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 - S05-182
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/12/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/14/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved October 14, 2005. |
| 10/21/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Dimension the length and width of landscape borders on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f. 2) Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 3) Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. Show the total PIP, TOS, required mitigation for each species. DS 2-15.3.4.B 4) Show and identify any preserved or transplanted protected native plants on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A 5) Keynote 23 on sheet 2 of the tentative plant should indicate the height of the refuse enclosure wall. 6' is the minimum. LUC Table 3.7.2.-I 6) Note the height of the refuse enclosure screen wall on the landscape plan. 6' is the minimum. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 7) Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. The parking lots require 5' high masonry walls as indicated on the Tentative Plat/Development Plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 8) Pedilanthus macrocarpa and Parthenocissus are not list on the City Of Tucson Regulatory Plant List. Refer to LUC 3.7.2.2 for standards regarding us of plants not on the approved plant list. Refer to DS 9-06, Exhibit III for the list of approved plants. 9) Provide a detail or additional descriptions for the screen trellis proposed along adjacent streets. A 5' high opaque screen is required. LUC Table 3.7.2-I, DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 10) Caesalpinia calaco is likely spelled Caesalpinia cacalaco. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.d 11) The landscape plan is required to include the mitigation plantings identified in the native plant preservation plan. The mitigation plants must be the exact same genus and species. Revise as necessary. LUC 3.8.6.2.C RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 10/21/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-182 GREGOR & GRENIER ENGINEERING, INC. THIRD STREET LOFTS |
| 10/24/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Refuse enclosure and access OK for service. * Enclosures do not show side wall protection or doors. |
| 10/31/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: THIRD STREET LOFTS S05-182 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 12, 2005. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. 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: Mike Kaiser 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 |
| 11/07/2005 | 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: S05-182 THIRD STREET LOFTS/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: November 7, 2005 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 31/38 to 33/80 on Location Map. Add A resubdivision of Lot 11…..on all Title blocks. Delete E. from E. Third Street on pg. 2. jg |
| 11/09/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Third Street Lofts, Lots 1 through 22, Tentative Plat. The activity number is S05-182. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on November 9, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TENTATIVE PLAT, DRAINAGE REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please 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, a Title Report and a copy of the location map on an 8" by 11" paper. 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 on the Final Plat or in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 4. Please 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. Development Standard 11-01.4.1.C. 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 Development Standard 11-01.8.1.A. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to AzPDES requirements. 8. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. 9. Flood Use Permit is required prior to grading plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Is the intent for this project to be developed as a condominium project? If this subdivision is a condominium project, it must be indicated in the title block. Revise as necessary. DS 2-03.2.1.G. 2. Add a note to the plat indicating a floodplain use permit is required for the site work that is within the limits of the City of Tucson regulatory flood hazard area. DS 2-02.3.2.2.C.2.b. 3. Is the intent to elevate the area affected by the City of Tucson regulatory flood hazard area in effort to prevent the need for applying for a future flood plain use permit? If the proposed development places fill to elevate the existing area impacted by the COT regulatory flood hazard area, future flood plain use permits would not be required. Clarify in the response letter. 4. This comment is in reference to the above comment. It appears that utility boxes are located within the Right of Way (ROW). Are any new utility boxes (electric, telephone, cable) being placed within the ROW or within the landscape border located within the property? Any new utility boxes located within the area affected by the COT regulatory flood hazard area may require to be elevated one foot above the water surface elevation, a floodplain use permit and an elevation certificate. Clarify in the response letter and if applicable in the drainage report. 5. The following plat boundary line information will be provided: the bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearings noted or shown; distances in feet and hundredths or other functional reference system. These will be delineated with solid lines. Include the lot dimensions and the bearing information on the plat. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.B. 6. It is difficult to determine the lot line for lots 1-22. It is not clear if the sidewalk and other site amenities that are located between the structures are intended to be part of each lot. Clearly show the lot line for each lot. Show the line weight in the legend. DS 2-0.2.2.3.B. 7. Provide/label on the plat the square footage for each lot within the lot dimensions. 8. If applicable show all existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.C. 9. 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 paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. On the plat label and dimension from centerline the width of the road and sidewalk. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.D. 10. Detail section 2/3, shows new sidewalk within the ROW on the south side of the development, however on the north side of the development sidewalk is shown but it is not clear if the sidewalk is existing or proposed. Clarify and/or revise accordingly. 11. Five foot Sidewalks are required as part of all new development. Detail section 2/3 shows the sidewalks at 4'. Revise to show all proposed sidewalks at 5' within the ROW. DS 3-01.3.3.A. 12. Keynote number 40 depicts a 10' fence. The plat shows in several areas an existing wall or chain link fence. Is the intent to remove the existing wall and chain link fence and replace with the 10' fence? Clarify in the response letter and/or on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.H. 13. If the project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area. The plat shows common area "A" and "B" on each lot individually. This is not correct. The parking area and the pool area must have the same letter designation even if they are separated by Third Street, i.e. "Common Area A Pool, Recreation Area," "Common Area B Parking Area." Revise the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.C. 14. It is not clear if the sidewalk areas are going to be designated as common area or if they are included in the lot coverage. If the sidewalks are included in the lot coverage an easement is required for pedestrian access. Revise the plat as necessary or clarify in the response letter. See comment number 6. DS 2-03.2.4.C. 15. Section detail 3/3 and 4/3 show the sidewalk area as common areas. To iterate the above comment, revise to show the sidewalk areas with a separate common area designation. DS 2-03.2.4.C. 16. Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee. Provide written approval from the City Engineer for locating landscaping within the ROW. 17. If applicable, if the project is phased, each phase must comply with Code requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. The reason this is required is that the Code is applied on the project as proposed for construction at that time. It cannot be guaranteed that future phases will be constructed as designed or if they will be constructed at all. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.4.E. 18. Per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG) for an ingress/egress to a local street 18' curb returns are required. Indicate 18' curb returns for the ingress/egresses to Third Street. TMAG was adopted on March 17, 2003 by Mayor and Council. 19. Identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any lots proposed for common area (such as open spaces or recreation areas). Revise. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.4.I. 20. Include the sidewalk dimension in keynote number 35. 21. Include the drainage and "Q" arrows within the legend. DS 2-03.2.1.J. DRAINAGE REPRT 1. If the decision is made to change the proposed regulatory flood hazard limits, revise the drainage report as necessary. (See above comments 2-4) |
| 11/09/2005 | 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 S05-182 Third Street Lofts 11/07/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon-Broadway GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/9/05 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 () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Elevations and Photographs REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 11/07/05 URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Third Street Lofts Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Alvernon Broadway Area Plan, the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential developments. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Submission of photos will be required, taken of the surrounding area to assist staff in reviewing for architectural compliance and compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods. Because staff will be reviewing for five-sided architecture that embraces those elements from the surrounding neighborhood. Please show an elevation of the architectural style(s) in the proposed development, including colors. Please visit Urban Planning and Design’s website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf, which features a palette of diverse Sonoran Desert Colors. The handout was created to showcase and promote the incorporation of all Sonoran Desert colors into the base and/or accent colors of building design. Please also provide a color palette to demonstrate how this will be incorporated. Additionally, please make a note on the plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed adjacent to one another Per the Alvernon Broadway Area Plan, any required or proposed masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the RCP shall be visually enhanced utilizing the following techniques: a. Construct screening walls with decorative, graffiti-resistant materials such as tile, stone, brick, or textured brick/block; or cover walls with a coarse-textured material such as stucco, plaster, or a combination of materials. b. Use colors found in the natural desert landscape for exterior wall colors. c. Where screen walls abut public rights-of-way or public open space, vary the wall alignment (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.) and plant trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations for visual relief and to resist graffiti. Please provide a detail of the wall indicating materials that will be used and identify the location of all walls on the tentative plat. 4. The Land Use Code, General Plan and Design Guidelines state that noise-generating activities should be located away from adjacent residential uses. The proposed dumpster locations abut residentially zoned property, they are approximately 20 feet away. The general standard for dumpster locations is 50 feet way from the adjacent residential property with a six-(6) foot-high masonry wall to provide appropriate buffering. Please demonstrate why it is not appropriate to revise tentative plat to show appropriate distance from adjacent residences and provide buffer wall detail. |
| 11/10/2005 | 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: November 9, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-182 Third Street Lofts T141409 (125-11) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 bearings for the lot lines. If there are any questions, please contact Jessica Shettleroe at 740-6658. 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 |
| 11/10/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | S05-182 - 3rd Street Lofts; No comments |
| 11/15/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 211 estimated daily trips in 24 hr period. |
| 11/15/2005 | 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 |
| 11/15/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: November 15, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S05-182 Third Street Lofts: Tentative Plat Review(10-12-05) Staff has no comments. |
| 11/22/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera (for Terry Stevens / Senior Planner) Principal Planner PROJECT: S05-182 an RCP Third Street Lofts, Lots 1-22 and Common Areas "A" and "B" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 11/22/05 DUE DATE: 11/09/05 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 October 11, 2006. 2. For location reference of the parcels within the location map, add the street name "Richey Blvd." to the location map. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 3. The following should be added to the title block. "A resubdivision of lot 2 of block 7 and lot 11 of block 4 as recorded in Map and plats book 3 / page 107." DS 2-03.2.1.G.3 4. Add the name of the contact person to the Owner's text block. DS 2-03.2.2.A 5. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S05-182. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of all tentative plat sheets including the NPPO and landscape sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 6. If applicable, Add a note identifying by case number any zoning variances or modifications that are applicable to the project, such as a Board of Adjustment variance, a Lot Development Option (LDO) modification, Project Design Option (PDO) modification, or Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) together with the date and conditions of approval or, if the review has not been completed, a statement that it is in process. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 7. Add a note stating that the plat has been designed to meet the RCP overlay zone criteria, per LUC section 3.6.1. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 8. All existing or proposed easements must be drawn, labeled, and dimensioned. All existing easements must be labeled with the recordation information. DS 2-03.2.3.C and 2-03.2.4.J 9. Add the curb to property line dimension. DS 2-03.2.3.D All structures must meet the minimum street perimeter building setback, which is based on the greatest of 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the structure. Revise the annotation (keynote 45) to reflect the required setback of 20 feet or 1-1/2 the height of the structure from the street property line. Revise the keynote dimension on the drawing accordingly. Also, per LUC section 3.2.5.3. B and .C, Specifically Within Residential Zones. The structures used for an accessory use within a residential zone shall comply with the following. B. Accessory structures shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, unless attached to a principal structure. If attached to the principal structure, maximum height permitted is the same as for the principal structure. C. Detached accessory structures are not allowed in the buildable area extending the full width of the lot between the principal structure and the front street lot line, except for terraces and steps not over three (3) feet high above the natural grade, paved areas, and fences or walls. The proposed carport structures may not be placed in the street perimeter yard unless the carport structures are attached to the principal structures. Please remove the carport structures. (If the carports will remain as proposed via a Board of Adjustment approval add detail drawings of the carport structures to the plan. The detail drawings should include height, width and length dimensions. The drawings should also include the location of the vertical support members to verify that the placement will not affect the parked cars or the opening of the car doors. Carports (fascia or roof member) must be setback one foot from the back of the parking space. Revise the drawing as required. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this specific issue based on the revision to the drawing and response to this comment by the consultant. In addition the above requirements all carports must be setback the greatest of 10 feet or ¾ the height of the structure. DS 2-03.2.4.M 10. The common areas should be labeled based on the proposed or specific use, i.e. the parking lot/vehicular use area should not have the same common area designation as the recreation common area. Please revise the common area designations appropriately and define the purpose of each area, i.e. vehicular use, recreation, landscape, etc. DS 2-03.2.4.C 11. This development is proposed similar to an apartment complex rather than the typical subdivision with streets and on street parking. Based on this proposal the parking calculations as listed on the plan will not work. The number of vehicle parking spaces that must be provided for each unit is 2 per unit plus one additional visitor parking space for each unit. The parking calculation must be revised and the drawing must be designed to accommodate the number of required parking spaces. A total of 33 spaces must be provided on each of the sites. DS 2-03.2.3.F All parking spaces that are adjacent to a vertical structure, which is taller than six inches in height, must be revised to meet a minimum of ten feet in width. The spaces in question are the ones adjacent to the refuse enclosure. 12. Dimension all PAAL areas and driveway entrances. Label the distance between the carport structures. The minimum distance required is 26 feet. DS 2-03.2.4.F 13. Per ANSI A117.1-2003-503.2, All handicapped parking spaces must be 20 feet in length. Revise the handicapped parking spaces. 14. The following comments are related to the requirements or criteria of the RCP overlay standards 2-10 A. Add a detail drawing depicting the building setbacks for the proposed units. The detail drawing should include the setbacks from interior property lines and perimeter boundary lines. B. Please ensure that the following information has been provided on the plan, developable area, density for each lot (remove the note stating 80 units each site), the site coverage for each site should be listed separately, and the required number of parking spaces must be listed for each site. C. Add a detail drawing depicting how the barrier free accessibility is to be provided to each unit. D. If the area is within an adopted neighborhood or area plan, submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with the design requirements of such adopted plans as required in LUC Section 3.6.1.4.A.1. E. The development area is less than four acres in size. When a project is less than four acres, submit drawings, photographs or a combination of both showing how the architectural compatibility requirements of LUC section 3.6.1.4.A.3 will be met. F. On lot of 4,000 square feet or less the following must be submitted or addressed on the plan. On lots of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, it will be assumed that the lot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling unit; therefore, on projects with lots of this size, floor plans will not be required. However, 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 that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: 1. Provide 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., would still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. 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., would still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. (This section may not apply if the same model plan is used on all lots.) The following items are related to the criteria found in LUC section 3.6.1 (RCP). Indicate per the mechanical note if the mechanical equipment will be roof mounted or ground mounted next to the building. If the equipment will be roof mounted add a detail drawing to the plan demonstrating how the equipment is to be screened from the adjacent residential developments. If the equipment is to be ground mounted add a note stating how the equipment is to be screened, i.e. perimeter boundary wall etc. 15. See the landscape reviewer comments related to requirements for landscape borders, NPPO, and screening. 16. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revised plan and responses to any of the zoning comments. 17. Add a detail drawing for the proposed 10-foot high fence along the east and west property lines. The drawing must clearly demonstrate that 75% of the fence area above the six-foot height allowance will be open. Please keep in mind that any portion of the fence above six feet that is completely opaque must be approved through a DDO process. 18. Delineate and label the storage areas listed under the site coverage calculations. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05182tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat and additional requested documents. |
| 11/23/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | November 23, 2005 TO: Steven Gregor, P.E. Gregor & Grenier Engineering, Inc. 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: Third Street Lofts, Lots 1-22 and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S05-182 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 South Rillito West (South 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. Based on the evaluation of historical sewer improvement district maps, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates for lots 1-11 and Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates for lots 12-22. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-182, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 2. Revise both proposed private sewers to be eight inches in diameter using 0.44% as the minimum slope (except terminal reaches to be no less than one percent) or use six inch diameter sewers at no less than 0.50 percent slope. Private sewer designs will be required to show calculations that will show velocities between three and ten feet per second. These calculations are not required at this time but will be required upon submitting to Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. 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. 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, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 12/08/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 8, 2005 Steven Gregor Gregor and Grenier Engineering, Inc. 5232 East Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, AZ 85712 Subject: S05-182 Third Street Lofts Tentative Plat Dear Steve: Your submittal of October 12, 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 (Environmental Services, Addressing, Community Planning, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (engineering, landscape, community planning, zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Floor Plans and Elevations (zoning, community planning, 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: 319-1181 |