Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-097
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/13/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. |
| 11/02/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and provide a calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover. The required ground coverage must be achieved within two (2) years from the date of planting. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.5,DS 2-06.3.4.D.2 The calculations on the plan for the First Avenue border appear incorrect. The calculation is based on the projected size of each shrub, accent or groundcover plant. 2) Show required sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan consistent with those shown on the tentative plat. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle. LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06 Select low growing plants and revise the tree species proposed in the SVT. 3) Revise the plans to meet the requirements for screening for the central parking lot along Smoot Drive, while also complying with the sight visibility requirements. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 4) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. Retaining walls are acceptable for only up to 35% of the basin perimeter. DS 10-01.4 |
| 11/02/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-097 Lofts at Villa Savonna 11/01/06 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Northside Area Plan GATEWAY or SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: November 06, 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 (X) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: April 26, 2006 REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: October 31, 2006 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN |
| 11/07/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: S06-097, Lofts at Villa Savonna, 3808 N. 1st (administrative address) New residential subdivision, (Residential Cluster Project) Tentative Plat, 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 7, 2006 DUE DATE: November 6, 2006 COMMENTS: DS 2-03 REVIEW COMMENTS 1 (Per last review). Per DS 2-03.2.4.G and 3-05, With regards to visitor parking spaces: A) The visitor parking spaces which are 90 degrees to the street do not meet the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.3.7.5 (street may not be used for maneuvering in or out of a parking space). The exception to this provision is if a letter is provided from the City Engineer approving the location of the parking spaces. RESPONSE: Declares the engineering division is alright with this configuration. Please provide a communication from their division stating such. I have also been reminded that this street configuration requires a DSMR (Development Standard Modification Request) because the configuration proposed does not match any cross-section in DS 3-01. Please see engineering comments for further details. B) Proposed on street parking and widening of the established Smoot Drive requires approval from Permits and Codes for right of way work 791-5100. Please provide commentary from this department that work on Smoot Drive will be permitted as shown. RESPONSE: Declares the engineering division is alright with this configuration. Please provide a communication from their division stating such. TYPICAL DETAIL DRAWING COMMENTS 2. Typical detail drawings F,G, and H all demonstrate building setbacks. Staff has one concern with setbacks. The required setbacks are taken with the height of the exterior building wall in mind. Walls in these detail drawings are measuring height from finished floor, not from finished grade as zoning includes to measure height. Please check your building plans to determine how much of a pad is proposed and ensure building heights are revised on the plans to include height from design grade. 3. Staff noted cross section F shows right of way at 38 feet. Per DS 3-01. Figure 1, the right of way should be 40'. Check with engineering for their advisement to ensure 2 feet of right of way area on private lots is acceptable. Zoning staff has no objection. 4. On typical detail F, label the left side of the cross section as the subdivision boundary and the right side of the drawing as abutting Smoot Drive. 5. Please label cross section G with the same subdivision boundary note. RCP 2-10.3.1 / RCP LUC 3.6.1 REVIEW COMMENTS 6. Per DS 2-10.3.1.B, provide a typical detail drawing for a corner lot and a lot nearest 1st Street (it appears there is no setback issue from 1st due to the great length the buildings are away from the future road widening) for record purposes. RESPONSE: Received typical detail, thank you. Provide typical detail for setbacks for lots next to hammer-head turn-arounds (lots 11, 12, 25), as this is still a part of the street. 7. (Per last review) Per DS 2-10.3.2.A, as 1st Street is a Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), Smoot Drive is also a MSR for setback purposes because it is a tributary off 1st Street. In light of this, please show: A) the back of the future curb location off 1st Avenue B) the distance from centerline of 1st Avenue to back of future curb C) the setback line at a distance of 21 feet from the back of future curb east into site RESPONSE: did not show these measurements. Showed from back of sidewalk instead. 8. (Per last review) Per DS 2-10.3.2.D, each lot is under 4000 sf, provide elevations to verify setbacks - measure from design grade to top of building - clarify if parapet roof. RESPONSE: I acknowledge the typical detail for the building elevation. Further details are needed, i.e. parapet, roof height? Provide building plans - ie. Optional porches? 9. The barrier free detail shows access to the front door via the driveway onto a sidewalk by the front door. This is not acceptable due to the driveway slope (?) and driveway width not being adequate enough for both a 4' clear path and the width of garage entry. Please provide a separate sidewalk connection to the front door from the street sidewalk. 10. Per DS 2-10.3.2.E, provide CCRs. RESPONSE: I acknowledge the CCRs will be provided on a further submittal. 11. Depending upon the responses given, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions, email Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or 791-4541x1156. C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-097 lofts at villa savonna 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 11/07/2006 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor's Office Mapping Department DATE: November 6, 2006 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S06-097 The Lofts at Villa Savonna T131430 (113-03) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE FINAL STAGE: 1. ADD BEARINGS FOR ALL LOT LINES 2. ADD RECORDING INFO. FOR EXISTING STREETS. 3. INDICATE TIE TO SECTION WITH DIMS AND BEARINGS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. ROSANNA WERNER |
| 11/07/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 3, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Lofts at Villa Savonna Tentative Plat. The activity number is S06-097. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on October 9th, 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TENTATIVE PLAT, DRAINAGE REPORT APPROVED: GEOTECHINICAL REPORT (Soil's Report) GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included on the Final Plat or in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. Development Standard 11-01.4.C. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standard 11-01.8.0. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to AzDES requirements. 8. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Indicate the height of the existing fence located on the south boundary line and the existing wall on the east boundary line. DS 2-03.2.3.H. 2. Clarify label "10' bufferyard D." It is not clear what "D" stands for. Is this a typo? Please clarify in the response letter and if needed revise the plat. DS 2-03.2.4.C. 3. For basins that are 3' and under, the slope ratio is 2:1 for protected side slopes. Retaining walls are acceptable for up to 35% of the basin perimeter. The current proposal appears to be exceeding this guideline. Revise the plat to meet this guide line. (See Landscape's comment 4) Retention/Detention Manual 4.3.1. 4. It is recommended to use curvilinear shapes rather than rectilinear or geometric shapes. However due to site constraints if rectilinear are used for basin shape a 10' radius at the corners of the basin is preferred to meet the Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design guidelines. Revise the basin appropriately to show 10' radius at the corners at each corner of the basin. SDRM 4.3.1. 5. The Geotechnical Evaluation (soil's report) that provides a recommended building setback is a minimum distance of 15' or four times the depth of the basin. The space between lot one and the basin is 5'. The current proposal does not meet the recommendation. Revise the plat to meet the recommendation. SMDDFM 14.2.6. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The drainage report shows the area of the project as 2.1 acres. The plat shows the project area at 2.33 acres. The size of the development should be the same on both documents. Be aware the watershed area provided in the Retention/Detention Basin Calculations in Appendix B shows an area of 2.1 acres. Revise the documents for consistency. 2. The revised drainage report still shows the basin volume at 2626 cubic feet on the proposed drainage exhibit. The basin volume provided on the plat and in other parts of the drainage report as 2617. The volume should be the same throughout the drainage report. Revise the drainage report for basin volume consistency. 3. The existing weighted runoff coefficient provided in Appendix B in the Retention/Detention Basin Calculations is for the 100 year event. The existing weighted runoff coefficient must be for the 5 year event. Revise the calculation appropriately. 4. Provide the proposed weighted runoff coefficient used in the Retention/Detention Basin Calculation. |
| 11/07/2006 | 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: S06-097 THE LOFTS AT VILLA SAVONNA/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: November 7, 2006 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: Correct scale on Location Map per letter dated 05-22-06. Spell out all street suffixes except on Location Map per letter dated 05-22-06. jg |
| 11/14/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 14, 2006 Thomas E. Guido, P.E. T & T Engineering, LLC. 5980 East Verde Place Tucson, AZ 85750 Subject: S06-097 The Lofts at Villa Savonna Tentative Plat Dear Thomas: Your submittal of October 9, 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Tentative Plat ( Addressing, Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD), 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Elevations (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: 577-0929 |