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.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP15-0046
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/06/2015 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/06/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | Conditions of approval were verified by Patricia |
| 05/07/2015 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 05/11/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP15-0046 - FLD 8950 E Wrightstown Road Tentative Plat for "The School Yard" Lots 1-56 and Common Areas A-C TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 11, 2015 DUE DATE: May 19, 2015 COMMENTS: Zoning conditionally approves the Tentative Plat at this time based on following comments. 00. COMMENT: Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is March 17, 2016. 01. Follow up comment to previous comment 2: As per my conversation with Dan Castro on May 8, add a general or key note on sheet two (2) that states that the lot sizes or lot dimensions are not exact see final plat for Lot GFA and dimensions. 2-06.4.9.B - Identify each block or lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. 02. COMMENT: Review the lot size square footage on sheet two (2). Based on the lot line dimensions labeled, some of the subdivision lot square footages are not labeled correctly. Revise as required. ********************************************************************* 02. Follow up comment to previous comment 12: Review general note 5 on sheet one and revise as required. The calculation for the functional open space is noted as 18,077 required and 20,634 provided. On sheet two (2), there are two (2) areas labeled and delineated as functional open space. The total square footage of both areas does not equal the listed functional open space on sheet one. Clarify if there is an additional area that is supposed to be designated as FOS, if so delineated and annotate. 2-06.5.3.C - Functional Open Space Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Provide, by note on the plat, the required and proposed functional open space calculations; 12. COMMENT: Label on plan sheet two (2) the square footage of the functional open space for the area proposed along the west side of the subdivision, if needed, dimension this FOS area. ********************************************************************* Comment 03: Rezoning condition 22 requires a one-foot no access easement along the north and west perimeter of the rezoning site. Revise the access easement along the north perimeter to include the common area A-1 and B as discussed with Dan Castro on May 11. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 05/13/2015 | 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: Janice Wagner GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: May 13, 2015 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: TENTATIVE PLAT DP 15-0046 SCHOOL YARD (THE) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: 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. |
| 05/14/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/15/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/15/2015 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/19/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | This project should be approved pending acceptance of the Differential Grading mitigation plan. |
| 05/20/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan |
| 05/20/2015 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Denied | 5-7-15 - Architectural Variation Plan has been distributed to the City Design Professional. FD |
| 05/20/2015 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Denied | Rick Gonzalez, Architect May 18, 2015 214 E Suffolk Drive , Tucson, Arizona 85704 520.850.7401 gonzalezrick34@gmail.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER PROJECT: COT FLD DP15-0046 THE SCHOOL YARD PEPPER VINER AT WRIGHTSTOWN FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW This project has been selected for review by Rick Gonzalez, Architect (RGA), a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). RGA has conducted a Flexible Lot Development Design Criteria Review report #1 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Director, Ernie Duarte, Planning Administrator (PA), Jim Mazzocco, and Principle Planner (PP), Frank Dillon. This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter 2nd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in accordance with their submittal requirements. To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the plans are found to be in accordance with the UDC FLD recommendations and modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PA, and PP. The PDSD shall make the final decision on the project's compliance with FLD design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). GENERAL NOTE: 11 point letter Times New Roman - Indicates excerpts or edited excerpts from the FLD or UDC for reference and clarity. 12 point bold and italicized Arial - Indicates Design Professional's Comments 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS: M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation c. Requirements (1) The same architectural elevation shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot. Comment 1: Please provide a Site Plan indicating the location of the two models and showing the same model will not be repeated in lot sequence more than four times in a row. (3) Garage Placement. For FLD projects with over 20 or more single family detached residential units, no more than 50 percent of detached residential units throughout the FLD shall be designed with garages that protrude from or are flush with the front wall of the living area or front porch of the house. Comment 2: Unless the FLD has less than 20 reattached SFR's, please provide a Site Plan indicating no more than 50% of the detached units are flush or project from the front wall living area. Architectural Variation Plan Required (2) The AVP shall be included with the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit submittal. (5) Conditions of the approved AVP shall be included as notes on the approved plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. 2. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties a. Transition Edge Treatment Where a single-family attached or multi-family FLD project is adjacent to existing single-family residential development, the FLD shall provide buffering in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residential development. Examples of buffering include, but are not limited to, landscaping, a fence, or a wall. The proposed buffering shall be included as conditions on the approved subdivision plat or site plan. Comment 3: Unless there are no adjacent existing SFR's, please provide a Landscape Plan is show buffering requirements have been met and noted on the plat or site plan. b. Privacy Mitigation (1) Applicability Privacy mitigation as required by this section is required when multistory residences are proposed adjacent to existing single story residences and the existing residences are zoned R-2 or more restrictive. Comment 4: Please address whether there are any adjacent existing single story residences or residences zoned R-2 or more restrictive. If there are… provide a PMP to indicate compliance with FLD M.2.b.(2) and (3) referenced below. (2) Prohibited Improvements Balconies, windows (except for clerestory and translucent windows), or any other feature on an upper floor that overlook the rear and side yards of an adjacent residence are prohibited. (3) Privacy Mitigation Plan A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is required demonstrating compliance with this section. (a) PMPs shall be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.5.3.F, Privacy Mitigation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. (b) PMPs shall demonstrate that adequate measures, such as screening, setbacks, building mass, solar access, air circulation, and light access are incorporated into the design of the project to preserve the existing residents' privacy. (c) PMPs shall be included with submittal of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. (f) Conditions of the approved PMP, including a description of the required mitigation and for which units the mitigation applies, shall be included as notes on the plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. END OF 1ST FLD REVIEW, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS |
| 05/20/2015 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Denied | Applicant has receieved 1st Round of DP comments and are not yet ready to address them. Applicant will submit the tentative plat with a note that they will submit the AVP at the building plans stage. At that time they will address any DP comments and resubmit the AVP. The issuance of building permits will be contingent on the submittal and approval of the AVP. FD |
| 05/20/2015 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Denied | Please note: Revised Design Professional Letter does not require PMP. DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER PROJECT: COT FLD DP15-0046 THE SCHOOL YARD PEPPER VINER AT WRIGHTSTOWN FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW This project has been selected for review by Rick Gonzalez, Architect (RGA), a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). RGA has conducted a Flexible Lot Development Design Criteria Review report #2 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Director, Ernie Duarte, Planning Administrator (PA), Jim Mazzocco, and Principle Planner (PP), Frank Dillon. This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter 3rd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in accordance with their submittal requirements. To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the plans are found to be in accordance with the UDC FLD recommendations and modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PA, and PP. The PDSD shall make the final decision on the project's compliance with FLD design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). GENERAL NOTE: 11 point letter Times New Roman - Indicates excerpts or edited excerpts from the FLD or UDC for reference and clarity. 12 point bold and italicized Arial - Indicates Design Professional's Comments In the 1st Review, Comments 3 and 4, the request for further information regarding adjacent properties and privacy mitigation were satisfied. The applicant provided evidence that lots 44 and 45 would be limited to one story, no PMP is required for this project. 2nd REVIEW COMMENTS: M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation c. Requirements (1) The same architectural elevation shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot. Comment 1: Please provide a Site Plan indicating the location of the two models and showing the same model will not be repeated in lot sequence more than four times in a row. (3) Garage Placement. For FLD projects with over 20 or more single family detached residential units, no more than 50 percent of detached residential units throughout the FLD shall be designed with garages that protrude from or are flush with the front wall of the living area or front porch of the house. Comment 2: Unless the FLD has less than 20 reattached SFR's, please provide a Site Plan indicating no more than 50% of the detached units are flush or project from the front wall living area. Architectural Variation Plan Required (2) The AVP shall be included with the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit submittal. (5) Conditions of the approved AVP shall be included as notes on the approved plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. END OF 2nd FLD REVIEW, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |