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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP16-0055
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/02/2016 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/02/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/02/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/03/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/04/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/17/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/17/2016 | CLAURIE1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | DATE: August 16, 2016 FROM: Corky Poster, Architect/Planner, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional TO: Carolyn Laurie, City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Department RE: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVISIONS IN REPSONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS REPORT Flexible Lot Development Review as per Design Criteria of UDC - FLD Sec. M C9-16-03 Pepper Viner – Pima Street – “Elementary Place” I have reviewed the Revised (July 29, 2016) Architectural Variation Plan for Elementary Place, as submitted by WLB, as well as the July 29, 2016 memo (attached) that responds point-by-point to the eight comments in the original Design Professional Review. In summary, I feel satisfied that all eight comments have been sufficiently responded to in the revised Architectural Variation Plan for Elementary Place. I appreciate the responsiveness of the applicant and their willingness to make the modifications suggested. In particular: #1 - No comment needed. #2 - The additional design variations satisfy the concerns of the previous review. I understand the flexibility needed by the developer that makes meeting my earlier request for specific types on specific lots difficult. The section D strategy combined with the commitment to an “accounting of each house and elevation” satisfies my concern. It will be the responsibility of COT Planning and Development Services to use the individual building permits to insure compliance with the architectural variation requirements of the FLD. The addition of so many alternative design elevations, especially for the one-story units will make this easier to comply with. #3 - The new designs offered satisfies this concern. #4 - The additional of the side-loaded garage design allows for compliance with this FLD requirement. No site plan was provided, so it will up to individual permit reviews to assure proper driveway turning radii for this side-loaded garage on these lots. #5 - The five strategies listed to respond to this comment are sufficient to meet the FLD requirement for transition edge buffering. In particular, the strategy of guaranteeing that only single-story houses will be built on lots 43-54 assures this compliance. #6 - Covered by #5 above. #7 - Covered by #5 above. #8 - This response is satisfactory. In my view, the applicant is now incompliance with AVP standard of the FLD. Sincerely Corky Poster, Architect/Planner (AICP) |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/23/2016 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |