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 - S05-048
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/23/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/24/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved March 24, 2005. |
| 03/29/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-048 Landmark Engineering,Inc. STONE CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS |
| 04/04/2005 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 25, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-048 PROJECT NAME: Stone Crossing Condominiums PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose Ortiz, P.E. The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Resubmittal Required: Grading Plan, and Hydrology Report General Comments The Hydrology Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat, and Development Plan purposes. Tentative Plat Comments 1. Need to clarify and callout all existing information per Development Standards No: 2-03.0-2.3 (C), (D), and (E). It does not appear the all utilities (such as gas, phone, & electric) are being shown. Existing property and right of way information needs to be shown, callout, and dimensioned. 2. Provide transportation information per Development Standards No: 2-03.0-2.4 (F). Information shall include right of way dimensions, types of handicap ramps, proper width of new sidewalks, and proposed pavement widths per City of Tucson standard details. 3. In the plan view callout for a vertical curb detail. 4. Callout 2 foot minimum sawcut of existing pavement. 5. Refer to a structural section to illustrate depth of AC over ABC. 6. Clarify all sidewalks as existing or proposed. It is difficult to tell apart which sidewalks are existing versus which are proposed with the current hatching being used. 7. All new sidewalk shall be 5 feet wide per City of Tucson Development Standards 3-01-3.3 Pedestrian Circulation Paths. Revise keynote 5 on sheet 3 of 17 in the plan sheets. 8. How will new scupper tie into existing sidewalk on Limberlost Drive? 9. The ramps at the intersections of Thurston Avenue/Stone Ave and Thurston Avenue/Limberlost Drive may become sub standard due to this site development. New ramps, per COT Standard detail 207, may be required to accommodate the new sidewalk tying into existing sidewalk at the intersections. 10. Include in grading plans all necessary drainage facility details. These details include scuppers, weirs, RCP pipe and profile, and catch basins. Include labeling, dimensions of all drainage facilities. Many details in the drainage report are suitable for details in future grading plans. 11. Include cross sections of retention/detention basins. 12. Per development standards No: 2-05.0-2.4(G); provide all proposed easement information. 13. Need a typical section of the proposed pavement widening of Thurston Avenue. Show dimensions of the new edge of pavement and proposed right of way widths from existing centerline. 14. Correct finish floor elevation bust in units 26 & 27 on sheet 6 of 17. 15. Update legend to match all items in plan set. Items include sight visibility triangle hatch, existing contour line type and existing right of way line work. 16. Adjust sight visibility hatching. Hatching appears to bleed outside of the intended visibility triangle. 17. Add note from Development Standards No: 2-05.0-2.2 (D.2). 18. Need standard detail callout for 2-cell scupper on grading plans. Confirm that opening can handle Q10 = 5.8 CFS in drainage report, and provide detail of scupper with dimensions and calculations (include clogging factor of 1.5). Illustrate on the plans how the scupper will cross the existing sidewalk. 19. On sheet 6 of 17 turn on the hatching for the proposed pavement on the private roadways. 20. On sheet 7 of 17 show route of existing 18" RCP. 21. Verify that a new catch basin is not needed due to the relocation of the existing curb line on Thurston Avenue. 22. In detention basin 2 the 100 year WSE is 2325.43, and the drainage report (appendix PG 21) shows the basin elevation of 2323.0 which exceeds 2 feet, therefore security barriers are required per PCDOT Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual PG 82. In addition the grate is at 2325, but due to the weir factor in the flow of water the overall depth will exceed 2 feet. Refer to the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management Section 10.6.1 for design guidance and calculation formulas of grate height. If you have any question in regards to the comments above feel free to contact Jose Ortiz at 791-5550 extension 1191. |
| 04/04/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Two refuse enclosures proposed: * Northern enclosure - The backup distance exceeds the Development Standards. * Southern enclosure - The standard 14' x 40' clear area extends across the PAAL into the driveway aprone. There is also no provision for a truck turnaround at this end of the property. * Enclosure requires a 10' clear area between the side wall protection. * No provisions are shown or stated for recycling and the shown refuse enclosures arew not big enough to accomodate both metal dumpsters containers. |
| 04/11/2005 | 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: S05-048 STONE CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS/REVISED PLAT REVIEW DATE: 04/08/05 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: Change Section 20 to 24 and R-14-E to R-13-E on all Title Blocks. Delete all street directions. Change Stone Cureves to Stone Curves on all applicable pages. Spell out all street suffixes except on Location Map. Include a site plan of the occupant identifiers for condominiums. See the attached page. Include page divisions on pg. 2. |
| 04/13/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. April 13, 2005 TO: E. Bruce Wilson, P.E., R.L.S. Landmark Engineering, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Stone Crossing, 40 Condominium Units, Common Area, Drainage Area "A", Landscape Area "B", Vehicular Use Area "C" and Individual Use "D" Tentative Plat/Development Plan - 1st Submittal S05-048 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. 1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the South Rillito West North 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. 2. Based on the evaluation of the construction of the existing public sewer, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. 3. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-048, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. 4. SHEET 1. Delete General Note 32 as it is a duplicate of General Note 4. 5. SHEET 1. General Notes 5, 33 and 34 are not necessary as there is no sewer easement depicted in the layout. Should there be a public sewer easement, show this easement along with its recording information and leave this notes in place. Should there be no public sewer easement, delete General Notes 33 and 34 and revise General Note 5 as indicated in item 6 of this review letter. 6. SHEET 1. Revise General Note 5 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. 7. SHEET 1. Revise General Note 10 as shown below and fill in the blanks appropriately. THIS PROJECT HAS ____ PROPOSED AND ____ EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). 8. SHEET 6 & 7. Show the existing public sewers along with its size, Pima County plan number and manhole numbers. 9. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 04/15/2005 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | 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: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: April 14, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-048 Stone Crossing Condominiums T131324 (105-12) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Remove all shading, hatching and stippling. 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 |
| 04/21/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Per DS 2-15.3.1.A an aerial photograph is a required element of the native plant inventory. 2) Revise the title to identify the Plant Inventory Methodology as the selected method of compliance, rather than the selective plant methodology. LUC 3.8.4.1.A 3) Revise the following notes on the native plant preservation plan to correspond with City Of Tucson requirements and procedures, rather those than Pima County. Preservation Plan note 7 should refer to the Development Services Department. Note 11 should reference the City of Tucson. Standard Specification note 8 should refer to the City of Tucson. 4) Revise the landscape plans to identify any screening elements. Note the height and type of material/construction. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 5) Refuse storage areas are to be screened per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Show any required enclosures and provide specifications for height and materials, including gates. 6) Provide details for any proposed screen or retaining walls. DS 2-07.2.2 7) Show clearly areas of detention/retention (delineate), note the depths of basins, and percentage or ratio of side slopes on the landscape plan. Provide sections for basins on the tentative plant submittal. DS 2-07.2.2.B Basin design is to be in accordance with DS 10-01. Refer to p. 78 for design criteria regarding basin slopes/depths. 8) Regarding existing streets; show dimensions, and any utility locations. DS 2-05.2.4.D.2 9) Clarify on the landscape plan how the project complies with the dust control provisions of LUC 3.7.2.7. Include dust control for adjacent right-of-way areas. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 10) The methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit planting areas on the site. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 11) Dimension all landscape areas on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 12) Dimension how far any screen walls extent in the street landscape borders. Refer to LUC 3.7.3.2 for the criteria for locating walls in the border. 13) The common areas labeled 'D' appear to be walled with access only through the adjacent units. The project should be designed to allow the association to provide permanent care, and maintenance for commonly owned areas. LUC 3.6.1.5.A 14) Revise the keynotes on sheet 17 of the tentative plat to correspond with the other sheets. 15) Identify alls line used on the landscape plan with a legend. DS 2-07.2.2 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 04/22/2005 | 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 S05-048 Stone Crossing Condominiums 04/22/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-84-51 – Conditions Not Met C9-89-26 – Conditions Not Met C9-80-68 - Annexation NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: April 20, 2005 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 4/19/05 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments Stone Crossing Condominiums S05-047 March 28, 2005 This project is currently under the CDRC process, utilizing the “RCP –7” designator applicable to R-3 zoning. General Note 13 reads: This development is compound of 2 existing parcels. The northerly parcel is zoned R-3 and will remain R-3, the southerly parcel is zoned SR and is pending change to R-3 per annexation agreement. Proposed use is family dwelling, (condominiums) subject to LUC Sections 3.6.1 and 3.5.7.1.f the development designator is “RCP-7” The subject property consists of three parcels, 105-12-049A, with split zoning, C-1/R-2, 105-12-050A and 105-12-051A, both zoned R-2. The RCP designator for C-1 is RCP-9, maximum 36 units. The RCP designator for R-2 is RCP-6, Development Alternative A, minimum Site area, 12,100 square feet = 8.71 units, or Development Alternative B, minimum site area 10,000 square feet = 22.00 units. As submitted, this subdivision cannot be reviewed by Urban Planning and Design. Please resubmit the tentative and development plan with the corrections and the applicable RCP calculations for the C-1 and R-2 portions of the site. |
| 04/22/2005 | 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 S05-048 Stone Crossing Condominiums 09/23/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-84-51 – Conditions Not Met C9-89-26 – Conditions Not Met C9-80-68 - Annexation NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/22/05 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 (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 7/26/05 () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 7/25/05 |
| 04/25/2005 | 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 March 22, 2006. 2. Since the plat contains more than one (1) sheet, a small index drawing of the site showing the area represented on each sheet is to be placed on the first sheet. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.E) 3. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S05-048. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2) 4. General note 13 is incorrect. Please revise to state accurate zoning , land use classification, RCP information for this project. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5) (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3) 5. General note 24 is incorrect. Note the correct number of units proposed for this project. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.4) (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.4) 6. This project is split by two (2) zoning boundaries, all zoning classifications, on and adjacent to the project shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly delineated. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.D) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.B) 7. Cross section C2 needs a two-way travel lane of 24 feet wide. 20 foot is proposed. D.S. 2-03.2.4.G D.S. 2-05.2.4.D 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 by final plat, please so state. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) (2-05.2.4.G) 9. Note the square footage for each "individual use" area. 10. Provide a fully dimensioned cross section for each building model or if the same model is to be used provide a typical. 11. Label and dimension existing and future right-of-way, curb, and sight visibility triangles for all streets bounding the project. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.C) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.F) 12. Vehicle parking and bicycle parking calculation listed on sheet 1 of 17 are incorrect. Revise the vehicle parking calculations to reflect the correct number of units for this project. Include the number of bedrooms per unit. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.P) (LUC 3.3.4 "Multi-Family Dwelling") 13. Under the site data calculation on sheet 1 of 17, revise the maximum building height from 40 feet to 25 feet. RCP-6 and RCP-9 development criteria allows up to a maximum 25 foot building height. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.N) 14. All back up spurs must be provided with a minimum three (3) foot radius. Please add the radius as a keynote or add a dimensioned detail drawing depicting the typical back up spur. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3) (D.S. 3-05.2. 15. Wheel stop curbing shall be located two and one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of the parking space. (D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2) 16. Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail for both Class I and Class II spaces and indicate the location on the plan. Refer to D.S. 2-09 for design criteria. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q) 17. Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T) 18. Indicate the locations and type of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal). (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W) 19. The RCP information provided under the site calculation data is incorrect. Provide, by note on the plan, the developable area, density, and site coverage calculations. If the use of a density increase is proposed, as permitted under LUC Section 3.6.1.3.B, indicate which of the provisions is being utilized and how the increased density criteria are being met. (LUC 3.6.1.4.B) 20. Barrier-free accessibility must be provided to twenty-five percent of the ground floor units and all common areas within the project. Indicate how this accessibility is to be provided, and add a detail to the plat showing the accessibility. In addition, label those units, which are proposed for barrier free accessibility on the plan. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) 21. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner unit, an interior unit, and a unit affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. 22. For all units, indicate graphically or by note, the PAAL perimeter yard requirements. A minimum two (2) foot setback shall be provided between a building and a 24 foot wide PAAL (not including the wedge curb). Typical parking layout provided may not be verified for compliance until this information has been provided. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M) 23. See LUC section 3.6.1.5 A. - .C "Management of Common Properties" (CC&R's) requirements. A copy of the proposed CC&R's must be provided for review. 24. General note 22 indicates a typical parking space size of 8.5' x 18 feet in length and the plan shows a typical space size of 9' x 20'. Revise one or the other for consistency. 25. Township, range, and section listed in the title block is incorrect. 26. Dimension length of on-street parallel parking spaces. Minimum 23 foot length required per D.S. 3-05.2.1.B.2) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/25/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Add a general note to read “All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways.” 2. Local streets must be designed with parking on both sides of the street, unless parking is provided in common areas distributed throughout the subdivision, at a ratio of one parking space per dwelling within the subdivision. (DS 3-01.2.4.D) This plan as submitted only provides 11 guest parking spaces with no parking lanes. 3. Show no parking signs in section views where there is to be no parking. (sheet 2) 4. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). Show SVTs on sheets 5, 6. 5. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-03.2.3.D) Only the name is listed for Thurston Lane. 6. Show far side SVT at intersection of Thurston Lane/Limberlost Drive. 7. Adjoining subdivision is consistently misspelled sheets 3 through 7. 8. Detail F/2 doesn't meet spacing requirements of Tucson City Code chapter 25 section 38. Minimum driveway separation is 12' or maximum width for a joint use driveway is 30'. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/26/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: April 25, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-048 Stone Crossing Condominiums: Tentative Plat Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services No comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/28/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 04/29/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org S05-048 Stone Crossing Condominiums 4/20/2005 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Construct 3 new pedestrian islands Stone Ave (Roger to Limberlost) Yes 2005 25,800 42,760 4 42,760 76,076 4 1,195 Route 19, 30 minutes, 0 miles None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 05/02/2005 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/11/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: STONE CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS S05-048 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the tentative plat/development plan submitted for review April 20, 2005. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 770-2062. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Warren McElyea Design/Build - DB 102 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 917-8745, should you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 05/11/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |