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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-102
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/09/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/09/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to include plantings for Common Area 'D' per DS 10-01.4 2) Revise the landscape and NPP to identify natural areas and the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.0, DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 3) Revise general note 9 on sheet N-1 to correspond with City of Tucson terminology. LUC 3.8.6.2 4) Add the CDRC Case number to all plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B |
| 08/10/2004 | 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: S04-102 ALLEN ROAD TOWNHOMES/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: AUGUST 9. 2004 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: Add Boulevard to Tucson on Location Map. Change S19 to S29 on all Title Blocks. Bordeaux, Toulon and Rennes are all duplicate or sound like other street names. Please submit a list of street names to check for duplication. jg |
| 08/10/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Plan is denied August 10, 2004. 1. There is no scale noted on Sheet 3 of 3. It appears to be 1:30. My comments are based on this assumption. 2. The minimum width for fire apparatus access is 20 feet. When gates are installed accross an access roadway, the minimum clear width for the gate opening must be twenty feet. A detail should be provided for the gated entry indicating the required minimum gate width and the method and location of emergency ingress devices.(Lock-boxes). 2. The following note shall be provided on the plan:"Approved fire lane signs shall be provided as needed to provide 20' clear unobstructed width along all fire apparatus access roadways in accordance with the Tucson Fire Code. Plans for locations of signs shall be submitted for Fire Department review and approval prior to submitting site plans for Paving and Grading Permits. |
| 08/11/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-102 ARCADIS ALLEN ROAD TOWNHOMES |
| 08/11/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 10, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-102 Allen Road Townhomes: Tentative Plat CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/18/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * Catus landfill is adjacent to this project. Contact David Bell at Environmental Services 791-5414 for landfill investigation/ protection/notification ect. * Curb side service for this residential subdivision will be 90 gallon APC's. |
| 08/20/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: August 20, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Allen Road Townhomes Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-102. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on August 10, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a recent Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 4. Provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The NPDES submittal must accompany the Grading Plan submittal. 8. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. NOTE: BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF REVIEW COMMENTS, ADDITIONAL NEW COMMENTS CAN BE EXPECTED IN SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS. NOTE: PLEASE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 2-03 FOR TENTATIVE PLAT FORMAT AND CONTENT. IT IS EXPECTED THAT SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS WILL ATTEMPT TO CONFORM WITH REQUIREMENTS. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. A north arrow, contour interval, and scale must be placed together on each sheet. DS 2-03.2.1.H 2. Place the subdivision case number (S04-102) in the lower right corner of the plat next to the Title Block. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Include a note specifying the total miles of new private street. DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b 4. The property boundary line adjacent to Allen Rd. needs a bearing. DS 2-03.2.3.B 5. Show all existing easements. DS 2-03.2.3.C 6. The following information regarding the existing public right-of-way will be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of existing and proposed paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. DS 2-03.2.3.D 7. All contour lines on the plat need an associated elevation. On the submitted plat, it can not be determined where the ground goes up, down, sideways, etc. Only the 2360 ft. elevation is shown. Provide elevations. DS 2-03.2.3.F 8. Where are the lot lines? There are lines bisecting every lot. What are these lines? Lines must be differentiable and shown in the legend. 9. It appears there is a line defining the landfill boundaries (cross-hatched area?)??. Define this in the legend (both the hatching and the line). The same line type is being used for many different purposed on the plat. It is impossible to differentiate between lot lines, common areas, extraneous lines, etc. 10. It appears that the plat is showing concrete driveways. However, this is not shown in the legend. Provide a legend which shows and describes all lines, symbols, etc. used on the drawing. DS 2-03.2.1.J 11. It can not be determined where the boundaries of Common Area C are. There are lines going everywhere. Common Areas must be readily identifiable. DS 2-03.2.4.C 12. Common Area D shows a heavy solid line. This line is elsewhere on the plat used as the subdivision boundary. The limits of Common Area D can not be determined. DS 2-03.2.4.C 13. Sidewalk and curb are required on Allen. Sidewalk width is four feet located three feet from back of curb. DS 3-01 Figure 5 and DS 3-01.3.2A 14. Dimension the split roadway at the entrance. Is this one-way traffic or two-way on both splits? Identify. See DS 3-01 for minim street widths. See 6-01 for minimum solid waste vehicle turning radius. DS 2-03.2.4.F 15. Show floodplain limits (existing and proposed) and 100-yr. peak water surface elevations (WSEL) for all flows of 100 cfs or more. DS 2-03.2.3.J 16. Sections A, B, and C on Sheet 2 all show a right-of-way line. There is no right-of-way on this plat. Redefine. 17. Section C left side notation says right of way. The plat seems to indicate that his is actually Common Area D. Also the plat seems to indicate that there is depressed curb (?) and rip rap at this location. 18. Section C right side notation shows a 10 ft. easement. This easement does not show on the plat. All sections must accurately reflect the plat. 19. Sections A, B and C show two dimensions of 21.5 ft each. None of the other dimensions sum to this number. 20. Common Area B appears to be divided by the private street adjacent to lot 14. Is this correct. Properly define all common area boundaries. DS 2-03.2.4.C 21. Section B shows wedge curb but says vertical curb. Which is it? Correct the section or the verbiage. 22. Section B left side shows a 10 ft. easement. The plat does not show this easement. Also this appears to be the location of Common Area C (landfill?) 23. Section A shows a sidewalk on the right side. The plat shows a driveway. 24. Street section B is incorrect. Parking and sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. See DS 3-01 Figure 2. 25. Section C is incorrect. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. DS 3-01.3.3.A and Figure 2 26. The sight visibility triangles (svt) are incorrect on section D. The near side is 180 ft. not 260 ft. DS 3-01.5.3 27. Pad detail F says front draining, but the flow arrows show the back yard draining to the back. Where is this flow going? Is the detail incorrect? 28. Concerning the circular area at the entrance: is this Common Area? Dimensions? Curbed? Etc? 29. Show the curb return radii for Allen. See DS 3-01 Figure 6 30. Where is curve line C19 on the plat? 31. Show proposed flow arrows/elevations for all common areas. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2 32. Show, label and dimension basin inlet and outlet structures. Provide appropriate elevations. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4 33. For all basins list top elevation, bottom elevation, weir invert elevation, 100-yr. peak WSEL. Show ponding limits. DS 2-03.2.4.L 34. All proposed basins must have maintenance access ramps. Provide. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4.b and 14.3.4 35. A soils report must be provided in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report must, as a minimum, address soil classification, soil erodibility, soil permeability, slope stability, and ground water elevations. The report must also provide a minimum recommended building setback from the basins. SMDDFM, 14.2 and Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1.5 36. Maximum disposal times of stormwater runoff for basins must be 12 hours. SDRM, 3.5.1.3 37. Show, label, and dimension all proposed rip-rap areas. DS 2-03.2.4.L 38. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L4 39. Show location and quantity of all off-site runoff acceptance points and on-site runoff discharge points. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7 40. Finish floor elevation (FFE) of structures must be a minimum of one foot above the 100-yr. peak WSEL of any adjacent basin. Lots 1 and 2 do not meet this criteria. SDRM, 3.5.1.10 41. The Drainage Report specifies Det 2 weir invert at 62.5. The plat shows 58. 42. Indicate types and locations of all drainage structures. Provide appropriate dimensions, sections, elevations, etc. This includes scuppers, culverts, channels, etc. DS 2-03.2.4.L, SMDDFM 2.3.1.5 43. The plat shows a .8% grade for both Nantes and Rannes Streets. The elevations provided on the plat do not support this grade (looks like about .4%) 44. Provide a cross section detail of both basins. This is provided in the Drainage Report but is missing from the plat. 45. Community Services requires amenities in common areas. These would include picknic areas, landscaping, pathways, etc. Common Area C (landfill) must include these amenities. Drainage patterns, proposed finished grades, etc. must be included on the plat. Possible disturbance of landfill materials must be addressed. Positive drainage must be provided from all areas of the common area. Ponding must not be allowed. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Page 10 WS-ON5D refers to detention/retention area 3. The plat does not show this area. 2. All streets shall be designed and constructed so that the maximum rate of storm runoff flowing in the direction of vehicular travel should not exceed 50 cfs. The proposed design exceeds this amount. DS 3-01.4.4.B 3. The worksheet for street capacity uses a Mannings coefficient of .016. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, Table 8.1 specifies that this number should be .02. 4. To provide all weather access, the peak 100-yr. stormwater runoff depth in the street must not exceed one foot. DS 3-01.4.4.E 5. Runoff from the ten yr. storm must be contained within the curbs of the street. DS 3-01.4.4.A 6. Inverted crown slopes in excess of 3% may not be used. DS 3-01.4.5.D.3 7. Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (SDRM) provides design criteria for basins. Multiple use concepts must be employed. Neither of the proposed basins has adopted these requirements. Basin 1 in particular appears to be a concrete trough. This does not meet the requirements found in the manual. Refer to SDRM Chapter 4 and properly design the basin. 8. Evaluate the transition from inverted street flow to full warp section adjacent to Det 1. Provide appropriate calculations. The full warp section will not meet the standards sited in comments 2,4 and 5 above. 9. The streets are acting as a channels. The provided analysis assumes uniform flow. Uniform flow does not exist under most design conditions, due to disturbances caused by changes in channel width, channel geometry, slope, transitions, junctions, etc. All of these are occurring on the proposed streets. Provide a backwater analyses to determine depth of flow. SMDDFM, 8.5.1.2 10. The proposed drainage scheme places Basin 2 immediately adjacent to the landfill boundary. As proposed, migration of stormwater into the old garbage is inevitable. Intentional saturation of landfill materials can result in the creation and release of excessive methane. The Drainage Report, in coordination with landfill studies, must address these issues. Documented engineering studies of the effect of stormwater migration in to the landfill, and resulting effects of this migration must be provided. Engineering justification of the proximity of the basin to the landfill materials must be provided. 11. Community Services requires amenities in common areas. These would include picknic areas, landscaping, pathways, etc. Common Area C (landfill) must include these amenities. Drainage patterns, proposed finished grades, etc. must be included on the plat. Possible disturbance of landfill materials must be addressed. Positive drainage must be provided from all areas of the common area. Ponding must not be allowed. The drainage report must address these items. LANDFILL 1. This project is subject to the regulations found in Tucson Code Chapter 29 Sections 20-27. These regulations pertain to proposed development on or adjacent to designated landfills. Cactus Landfill is a part of the proposed site. Refer to the above code and comply with all requirements. James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer |
| 08/20/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-102 Allen Road Townhomes 08/20/04 ( x ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Northside Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: September 02, 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: ( x ) Resubmittal Required: ( x ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 08/20/2004 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments Allen Road Townhomes - S04-102 Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its components, including the Northside Area Plan and Design Guidelines Manual. In addition, the allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential developments. 1. The plans state that common areas should be used as active or passive recreational amenities. Please locate amenities such as shade trees, picnic tables, benches, barbecues, etc. in and around Common Area C. Please make the amenity handicapped accessible. Please show these amenities on the appropriate landscape plan pages. 2. The plans encourage the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate, please provide a minimum of one fifteen-gallon tree, no more than ten feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. In addition, please provide a minimum of one fifteen-gallon tree, no more than ten feet from the back of the sidewalk, every 25 feet along the road that leads to Allen Road. 3. Any proposed masonry screen wall around the perimeter of the subdivision, or within the development should be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. The screen walls should incorporate one of the following decorative materials: tile, stone, brick, textured brick/block, a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or a combination of the above materials. Please provide a detail of all the proposed walls in the development and indicate the materials that will be used and that they will be graffiti-resistant. 4. Any continuous wall greater than 75 feet in length and three feet in height visible from the public right-of-way shall vary the wall alignment (job, curve, notch, or setback etc.) and include trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations. Please show this on the tentative plat and landscape plan. 5. Adjacent residential structures should be taken into consideration when designing the subdivision. Lots adjacent to single story units at the perimeter of the RCP should have similar height to protect the privacy of the adjacent homes and be consistent with existing structures within the neighborhood. Please make a note under General Notes stating which lots will be single story in height. |
| 08/31/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: ALLEN ROAD TOWNHOMES Lots 1-19 S04-102 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated August 6, 2004. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The overhead facilities located at the southern end of the property along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. A copy of the plat with the approximate location of the existing facilities is enclosed. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8745 Cell Phone: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8700 |
| 08/31/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Delineate travel lanes and parking lanes in sections A, B, C sheet 2 of 3. 2. Show no parking signs in section B sheet 2 of 3. 3. Near side SVT need only be 180' in section D sheet 2 of 3. 4. Section D sheet 2 of 3 refers to Irvington Place. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/02/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | |
| 09/07/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is August 5, 2004. 2. Provide engineering scale for sheet 3 of 3. No more than 50 feet to the inch. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.A) 3. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers in the location map on sheet 1 of 3. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2) 4. Provide a north arrow on sheet 3 of 3. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.H) 5. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-102. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 6. Add the following general note: "This plat is designed to meet the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) criteria." (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) 7. Add on-street parking lane dimensions for all applicable street cross sections and label and dimension on-street parking spaces on the tentative plat drawing sheet 3 of 3. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.G) 8. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded or abandoned by final plat, please so state. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) 9. On a typical lot detail, demonstrate compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.D.2.c. Provide dimensions as required to verify compliance. 10. Revise all typical lot detail setbacks to be based on a street with an ADT over 140 but less than 1,000. This applies to setbacks for buildings and carports and garages. Remove setback information for streets with an ADT of 140 or less from the lot setback requirements listed on sheet 1 of 3. 11. Lot detail I on sheet 2 of 3 is not required since there are no lots abutting a street with an ADT over 1,000. Please remove. 12. Add the following note to lot detail H on sheet 2 of 3: "18 feet must be provided in front of the carport of garage and measured so that the full 18 foot parking space is available for parking on-site. (LUC 3.2.6.5.B.2.a.1) 13. Revise lot detail J to reflect the correct adjacent zoning classifications and perimeter yard setback requirements. 14. Provide the minimum side street setback requirements for lots 1, 6, and 13 (greater of 21' or height, measured from the edge of travel lane). 15. Revise the type of curb provided for street cross section B on sheet 2 of 3. Vertical curb is called out and wedge curb is shown on the cross section provided. 16. Provide the correct density calculation and indicate by note the RCP development alternative to be used "A" or "B". (D.S. 2-10.3.1.C) 17. Crosswalks are required to connect all lots to the sidewalk providing pedestrian access to the sidewalk along Allen Road. 18. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. If applicable, the CC&R's must also detail the restrictions on any proposed natural areas. (D.S. 2-10.3.2.E) (L.U.C. 3.6.1.5) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 09/07/2004 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | September 7, 2004 TO: Derek Roberts, Arcadis THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Allen Road Townhomes, Lots 1-19 and Common Areas A and B - Submittal S04-102 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 both the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility via the South Rillito West – North line 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 evaluation of the area, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-102, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 3. Show the size of the existing public sewer line. SHEET 3. Show a north arrow, the scale of the drawing and the contour interval of the topo lines. SHEET 3. PVC pipe may not be used for sewer lines S5 & S7, due to inadequate cover. Show that these sewer lines will be made out of ductile iron pipe. (DIP). Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 09/13/2004 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | |
| 09/15/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | no comments. |
| 09/15/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | 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: August 19, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-102 Allen Road Townhomes T131419 (112-01) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ 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 the north arrow and the scale to sheet 3. Remove the shading and the stippling. Add the section tie. Add the interior bearings for the lot lines and the bearings for the street centerlines. Add the road information for Allen Road 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 |
| 09/16/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |