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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-003
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/05/2006 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/11/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | April 10, 2006 TO: Paul Nzomo, P.E. Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Lilac Townhouses, Lots 1-20 and Common Areas A-C Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S06-003 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. As previously requested on February 21, 2006, please provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. SHEET 1. Delete General Note 24. Subject to the above required revisions, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat/final plat/development plan. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 04/11/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. The parking pop-outs on the south side of the street don't appear to satisfy DS 2-08.0 figure 3. As drawn, as soon as any one of these parking spaces are occupied, the sidewalk becomes impassable. 2. The future SVT will be 11' from future ROW line (MSRP fig 4) and is not coincident with the current SVT. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/11/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S06-003 LILAC TOWNHOMES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 4/10/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: The street name “Orchid” is a duplication and cannot be used. Please choose a new name. es |
| 04/14/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-003 Lilac Townhomes 04/13/06 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Old Spanish Trail (gateway) COMMENTS DUE BY: April 19, 2006 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP – No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments – Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other (elevations, floor plans, photos) REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 04/11/06 Please add to the title of both the tentative plat and landscape plan “LILAC Townhouses Residential Cluster Project (RCP)”. The General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. This should be shown on the landscape plan along with a note indicating such. The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. [An active/passive adult recreational facility, which includes a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The adult recreational amenities should include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). The detention basin (Common Area “B”) can serve a dual purpose with the placement of required amenities within and surrounding the basin. The slopes surrounding the basin must be adjusted to provide handicap accessibility to the amenities by way of an all-weather ADA compliant path that connects to the proposed sidewalks within the subdivision. The 12’ wide access ramp could serve this purpose if approved by DSD as being handicapped accessible. The slope indicated for the ramp is 8:1, which is too steep for access. Neither the tentative plat or landscape plan indicates any amenities that can be used by the residents. Please add note reading “Any new masonry walls shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These walls shall incorporate on of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of both.” Per Development Standard 2-10.3.2.B & C and LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3, the RCP is less than four (4) acres and must be compatible in architectural design with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of those existing single-family attached or detached structures along the same block frontage and the block frontage across the street, and/or development on the opposite lot corners. Massing of proposed structures to existing structures will be a part of this review. The tentative plat should identify the height of existing structures that surround the project site. If none exists please state so. |
| 04/17/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: April 17, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Lilac Townhouses Tentative Plat S06-003 (Second Review) T15S, R15E, Section 16 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat and Drainage Report. The Tentative Plat (TP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Tentative Plat: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the TP. 2. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. The future curb location is 11' from the property line to the face of curb. This is where the future SVT shall begin. Per previous comment. 3. Add removable post barricade at the basin maintenance ramp. 4. Show the 100-year WSEL for the basin. Finished floors of structures shall be a minimum 1-foot above the 100-year WSEL per S.M.D.D.F.M. 14.2.14. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. This review was performed for Tentative Plat purposes only. Final review and acceptance will done at the grading plan stage. 3. It appears there is a significant amount of off-site water coming from East of the parcel, this drainage must be accounted for in the DR. Upon a recent field visit it was noted that not only stormwater enters from east of the site, but as well as from the southeast corner of the property where the are 4 to 5 large drng. openings along the patio wall. This drainage must be accounted for also. Per previous comment. 4. Also upon the site visit it was noted that the proposed location of the weir would not allow the existing patterns to remain the same. Address as necessary. 5. Show the project address or administration address on the cover sheet of the DR. An administrative address is available at Pima County Addressing, 201 N. Stone Ave. Per previous comment. 6. If applicable, add the basin maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. Per previous comment. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/Lilac Townhouses 2 |
| 04/18/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The following slope/depth ratios are required for multi-purpose basins: 2. A maximum 2:1 for protected side-slope and 3:1 for unprotected side slope, where depths are less than 3' per http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Stormwater_detention-retention_manual.pdf. Revise basin slope/depth ratios as necessary. 3. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1. Additional tree is required for vehicle use area. 4. Show irrigation design and layout on landscape plan per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 5. A Native Plant Preservation Plan per Development Standard 2-15.3.0 is required. 6. Preparation of all elements of the Native Plant Preservation Plan and on-site monitoring as required under LUC 3.8.6.7.D shall be performed by a plant professional, such as: A. An arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. B. A landscape architect. C. A horticulturist, biologist, or botanist with a minimum B.A. or B.S. in an appropriate arid environment natural resource field. |
| 04/28/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/02/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: May 2, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S06-003 Lilac Townhomes: Tentative Plat Review(4-5-06) Approved. |
| 05/28/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera For Michael St. Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: S06-003 Lilac Townhouses, lots 1-20 and common areas "A","B", "C" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: May 28, 2006 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. As a result of a more complete re-submittal with the correct or proposed/development information for the proposed development additional comments will be generated and are related specifically to RCP criteria, parking, vehicular use areas, pedestrian circulation, landscaping and other as reviewing agencies deem necessary. 1) 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is January 4, 2007. 2) Some of the information has been revised or added to the tentative plat drawing. The following items must be addressed to ensure compliance with The RCP development criteria. Please revise and add the following items under the RCP data text block. a. The density calculation must be revised to include the allowed and proposed density based on the RCP 9 development designator. Revise note 2 under the RCP data text block, the allowed density equals 36 units, revise the density proposed from 7.27 to 10.86 RAC. The Section in the Land Use code 3.6.1 b. The allowed and proposed site coverage must be listed. List separately the areas covered by homes, parking, vehicular use areas (includes on-street parking and street) and other applicable areas considered as site coverage. c. When developing attached homes (town homes) LUC section 3.6.1.D.2.c. requires that at least 300 square feet of open space is provided on each lot, with a minimum of 100 square feet as one consolidated space and the one hundred square foot space is a minimum of ten feet in width in any direction. Demonstrate compliance with these criteria on the lot typical drawings. d. Revise or include in note one of the RCP data text block as follows. "RCP development designator RCP-9 Development Alternative A". e. Add a general note stating the location and screening for the mechanical equipment. If the equipment is to be ground mounted and screened by the party and perimeter walls indicate as a general note. If the equipment is to be roof mounted indicate as a note and add a detail drawing that demonstrates the location, type, heights, and screening for the mechanical equipment. The screening must be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP. f. Within an RCP development 25 percent of the units must be designed with barrier free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled. In a general note, list the units by lot number that will be designed with barrier free accessibility. Add a detail drawing depicting compliance with this requirement. If you have any questions about barrier free access call me for more information. g. When the RCP site area is less than four (4) acres, architectural design of the RCP must be compatible with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of those existing single-family detached or attached structures along the same block frontage and the block frontage across the street. If the RCP is proposed on a corner lot, then its design will also be compatible with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of existing residential development on the opposite lot corners. Architectural compatibility will be in compliance with design criteria in applicable adopted neighborhood or area plans. Demonstrate compliance with this LUC requirement. h. All areas of an RCP, except those areas that fit under the definition of site coverage or are designated for the exclusive use of individual residents, shall be landscaped with water-conserving, drought-tolerant vegetation. (For specific plant material, see Development Standard 2-16.0.) Mini-oasis concepts are acceptable, provided the oasis area landscape requirements of Sec. 3.7.0, Landscaping and Screening Regulations are satisfied. (Ord. No. 9967, §3, 7/1/04 Demonstrate compliance with this LUC requirement. i. Add the following as a general note. "In every RCP, there shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council." j. See additional comments related to DS 2-10 RCP development Standards. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Although the density requirement and the maximum building height are the same numbers for a standard subdivision and a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), the setback requirements prohibit townhouse development in a standard subdivision. It shall be necessary for you to resubmit this subdivision project as a RCP in order for you to proceed with a townhouse development. The RCP Designator is RCP-9 with the Development Alternative A (LUC Section 3.2.3.1.F). The requirements and guidelines for an RCP subdivision are in the LUC, Division 6. Development Incentives, Sections 3.6.1. There are additional requirements and guidelines provided for the submittal of an RCP in Development Standards (DS 2-10). 3) For legibility and consistency with DS 2-03.2.1.C, adjust the text height in the location to 12 point (.12) DS 2-03.2.1.C 4) The street has not been labeled as requested. Also clearly delineate in a bold and dark line all common areas. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Clearly label Common Area A on the plat (DS 2-03.2.4.C). Common Area A is listed as private street and pedestrian. But the sidewalk along Orchid Avenue is shown as being within the lots. If this is the way you would like to design the right-of-way on this plat, please provide a pedestrian access easement across all the lots with sidewalk areas going through them. Utility easements may also be applicable. (See comment # 10.) 5) Per the revised tentative plat drawing the street is to be designed with no parking on either side. Common area parking has been provided in several areas of the site. Please address the following comments related to the common area parking. a. Add back up spurs on both ends of the row of parking for the spaces located between lots 12 and 13. Staff with regards to parking area next to lots 12 and 13 has noted a safety concern. There is insufficient maneuvering area to the sides of the parking spaces for drivers to maneuver there vehicles safely out of the parking spaces without having to drive in reverse the entire length of the street. It is suggested that these spaces be relocated elsewhere. Also, sidewalks from the parking spaces must be provided and must connect to the pedestrian circulation. In addition, if the parking spaces are adjacent to any vertical object taller than 6 inches, the spaces will have to be revised to ten feet wide. b. Dimension the street width areas used for the turn around. See the Fire Department comments related to the two parking spaces between lots 12 and 13. Parking is not allowed within a turnaround. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) If on street parking is not provided than visitor parking must be provided in a common area on the plat. The visitor parking should be evenly distributed throughout the subdivision (DS 2-03.2.4.G). The parking ratio of one parking space per dwelling is required for common area parking within the subdivision (DS 3-01.2.4.D). Therefore twenty (20) parking spaces must be provided in the common area parking for this subdivision. Please revise the guest parking calculation to reflect the proper number of required parking spaces (DS 2-01.2.4.D). Visitor parking must also be provided within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the front street side property line of each residential unit. The distribution of visitor parking should be uniformly located throughout the project for the use by guests (DS3-05.2.4.A.1). It appears that some lots exceed the minimum distance of one hundred fifty feet from the common area parking. Please revise the plans for compliance. 6) The sidewalks have been depicted as requested. The following related to sidewalks must be addressed. a. The pedestrian circulation must connect all elements of the subdivision by utilizing crosswalks and access ramps where necessary. As noted in comment five (5), a sidewalk is required from the parking spaces between lots 12 and 13. The sidewalk must be accessible and connect to the onsite circulation. b. There does not appear to be connection from the sidewalk along the lots on the south to the lots on the north or east. Striped crosswalks crossing streets at a ninety-degree angle may be used to continue the pedestrian circulation. When using crosswalks, access ramps will be required at crosswalk connections, corners or wherever the crosswalks connect to the sidewalks. The access ramps must be constructed with truncated domes. Add crosswalks and access ramps where required. c. Per DS 2-08.4.1.F, Sidewalks may not be placed between a parking space and a PAAL. The sidewalk adjacent to lot s 13 through 20 has been placed directly into the visitor-parking spaces. The sidewalk also crosses into the three parking spaces west of lot 20. For safety issues the sidewalks must be routed along the side and to the front of each of these visitor-parking spaces and the same for the sidewalk next to the three parking spaces. d. Label, clearly delineate, and dimension the sidewalk system. All sidewalks must be physically separated from the vehicular use areas. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Please provide sidewalks on both sides of the street for the full length of Orchid Avenue (DS3-01.2.7.A). Also provide a sidewalk detail with dimensions for the sidewalk adjacent to the common area parking. Please be aware that truncated domes shall be required wherever handicapped accessible ramps are necessary ((ICC/ANSI A117.1-2005: Sec 406.1, 406.6, 406.12 & Sec 705.5). 7) Be aware that the building setbacks must be depicted not only on the tentative plat drawing but also on the lot typical detail drawings that must be added to the drawing. a. The perimeter yard building setback is based on the height of the structure from the property line. Remove the building setback labeled as nine feet and replace with the words based on the height of the structure to any building elevation adjacent to the property line or label the required building setbacks based on all the wall heights adjacent to property lines. The building elevation depicts several wall heights and all must meet the building setback. Revise as required. b. The interior building setbacks may be 0 feet to the lot line as allowed by LUC section 3.6.1.4.D.2.c as long as subsection .1 through 5 can be met. c. Street building setbacks within the subdivision are based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. The street building setbacks for a garage are 18 feet from the property line or 19 feet from the back of the sidewalk. It does appear that the interior street building setbacks have been met. Please revise the plan and demonstrate compliance. d. For consistency with the Land Use Code, section 3.2.6.5, label the Old Spanish Trail Street building setback based on the future back of curb location. (I acknowledge that an 11-foot setback has been depicted on the plan.) (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Please be aware that all building setbacks must be clearly dimensioned and delineated on the plat (DS2-03.2.4.M). There is some difference between the south setback of the subdivision and the north and east setbacks. As the plat has been presented there are also setbacks for the side lot lines. Additional comments shall be forthcoming relative to setbacks. 8) Label all the building wall heights on the elevation drawings. The building elevations depict several wall heights and have not been dimensioned. These wall heights may affect the location or placement of the building on the property due to the require setbacks. It is important to have the information to ensure compliance that all setbacks can be met. Also, the building height is measured from design grade along the outside building foot of the building. Please label the distance between the design grade and the finish floor of the buildings. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Please provide dimensioned elevation of all sides of the proposed structures for this subdivision. These are necessary to determine the correct setback requirements for each lot and the subdivision (LUC Section 3.2.6.4). Also be aware that the front street setback in the greater of twenty-one feet (21') or the height of the structure's wall facing the front property line, measured from the ground to the highest point of that wall, to the travel lane (LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B). 9) This comment was not addressed. Please add the requested information. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Please delineate the existing and future right-of-way (ROW) and the existing and future curb locations on the plat. Provide the half ROW dimensions for the future and existing ROW and the curb location (LUC Section 2.8.3). The required setback from Old Spanish Trail is the greater of twenty-one feet (21') or the height from the back of the future curb (LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B). 10) It is now clear that the proposed development is for attached single family dwellings. Please revise the note as follows. The existing use is: vacant land, the Proposed use is for Single Family Attached dwellings, Development Designator RCP-9 subject to LUC section 3.6.1. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) Revise General Note 24 to state that the "Proposed use is single family residential" and place this note near the top of the list (DS 2-03.2.2.B.5). 11) Address the following development standards from 2-10 RCP. a. Show the footprint of a unit on each lot or provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. It is recommended that, if possible, each lot be designed so that the largest proposed unit fits and still complies with Code requirements. This provides the greatest flexibility to the builder in terms of the size of the unit that can be sold for each lot. If this cannot be done, use the footprint of the largest unit that will fit on each lot. b. Provide, by note on the plan, the developable area, density, and site coverage calculations. If the use of a density increase is proposed, as permitted under Sec. 3.6.1.3.B of the LUC, indicate which of the provisions is being utilized and how the increased density criteria are being met. c. Indicate by note how many and which units will be provided with barrier-free accessibility in conformance with Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.5 of the LUC. The drawing should reflect how accessibility would be accomplished. Barrier-free access, as applied under this criterion, is access from a street and/or a parking space to the front door of a unit. Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the RCP plan requirements, RCP applications must include additional information reflecting compliance with Code requirements. Two (2) copies, one for the Development Services Department (DSD) file and one for the Planning Department's Community Planning Section, of the information are to be submitted unless specifically stated otherwise. The additional information that is to be submitted includes the following. A. If use of Sec. 3.2.6.5.B, developing area setbacks, of the LUC is proposed along any street bounding the project, submit the required information showing how the street frontage qualifies for application of that section. B. If the project is within an adopted neighborhood or area plan, submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with design requirements of such adopted plans as required in Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1 of the LUC. C. If the project is less than four (4) acres in size, by gross area, submit drawings, photographs, or a combination of both, showing how the architectural compatibility requirements of Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3 of the LUC will be met. D. On lots of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, it will be assumed that the lot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling unit; therefore, on projects with lots of this size, floor plans will not be required. However, on lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements. Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: a. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at the same scale as the plat are provided. This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. b. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. 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. c. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer) It is clear that there shall be considerable revision of this subdivision and there shall be additional comments relative to those revisions. It is necessary to develop a RCP subdivision whenever townhouses with common walls or single family residences (SFRs) reduced setbacks are the intention of the developer. All RCP subdivisions and submittals must meet the requirements LUC Sections 3.6.1 and Development Standards 2-10. |
| 06/02/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 2, 2006 Paul Nzomo Coronado Engineering & Development Inc., 1010 N. Finance Center Drive, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: S06-003 Lilac Townhomes Tentative plat Dear Paul: Your submittal of April 5, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Community Planning, Addressing, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Community Planning, Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 571-1961 |