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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S05-129
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/02/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/14/2006 | PMCLAUG1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1. The minimum required text size for microfilming is 12 point (12"). The lettering in the Plant Inventory and in Table 1 on the NPP plan is too small and must be revised to meet the minimum archiving standard for text size. DS2-05.2.1.C |
| 02/14/2006 | RBABBIT1 | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | City of Tucson - Environmental Services (COT-ES) has reviewed Case Number S05-129. The developer will have to comply with Tucson Ordinance No. 10037. The development currently is within 100' of the Saint Mary's Landfill. Therefore it is subject to Sec. 29-23 of the Ordinance, "Development on or within one hundred (100) feet of a Landfill". A Methane Development Plan has been received from the developer. The Methane Development Plan has not been Certified by a Professional engineer or geologist as specified by Sec 29-23.A.5 of the City of Tucson Ordinance No. 10037. |
| 02/16/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: February 16, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Westmoreland, Lots 1 through 14, 426 N. Westmoreland Avenue Tentative plat, S05-129 (Second Review) T14S, R13E, Section 11 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat and Drainage Report. The Tentative Plat (TP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Tentative Plat: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the TP. 2. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. The description "within the lower right corner of the title block describes the entire quarter of the section, this is too vague. Revise as required. 3. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Obtain permission from John Clark for approval of curbside refuse collection. 4. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. Label the elevations shown as FFE's on the plan or indicate on the legend that the box is the FFE, not the pad. Drainage Report: 1. The DR has been accepted for Tentative Plat purposes only. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/426 N Westmoreland CDRC2 |
| 02/17/2006 | 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 S05-129 Westmoreland 02/16/06 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/16/06 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 (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 8/25/05 |
| 03/03/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | March 2, 2006 TO: Craig Hunt, P.E. EEC THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: David McCormick, Tetra Tech, Inc. (Contract Reviewer) Subhash Raval, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Westmoreland, Lots 1-14 and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S05-129 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. As previously requested on August 9, 2005, please 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. The response letter stated that “A capacity letter has been obtained and is provided with this resubmittal.” The capacity letter was not found in the project folder. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. SHEET 2. While keeping the two proposed manholes is acceptable, the invert elevations are not synchronized with the invert elevation of the existing manhole to which this project proposes to connect. For improved hydraulics, increase the distance of the initial run to be 165 feet at no less than a one percent slope, and design the remaining 100 feet at no less than 0.44%. Please verify that all inverts are synchronized with their respective slopes and lengths. Subject to the above required revisions, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. 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 Department of 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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Subhash Raval, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6586 Copy: Project |
| 03/06/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: March 3, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S05-129 Westmoreland: Resubmittal(2/3/06) Tentative Plat Review Approved. |
| 03/10/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: S05-129 Westmoreland Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 03/10/06 DUE DATE: 8/25/05 COMMENTS: 1. Your response to the following comment is acknowledged. The comment will remain as reference for the reviewer. The vehicular use areas indicated as common areas CA "A" are considered a street and must meet the requirements of DS 3-01. As per a determination by the Zoning Administrator the required sidewalk area at the rear access way can be eliminated as long as the lots within the subdivision have frontage on a public or private street front which provides pedestrian facilities as per LUC 3.2.8.4 . The minimum width of the paving is required to be twenty (20) feet. If the paving is to be less than twenty (20) feet a DSMR is required. If the DSMR indicated is approved, provide the case number and any conditions of the DSMR on the plan. 2. Your response in regards to the density increase is acknowledged. Please provide documentation from the Department of Urban Planning and Design (Roger Howlett) verifying that this site is located in an area qualifying as low income. 3.. Your response to the following comment is acknowledged. The comment will remain as reference for the reviewer. Per DS 2-10.3.2.E Three (3) copies of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) are required if there is to be an association of homeowners to assume responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly owned property. 4. Your response to the following comment is acknowledged that there will be no roof mounted equipment. Please revise note # 20 to read as follows: "All mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP." See LUC Sec. 3.1.6.4.A.9 5. The letter from Walter Tellez regarding the street providing access to the garages being considered a secondary street has been provided to me. In the letter it is stated that the street must meet secondary street standards for width and curbs. Zoning acknowledges that a DSMR is being applied for the width to be reduced to 12'. Vertical curbs are required on both sides of the street for a 20' wide street. In additon, Per DS 3-05.2.3.C barriers are required in a vehicular use areas to prevent vehicles from driving on to unimproved portions of the site. The indicated 12' Common Area "A" private street as detailed in E-3 and 1-3 will require curbs or barriers. 6. The following comment has been partially addressed. Show the footprint of a unit on each lot or provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard setback. These typical are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. DS 2-10.3.1.B Please provide dimensions for the required setbacks on the typical plot plans for each model. Dimension the street perimeter yard setbacks as per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B Table 3.2.6-I for an ADT of 140 or less, indicate a 0' perimeter yard setback where applies and the perimeter yard setback for the garages with the average of 8' from property line to center of the parking space. For clarity purposes please provide a dimension from the center of the garage door to the nearest edge of the travel lane. On the typical plot plan please provide dimensions that clearly indicate compliance with the following. Along interior lot lines for attached dwellings, setbacks are not required provided traffic sight visibility, as required in Development Standard 3-01.0, is not obstructed and at least three hundred (300) square feet of outdoor space is located on that lot, and: 1. Of the three hundred (300) square feet, a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet is provided as one (1) consolidated outdoor space; and 2. The one hundred (100) square foot space is a minimum of ten (10) feet in width in any direction; and 3. Such consolidated space is designed as an extension of the indoor space with access from that space; and 4. The consolidated space is not obstructed by any overhang less than seven (7) feet above design grade; and 5. The consolidated space is not within the sight visibility area as provided in Development Standard 3-01.0. Per LUC Sec. 3.1.6.4.D.c, .1 through .5 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-129-2tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 03/13/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 13, 2006 Craig A. Hunt, P.E. EEC 4625 East Fort Lowell, Ste. 200 Tucson, AZ 85712 Subject: S05-129 Westmoreland Tentative Plat Dear Craig: Your submittal of February 3, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Landfill, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD), Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 321-0333 |