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 - S05-129
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/29/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/01/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved August 01, 2005. |
| 08/03/2005 | RBABBIT1 | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approv-Cond | Portions of Westmoreland are subject to the City of Tucson Landfill Ordinance, Ordinance No. 10037. Any development located within 100 feet or less from Saint Mary's landfill is subject to Sec. 29-23 of the Landfill Ordinance. Any development located between 100 and 500 feet from the Saint Mary's landfill is subject to Sec. 29-24 of the Landfill Ordinance. The following modifications must be done to the drawing set · Identify the landfill and show the boundaries on the drawing sets where applicable. · Show the lines of 100 and 500 foot distances from the landfill where applicable on the drawing sets. · Add a note stating "All utilities and structures located within 500 feet of the Saint Mary's Landfill shall comply with the requirements of the City of Tucson's Landfill Ordinance No. 10037." |
| 08/04/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-129 EEC WESTMORELAND |
| 08/10/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 9, 2005 TO: Craig Hunt, P.E. EEC THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Westmoreland, Lots 1-14 Tentative Plat – 1st 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Northwest Outfall 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. Based on the evaluation of project I-77-12, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-129, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 2. Show the size and Pima County plan number of the existing public sewer to which this project is connecting. SHEET 2. Label the sewer to be ductile iron pipe as not sufficient cover is achieved. SHEET 2. Use only one manhole and use one percent slope to the existing sewer I-77-12 with ductile iron pipe. 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 $50.00 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 |
| 08/18/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * St. Marys (Menlo Park ) Landfill is with in 1000 feet of this development. Contact David Bell of Environmental Services for compliances to the the Landfill Orediance (520-791-5414). * Subdivision approved for APC refuse service off the 12 wide PAAL. APC's are placed on the property adjacent to the the PAAL for service. APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection on the day of service. |
| 08/19/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Coordinate the gross site area on the landscape plan and the tentative plat. Note 5 on the landscape plan indicates a gross area of 7.6 acres. 2) Note 14 on the landscape plan indicates that no d.g. shall be placed in the scenic corridor zone is not applicable. 3) Note 16 on the landscape plan indicates screening for refuse storage areas. Provide information regarding the proposed location for refuse storage. DS 6-01.0 4) The landscape plan indicates placement of trees required for native plant mitigation on several of the lots. The trees must be planted in locations to able to support their long-term health and survival. Provide information regarding the planting locations proximity to sidewalks or other structures. Provide information irrigation and maintenance provisions for the trees. 5) Note 16 on the preservation indicates a temporary nursery location south of the site. There does not appear to be a suitable location for a nursery south of the site. Revise as necessary. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 08/22/2005 | 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: August 22, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-129 Westmoreland T141311 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Basis of Bearing on the Dedication page. Remove shading. Make the lot lines solid all the way around. Add the bearings for the lot lines. 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. Jessica Shettleroe |
| 08/23/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: S05-129 WESTMORELAND / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: August 17, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Note: Label approved street name on Final Plat ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 08/25/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | ESTIMATED DAILY TRIPS IN 24 HR PERIOD - 134 |
| 08/26/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: WESTMORELAND Lots 1-14 S05-129 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review July 29, 2005. 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. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> . Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 08/29/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/01/2005 | 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 S05-129 Westmoreland 09/01/05 (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: 08/25/05 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 (X) 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: 08/25/05 Urban Design and Code Development Comments S05-129 Westmoreland – Tentative Plat Review A Residential Cluster Project (RCP) shall be in conformance with Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code. Addition, site design shall be in conformance with applicable Area Plans, in this instance with the Santa Cruz Area Plan and with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its applicable components, including the Design Guidelines Manual. The RCP is based on the principle that greater flexibility and creativity in the design of the clustered residential will be employed to produce a superior product. The following are applicable policies and criteria from the General Plan, the Santa Cruz Area Plan, and the Design Guideline Manual: Discussion The proposed (RCP-6) subdivision is to allow the development of a 1.40-acre site with 14 single-family attached residential units; projected at 10 units per acre, utilizing the RCP option. The principle behind the RCP option is based on the objective to give greater flexibility and creativity in the design to permit the clustering of the residential units. One of the goals of the RCP option is to create usable open space(s), which in turn affords the opportunity for amenities such as passive and/or active recreational facilities. The proposed site is located between on Westmoreland Avenue adjacent to the Menlo Park, a City of Tucson Public Park. The Santa Cruz Area Plan, within its general development policies support the concept of older neighborhoods being revitalized and stabilized in order to be retained as neighborhoods, and that new developments should be integrated with the park system to facilitate linkages between neighborhoods and services. The City of Tucson General Plan and Design Guidelines Manual, both emphasize design compatibility of new projects with adjacent land uses, and promote cluster projects that are innovative and responsive to the physical characteristics of the site. These Plans suggest solutions and strategies that can contribute positively to the overall function and aesthetic quality of the community and neighborhood, such as, but not limited to, zero lot lines, reduced setbacks, visually interesting landscaped streets, passive/active recreational areas and open space, architectural variety. These Plans promote pedestrian connectivity with surrounding land uses and to regional public systems. The tentative plat identifies four pockets of common areas “B,” which can be utilized for functional open spaces. Only one of the four pocket open spaces includes recreational improvements. Staff believes a more comprehensive recreational plan could include recreational amenities within the three Common Areas “B” located adjacent to lots 7, 14, and both Common Areas “B” located at the northeast and southeast corner of the development. The smaller common areas could include passive recreational uses such as benches, tables, and thorn-less canopy trees located to provide microclimates to these passive recreational amenities. Within a larger common area, such as the southeast corner of the site, this corner could include a tot-lot with a small turf area or sandbox with a table and seating area and thorn-less canopy trees. The site is unique in that it abuts a public park, which provides a major amenity to the immediate neighborhood. However, the applicant has not provided a pedestrian link between the proposed residential site and the public amenity. The General Plan and the Santa Cruz Plan support connectivity between residential neighborhoods and public services. Staff recognizes a need to security the development from unwanted elements and therefore suggest a pedestrian gate operated and secured by either private key or scan identification card provided only to the owners of the townhouses. The pedestrian gate should include proper landscaping and night lighting to discourage unwanted activities. Staff’s recommendations: Given the applicant’s request to utilize the existing hard zone of R-1 with the RCP-6 option, the following revisions are required to meet Plan compliance: Please revise tentative plan and/or landscape plan to a landscape that include one (1) canopy tree on every other lot along all interior streets to provide pedestrians shade. Trees to be located within ten feet of the front property lines on private lots, adjacent to the pedestrian path/sidewalks. Please revise tentative plat; sheet 1 of 3 to include in the legend the proposed common areas and their designated uses. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to provide for passive and active recreational facilities within common area “B.” This includes common area “B,” located adjacent to lots 7 and 14 for passive recreational amenities such as but not limited to sitting area with benches and canopy trees to provide a microclimate shade area. Common Areas “B” located at the southeast corner of the development to include a tot-lot, a sandbox area and a turf area surrounding the tot lot improvements. All recreational amenities shall be accessible by an all-weather pedestrian path of at least five feet wide, which is connected to the on-site sidewalk system amenities. 4. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to provide a pedestrian gate between the site and Menlo Park, that shall be located on the east property line, adjacent to common area “B” with the tot-lot and sandbox improvements. Pedestrian gate shall be secured and accessible only by assigned key or identification card given only to the owners of the 14 townhouses. Landscape planting adjacent to the secured pedestrian gate shall be ground cover planting or canopy trees to eliminate and hiding places adjacent to the gate. 5. Please revise tentative plat to include a typical lot layout with the building footprint and to include the location of the required canopy tree on every other lot. 6. All walls are to be graffiti-resistant and incorporate one or more visually appealing design elements, such as; the use of two or more decorative materials like stucco, tile, stone, or brick; a visually interesting design on the wall surface; varied wall alignments (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.); and/or trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations. Please provide a wall elevation that conforms to this condition. |
| 09/02/2005 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: September 2,2005 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Westmoreland, Lots 1 thru 14, 426 N.Westmoreland Avenue Tentative plat, S05-129 (First Review) T14S, R13E, Section 11 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat and Drainage Report. The Tentative Plat (TP) and Drainage Report (DR) 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. 5-year threshold retention is required, provide hydraulic data sheets and aspects of retention basin design. 3. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. Also wheel chair ramps are required at the corners by the hammerhead. 4. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. 5. Provide all existing and proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use per D.S. 2-02.2.1.6. 6. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 7. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 8. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 9. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. 10. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 11. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 12. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the TP. 13. Sidewalks, curbs and wheelchair ramps are required where applicable per D.S. 3-01.3.0 and installed with "Detectable Warnings" see comment 3. 14. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 15. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. 16. Complete Tentative plat number (S05-129) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 17. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. 18. 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. Please address. 19. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 20. The right-of-way width of 46' does not meet City of Tucson minimal right-of-way standards. Revise as required. 21. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. The content and format of the Hydrology report should follow S.M.D.D.F.M., chap. II, 2.1.3. 3. DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2.D: The Drainage Report indicates a local detention/retention basin that will provide capacity for the proposed project. Provide a copy of the master drainage report (or significant portions within the appendix of this drainage report) that shows this basin's watershed and location is specified to include the proposed project. If not identified in the referenced report, it will be necessary to include calculations for existing and proposed capacity of this basin. 4. Tucson Code Sec.29.23.A: Due to the proximity of a landfill to the east of the proposed project, it is necessary to conform with this section of code; all proposed developments, on or within one hundred feet from a landfill, shall receive the necessary building permit only after approval of a landfill methane development plan. Contact Environmental Services for further information. Add that this project will show compliance, as a general note to the Tentative Plat. 5. 5-year threshold retention is required, provide hydraulic data sheets and aspects of retention basin design. 6. Percolation tests are required prior to the issuance of any permits. 7. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. 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 CDRC |
| 09/02/2005 | 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: 09/02/05 DUE DATE: 8/25/05 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 8/24/06. 2. This tentative plat was reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the Development Standards, Land Use Code, and the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). The structuring of the plat was reviewed under the requirements of Development Standards section 2-03. 3. This project has been assigned the case number S05-129, list in the lower right corner next to the title block of all pages of the plat including the landscape and NPPO pages. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. Note #5 should include the subject to section of the LUC for an RCP-6, which is Sec. 3.5.7.1.F. Please list as required. 5. 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. 6. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. DS 2-03.2.4.J 7. 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 8. Per the RCP notes text block, it appears the use of a density increase is proposed but the code section indicated, Sec. 3.6.1.3.A.3, does not exist, please clarify which code section is being used for the density increase. If the Cluster Development with Density Increase (LUC Sec. 3.6.1.3.B.3) is to be used, clearly indicate compliance with the 5% increase of the total number of required units. The parking requirements of one off street parking space per unit constructed to the standards for the physically disabled and in close proximity to the unit must also be met. Compliance with the following is required, if the use of a density increase is proposed, as permitted under Sec. 3.6.1.3.B of the LUC, indicate which of the provisions is being utilized and how the increased density criteria are being met. DS 2-10.3.1.C. Additional information on compliance with Sec. 3.6.1.3.B.7, archaeology studies, of the LUC and Sec. 3.6.1.3.B.6, energy efficiency, of the LUC is provided in Sec. 2- 10.4.0 and Sec. 2-10.5.0 of this Standard. Clearly indicate how this site will comply with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.2 When developed with a density increase, the RCP must provide for conveniently located commonly owned recreation facilities, designed for, and usable by, both adults and children residing within the project. Twenty-five (25) percent of the site area that is not part of the site coverage is to be commonly owned or set aside as accessible to all residents of the development. (Ord. No. 9374, §1,4/10/00) 9. As per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3 when the RCP site area is less than four (4) acres, architectural design of the RCP must be compatible with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of those existing single-family detached or attached structures along the same block frontage and the block frontage across the street. If the RCP is proposed on a corner lot, then its design will also be compatible with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of existing residential development on the opposite lot corners. Architectural compatibility will be in compliance with design criteria in applicable adopted neighborhood or area plans. Submit the above information to the Department of Urban Planning and Design. DS 2-10.3.2.C 10. On lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements. Therefore, on projects with proposed lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit the following: 1. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at the same scale as the plat are provided. This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. 2. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. 3. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. DS 2-10.3.2.D 11. 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. 12. Per LUC Sec. 3.1.6.4.A.9, Provide a detail of the roof mounted equipment screening. The screening must be architecturally compatible with the RCP development. 13. Per LUC Sec. 3.1.6.4.D.c, .1 through .5, 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. 14. Clarify what solar credit under the lot coverage calculations is intended for. 15. Per a conversation with Walter Tellez (Zoning Administrator) regarding the proposed rear access to garages it appears that a letter of determination or some other form of confirmation by Walter may have been provided to Jack Siry. We have been waiting for a response and copy of the document but as of this review date we have not received anything. The proposed driveway access as depicted on the plan does not meet the minimum requirements for street development and width. At a minimum a development standard modification request may be required and possibly a board of adjustment to eliminate sidewalks. I will update the comments as necessary if confirmation from Walter is received related to the one way access drives as depicted on the plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608. TS C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05129tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 09/07/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 09/20/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: September 19, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S05-129 Westmoreland: Tentative Plat(7-29-05) See Urban Design and Code Development comments: Please include more recreational amenities. Please provide a pedestrian link to Menlo Park. Rear lot walls facing Menlo Park should be designed so that upper wall areas are constructed of an “open” fencing material, such as wrought iron, that allows views of the park area. |
| 09/21/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 21, 2005 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 July 29, 2005 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 8 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Landfill, Wastewater, Community Planning, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Community Planning, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, 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 |