Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - MINOR SUBD REVIEW
Plan Number - S11-036
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - MINOR SUBD REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/27/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/28/2011 | 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: Sherry Hyde Senior Property Technician Pima County Assessor’s Office DATE: 10/28/11 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding S11-036 THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES: RESUBMITTAL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: THANK YOUR FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. 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. |
| 11/03/2011 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this review. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 11/09/2011 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: S11-036 The Retreat in Sam Hughes: Minor Subdivision ; 2nd review Denied TRANSMITTAL: November 9, 2011 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, 2012. (Thank you.) 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). The following comments are for the Final Plat and are review under DS 2-03.6. 1) See comments numbered eight and nine. 2) Place subdivision case number (S11-036) next to the title block on each sheet (DS 2-03.6.1.K), within the borders of the drawings. The required margins for a Final Plat are two (2) inches on the left side and one and one-half (1½) inch on the remaining side (DS 2-03.6.1.B). 3) Clearly depict, with dimension, and identify the alley to the north of the proposed subdivision. 4) 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). This subdivision, as presented, does not fit this criterion. 5) 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, which provides cross access easements for vehicles and residents, with a seventy-five foot wide easement that is the full length of the site from east to west. This site, as proposed, 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. 6) 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). (See relevant comments by John Beal.) 7) A multifamily development or apartment complex cannot be approved in the R-1 zone. 8) 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). 9) "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 nine (9) lots and seventeen (17) units, all accessed via the parking lot. This subdivision must provide a street, rather than a PAAL, that meets the public street requirements (LUC Sections 3.2.8.3.B and 3.2.14.5.B). This requirement has been confirmed by the Director of Planning and Development Service Department, Ernie Duarte. 10) Please see the letters from the Zoning Administrator, Craig Gross dated August 1, 2011 and October 20, 2011. Also set the Determination Letter from Craig Gross dated September 28, 2011. 11) Additional comments shall be forthcoming relative to subsequent submittals. |
| 11/10/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 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/REVISED FINAL PLAT DATE: November 9, 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: 1. On the Location Map: a. Delete N of N Campbell Ave. b. Change SPDWY HTS 2,25 TO 2,29. c. Change ALTA VISTA ADD’N 3,27 TO 3,97. d. Change B Pennerdore Townhomes to Pennbrooke. e. Change F Encanto Court Bk 30, Pg 49 to Bk 38. f. Change H Jane Brook Bk 8, Pg 33 to Pg 23. g. Change L Himmel Addition Bk 5, Pg 5 to Pg 51. 2. Spell out all street suffixes except on the Location Map. |
| 11/10/2011 | 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 11/4/11 () Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Other – Minor Subdivision Final Plat CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/28/11 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 1. The previous submittal included Sheet T-1 which provided information as to the number of units per each lot and the number of bedrooms per each unit. The T-1 sheet indicated that 17 units were being proposed, with all the units having 5 or greater bedrooms. This information is missing in the 2nd resubmittal. Please provide a revised T-1 Sheet as requested in the previous review comments. 2. While the resubmittal indicates on Sheet 1 of 2 that the proposed project is zoned R-1 and will remain R-1, it is important that the applicant demonstrate and/or identify that the proposed residential project is an allowed use within the R-1 Zone. Per a determination by the Zoning Administrator, the occupancy on an R-1 lot by 5 or more persons who are unrelated is a group dwelling and is not allowed within the R-1 zone. Related persons are those who are related by blood or by law or legal custody. The project is within the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan which includes the following policies which calls out that on parcels not identified for commercial use per Map 4, then retain zoning for R-1 single-family uses. And high-density residential uses are appropriate in areas identified for commercial uses. The project site is not identified within the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan for commercial uses. If a rezoning is needed for the proposed project other than R-1 zoning, then an amendment to the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan would be required prior to any any rezoning process. Please provide information which could be a General Note that the proposed project meets the requirements of an allowed group dwelling in the R-1 Zone as determined by the Zoning Administrator. |
| 11/16/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment 1: a. There is no corrected sheet T-1 with this submittal and no note 14. 2.Comment 2: a. Non-responsive END OF REVIEW |
| 11/18/2011 | JWILLIA4 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Date Case Number Project Address November 18, 2011, S11-036 The Retreat in Sam Hughes Subdivision Plat Comments: The proposed Subdivision Plat Case No. S11-036, for The Retreat in Sam Hughes, located at Bently Avenue and 5th Street, meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste Disposal Standard 6-01.0 and is Approved. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/23/2011 | JWILLIA4 | 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 November 22, 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 – 2nd 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: 1. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD’s Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Ref. A 2. Call out the IMS #’s with rim and invert elevations for all of the existing public manholes and cleanouts on plan. Ref. A 2nd Request. 3. Sheet C-5: Call out the length and slope for proposed private sewer line segments between cleanouts. Also call out the rim and invert elevations for all of the proposed cleanouts on site. Ref. A 2nd Request. 4. The proposed sewer line for this development must cross the minimum amount of lots. It is understood per the November 21, 2011 meeting with PCRWRD staff that the proposed lot configuration will be changing to two lots only. Ref. A 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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/ |
| 11/28/2011 | 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 public easements for the landscape borders, in lieu of common areas, if applicable. 2) Site, landscape, grading, and NPPO plans to be reviewed by the PDSD Landscape Section with application #T11BU01415. |
| 11/28/2011 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: November 28, 2011 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: The Retreat in Sam Hughes Final Plat S11-036 (Second 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. The following comments were not addressed. Address all comments prior to the re-submittal. 3. 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 2 |
| 11/29/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | TDOT has no objections to the minor subdivision, but in the event that a street is required for the proposed development then TDOT-Traffic will require a new review for the proposed development/roadway. |
| 11/30/2011 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | UBJECT: S11-036 THE RETREAT IN SAM HUGHES - RESUBMITTAL - MINOR SUBDIVISION Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has received the final plat submitted for review on October 26, 2011. TEP is unable to approve the plat at this time. TEP has requested the following revisions to the Dedication language regarding easements: In the 6th line down starting with "property owners..." please insert 'public' between applicable and utility. Please insert 'access' after "purposes of" Also in the Easement Keynote Legend, Number 2 Please change "Private" to TEP. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Mary Burke Associate Right of Way Agent Tucson Electric Power Company 88 E. Broadway Blvd. 85701 Mail Stop HQW603 Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8744 Office 520-401-9895 Cell mburke@tep.com |
| 11/30/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 30, 2011 Michael Finkelstein QuatroVest Inc. 3035 E. 5th Street 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 10 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Minor Plat (Zoning, Planning, Addressing, Zoning HC, Wastewater, Engineering, Landscape, Traffic, TEP, PDSD) 5 Copies Landscape Plans (Zoning, Planning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $39.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 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: 747-7336 |
| 11/30/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-RECORDATION | REVIEW | Passed |