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 - MINOR SUBD REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-101
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - MINOR SUBD REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/29/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/30/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/31/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 09/13/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The NPP request is not approved for the following reasons. Submittal of the City of Tucson Native Plant Preservation Application for Exception is required. The application can be accessed at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/NPPOapp.pdf. Provide close up photos of existing vegetation and provide photos document if plants are located on the subject site or on adjacent properties. DS 2-15.2.0 |
| 09/21/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S06-101 Glenn Street Estates Minor Subdivision Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 18, 2006 DUE DATE: September 27, 2006 COMMENTS: Because a final plat was not provided and reviewed for the next submittal will required a full review by CDRC (4 weeks). Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. General Note: From previous review comments it is apparent that there has been some miscommunication happening as to what is required from the applicant for a minor subdivision review. For clarification a minor subdivision requires a final plat and an additional sheet(s) that provides the information for the reviewer to determine if zoning compliance is achieved. A tentative plat is not required which is the purpose of the minor subdivision. Unfortunately due to misdirection a tentative plat has been prepared but is not required. Review for final plat compliance will not be done until submitted by the applicant as provided in Development Standard 2-03.6.0. This current review will focus on the actual zoning compliance of the site per the Land Use Code and Development Standards as a minor subdivision and development regulations. 1. The final plat has been assigned the number S06-101. Please correct the case number, which is listed as S06-1101 on all sheets of the final plat and associated sheets. DS 2-03.6.1.K 2. Provide as note on the site plan what the existing zoning is (R-2). 3. The minimum lot size utilizing development designator "I" is 5,000 sq. ft. It appears that this is not being met when utilizing Common Area. To develop a subdivision with lot sizes less would require a Residential Cluster Project (RCP). Instead of a common area an ingress/egress easement over the vehicle and pedestrian circulation area is to be shown and executed by the minor subdivision. 4. On the site plan please create a table for the development criteria that address development designator "I". Provide information for each lot if different. Lots with similar criteria can be grouped together. Lot Size - Minimum required (5,000 sq. ft.) and Proposed ______ Lot Coverage - Maximum Allowed (70%) and Proposed ______ Units Per Lot - Maximum Allowed (1) and Proposed (1) Building Height - Maximum Allowed (25 ft.) and Proposed ______(do not express in number of stories) LUC 3.2.3.1.B 5. Please provide two (2) lot typicals showing building setback requirements. Dimensioned elevations would aid in determining required setbacks. One (1) typical should be created for lots 1 and 5 and another one should provide setback information for lots 2-4. As a note please be aware that building height and building wall height as it relates to setbacks are calculated differently. (see LUC Sec 3.2.6.3 & LUC 3.2.7.2 Setbacks required for new streets ADT of 140 or less is the greater of 5 ft or ½ height of proposed exterior building wall from back of future curb or 1 ft. from property line or from the nearest edge of future sidewalk. Setback required for interior lot lines is the greater of 6 ft. or 2/3 height of proposed exterior wall from the property line. The setback required for Glenn Street (MS&R designation) is the greater of 21 ft. or height of exterior building wall measured from back of future curb. Garages are measured either nineteen (19) feet from back of sidewalk (18 feet on property) or for ADT of 140 or less one (1) foot back of sidewalk with the parking structure on-site and the distance between the street pavement and garage face is eight (8) feet or less. 6. The patio covers along Glenn are sited within the required MS&R setback of twenty-one (21) feet. Please revise plan by removing covers. LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1 7. The PAAL provides access to more than two (2) units requiring it to be designed as a street per access requirements and definitions. Local streets must be designed with visitor parking on both sides of the street, unless parking is provided in gang parking areas distributed throughout the subdivision, at a ratio of one parking space per dwelling unit within the subdivision. See Figure 2 - Typical Cross Section in DS 3-01. Visitor parking spaces cannot be located in required turnarounds unless approved by Engineering, Fire, and Environmental Services and would require a DSMR. Parking as shown does not provide adequate space to allow vehicles to back out without using private lots and also provides a hazard for residents to back out of garages without potentially hitting a park vehicle in a visitor parking space. DS 3-01.2.4.D & DS 3-01.10.0 figure 23 8. An accessible continuous pedestrian path is required to connect all parts of the minor subdivision. Curb ramps will be required at the T-intersection connecting east and west and one connection to the south. Curb ramps or diagonal curb ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crossings of vehicle use areas and streets where accessible routes are required. They shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles. ANSI 406 Curb ramps shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in width, exclusive of flared sides. The curb ramp flares shall not be steeper than 1:10. Counter slopes of adjoining gutters and road surfaces immediately adjacent to the curb ramp shall not be steeper than 1:20. The adjacent surfaces at transitions at curb ramps to walks, gutters and streets shall be at the same level. ANSI 406.2, 3, & 4 All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 9. Please remove keynotes 23-28. These will be provided on requested lot typicals/elevations. 10. All variances (DDO, DSMR) must be applied for and approved prior to final plat approval. Place the variance number(s) on the site plan, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. 11. Please revise the plan for compliance and fully dimension the proposed street on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-101msr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Final plat, revised site plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 09/25/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 21, 2006 To: Tim McCann, Tetra Tech Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Glenn Street Estates Lots 1-5 Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S06-101 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. The Director’s letter, granting permission to construct a private sewer collection system to ADEQ standards, has been received. The change in sewer design has rendered many of the items from the May 24th review letter to be inappropriate or irrelevant to the current design. I am attaching a link to the to the tentative plat procedures for future reference: http://www.pimaxpress.com/Subdivision/PlatDocs/TP_Requirements.PDFSheet All Sheets: Item # 3 of the May 24, 2006 review letter has not been satisfactorily addressed. Add the corrected subdivision case number, S06-101, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheet 1: Revise the Legend block so that it shows: MANHOLES, CLEANOUTS and PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWERS. Sheet 1: General Notes 1. and 23. contain different land area values. Why? Sheet 1: Delete General Note #8. Sheet 1: Due to the change in design, General Note #9 needs to be corrected. Revise General Note #9 so that it now states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. 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 THE PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THE REQUIRED OFF-SITE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER LINE WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: A PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WILL BE FORMED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND CONTROL OF ALL SHARED PRIVATE SEWERS. Sheet 2: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 2: The proposed public sewer (G-2006-141) elements are displayed on this site plan but they are not properly identified. Revise the site plan so that: The proposed public sewer elements are labeled with manhole numbers, pipe material, pipe diameter, pipe length, pipe slope and plan number. Sheet 2: The new public sewer design has made the language of Keynote #14 irrelevant to this plan. Revise Keynote #14 so that: The correct PC/COT standard detail numbers for the appropriate manhole and appropriate method of connection are sited by the keynote. Refer to G-2006-141. Sheet 2: The inlet invert elevation and the outlet invert elevation, displayed at the proposed public manhole at the entry to this project, are 1.21 feet apart. This type of drop manhole design is discouraged by PCWMD. Revise the sewer design so that: A smooth consistent flow rate is maintained in the pipe from the building to the connection into the existing 18”public sewer system. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $ $78.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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 at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 09/27/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Glenn Street Estates Tentative Plat. The activity number is S06-101. SECOND SUBMITTAL SUMMARY: The Minor Subdivision Review Package and Drainage Statement were received by Engineering on August 29th, 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision Review Package. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, GRADING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: FINAL PLAT, ASSURANCE PACKAGE, CC&Rs, BOUNDARY CLOSURE CALCULATIONS APPROVED: DRAINAGE STATEMENT (Drainage statement is approved at this time. Any changes to the plan that effect drainage may result in a request for a revised Drainage Statement) GENERAL COMMENTS 1. For clarification a minor subdivision submittal requires a final plat and additional sheet(s) that provide information for the reviewer to determine engineering compliance. A tentative plat is not required for a minor subdivision review. Unfortunately due to misdirection a tentative plat has been prepared but is not required. Review for final plat compliance will not be done until the applicant submits a final plat. The final plat must meet Development Standard 2-03.6.0. This current review will focus on engineering compliance of the site per the Development Standards for street design, site plan content and any other applicable standards that apply. 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, and a Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included 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. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. The next submittal must address the following items: MINOR SUBDIVSION COMMENTS 1. Remove the word "Tentative Plat Plans For" from the title of the first sheet. The title should read, "Glenn Street Estates." Revise plan appropriately. DS 2-03.2.1.G. 2. Revise the title block of each sheet of the Minor Subdivision Package to read the intent of the specific sheet. For example sheet 1, first line of the title block should read, "cover sheet," and the second line the verbiage "tentative plat plans for," should be removed and read, "Glenn Street Estates, Lots 1-5." The second sheet the first line of the tile block is correct, however the second line should remove the verbiage "tentative plat plans for," and only read "Glenn Street Estates, Lots 1-5." Each sheet should continue the pattern. Revise each sheet appropriately. 3. When access is to 3 or more lots a street is required. This project is proposing more than three lots and is required to provide a street. The proposed project must provide a street with parking and 5' sidewalks on both sides of the street. Provide a street that meets the requirements of DS 3-01 figure 2. Show a cross section of the street on the detail sheet. LUC 3.2.8.3.B. 4. Parking is proposed within the turnaround area for the street. Per DS 3-016.2.C2. parking is not allowed in the turnaround area of a street. This proposal will not be approved. Be advised a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) will not be approved by the Engineering Division. (see Zoning's comment number 7) If you have any questions regarding why a DSMR will not approved for this modification, contact Matt Flick at 791-5550 extension 1192. Revise the plan to show parking on both sides of the required street. 5. Lot lines must be distinguishable from other lines on the plat. Dashed line appears to indicate the lot lines. However the dashed lines are difficult to determine within the street. Lot lines should be distinguishable from other line weights on the plan. Typically lot lines (property lines) are a solid black line. Revise the plan to clearly show each lot with a solid black line. Be aware the other line weights must also be visible. Provide the property line weight in the legend. DS 2-03.2.1.J.1. 6. Provide bearings on all lot lines on all applicable sheets. DS 2-03.2.3.B. The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. It is acknowledged bearings have been provided for the east, west and south boundary of the project. However it is difficult to determine if bearings and dimensions have been provided for the north boundary of the site because of all the different lines weights for easements and utilities. Lighten some of the line weights that surround the North bearing and dimension for clarity. All sheets must be revised appropriately. In addition to the above comment bearings and dimensions must be provided for each of the proposed 5 lots. Revise appropriately. (See comment 5) 7. It is not clear if each lot includes the street and an ingress/egress easement is proposed. Clarify if the street is included in each lot. Revise appropriately. DS 2-03.2.4.A. 8. If an easements for ingress/egress is proposed the easement must be dimensioned and labeled as to the purpose and whether they will be public or private. Revise the plat appropriately. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.4.J. 9. The subdivision case number in the lower hand corner of each sheet is not correct. The subdivision case number is S06-101. Revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1. 10. Provide from street centerline a dimension to the existing curb. Label the dimension appropriately. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.D. 11. Provide the recordation data for Glenn Street on the site plan. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.D. 12. Glenn Street is a designated collector street per the Major Street and Route Plan (MS&R Plan), which has a future ROW width of 64". It is acknowledged that a 64' dimension has been provided; however the label with the dimension is not correct. The correct label is "Future MS & R ROW." Remove the word "new" and replace with "Future MS & R ROW." 13. Keynote 11 depicts a proposed 5' sidewalk along Glenn Street. Projects along an MS&R Street are required to have 6' sidewalks. Revise the site plan and keynote 11 to show 6' sidewalks. 14. It is acknowledged future SVTs have been added to the plat, however keynote 4 and 5 should read, "Future Site Visibility Triangle, Near Side 20 feet x 265 feet." Remove the word "proposed" and "vertical." Revise the keynotes appropriately. DS 2-03.2.4.R. 15. A clear line of sight from 30" to 6' must be maintained for a local road to a collector street. The plat shows covered patios within the SVT. The proposed covered patios are not approvable within the SVT. Revise the plat to show the covered patios outside both the future and existing SVT. DS 3-01.5.0. The response to this comment is not acceptable. The response comment stated, "It is proposed that the covered patios provide unobstructed views through the SVTs." Lines of sight will not be obstructed between 30" and 6'. Providing a structure (the porch) within the SVT is not approvable. Revise the plat to show the porch located outside the SVT. (See Zoning Comment number 6) In addition to the above comment the screen wall located on the west property line encroaches into the SVT approximately 6 or 7'. Revise the plat to show the wall outside the near side SVT. 16. Include the cut and fill quantities on the first sheet, in addition to sheet 3. 17. In the construction notes shown on sheet 1, revise note number 4 to read, "All work shall comply to Grading Standards of the City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01." 18. On sheet 4, the detail sheet, remove D05-XXX from the title block. 19. On sheet 4, the detail sheet, two details 1 are shown. Remove one of the details, two of the same detail is not necessary. 20. On sheet 4, the detail sheet, a dumpster enclosure is shown. The site and grading do not show a proposed dumpster. Please clarify and revise appropriately. DS 6-01. 21. On sheet 4, the detail sheet, detail A the Access Drive-Typical Section, is not shown on the site or the grading plan. It also appears the detail section is for a commercial project, with a PAAL and parking. Please clarify and revise appropriately. 22. Final Plat document must be provided with the next submittal. Please know that I am willing to review the Minor Subdivision Package prior to the formal submittal. 23. Please note that depending on how each comment is addressed additional comments could be forthcoming on subsequent reviews. DRAINAGE STATEMENT COMMENTS 1. Indicate in the statement the offsite to onsite and onsite to offsite for the existing and proposed 100-peak discharge. Provide this information in the statement and show on the plat view the location of the discharge points and include the existing and proposed Q. The above comment is from the first review. The existing and proposed Q has not been provided on the plan. This information should be on the site and grading plan. Revise both plans to show the existing and proposed quantities. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS 1. Please be advised a separate grading review will be required. When the Minor Subdivision Package is close to approval, it is recommended to submit the grading plans at that time. When a formal submittal occurs, a formal review of the grading plan will take place. When a grading plan is submitted with a Minor Subdivision Package a preliminary review of grades occur. A formal grading review will occur when the grading plan is formally submitted for a grading permit. If you have any questions about this process please contact me. (See General Comment 5 and 6) 2. Be aware the provided grading plan will need more finish grades and exiting grades (contours and/or spot elevations) once the grading plan is submitted for formal grading review and to obtain a grading permit. |
| 09/27/2006 | 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: S06-101 GLENN STREET ESTATES/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 9/27/06 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: 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ES |
| 09/28/2006 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Denied | 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: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor's Office Mapping Department DATE: September 26, 2006 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Final Plat S06-101 GLENN STREET ESTATES T131433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ____X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE RECORDING: 1. THE LOT LINES ARE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED. 2. ADD DIMS AND BEARINGS TO EACH LOT. 3. DID NOT SEE A SECTION TIE WITH DIMS AND BEARINGS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390 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. ROSANNA WERNER |
| 09/29/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-RECORDATION | REVIEW | Needs Review | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 29, 2006 Tim McCann Tetra Tech, Inc., 33 North Stone Avenue, Suite 1500 Tucson, AZ 85701 Subject: S06-101 - Glenn Street Estates Final Plat Dear Tim: Your submittal of August 29, 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 BECAUSE THE FIRST AND SECOND SUBMITTALS OF THIS PLAT DID NOT INCLUDE A FINAL PLAT DOCUMENT, THE NEXT SUBMITTAL MUST BE A FULL MINOR SUBDIVISON PLAT SUBMITTAL. IN ADDITION, PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING, 2 Copies Grading Plan (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Boundary Closure Calculations (Engineering, DSD), 3 Copies CC&R's (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 884-5278 |
| 09/29/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 29, 2006 Tim McCann Tetra Tech, Inc., 33 North Stone Avenue, Suite 1500 Tucson, AZ 85701 Subject: S06-101 - Glenn Street Estates Minor Subdivision Final Plat Dear Tim: Your submittal of August 29, 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 BECAUSE THE FIRST AND SECOND SUBMITTALS OF THIS PLAT DID NOT INCLUDE A FINAL PLAT DOCUMENT, THE NEXT SUBMITTAL MUST BE A FULL MINOR SUBDIVISON PLAT SUBMITTAL. IN ADDITION, PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING, 2 Copies Grading Plan (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Boundary Closure Calculations (Engineering, DSD), 3 Copies CC&R's (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 884-5278 |
| 09/29/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | August 2, 2007 Tim McCann Tetra Tech, Inc. 33 North Stone Avenue, Suite 1500 Tucson, AZ 85701 SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF CDRC CASE Minor subdivision under review The owner of the minor subdivision listed below has requested that the file be closed. Case # Case Name Plat approval date S06-101 Glenn Street Estates N/A Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager xc: CDRC file S06-101 |