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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/29/2019 | SBEASLE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/06/2019 | SBEASLE1 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Tucson Electric Power Co., (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Development Package/Tentative Plat for Mountain Enclave that was submitted on January 29, 2019. Costs for removal of existing overhead facilities will be the responsibility of the Developer. If you have any questions, please contact me at 520-917-8744. Thank you, Mary Burke, Right of Way Agent III Tucson Electric Power Co., Land Resources - RC 131 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Office - 520-917-8744, Cell - 520-401-9895 mburke@tep.com |
| 02/22/2019 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/25/2019 | ALEXANDRA HINES | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: 25 Feb 2019 FROM: Richard Fe Tom, AIA, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional TO: Alexandra Hines, Planning and Development Services Department RE: Design Professional review comments for Flexible Lot Development Review of DP18-0201 Mountain Enclave FLD/ 3rd 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 Approved. A revised Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) demonstrating full compliance with the requirements of UDC Section 8.7.3.m.1.c has been submitted in full compliance with the Section 2-06.5.3.E, Architectural Variation Plan of the Administrative Manual. 2. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties Transition Edge Treatment (UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.a): a. Approved. A revised Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) demonstrating full compliance with the transition edge treatment and mitigation requirements of UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.a has been submitted. Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) (UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.b): b. Requires Correction. A revised Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) demonstrating full compliance with the requirements of UDC Section 8.7.3.m.2.b has been submitted in full compliance with the following exceptions: Correct the PMP and AVP plans as well as the Tentative Plat or Site Plan as required in the Additional Design Professional Comments #25 and #26b below. 3. Solar Access and Passive Solar Solar Considerations (UDC Section 7.3): Approved. Previously addressed. 4. Alternative Compliance. No Comment. No Alternative Compliance requests have been submitted. The following review comments are provided in response to the Mountain Enclave (2nd 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: Previously Addressed. 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: Addressed - All Functional Open Space (FOS) areas and their respective square footages have been identified on the Site Plan and correctly referenced to the FOS calculations on the DP 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: Addressed - Dimensions have been added to all building elevations. 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: Previously Addressed. 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: Addressed - 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 has been added 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: Previously Addressed. 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 correction - The PMP Site Plan and the PMP Existing Photo Index Plan have incorrectly labeled the existing single-story residential developments of the "Casitas Del Valle Condominiums" and the "Haven Lane Condominiums" as "multi-family". Change the labeling of these locations to read "single family". Revise the tentative plat or site plan to provide a list and identify the lots that must provide privacy mitigation in accordance with UDC Section 2-06.5.3.F.1. 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 correction - Revise the PMP and AVP written statements and drawings as directed in comment #25 above and comment #26b below as follows: 26.a COMMENT: Addressed - In lieu of providing additional canopy trees and retaining existing vegetation, the Developer has opted to incorporate additional privacy mitigation techniques into the building design to increase privacy mitigation in compliance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. 26.b COMMENT: Not Addressed - 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. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: Note that the operable door locations identified in this comment need to be converted into "non-operable" door panels or windows with opaque film. 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: Previously Addressed. End of Review |
| 02/26/2019 | 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 (3rd Review) FLD Development DP18-0201- R-2 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 26, 2019 DUE DATE: February 26, 2019 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 1 and 2: Until the setback reduction by the PDSD Director is approved the previous comment is tail applicable. The addition of the lot details as requested is acknowledged. Assuming the PDSD Director approves the setback reduction the details as presented provide the information requested by zoning on the previous comment, thank you. Previous Comment 1: 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.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; 2. Follow up to previous comment 6: Identify on the tentative plat the lots that must be provided with privacy mitigation. Also identify what type of mitigation is proposed or will be proposed. 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 - 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; 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; 3. Comment: add the following note as a general note on the cover sheet: "This subdivision (Residential Development will be) is designed to comply with the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance, City of Tucson Ordinance 104631" 4. Comment: Draw the front door sidewalk connections to the pedestrian circulation sidewalk system on sheets 4 and 5 and on the lot detail drawings.. 5. Comment: Label the garage access points as a keynote or as a note on sheets 4 and 5. 6. Comment: As of this review the project has been placed on hold due to an appeal of a PDSD Zoning Administrator determination related to this project. The appeal will be heard by the Board of Adjustment on March 27th, 2019. Until the remaining comments are addressed and the B of A decision has been rendered on the appeal zoning cannot approve the DP. 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 |
| 02/26/2019 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLAN RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE The review has been completed and a resubmittal is required. Activity Number: DP18-0201 Address: 3401 N. Fremont Ave. Project Description: E TENTATIVE PLAT/FLD - MOUNTAIN ENCLAVE, LOTS 1-76, CA "A" (Private streets/utilities), CA "B" (Open space, drainage, utilities), CA "C" (Open space, utilities). To see review comments, visit PRO at www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO, then search by Activity Number. (If new comments aren't shown yet, check back later as data flows to PRO periodically 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, submit the following items to the PDSD Filedrop at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd. Enter the Activity Number in the Project Description field and name the file as directed, for example, fourth submittal: 4_Plan_Set.pdf. The plans will then re-enter a 20-working-day review cycle. 1) Comment Response Letter 2) Corrected plan set with all documents 3) Items requested by review staff The fee balance is $0 (zero). Mark Castro, copied, is the Project Manager to contact with any questions, email: Mark.Castro@TucsonAz.gov or phone: (520) 837-4979. Thank you. Sharon Beasley City of Tucson Planning and Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue, First Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/26/2019 | SBEASLE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |