Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S11-036
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
3035 E 5TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW

Plan Number - S11-036
Review Name: MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/20/2011 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
07/20/2011 FERNE RODRIGUEZ COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Passed
07/21/2011 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Fire Comments:

Sheet C-4

Please show the hydrant at 5th and Country Club.

Indicate the gate will have Fire Department locks.

If the plans were prepared by an Arizona Registrant they must be sealed.
07/25/2011 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approv-Cond 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: Sherry Hyde
Senior Property Technician
Pima County Assessor’s Office


DATE: 7/22/11


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding
S11-036 THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements.
_______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements.

COMMENTS: THE TITLE BLOCK IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS OR UNITS LISTED.

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.
07/27/2011 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied SUBJECT: S11-036
THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES - MINOR SUBDIVISION

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has received the final plat submitted for review for the above referenced minor subdivision. TEP is unable to approve the plat at this time.

An electrical design to determine our easement requirements must be completed prior to plat approval and any easements required for electrical service must be dedicated per the final plat.

Plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Please submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to mburke@tep.com<mailto:mburke@tep.com>

Please contact me at (520) 917-8744 if you have any questions.


Mary Burke
Associate Right of Way Agent
Tucson Electric Power Company
4350 E. Irvington Road
Mail Stop DS315
Tucson, AZ 85714
520-917-8744 Office
520-401-9895 Cell
mburke@tep.com
07/27/2011 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved S11-036 THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES: MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Regional Traffic Engineering has no comment on this submittal and recommends approval of the development.
It will have no impact on any existing ADOT facilities.
Thank you.


Monica M. Soto

Government Intern
Arizona Department of Transportation
Tucson District
MSoto@azdot.gov<mailto:MSoto@azdot.gov>
08/03/2011 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. Insure Compliance with Inclusive Home Design Ordinance 10463. Provide a new general note referencing to that effect.
Do not add these notes to drawing
THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING:
a. As per Section 1003.2, Provide at least one accessible entrance on an accessible route from public…areas.
b. Reference Section 103.1, Wavier of Provisions in this Standard.
2. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking.
a. Include alll accessible requirements of ICC/ANSI, Section 502 including all dimensions, signage, slopes, ramps as required, symbols, van accessible parkings, slopes and striping.
b. Provide large scale details of all different types of ramps as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 405 and 406 as required. Include all dimensions, slopes, curbs, flared sides and detectable warnings strips if part of a marked crossing as per section 406.12 and 406.14, landings and clearances as required.
END OF REVIEW
08/08/2011 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Denied I have an issue with the lack of lighting on several corners of the proposed buildings. Ex: "A" there is a dead zone on the North West and the South East corners. "B" there is an issue on the North West and South East corners as well.
This is from looking at the electrical plan of the site plans.
08/08/2011 FERNE RODRIGUEZ PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied PIMA COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT
201 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207
JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500
DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135


August 5, 2011

To: RENE A.G. PINA
WG GASSER DESIGN

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department


____________________________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Subject: THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES, LOTS 1-9
Site Plan – 1st Submittal
S11-036

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use:
The development plan submitted is significantly deficient. Refer to Pima County Development Services “Development Plan Review, Checklist Requirements” section J. WASTEWATER, for submittal requirements. The checklist is available at;

http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/DevPlanReq.pdf

Consider revising the points of sewer connection shown to one location instead of three. Connection should be shown as either to the existing stubout on 5th St or if a larger BCS is required then convert C.O. # 8042*15 to a new public MH and connect at the new manhole. (Ref D,H, I )

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 development plan. 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 second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (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.



cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________
Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager
DLU Project folder


Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J
http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf

Ref. B. - Tentative Plat Requirements – Chapter 18.69 of the Pima County Code – Section I
http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/PDFs/2007/TentativePlatReview.pdf

Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205)
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm
and (R-18-9-E301)
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm

Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988)
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf

Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf

Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona

Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition
http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf

Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/
08/10/2011 FRODRIG2 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied Date Case Number Project Address
August 9, 2011 S11-036 Sam Hughes
Subdivision Plan

Comments: Denied
The proposed Subdivision Plan for the Sam Hughes Development
Case No. S11-036, does not meet the minimum requirements for the
Environmental Services, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal Standard 6-01.0.

The method of solid waste and recycle disposal service should be stated on the
general notes.

The location where solid waste and recycle containers are to be stored must be
clearly labeled and shown on the development plan.

Environmental Services Department
Development Plan Review
Reviewer: Tony Teran
Office Phone (520) 837-3706
E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov
08/11/2011 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Rejected - Additional information/detail is required for the proposed gate along Country Club. Is it in Right of Way, show pedestrian access.

Show sight visibility triangles along Bently Avenue.

Review conducted by Zelin Canchola
08/15/2011 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied AUDREY FARENGA
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 740-6800
FAX #: 623-5411


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW
SUBJECT: S11-036 THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES/FINAL PLAT
DATE: August 11, 2011



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:

Delete all the street directions (E & N) on the Location Map.
On all title blocks add Final Plat, a re-subdivision of and a brief legal description and township, range and section.
Delete 3033 E 6th Street on sheets 1 and 2.
08/17/2011 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL


FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planning Technician

PROJECT:
S11-036
The Retreat in Sam Hughes:
Minor Subdivision ; 1st review


TRANSMITTAL: September 12, 2011


REVISED COMMENTS

COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.


Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a final plat. If, at the end of that time, the final 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 final plat is July 20, 2011.

This proposed subdivision is located in the R-1 zone (LUC Section 3.2.4). The Development Designator for a single-family residence (SFR) is "G" with a minimum lot size of seven thousand (7,000) square feet (LUC Sections 2.3.4.A.1 and 3.2.3.1.B). The minimum lot size for a single-family residence (SFR) with a smaller second unit (LUC Section 3.5.7.1.C) is ten thousand (10,000) square feet (LUC Sections 3.2.4.A.2 and 3.2.3.1.B). Both dwellings must be under the same ownership (LUC Section 3.5.7.1.A).


A) The following comments are for the Final Plat and are review under DS 2-03.6.

1) There are no easements provided on the Final Plat for pedestrian circulation as depicted on the supporting site plan. (The site plan also does not have the one (1) foot no vehicular access easement depicted on the Final Plat.) Also a portion of the sewer easement is not on the Final Plat.

2) The subdivision case number (S11-036) shall be placed in the lower right corner of the plat next to the title block on each sheet (DS 2-03.6.1.K).

3) If there are to be protective covenants and maintenance agreements for the access and parking easement, and the private sewer easement provide such agreements with the next submittal (DS 2-03.6.5).


B) The following comments are for the supporting site plan and are reviewed under DS 2-02:

1) Note that density calculations are not required, nor are such calculation appropriate to single-family development in the R-1 zone (LUC Section 3.2.3.1.B). This Section of the LUC (3.2.3.1.B) is identified as the: "Low Density matrix. Development criteria in this matrix are used for low-density urban zones. The criteria are primarily for the single parcel, detached, single-family dwelling." It simply states the number of units permitted on each lot. Density calculations are required for multifamily developments in the R-2 and more intensive zones (LUC Section 3.2.3.1.C). Remove all reference to density calculations from the plans.

2) Provide the "location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage" (DS 2-02.2.1.A.13).

3) Fully dimension the right-of-way (ROW) and future right-of-way (F/ROW) along with the future curb location (11'-0" from F/ROW) on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 & 21) for Country Club Road. Also provide the dimensions for 5th Street from the center line to curb and property line (ROW) on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.19).

4) "All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference" (DS 2-02.2.1.A.20). The one (1) foot no vehicular access easement, on the Final Plat, is not on the site plan. (Note that the final plat does not have all the proposed easements depicted on the site plan.)

5) Provide the "existing and proposed lighting layout and type" on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.25).

6) Provide the zoning of the adjacent lots on the site plan (Sheet T-1) (DS 2-02.2.1.A.28).

7) If necessary: "Prior approvals, such as Development Review Board, Lot Development Option, Board of Adjustment, Historic Advisory Board, and Historical Commission" (DS 2-02.2.1.A.38).

8) Keynote 22 for motorcycle parking also points to gates throughout the subdivision. Keynote 20 points to what appears to be other fences on the site plan besides those for recycle bin enclosures. Please revise.

9) Key note 15, the restricted access gate is placed in the ROW. A ROW use permit shall be required.

10) The parking calculations on the site plan appear to be confusing. Are there two units with five (5) bedrooms and one unit with six (6) bedrooms on each lot with a "H" development designator or are there a total of six (6) bedrooms in each of the units ? (DS 2-02.A.4 and LUC Section 3.5.7.1.G & .H).

11) Each lot in a subdivision is reviewed individually for coverage calculations and the structures on each lot shall need to make setback to the property lines (LUC Sections 3.2.3.1.B and 3.2.6.4 and DS 2-02.2.A.6). In addition, the parking calculation must be provided on the plot plans for each lot.


The purpose of the R-1 is stated as: "This zone provides for urban, low density, single-family, residential development, together with schools, parks and other public services necessary for a satisfactory urban residential environment" (LUC Section 2.3.4.1 Purpose). This statement is unique to the R-1 zone in the Land Use Code (LUC).

The minor-subdivision presented provides for nine (9) lots, with a total of seventeen (17) units that overall functions as a single site. A site is defined as: "The land area consisting of a lot or contiguous lots, not including dedicated public property, designated for development as a single entity and exclusive of any abutting public right-of-way" (LUC Section 6.2.19 Site). This site provides a common parking lot and requires cross parking and cross access easements for vehicles and residents. This site, as proposed on the site plan, appears to be a multifamily development. This site, as presented, shall function more as an apartment complex appropriate to a more intense residential zone, such as R-2, rather than a subdivision for single-family homes.

The purpose for the R-2 zone is stated as: "This zone provides for medium density, single-family and multifamily, residential development, together with schools, parks, and other public services necessary for an urban residential environment" (LUC Section 2.3.5.1 Purpose).

A multifamily development or apartment complex cannot be approved in the R-1 zone.

It might be best to provide supporting documents based upon a Tentative Plat. Look at DS 2-03.2.1 for the format. This is often the approach for a Minor Subdivision.

The subdivision could be developed using the Group B Criteria (LUC Section 4.2.2.2). Note the street requirements: "The proposed subdivision creates no more than one (1) new street, provided the street is designed with provisions for on-street parking on both sides and there are no special design considerations, unless such street is a collector or arterial" (LUC Section 4.2.2.2.C).

"All lots shall be designed with legal access to a public street" (LUC Section 3.2.14.5). The access must be developed as a public street where there are three or more single-family homes (LUC Sections 3.2.8.3.B and 3.2.14.5.B). The site as presented has seventeen (17) units. This subdivision must meet the requirements for a public street (LUC Sections 3.2.8.3.B and 3.2.14.5.B).
08/17/2011 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S11-036 The Retreat in Sam Hughes 8/4/11

(X) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO

COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/18/11

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:







REVIEWER: Jbeall 837-6966 DATE: 8/4/11


Comments




Note: The proposed project is within the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan which calls for maintaining the quiet, single-family residential character of the Sam Hughes Neighborhood. The Plan is specific where high density residential and nonresidential uses are to be located. The proposed project, the Retreat in Sam Hughes, indicates this is a single-family residential project, however the General Notes section of the plat appears to be confusing.

1) Please correct the Zoning information on sheet T-1 so as not to mix building and zoning classifications. Please indicate that this is R-1 Zoning, single-family residential. Please correct the family dwelling indicator to include ‘H’ and ‘G’. No need to include R-3 building classification on the sheet.

2) There does not appear to be any reason for the density calculation section – please remove.

3) Under Zoning information it makes mention of each lot having 5 or greater bedrooms. Is this per unit? How many units will have 5 or greater bedrooms. Please indicate this information of sheet T-1.

4) Please note the Zoning Administrator’s letter which references that this project is being proposed as a single-family residential project and requires compliance with the conditions and restrictions included in a recent determination by the Zoning Adminstrator.
08/18/2011 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied PDSD Landscape

Minor Subdivision

1) The landscape border shall be recorded as common area and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). The subdivision CC&Rs and shall reference the maintenance standards in Sec. 3.7.6. The DSD Director may allow the recording of a public use easement with the subdivision plat in cases where the requirements of this section is the only reason for the creation of an HOA. The public use easement shall require the abutting property owner to install and maintain a landscape border in accordance with the standards in this Division. (Ord. No. 9392, §1, 5/22/00)

Provide any necessary easements or common areas.

2) A number of additional documents (site, landscape, grading) were included with the submittal and but are not approved at this time. Several of these require seperate fees and reviews. That being said, the NPPO application is not approved specifically because the site does appear to contain protected native plants contrary to the statement in the application. See LUC 3.8.5 for the species list.

The landscape plan will require revision to address a number of issues including use of the public right-of-way, plan preparation and graphic standards and missing content, screening of the site, and the standards for vehicular use areas.
08/18/2011 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved
08/18/2011 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: August 18, 2011
CDRC/Zoning Manager

SUBJECT: The Retreat in Sam Hughes
Final Plat S11-036 (First Review)
T14S, R15E, Section 08

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Final Plat.

The Final Plat (FP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Final Plat:

1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the FP.
2. Separate Site and Grading plan submittals are required. As per a phone conversation with Raul Pina, P.E. on Aug. 18, 2011, it was agreed that there are many issues that need to be resolved on the improvement plans that could impact the FP and are not commented on with this submittal. Depending on the extent of the improvements, additional comments to the FP may be forth coming.
3. A meeting to discuss the requirements for the FP and improvement plans has been set for Aug. 25th, 2011.
4. All easements must be recorded prior to FP approval.
5. The Alley abandonment issue must be resolved prior to FP approval.
6. Update general note no. 7 with the latest FEMA FIRM panel information.
7. Submit the Subdivision Improvement Assurances for review. The following items are required in the assurance package if a Third Party Trust Agreement will be used:
" Title Report
" Special Warranty Deed
" Trust Agreement
" Amendment to Trust
" Agreement to Construct
8. Submit the above documents containing original signatures, copies of the documents and signatures will not be forwarded to the City of Tucson attorney for review.
3. Replace the words "Book ____ Page ____" with "Sequence No.____" in both the upper and lower right corners outside the margin line. The blanks will be completed by the Pima County Recorder's Office at the time of recordation.
4. The S(YR)-___ (S11-036) subdivision case number assigned to the approved final plat will be placed in the lower right corner of the plat next to the title block. If the property is subject to a rezoning case, the C9-__-__ rezoning case number is to be noted also.
5. A legend which shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing will be placed on either the first sheet of the plat or the first sheet which contains all or part of the subdivision drawing. See comment no. 8.
6. If the property is subject to conditions of rezoning, add the following note: "This plat is subject to the conditions of rezoning case number C9-__-__, unless superseded by a subsequent rezoning ordinance."
7. Indicate primary control points, or descriptions and ties to such control points, to which all dimensions, angles, bearings, and similar data on the plat will be referred. Where a coordinate system has been established by the City Engineer or County Engineer, primary control points may be referenced thereto. At least one (1) corner of the subdivision will be tied by course and distance to a section corner, a quarter section corner, or an established City or County survey monument. The plat must include a description of that corner marker and an indication of how the bearings were determined. Corner tie recordation information is to be provided on the plat. The quarter corners of the section are shown, but the metes and bounds shall also be included to provide a "tie".
8. All boundary monumentation must be labeled as "found" or "set."
i. Fully describe and show all markings on found monuments.
ii. A one-half (½) inch iron rod tagged by a registered land surveyor will be set at all corners upon completion of construction. The symbol used on the map for the proposed "set monuments" does not match the legend on the cover sheet.
9. Please submit a copy of the subdivision boundary closure calculations.

Drainage Report:
1. The DR has been accepted for FP review purposes only.
2. It appears that the WH basins are located 5' in the public right-of-way. Although acceptable in certain cases, basins are generally not allowed in the R/W. Provide documentation from TDOT allowing a portion of the WH basins in the R/W.
3.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:
1. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is traditionally reviewed along with the Grading Plan permit application and submittal. A cursory review cannot be completed without the grading plan submittal. It is not necessary to include the SWPPP along with the re-submittal of the FP.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov
Paul P. Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
City of Tucson - Planning and Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 837-4932 office
(520) 879-8010 fax
C:/3035 E. 5th St. FP
08/18/2011 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: September 15, 2011
CDRC/Zoning Manager

SUBJECT: The Retreat in Sam Hughes
Final Plat S11-036 (Supplement Review)
T14S, R15E, Section 08

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Final Plat.

The Final Plat (FP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Final Plat:

1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the FP.
2. A cul-de-sac modified a hammerhead easement for fire is required for this development per LUC Sec.3.2.8.3 Width of Access. "A. The minimum width required for access to a parcel is that dimension sufficient to provide for the type of access, per Sec. 3.2.8.2. The minimum required width is based on access improvements being centered within the dimension. If the improvements are located off-center, an additional width may be required.
B. All lots shall be designed with access to a public street. If a proposed lot does not have public street
frontage, access must be provided by means of a private street or an access easement of sufficient size to
accommodate motor vehicle and pedestrian access and public services as required for the type of
development proposed for the lot.
If access is provided by an easement and the easement serves more than three (3) single-family homes or
duplexes, the City may require the easement to be developed as a street or as a parking area access lane
(PAAL). The determination as to whether a developed street or PAAL is required will be made at the
time of review of the proposed land division based on the need for public services, such as utilities, refuse
collection, and fire suppression, and on the projected average daily traffic (ADT) of the access easement."

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov
Paul P. Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
City of Tucson - Planning and Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 879-8010 fax
C:/3035 E. 5th St. FP Amended
08/19/2011 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed
08/19/2011 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved
08/19/2011 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
08/19/2011 JOHN WILLIAMS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

August 19, 2011

Michael Finkelstein
Quatro Vest, Inc.
3035 E. 5th St.
Tucson, Arizona 85716

Subject: S11-036 THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES Minor Subdivision

Dear Michael:

Your submittal of July 20, 2011 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 set of 14 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

14 Copies Revised Minor Plat (Fire, Assessor, TEP, Zoning HC, TPD, Wastewater, Env Svcs, Traffic, Addressing, Planning, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD)

5 Copies Landscape Plans (Planning, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD)

1 Set Original Assurances (PDSD)

1 Set Copy of Assurances (Engineering)

1 Check Made out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $100 (Wastewater)

Should you have any questions, please call me at (520) 837-4893.

Sincerely,


John Williams
Planning Technician

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: (520) 747-7336