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: Active
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP16-0120
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/07/2017 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/07/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Approval of TSMR for placing a portion of sidewalk on only one side of the street is required prior to approval of this plan. |
| 03/09/2017 | 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: Tentative Plat for Las Sombras Subdivision, lots 1 - 22 and Common Areas A - C Development Package (3rd Review) DP16-0120 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 15, 2017 DUE DATE: April 5, 2017 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 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 July15, 2017. ********************************************************************* Review Date: March 15, 2017 Follow Up To Previous Comments 1: The previous zoning comment 1 was not addressed. Per my conversation with Matt Stuart he acknowledged that the changes were not made. Assure that the table on sheet 1 and the detail lot type's match. Indicate the location of the street side on the lot details depicted on sheet 5. If the lot details are to represent the perimeter building setbacks based on the location or type of lot, make sure that the minimum setback (6' or 2/3 hgt.) is also labeled based on the height of the wall (measured from design grade) facing that perimeter boundary. Comment 2: The current DP submittal did not include the landscape sheets 11 - 15. All sheets listed on the sheet index must be included with the next DP submittal. Comment 3: After reviewing the new lot line that creates lots 9 and 10 it is not clear if the existing duplex on the new lots is designed with a fire wall in the new lot line location. Provide drawings for the structure to verify how and if the existing structure and wall separation is consistent with the new lot line. (The final Plat may not be approved if there is a lot line conflict with the design of the existing structure.) Follow Up To Previous FLD Comments: As of this zoning review the previous FLD comments are still applicable. (PM is also required along the east perimeter for lots 19 - 22 and lot 18.) Until all FLD items are resolved zoning cannot approve the DP. ****************************************************************************************** 1. Follow Up To Previous Comment 11: Review sheet 5 for the correct lot type listed. Some of the lot type designations do not match the lot type designation on the Lot Area Table on the cover sheet and some of the lot type designations are not labeled. Revise sheet 5 as required. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. PREVIOUS COMMENT 11: Include typical fully dimensioned "lot" detail drawings depicting the proposed building setbacks. The detail drawing shall include interior, boundary and interior street building setbacks. Based on the number of units proposed, the ADT is greater than 140 but less than 1,000. Draw and label the interior street building setbacks for both the dwelling and garage setbacks. See UDC Section 6.4 for information related to the Rules of Measurement. (See Comment 16 for additional info on street perimeter setbacks.) 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS) 1. Follow Up To Previous Comment 3: The previous comment is still applicable until reduction request is addressed by the PDSD Director. 2-06.5.3.A. Reduced Perimeter Yards Street perimeter yards along interior street rights-of-way and perimeter yards between interior lots may be modified in accordance with Section 8.7.3.L, Perimeter Yards on Interior Lots, of the UDC. Applicants requesting a perimeter yard reduction must indicate what the required and reduced perimeter yards are and their locations. Applicants requesting a reduced street perimeter yard must provide a written description of how the reduced yard will enhance the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and submit a transportation statement, or if required by the Department of Transportation, a traffic impact analysis; PREVIOUS COMMENT 3: It is clear that the interior building setbacks are not consistent and may not meet the minimum requirements for developing area setbacks. However, if the proposed staggered street building setbacks are to show an enhanced architectural design, the following will be required. The street setback may be administratively reduced by the PDSD Director based on a finding that the reduced setback enhances the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and a transportation statement is approved by the City's Traffic Engineering division. A street perimeter yard reduction request is considered for approval concurrent with the processing of the plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Also, explain what mitigation will be provided for lots that do not have an 18-foot driveway in front of the garage or 19 feet from the back of the sidewalk. How will the development keep owners from parking vehicles in front of garages/carports that would overlap onto the pedestrian path on lots that do not have an 18 or 19 foot parking area as noted above? (CC&R's, notes on TP restricting parking for certain lots?) 2. Follow Up To Previous PMP Comment: The note with the lot numbers listed by the Design Professional for PMP, Lots 11, 12, 15, 16, will provide No Balconies and Translucent or Clerestory windows at the second floor level could not be verified on the DP. Clarify if the note is supposed to be listed on the cover sheet or is it listed on another sheet of the DP. 2-06.5.3.F - Privacy Mitigation Plan When applicable, a privacy mitigation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.d of the UDC as follows: 1. COMMENT: It is acknowledged that a PMP document has been submitted for review by the design professional. See the design professional's comments. List and incorporate on the TP any conditions applicable to the PMP. 2-06.5.3.F.3 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and landscape plans) demonstrating how the proposed mitigation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. The plan should include when practicable additional design elements to increase privacy such as the siting angle of buildings, windows, and lots; 2. COMMENT: In the PMP, Response 1, states "Lots 11, 12, 15 and 16 - No Balconies and Opaque Window Film will be required on the 2nd floor, south facing rear elevation". Lots 15 - 18 are adjacent to R-2 zoned property with a single family development, Privacy Mitigation shall be provided. (See the Design Professional comments related to the South building elevation.) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 03/09/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Las Sombras (DP16-0120) The developer has asked for reduced street perimeter yard setback per UDC 8.7.3.L.2. In order for reduced setback to enhance the architectural design of the vehicular circulation of the Las Sombras FLD the following items shall be provided: 1) Please delineate the on street parking on the tentative plat. Since the lots are less than 40 feet wide, it is unclear how much parking will remain once driveways are installed. 2) Please provide 3 different elevations for this project. Different colors, roof materials and different garage doors are examples that can be used to change an elevation. The same elevations may not be next door to each other or facing each other. Once the tentative plat is revised and the additional information provided, the reduced street perimeter yard setback will be granted on the condition that: The garage setback is not more than 10 feet from the street perimeter yard or at least 19 feet from the street perimeter yard. |
| 03/16/2017 | PGEHLEN1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | Conditions have been added to the plan. Rick Gonzalez, Architect August 25, 2016 214 E Suffolk Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85704 520.850.7401 gonzalezrick34@gmail.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER PROJECT: 30 W Pastime Road LAS SOMBRAS LDL 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 Development Design Criteria Review report #2 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Interim Director, Nicole Ewing Gavin, and Principal Planner and Special Districts Manager (PP/SDM), Carolyn Laurie. This Conditional Approval, is based on the provision that all indicated conditions below be addressed in the submitted permit documents and/or confirmed by as-built record plans: Condition 1: Any future development on any more than two of the existing lots 9, 10, 13, or 14, in which the existing structures are demolished or replaced, will require an AVP relative to those lots and any adjacent effected adjacent lots in regard to… 1) Provision of alternate model plan elevations in accordance with UDC 8.7.3.M.1.c. (2). 2) And garage placement as defined in UDC 8.7.3.M.1.c. (3)… no more 50% of the detached units are to be flush or project from the front wall living area. This letter of recommendation for conditional approval is being forwarded to the COT PDSD Director and PP/SDM. The PDSD Director shall make the final decision on the project's compliance with the design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). END OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER |
| 03/24/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/28/2017 | KLEE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/14/2018 | ANY | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |