Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP18-0201
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/29/2018 | KELLY LEE | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/14/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: 7 Nov 2018 FROM: Richard Fe Tom, AIA, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional TO: Kelly Lee, Planning and Development Services Department RE: Design Professional review comments for Flexible Lot Development Review of DP18-0201 Mountain Enclave FLD/ 2nd Submittal per design Criteria of UDC Section 8.7.3 M The following review comments are provided to detail the changes required on the plans and documents submitted to PDSD prior to the Design Professional recommending approval of this project. The review is based upon Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 8.7.3 M: Design Criteria and Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 2-06.5.3: Flexible Lot Development (FLD) - Additional Requirements for Zoning Comments made by David Rivera that require review by the Design Professional for compliance. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation Requires resubmittal. An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) demonstrating compliance with the requirements of UDC Section 8.7.3.m.1.c was not submitted in full compliance with the Section 2-06.5.3.E, Architectural Variation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. See Comments 2.a and 2.b below and revise any referencing statements in the AVP accordingly. 2. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties Transition Edge Treatment (UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.a): a. Requires resubmittal. The Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) does not indicate adequate buffering to be provided in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residential developments adjacent to the FLD site. The current PMP/Landscape Plan does not provide adequate screening along the perimeter of the site where lots are required to provide privacy mitigation. (Also see Comment 2.b below) The Landscape Plan shows all existing vegetation to be removed throughout the Site; therefore, the photos of existing vegetative screening are misleading. Recommend additional canopy trees be added along the perimeter of the Site to increase the privacy of the adjacent single-story residences. Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) (UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.b): b. Requires resubmittal. A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) demonstrating compliance with the requirements of UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.b was not submitted in full compliance and requires correction for the following reasons: The PMP Site Plan incorrectly identifies the existing single-story residential developments that are adjacent to Lots #18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 28, and Lot #76 as "multi-family". These single-story residences are documented as Condominiums. Revise the PMP and AVP plans as well as the tentative plat or site plan to properly identify the correct lots that require privacy mitigation. 3. Solar Access and Passive Solar Solar Considerations (UDC Section 7.3): a. COMMENT: Addressed - Statements have been included in the PMP Plan that adequately indicate how this FLD project has been designed in compliance with UDC Section 7.3 "Solar Considerations". 4. Alternative Compliance. No Comment. No Alternative Compliance requests have been submitted. The following review comments are provided in response to the Mountain Enclave (1st Submittal) Zoning Review in which David Rivera designated Zoning Comments #19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 to be reviewed by the Design Professional for compliance with Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 2-06.5.3 Flexible Lot Development (FLD) - Additional Requirements: Additional Design Professional Comments: 2-06.5.3.B - Maximum Density Option Applicants requesting a Maximum Density Option in accordance with Section 8.7.3.C.3.b must demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria by written report or on the plat or site plan, whichever is appropriate; 19. COMMENT: Addressed - Density Information shown on DP Sheet 1 of 27 shows compliance with UDC Section 8.7.3.C.3.b. 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; 20. COMMENT: Requires resubmittal - There are only three areas labeled on the Site Plan as "Functional Open Space" but their square footages when added together do not equal the 26,617 SF shown as Provided on the Functional Open Space Calculations on DP Cover Sheet 1 of 27. Please label all Functional Open Space (FOS) areas and their respective square footages on the Site Plan and refer to them in the proposed FOS calculations on the Cover Sheet. 2-06.5.3.D - Building Elevations Provide dimensioned building elevations of all proposed units. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits; 21. COMMENT: Requires resubmittal - Add dimensions to all building elevations that were submitted with the Privacy Mitigation and Architectural Variation Plans. 2-06.5.3.E - Architectural Variation Plan When applicable, an architectural variation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC as follows: 22. COMMENT: Addressed - An Architectural Variation Plan has been submitted in accordance with UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1. 2-06.5.3.E.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide architectural variation; and, 23. COMMENT: Requires resubmittal - Please identify on the tentative plat plan or site plan which lots require architectural variation by adding Statement #4 from the AVP package submittal letter that describes the maintenance schedule that will be put in place by the builder to ensure compliance to the General Notes. 2-06.5.3.E.2 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and building footprints) demonstrating how the proposed architectural variation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC. 24. COMMENT: Addressed - A written statement along with elevations and building foot prints has been provided. 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: 2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; 25. COMMENT: Requires resubmittal - The Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is not in compliance with UDC Section 8.7.3.M.2.d. The PMP Site Plan incorrectly identifies the existing single-story residential developments that are adjacent to Lots #18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 28, and Lot #76 as "multi-family". These single-story residences are documented as the "Casitas Del Valle Condominiums" and the "Haven Lane Condominiums". Condominiums are classified as single-family residences; therefore, privacy mitigation shall be provided for the Lots listed above. Revise the PMP and AVP plans as well as the tentative plat or site plan to properly identify the correct lots that require privacy mitigation. 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; 26. COMMENT: Requires resubmittal - Revise the PMP and AVP written statements and drawings as directed in comment #25 above and as follows: 26.a NEW COMMENT: The current PMP/Landscape Plan does not provide adequate screening along the perimeter of the site where lots are required to provide privacy mitigation. The Landscape Plan shows all existing vegetation to be removed throughout the Site; therefore, the photos of existing vegetative screening are misleading. Recommend additional canopy trees be added along the perimeter of the Site to increase the privacy of the adjacent single-story residences. 26.b NEW COMMENT: The model plans each show an operable door opening onto a false balcony on the second floor Stair Landing (Plan 1), second floor Master Bath (Plan 2) and second floor Loft (Plan 3). Add a note to the building elevation sheets in both the PMP and AVP Plans stating that "No 2nd story operable doors allowed on the east or west elevation, dependent on adjacency to single-story, single-family residential (Lots 7, 29 and 76)." Also include this statement in the PMP Submittal Letter. 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. 27. COMMENT: Addressed - Copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) have been submitted and are in compliance with UDC 2-06.5.3.G.1. End of Review |
| 11/19/2018 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/20/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/20/2018 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 11/20/18 DP18-0201 Mountain Enclave/ 2nd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Thank you. Robin Freiman, Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone Ave, 4th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 11/20/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Mountain Clave Lots 1-76 & Common Areas A, B, C Development Package (2 Review) FLD Development DP18-0201- R-2 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 15, 2018 DUE DATE: November 27, 2018 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 August 17, 2019. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 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. 1. Follow Up To Previous Comment 10: Label the north building setbacks for lots 67 - 76. Include the building setbacks from the interior street back of curb to the buildings. The ADT of this project is 140 to 1,000. The minimum building setback is the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure wall (height measured from design grade) facing the street measured from the nearest edge of travel lane. It does not appear that the street building setbacks can be met with this design. Variances for the street building setbacks for each unit will be required; UDC Section 8.7.3.L.2 - 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. (Contact Steve Shields for information on the PDSD Director Administrative Reduction process.) Include lot detail drawings that provide the proposed street building setbacks based on the proposed design. 2 or more lot detail drawings may be required to provide the information requested. 2-06.5.3 Additional Information The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable: 2. Follow Up To Previous Comment 18: See follow up comment 1 above. 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 18: Provide lot detail drawings with setbacks. 3. Follow Up TO Previous Comment 20: Demonstrate clearly the areas proposed as functional open space. These areas should include a separate hatching to distinguish the common area from the functional open spaces areas. Keep in mind that required sidewalk systems or landscape buffers cannot be counted towards meeting the functional open space requirements. 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; PREVIOUS COMMENT 20: The proposed FOS areas are to be reviewed by the design professional for compliance. (Add the word "Functional" under the FOS heading/calculation text block.) 4. Follow Up To Previous Comment 21: Address the Design professionals comment related to Building elevations. 2-06.5.3.D - Building Elevations Provide dimensioned building elevations of all proposed units. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits; PREVIOUS COMMENT 21: To be reviewed by the design professional for compliance. 5. Follow Up To Previous Comment 23: Address the Design professionals comment related to the affected lots. 2-06.5.3.E.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide architectural variation; and, PREVIOUS COMMENT 23: To be reviewed by the design professional for compliance. 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: 6. Follow Up To Previous Comment 25: Address the Design professionals comment related to the affected lots. 2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; PREVIOUS COMMENT 25: To be reviewed by the design professional for compliance. Follow Up To Previous Comment 26: Address the Design professionals comment related 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; PREVIOUS COMMENT 26: To be reviewed by the design professional for compliance. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 11/23/2018 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to thebase plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. Indicate compliance with Design Professional comments: 2-06.5.3.C - Functional Open Space The proposed FOS areas are to be reviewed by the design professional for compliance Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat, site plan and landscape plans. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 11/28/2018 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/10/2018 | ALEXANDRA HINES | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Reqs Change | Final plat comments below also apply to the tentative plat submittal. Re: Activity Number: S18-094 Address: 3401 N Fremont Proposed Use: Single Family Residential Due Date: Thursday, November 29 Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed the Final Plat for Mountain Enclave, Lots 1-76 submitted November 1, 2018, and is unable to approve the plat at this time. An approved preliminary construction drawing must be signed and returned to TEP, at which time easements for TEP facilities currently shown on the plat will be verified for consistency and TEP approval. There are existing overhead electrical lines located within the boundary of the subdivision. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with the removal or relocation of the existing facilities. An approved Tentative Plat is still pending. It is noted that the requested 10' x 10' easements for all TEP cabinets are shown on this 1st submittal of the Final Plat. Due to the proposed encroachments within these easements, the developer must agree to a Consent Agreement under which TEP will allow the encroachments. The Agreement will be recorded with the Pima County Recorder's Office and must be referenced on the final plat. If you have any questions, please contact me at 918-8205. Thank you, Courtney Tejeda Right of Way Agent Land Resources Dept. RC131 Tucson Electric Power Co. 3950 E. Irvington Rd., Tucson, AZ 85714-2114 |
| 12/11/2018 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Plans Returned for Corrections (RFC) Notice: DP18-0201 Project Description: E PLAT/FLD - MOUNTAIN ENCLAVE, LOTS 1-76 The review has been completed and a resubmittal is required. To see review comments about the plans, visit PRO at www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO, then search by activity number. (If new comments aren't shown yet, please check back later as data flows to PRO at periodic intervals throughout the day.) Prepare a Comment Response Letter detailing changes to the plan and which review comments are being addressed. After the necessary corrections have been made to the plans, please submit the following items to PDSD Filedrop at www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd. The plans will then re-enter the 20-working-day review cycle. 1) Comment Response Letter 2) Corrected plan set 3) Items requested by review staff Please type the activity number in the Project Description and name the files as described on the PDSD Filedrop web page.The current fee balance is $0 (zero). Mark Castro, copied, is the Project Manager to contact with any questions: 520-837-4979. Thank you. Sharon Beasley City of Tucson Planning and Development Svcs. Dept. 201 N. Stone Ave., First Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2018 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |