elevations to verify the design or the heights of the walls facing any of the property lines, it must be assumed that the building height of 17 listed on sheet 2 is what the setback shall be based on. The option is to add a building setback note for the interior and boundary building setbacks as "the greatest of 6 feet or 2/3 the height". (2/3 of 17 feet is 11'-4") The same is true for the interior street building setback; it is based on the greatest of 5 feet, ½ the height, or 1 foot the property line. On this development the minimum setback equals 14.5 feet from the back of curb due to the 7 foot easement on site. So the proposed street building should be labeled as 14.5 feet from the back of curb. The street building setback along Randall is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Keynote 10 has been labeled as the setback along Randal which is incorrect. Keynote 11 is the correct keynote. Revise as required. PREVIOUS COMMENT: Draw and label the required building setbacks as noted by the standard above. Along the subdivision boundary and interior property, the setback is the greatest of 6' or 2/3rds the hgt. The street building setbacks along Alvord and Randall are based on the greatest of 21' or the hgt. from the nearest edge of travel lane. The building setbacks cannot be verified to be compliant as they have not been drawn or labeled. The building setback information must be added to the plans and will be reviewed on the next submittal of the DP / TP. 8. Review any remaining redlines and address as required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 07/12/2018 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | DP17-0297 Sueno Hermosa, Lots 1-6 / 3rd Submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 ***PDF IS LOCATED IN PRO UNDER DOCUMENTS*** |
| 07/16/2018 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Information on the tentative plat and grading plan sheets is still not completely legible because print is layered over other print. Revise the plan so all lettering is legible. Additional comments may be forthcoming once the plans are legible. 2. The boundary between lot 6 and common area B is not well defined on all sheets. Please use the same unique line weight for all interior lot lines. The lot boundary should be clear on all sheets. |
| 07/17/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | 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) All approved documents submitted previously 3) A disk containing all items submitted 4) All items requested by review staff 5) All items needed to approve these plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/30/2018 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 08/30/2018 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/30/2018 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |