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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-075
Review Name: MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/09/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Plat is approved July 9, 2004. |
| 07/14/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S04-075 6TH & DREXEL SUBDIVISION/MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW DATE: 7/12/04 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: Correct section numbers on Location Map. Change Tucson-Nogales Highway to Nogales Highway on Location Map. Change Primera to Casa Primera. Recorded deeds with legal descriptions will be required in order to split property. |
| 07/14/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S-04-075 Rene A. G. Pina, P.E. 6th & DREXEL SUBDIVISION |
| 07/21/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The native plant preservation application for exception is denied. Additional information is required. In order to qualify for the exception provide documentation that demonstrates that no protected native plants exist on the site. The aerial photos received show the presence of vegetation. DS 2-15.2.0 |
| 07/23/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Denied | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: July 23, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Final Plat S04-075 6th & Drexel Subdivision T151312 (138-12) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. ____X__ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Add Common Area “A” to the title block. Identify the area north and east of the subdivision; is it to be dedicated out to the city or is it a common area? If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. 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. Susan King |
| 07/27/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: 6th & Drexel Subdivision S04-075 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the minor subdivision plan dated June 2004. In order for TEP to provide a preliminary electrical design on the project, a full set of site plans are required. Submit the plans a minimum of six (6) weeks prior to requiring service. Send your plans to: Randy Alday Distribution Services - DS 301 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 917-8479, should you have any questions. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Cell Phone/Pager: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 07/27/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-075 6th & Drexel Subdivision 07/27/04 ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (final plat, landscape plan, land survey, grading, and utility plan) CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: 12th Avenue/Valencia Road Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: August 5, 2004 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: July 16, 2004 |
| 08/02/2004 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 02, 2004 TO: René A. G. Piña, P.E. THRU: FROM: Dickie Fernandez representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: 6th & Drexel Subdivision, Lots 1-6 - Submittal S04-075 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Santa Cruz Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on historical records, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. Add the project number, S04-075, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. FP & UP: The Utility Plan (UP) shows the proposed private sewer lines being run within the public utility easement. This easement must therefore also be a private sewer easement. Label the easement accordingly (two places on the final plat (FP) and two places on the UP). FP & UP: The UP shows the private sewer line being run outside of an easement on Lot 3, which is unacceptable. Revise as necessary so that all public and private utility lines may lie within this easement. Note: It will be very difficult to run all the public ulities and the private sewers within a single 10' easement. Please consider increasing the width of this easement. FP: The Dedication statement must grant the public utility easement to appropriate parties. Add the following paragraph to the Dedication to read: PUBLIC EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRANTED TO THE CITY OF TUCSON AND ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESS, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND OTHER USES AS DESIGNATED BY THIS PLAT. FP: No access easements have been shown, but a common areas has been shown. The Dedication Statement must state who will be responsible for the common area and the private easements. Revise the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Dedication to read: COMMON AREAS AND PRIVATE EASEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON ARE RESERVED FOR THE PRIVATE USE AND CONVEYANCE OF ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AND ARE GRANTED TO THE CITY OF TUCSON AND ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESS, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND OTHER USES AS DESIGNATED BY THIS PLAT. FP: The Dedication must also show that the homeowners's association will be responsible for the common areas, private easements and private sewers. Revise the sentence listing the homeowner associations' responsibilities to read: THIS ASSOCIATION WILL ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROL, MAINTENANCE, AD VALOREM TAXES AND LIABILITY FOR THE COMMON AREA, PRIVATE EASEMENTS AND PRIVATE SEWERS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. UP: Sewer Note 1 is not appropriate, as the sewers will not be public sewers. Revise this note to read: ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. UP: Revise Sewer Note 9 to read: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. UP: Although not required by code or statute, we strongly recommend that the private sewers serving this subdivision be designed as if they had a design flow of more than 3000 gpd. This would mean the following: The use of 6" sewer pipe for the collection line. Manholes at each point where the 6" sewer pipe changes direction. This recommendation is based on reduced maintenance requirements. UP: Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewers in the adjacent streets. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the final plat and utility plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 08/03/2004 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: 6th & Drexel -Final Plat Review REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 28 July 2004 CDRC Case #: S04-075 T15S, R13E, Sec. 12 Resubmittals Required: Revised Final Plat, Landscape Plan, (concept) Grading Plan, Drainage Report, Soils Report with basin infiltration test results, and four (4) complete subdivision assurance packages. SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Final Plat, Landscape Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Report. Approvals are not recommended at this time. The Plat must demonstrate compliance with Final Plat content Development Standards, Floodplain Development regulations and the City of Tucson's Major Streets and Routes Plan requirements, at a minimum. A revised Drainage Report with soils report and infiltration test results, Tentative Plat, and Landscape Plan addressing the comments below must be resubmitted. The following comments are offered: FINAL PLAT: 1. Include a 2" margin on the left side and ½" margins on the remaining sides to comply with standardization requirements of state law for recorded plats (Development Standard - DS - 6-01.4 B). 2. Place the words "Book ____ Page ____" in both the upper and lower right corners outside the margin line. The blanks will be completed by the Pima County Recorder's Office at the time of recordation (DS 2-03.6.1 G). 3. Include reference to Common Area(s) in the Title Block. Assure each common area is specifically described (Retention/Detention basin, Open Space, Private Street, etc.), with individual letter designations for each common area. All references to the subdivision in the subdivision assurance package much match the Title Block identically (DS 2-03.6.1.H 1). 4. Include in the legend a symbol with description for all lines used on the Plat (such as easement lines, roadway centerlines, section lines, right of way lines, floodplain delineations, etc.). The keynotes provided are not used on the plat - remove if unnecessary (DS 2-03.6.1 L). 5. Revise General Note # 3 to read as shown in Development Standard 2-03.6.2 C. 6. Assure all signatures are provided as required in the Certification of Survey and Dedications paragraphs, accompanied by notary seal and signature upon submittal of mylars (DS 2-03.6.3 A & B). 7. Confirm/check the accuracy of the sentence following the third paragraph under Dedications: "INFILL LOT 1 LLC., AN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY". Remove reference in the dedication paragraph for the 1' no vehicular access easement as shown hereon, as there appears to be no such easement proposed for this subdivision, or depict such, accordingly (DS 2-03.6.3 B). 8. Assure signature lines are provided for all property owners under the Beneficiary Block. The number of signatures depends on the number of people who have fee title interest according to a title report current within 30 days of recordation of the proposed plat (DS 2-03.6.3 B 4). 9. Check and revise as necessary the name included in the last paragraph under Approval (DS 2-03.6.3 D). 10. Identify the 65' "setback" on 6th Avenue as MS&R right of way to be dedicated by this plat. Check the City's Major Streets and Routes Plan for total future rights of way for both streets (including intersection widening) in relation to existing right of way, and revise the plat as necessary (DS 2-03.6.4 A & DS 2-03.2.4 H). 11. Revise the location of the square footage indicated for Lots 4 - 6 to eliminate overlap (DS 2-03.6.4 B). 12. Show the 100- year floodprone limits in a surveyable, retraceable manner with frequent ties to intersecting lot lines for all flows of 100-cfs or more (DS 2-03.6.4 F). 13. Show the detention/retention area in a surveyable and readily retraceable manner (DS 2-03.6.4 I). 14. Indicate primary control points on the plat, or descriptions and ties to such control points, to which all dimensions, angles, bearings, and similar data on the plat will be referred. Where a coordinate system has been established by the City Engineer or County Engineer, primary control points may be referenced thereto. The plat must include a description of the corner marker and an indication of how the bearings were determined. Corner tie recordation information is to be provided on the plat (DS 2-03.6.5 A). 15. Please check all tract boundary lines; right-of-way widths and centerlines of streets, easements, and future rights-of-way; and property lines of residential lots and other sites, with accurate dimensions, bearings, or deflection angles and radii, arcs, and central angles of all curves (DS 2-03.6.5 B). 16. Provide the basis of bearings on the plat. Reference found, readily locatable monuments, with reference to one of the three options provided in the Development Standards. The basis of bearings should be established from two found, physically monumented points described and shown on the plat (DS 2-03.6.5 C 1). 17. Please refer to Development Standard 2-03.6.5 C (2-6) and assure all items are fully addressed and depicted/described on the Plat. Assure a note is provided on the plat that a ½" iron rod will be set at all corners upon completion of construction (DS 2-03.6.5 C 4 b). 18. Provide boundary survey closure calculations (DS 2-03.6.5). Development Standard 2-03.9.0 (Minor Subdivision Plat) states that, "although a tentative (plat) is not required, engineering information is needed to review the project for compliance with regulations and good engineering practices. The comments listed below represent such items needed for this project to assure compliance with existing standards, policies and regulations. Subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of plat and plan revisions. 19. Include in the Title Block a statement as to whether this project is a resubdivision of an earlier subdivision (DS 2-03.2.1 G 3). 20. A state-registered Civil Engineer's seal and signature will be necessary on the plat, due to state platting requirements for floodplain elevation and delineation certification(s) (DS 2-03.2.2 A 2). 21. Provide the following note on the plat: "All public roads and drainage improvements within and adjacent to this subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans shall be submitted to the City of Tucson Engineer's Office for review and approval" (DS 2-03.2.2 D 1 (a)). 22. Provide the method of tie to the permanent survey monuments or nearest section or quarter section corner, and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monumentation. All monuments found or set shall be described (DS 2-03.2.3 A). 23. Indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum with City Field Book and Page numbers (DS 2-03.2.3 F). CONCEPT GRADING PLAN: The grading plan comments provided below do not necessarily address all grading plan review comments. Subsequent comments may be necessary during the normal grading plan/permit application and review process. 24. The City of Tucson's Land Use Code (LUC), Section 4.2.2 requires that all streets bounding the proposed subdivision are fully improved, except for sidewalks which may be improved as a part of the project (LUC Sec. 4.2.2.1 F). The plat (or the concept grading plan, at a minimum) must depict and label new curb and sidewalk along Missiondale Road (see also Street Development Standards 3-01.0 for public street paving, curbing, and sidewalk location and construction requirements). Revise the grading plan accordingly. 25. Provide a note that site grading shall be in conformance with the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) - local amendment. This document may be accessed at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/2000_IBC_Amendments.pdf 26. Provide right of way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalk for all adjacent rights of way, labeled as existing or proposed (DS 2-03.2.3 D). 27. Indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum with City Field Book and Page numbers (DS 2-03.2.3 F). 28. Depict and label all floodplain information, including the location of 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100-cfs with water surface elevations provided [DS 2-03.2.3 J (1-3)]. 29. Provide a current, working "Bluestake" telephone number. 30. Provide typical cross-sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned with elevations provided. Include retention/detention basin dimensions/details, and include 2' minimum grading setbacks, per Section 14 of the 2000 IBC. 31. Differential grading requirements may apply to grading of this subdivision - see section 13 of the 2000 IBC for all requirements associated with such. The applicant is encouraged to initiate correspondence with all adjacent, affected property owners as soon as possible, where/if applicable. DRAINAGE REPORT: 32. Calculation of the 5-year threshold retention volume requirement shall be in accordance with Equation 3.3 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01.0). 33. Revise the existing and developed conditions runoff coefficients to reflect B Soils - 0.24 for existing conditions, and approximately 0.41(>25% impervious area stated in report), under developed conditions, for threshold retention volume calculations, in accordance with Table 4.3, column 1(Applicable Soil Types). The City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (Development Standard -DS- 10-02.0). 34. Specify the name, address, and telephone numbers of the persons firms agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of drainage improvements (DS 10-02.2.3.1.2 E). 35. Address all items outlined in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design, Sections 2.3.1.3 B (1-3) in a revised report (DS 10-02.0). 36. Address all requirements outlined in Section 2.3.1.4 (A-F). In addition to meeting all items listed, assure the regulatory floodplain is clearly labeled and water surface elevations are provided on the exhibit and Plat and revise the scale to no smaller than 1" = 40' - preferably 1" = 30' for consistency with the Plat scale (DS 10-02.0). 37. Address all items outlined in Section 2.3.1.5 B-F (DS 10-02.0). 38. Address all items outlined in Section 2.3.1.6 A (3-5) (DS 10-02.0). 39. Address all items outlined in Sections 1.5.2 and 2.3.1.6 C (1-2). The report must include a detailed inspection checklist and schedule, retention/detention basin performance criteria, and specify the items included in Section 2.3.1.6 C 2 (DS 10-02.0). 40. Provide certification that the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations, in accordance with Section 2.3.1.7 (DS 10-02.0). 41. Provide Hydraulic and Reservoir routing calculation sheets and other relevant documents in one or more referenced appendices, per Section 2.3.1.9 (DS 10-02.0). 42. Include a soils report with a resubmittal, containing the items listed in Section 14.2.6 - including 30' deep soil boring results [DS 10-01.3.5.1 (5) & 10-02.14]. 43. The drainage report must contain flood hydrograph generation and detention basin routing in accordance with Chapter IV of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Chapter III of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-02.4.5 & DS 10-01.3.1-3.3). 44. The report must address any proposed Embankment/Emergency spillway requirements, as discussed in Section 3.3.4 (DS 10-01.0). LANDSCAPE PLAN: Any changes to the plat that pertain to the Landscape Plan must be reflected on the Landscape plan. The driveway locations depicted should be revised or relocated in accordance with any plat comments requiring such (see Traffic Engineering comments). 1. Provide a landscape note and/or typical detail demonstrating water-harvesting maximization in all landscaped areas, in accordance with the LUC, Section 3.7.4 and Section 14.2.10 of the City's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain management (DS 10-02.0). GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. A grading permit will be required for this project development. Grading shall be in conformance with all soils and geotechnical report recommendations, and the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) local amendment - Excavation and Grading. These may be accessed at the following website address: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/2000_IBC_Amendments.pdf. 2. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with grading plan submittal. For further information, visit: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html 3. The final plat cannot be scheduled for Mayor and Council consideration until the assurances are approved by the City Engineer's Office (DS 2-03.7.1G & 2-03.9.3 E). All sections of the assurance documentation must match word-for-word for the descriptions of the common areas listed on the Final Plat. Please assure all documents verbiage for the subdivision description matches the Final Plat. For example, the letter and use for each common area description shall match the Plat Title Block descriptions and letters. This must be correct in order to prevent delay of the assurance review in the City of Tucson's legal offices. Resubmittal will require: Revised Final Plat and Landscape Plan, a revised Drainage Report, a Soils Report with basin infiltration test results, four (4) complete subdivision assurance packages (including a copy of sample CC&R's, a current Title Report, sample warranty deed, Trust agreement, amendment to Trust, and all associated exhibits at a minimum), a revised (concept) grading plan and boundary survey closure calculations, addressing all comments provided above. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us. Doug Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 08/04/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 08/04/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | no comments/objections |
| 08/06/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 5, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-075 6th & Drexel Subdivision: Minor Subdivision Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/09/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S04-075 6th and Drexel Subdivision, Lots 1-6 and Common Area "A" Final Plat TRANSMITTAL: August 6, 2004 DUE DATE: August 5, 2004 COMMENTS 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of approval of tentative plat to obtain approval of a final plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This final plat must be approved and recorded on or before July 9, 2005. 2. Address and revise the following items on the location map. a. Label correctly the section corners adjacent to sections 1 and 12. b. It is preferable that the location map be drawn without the delineation of the lots. The lot lines make it hard to read any information that may be relevant on the map. The map should be a line drawing depicting the major streets and the streets on where the parcel is located. c. Please label following streets, Nebraska Street, 12th Avenue, and Southern Pacific Rail Road. d. All recorded subdivision plats within the location map must be labeled by book and page numbers, i.e. 39/45 etc. 3. Place the words "Book ____ Page ____" in both the upper and lower right corners outside the margin line. The blanks will be completed by the Pima County Recorder's Office at the time of recordation. DS 2-03.6.1.G 4. Revise the title block as follows, Lots 1-6 and Common Area "A". Revise the brief legal description to read that this subdivision is "A re-subdivision of Lots 1 and two, Block I, of Missiondale Subdivision." DS 2-03.6.H.1 and .3 5. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S04 -75. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of plan sheets. DS 2-03.6.1.K 6. A symbol legend has been added to the plan but none of the symbols appear to have been utilized or depicted on the plan. Please add the symbols where applicable. DS 2-03.6.1.L 7. Add the following note: "Total miles of new public or private streets are 0." DS 2-03.6.1.C 8. Please revise the hold harmless paragraph on sheet one of the tentative plat to state verbatim what is written in DS 2-03.6.3.B.3 Also please clarify what "infill lot 1" is in reference to. 9. It does not appear that the beneficiary text block was completed correctly. Please refer to the engineering reviewer comments for more information on this requirement. DS 2-03.6.3.C 10. Clarify if the under the Approval text block the name Patrick Thorpe is the person filing for recordation of this plat. The owner of this property is listed as David Varela. Please clarify the issue and revise the text approval text block if necessary. DS 2-03.6.3.D 11. Label the proposed use for the common area. DS 2-03.6.4.C 12. Show and label no-vehicular access easements where applicable. DS 2-03.6.4.H 13. If CC&R's are proposed for this development please submit a copy with the next submittal of the final plat packet. Clarify who will be responsible for the maintenance of the detention basin. DS 2-03.6.6 14. The following comments are related to the development and general information requirements. Please correct or clarify if all the leaders drawn on the plans without any text are typos or were they to be notes mistakenly left off. 15. Please add an additional sheet depicting the proposed development (overall site plan), which includes building locations, building setbacks for each lot, and parking spaces. The additional sheet should include the following: a. Building setbacks based on the lot locations, i.e. corner lot, interior lot, street perimeter and adjacent zoning. b. Visitor parking is to be provided for this development at a ratio of .25 cars per unit, which equals 1.5 spaces or two on street parking spaces. The parking spaces must be within 150 feet of the all lots. On street parking is not allowed on major streets. Both Drexel Road and Sixth Avenue are on the Major Streets and Routes map. On street parking may be allowed on Missiondale Road but verification from the Traffic Engineering Division must be provided. If the on street parking cannot be provided as required, one additional vehicle parking space must be provided on site. The parking spaces must be accessible to visitors for that dwelling unit. Approval through a CDRC development standard modification request will be required. c. The lots must be designed in a manner that provides for complete on site vehicular maneuverability into and out of the parking spaces. The vehicles are not allowed to back up onto a major street. Please demonstrate on the plat that the three vehicle parking spaces have sufficient vehicular use area on site to maneuver into and out of the parking spaces without backing out onto the streets. d. The lot detail drawing must be revised to demonstrate how the three parking spaces are to be provided on site. e. The detail drawing must demonstrate that the street building setback is from the back of future curb location. The minimum major street building setback is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure. f. This development is subject to the development criteria of the Major Streets and Routes Setback and the development criteria of the Airport Environs Zone. The plan must demonstrate how the AEZ criteria have been met. Both the mean sea level elevation for the northwest runway must be listed (M.S.L. for NW Runway = 2,583') and the MSL at the site plus the height of the proposed buildings. The heights must not exceed 216 feet for lots 4, 5, and 6 and 220 feet for lots 1, 2, and 3 above the M.S.L. of the northwest runway. See LUC section 2.8.5.7 for more information on the airport environs zone. 15. The following information is for other items that must be addressed on the plan. a. Seven keynotes have been added to the plat. The keynotes do not appear to be noted anywhere on the plat. Please clarify if the keynotes are typos or label the locations with the respective keynotes or remove if not applicable to this project. b. Add a general note to state that this project has been designed to meet the criteria of the MS&R and AEZ overlay zones. c. Correct the date typo on general note 4. d. The lot typical detail drawings must be drawn with the driveways. The detail drawings should be drawn with the actual design of the subdivision. e. Please insure that all drawing sheets match. The lot layout and the parking spaces and driveway locations must be consistent through out all of the plan sheets. Please revise as required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\finalplat\S04075fp.doc |
| 08/09/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-RECORDATION | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/09/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this minor subdivision review: 1. As discussed at the 06MAY2004 CDRC meeting and referenced by the applicant in the submitted review package, Lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 are to have shared driveways between these lots and ONLY shared driveways as previously submitted in the CDRC packages. This use of shared driveways is the only way that this configuration of lots will meet AMG spacing guidelines for access points along designated MSRP streets. The locations of the driveways shall be clearly noted on the recording document and be noted as restrictions in the general notes of the recording document. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/09/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |