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: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP15-0076
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2017 | DTAKAKI1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/12/2017 | PGEHLEN1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Due to the owner driven changes to this plan, a new AVP and PMP will be required for Design Professional review. |
| 01/13/2017 | DTAKAKI1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of the third submittal for the Cornerstone Homes proposed residential subdivision. The proposal includes the development of 28 single family residential lots and one private street providing access to the residential lots. As specified on Note No. 6 in the Building Plan Notes on Sheet 1 of 12 of the Development Package plans, the containers (refuse and recycling) shall be rolled to the private street, placed behind the curb and rolled back to the residence on the collection day. Based on this review, ES approves the Development Package for the Cornerstone Homes subdivision from a solid waste storage and collection standpoint. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this review. Thomas G. Ryan, P. E. City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 01/13/2017 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP15-0076, Tentative Plat of Cornerstone Homes on Monte Vista, was approved by Pima County Addressing on 2/18/2016. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 01/17/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: DP15-0076 (Rezoning C9-14-04 R-1 to R-2) 4208 East Monte Vista FLD tentative plat R-2 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 17, 2017 DUE DATE: February 8, 2017 1. Due to major changes to the DP additional comments have been made. While the approval for a minor change to the PDP has been granted by the PDSD Director any and all changes must comply with UDC and TS requirements. Additional comments may be applicable. 2. Follow Up to Previous Comment 5: A TSMR is still required even with the proposed changes made. Provide the TSMR information as noted by the previous comment. Previous Comment 5: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) is required, see comments 7 & 8, provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets and provide a general note stating the TSMR case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable list all conditions of approval. 3. Follow Up to Previous Comment 6: The revised note 11 is acknowledged. The previous comment will remain until a decision has been made by the PDSD Director. If the decision is made with conditions, include the conditions in general note 11. Previous Comment 6: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - If an administrative reduction for the required street perimeter yard is approved, see comment 11, provide general note stating "ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCED STREET PERIMETER YARD SETBACKS APPROVED, DATE ??/??/????". 4. Follow up to Previous Comment 7: As noted by the previous comment, the proposed street cross section does not match a street cross section in the Section 10-0 of the Technical Standards. Per TS 10-01.2.4.D, local streets whether public or private must be designed parking on both sides of the street whether utilizing a wedge or vertical curb, unless parking is provided in common areas distributed throughout the subdivision, at a ratio of one parking space per dwelling within the subdivision.. The revised plan includes a parking lane with a wedge curb along the west side of the private street. Two additional guest parking spaces have been added to the east side of the street but are located on private property. These spaces will not count towards the required guest parking unless the parking spaces are made part of the private street and the design of the street is approved through a TSMR. The TSMR must be approved for the proposed design as revised on the current DP. (Dimension the length of the two parking spaces along the east side of the street. Be sure to include the TSMR request based on the TS code sections not in compliance.) Previous Comment 7: 2-06.4.9.H.1 - The proposed private street does not match a typical cross section in TSM Section 10. A Technical Standards Modification Request will need to be approved for the modification prior to approval of the development package. 5. Follow Up to Previous Comment 8: As noted in the previous comment, an approved TSMR will be required to allow backing up onto the private street from the parking spaces proposed at a 90 degree angle from the private street. Currently there is no cross section in the technical standards that allows for backing out into a street from a parking lot/area. Previous Comment 8: 2-06.4.9.H.1 - The proposed visitors parking shown backing out into the street does not match a typical cross section in TSM Section 10. A Technical Standards Modification Request will need to be approved for the modification prior to approval of the development package. 6. Follow Up to Previous Comment 10: Article 6 of the CC&R's states that a sidewalk easement is to be reserved for pedestrian access. The sidewalk easement shall be defined on the site plan sheet(s) and dimensioned. Previous Comment 10: 2-06.4.9.L As portions of the proposed street sidewalks are located on private property some type of easement or verbiage is needed in the CC&Rs to allow access. 7. Follow Up to Previous Comment 11: While the design professional had apparently approved the previous design the changes to the development as re-submitted must be re-reviewed by the Design Professional for compliance with the FLD requirements. Any conditions (if any) of approval from design professional must be incorporated into the DP. Street building setbacks based on an ADT of 140 to 1,000 will be reviewed on the next submittal of the DP. There are three different interior street building setbacks within the development that must be labeled (interior street building setbacks within the development are measured from the nearest edge of travel lane). The street building setback for lots 1 - 14 shall be measured from the edge of the parking lane (inside). The street building setback for lots 15 - 22 shall be measured from the nearest edge of the travel lane. The street building setback for lots 23 - 28 shall be measured from the nearest edge of the travel lane. In order for the Director to review the proposed building setbacks and because of the difference in how they are to be measured the street building setbacks must be labeled as noted on the site plan sheet, see redlines. The building setbacks for the garage and driveway are based on and ADT of 140 - 1,000. The required and proposed building setbacks for garages shall be listed and labeled on the site plan sheet. See UDC article 6 section 6.4.5.C.2 Figure 6.4.5-E. Previous Comment 11: 2-06.5.3 This comment was not addressed correctly. The setbacks to the private street should meet the requirement of UDC Article 6.4.5.C.2. However review UDC Article 8.7.3.L.2 and request an administrative reduction for the required street perimeter yard. COMMENT: The minimum setback for a developing area is the greater of twenty-one (21) feet or the height for streets with a ADT over 140 (UDC Section 6.4.5.C.2). The minimum driveway length is nineteen (19) feet from the back edge of the sidewalk and eighteen (18) feet from the property line to the front of the garage (UDC Section 6.4.5.C.2.b(1)(a)(b)). The ADT for thirty (30) single-family residences is three hundred (300) (TSM 10-01.2.2.A). 8. Follow Up to Previous Comment 12: The building drawings with the correct building heights must be included in the DP submittal. In order to verify building setbacks the correct building height must be labeled. Keep in mind that the condition of rezoning eight limits the building height to 20 feet. The building heights must be labeled based on the "measurement of building height" in UDC Article 6 section 6.4.4.A. Building setbacks are measured based on Article 6 section 6.4.5.B. Review the sections noted and add the information as required. (If you have any questions related to this follow up comment feel free to call or email me.) Previous Comment 12: 2-06.5.3.D - Per rezoning condition 8 the allowed height is limited to 20'. Based on the provided elevations the buildings area exceeding the 20' height, see UDC Article 6.4.4.B.1. 9. As noted in comment 1, due to changes to the DP additional comments would be forthcoming. a. This is a Single family detached development, why are short and long term bicycle parking facilities proposed; is this amenity proposed by the developer? If so, why is one of the locations for the short term facilities proposed on private property, it would be best to locate it in a common area? (It is not clear that this amenity has been addressed in the CC&r's.) If the bicycle parking facilities are not to be provided remove the information from the cover sheet and any details or notes related to bicycle parking. b. If the two guest parking spaces are to be provided on lots 24 - 27, it would be best to delineate the two parking spaces as part of the private street instead of private property, see redlines. (There is no minimum lot size in an FLD.) c. On the cover sheet of the DP, the guest parking calculation has been calculated as requiring 28 spaces and 28 spaces provided. When a street is designed with parking on both sides of the street it is assumed that the number of required guest parking at a ratio of .25 spaces per dwelling can be provided. In this case the street cross section has not been designed with parking on both sides of the street. Therefore guest parking must be provided at a ratio of one space per dwelling as long as the guest parking is within common areas distributed evenly throughout the subdivision. Tandem parking on private lots cannot count towards the required guest parking, the two parking spaces provided over lots 24 -27 will also not count towards the required number. d. Remove the loading zone notes under the FLD calculations text block. e. On sheet four a detail drawing of an accessible parking sign has been included. Yet the plan does not indicate that any accessible parking spaces are to be provided or required. Remove the accessible sign detail if accessible parking spaces are not provided. f. Add a note that states that all homes are to be built to comply with the Inclusive Home Designs - Ordinance 10463. The note can be added on the cover sheet or on sheet two next to the typical lot details. g. The sidewalk that is adjacent to the common area parking spaces must be 6.5 feet in width to allow for a four foot wide clear sidewalk. The sidewalks in the two locations are designed with a 6-foot wide sidewalk. The allowed overhang onto a pedestrian sidewalk is 2.5 feet, which leaves a 3.5 foot wide sidewalk. Revise as required. h. The gated entry at the Glenn Street entrance does not appear to provide sufficient area for vehicle maneuverability. Refer to Access Management Guidelines section 5.11 and see engineering comments related to this item. Approval through TDOT and possibly a TSMR may be required. i. Draw and label the pedestrian access points along the Monte Vista Drive and Glenn Street onto the site. There does not appear to be any pedestrian access points noted on the plans. Clarify how the pedestrian gains access onto the site, via a man gate with a card reader etc. It does not appear that rezoning condition 18 has been addressed. This item shall be addressed for current and future conditions. j. The screen walls along the Monte Vista Drive and Glenn Street frontage is within the landscape buffer / Common Area. Clarify if lots 1, 14, 15, and 28 will have exclusive use of the common areas between the screen walls and the property lines and whether there is a maintenance requiring the homeowners of those lots to maintain the those additional square feet of common areas? If so is it covered in the CC&R's? k. It does not appear that the site has been designed to comply with the future Right of Way requirements. A future site plan and landscape plan will be required demonstrating how the Glenn Street frontage will be affected by the future widening. Per UDC 5.4.5.F An approved site plan is required indicating how the project will comply with UDC standards (Parking, Landscaping, Pedestrian Access, etc.) when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan shall be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the UDC at no cost to the City. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov David Rivera can be reached on Tuesday or Wednesday from 8 to 5, T. 837-4957 or email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 01/17/2017 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 01/18/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See zoning review comments |
| 01/19/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: January 19, 2017 DUE DATE: February 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Tentative Plat TO: Erin Harris, PE LOCATION: 4208 E Monte Vista REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0076 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Keynote 11 is called out over a 12" deep retention area that is required per UDC 7.14.3. It refers the reader to the landscape plans which refers to the same area as a 6" maximum depth water harvesting area. Please update the landscape plans to include the required retention detail. Update the drainage report if appropriate. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 02/01/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/07/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/08/2017 | KLEE1 | 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 approved documents submitted previously 3) A disk containing all items submitted 4) All items requested by review staff 5) All items needed to approve these plans |
| 02/08/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The revised lot arrangement shows lots 11 through 14 requiring backwater valves but based on the rim elevation of the upstream cleanout and the minimum FFE for each of these lots, no backwater valve can be allowed. Lot 18 will require a backwater valve if the FFE is lower than 2434.35. Lot 19 does not show a backwater valve but one will be required if the FFE is lower than 2433.92. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2017 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |