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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/10/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/16/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: August 16, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Lilac Townhouses Tentative Plat S06-003 (Third Review) T15S, R15E, Section 16 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat. The Tentative Plat (TP) 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. The SVT is still not drawn properly. Per previous comment. Drainage Report: 1. The DR has been accepted for tentative plat purposes only. 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 3 |
| 08/17/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The site plan / tentative plat and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans per DS 2-02.2.1.C Sheet 2 of 3 indicates parking spaces that are not shown on the landscape plan revise as necessary. Additionally parking spaces cannot be located within required landscape borders. Revise lot lines on the landscape plan to match the tentative plat. Correctly identify private-street on the landscape. 2. 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. 3. Show the locations of the mitigated Cercidium floridum / Blue Palo Verde indicated on the application for exception included with this submittal per DS 2-15.0. 4. Additional comments may apply. |
| 08/28/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 28, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-003 PROJECT NAME: Lilac Townhomes PROJECT ADDRESS: Old Spanish Trail/Broadway Blvd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. 1. Final approval will not be granted until an approved DSMR has been accepted by Development Services. 2. The future SVT's appear to be incorrectly shown. Please revisit and if needed please revise/correct. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/06/2006 | 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: 9/06/06 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: Street name Blue Indigo is approved, however, correct the suffix to Place or Court. es |
| 09/07/2006 | 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 () 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: 09/08/06 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 REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 08/30/06 Common Area “B,” detention basin has been identified as a multifunctional basin to include usable open space accessible to the handicapped. An active/passive recreational facility will include a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material and adult recreational amenities will include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Please illustrate on the landscape plan how this requirement will be met. |
| 09/18/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S06-003 Lilac Townhouses Tentative Plat Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 15, 2006 DUE DATE: September 8, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Please revise the RCP 9 Data note 3. Change heading "required" to "allowed" and "actual" to "proposed" for both density and site coverage calculations. Define the units as "36 units per acre" for both allowed and proposed. 2. Please add to the legend the crosshatch pattern and what it represents. DS 2-03.2.1.J 3. Please provide the total square footage of provided outdoor space for each lot typical (326.62 sq. ft. for lots 1-7, 9-11, and 14-20 and 1074.3 sq. ft. for lots 8, 12, & 13) and identify by square footage the provided consolidated space for each lot typical (184.08 sq. ft. for lots 1-7, 9-11, and 14-20 and 579.3 sq. ft. for lots 8, 12 & 13). Please provide note that the consolidated space provided for each lot would not obstructed by any overhang less than seven (7) feet above design grade. LUC 3.6.1.4.D.2.c.4 4. Please provide a detail drawing depicting compliance with barrier free accessibility requirement. Barrier free accessibility is defined as functional access for semiambulatory and nonambulatory persons, from a street or parking space to, into, and through a building. LUC 6.2.2 Barrier-Free Accessibility 5. 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. Please provide color photos of the surrounding area and color elevations of the proposed project. This information must be included in the submittal package to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies (DSD and DUPD). LUC 3.6.1.4.A.3 & DS 2-10.3.2.B & C 6. 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 7. Please clarify the land area at each the end of the hammerhead. These areas are not part of individual lots and are not placed within either Common Area "A", "B". or "C". Please define this area as part of a common area. 8. The parking ratio for visitor parking is one parking space per dwelling is required for common area parking within the subdivision. Therefore twenty (20) parking spaces must be provided in the common area parking for this subdivision. The parking calculations show twenty-one (21) guest spaces being provided. Please revise the guest parking calculation to reflect the proper number of provided parking spaces. Please describe the nature of the DSMR. If applied for and approved please place the DSMR case number on all sheets of the tentative plat and list what approved and any conditions applied. DS 3-01.2.4.D & DS 2-01.2.4.D 9. The pedestrian circulation must connect all elements of the subdivision by utilizing crosswalks and access ramps where necessary. There does not appear to be connection from the sidewalk along the lots on the south to the lots on the north or east. A continuous pedestrian path that meets accessibility requirements must be provided to connect lots 13-20 to the north sidewalk, which will then create a continuous path. 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. DS 2-08.3.1 & ANSI A117.1-2005: Sec 406.1, 406.6, 406.12 & Sec 705.5 10. Building setbacks for garages for lots 1-12 do not meet the requirements as provided in LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.2.b. The distance between the street pavement edge and the garage face must be eight (8) feet or less in order to discourage motor vehicle tandem parking that would block the pedestrian area or overhang the roadway. LUC 3.2.6.5.B.2.b Building setbacks for all other structures from the street are based on half the height of the structure wall that would require eleven and three-fourths (11.75) feet for the second story. It is not evident why the home on lots 13-20 require a twenty (20) foot setback. Please clarify. Please revise the building setback matrix to reflect the proposed setbacks and indicate on the lot typicals these requirements for both the main house and garage for clarification. (See previous comment) This must be provided prior to tentative plat approval. Previous Comment - 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. LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1 & DS 2-10.3.2.D 11. Perimeter building setbacks shown for lots 8 & 12 do not meet the minimum setback requirements as denoted in the perimeter yard width matrix "CC" when adjacent to office or commercial zones. Setbacks are based on the height of the building wall. Based on the elevations provided the parapet height is twenty-three and one half (23.5) feet. The setback shown for the north property line of lot 8 and south property line of lot 12 is ten (10) feet. Please revise. LUC 3.2.6.4 12. Please delineate the existing and future curb locations on the plat. 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 required setback from Old Spanish Trail is the greatest of twenty-one feet (21') or the height from the back of the future curb (LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B). If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-003tpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 09/21/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 21, 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 August 10, 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 Color Elevations, Photos, and Floor Plans (Zoning, 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 |