Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-001
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/14/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved 5/12/03. |
| 05/20/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Lakeside Ridge S03-001, T14S, R15E, SECTION 28 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on May 09, 2003 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Statement: 1. Provide design calculations for the proposed spillways and energy dissipaters at the discharge points into the Atterbury Wash.. 2. Provide Erosion Hazard setback calculations. Tentative Plat: 1. A lot of the notes on the Tentative Plat are overlapping. Revise as necessary. 2. Not all the parcel boundary information is shown. Revise as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.B. 3. Verify compliance with Section 13-FILLS of Chapter 36 "Excavation and Grading". This includes following the required procedure to allow fills of 2' or more within the outer 100' of the subject parcel. For your convenience, I have included below Section 13-FILLS from Chapter 36: SECTION 13 - FILLS Section 13.1 This criteria applies to all non-residential developments, and all residential developments with lots that are less than 24,000 square feet, that are adjacent to an existing residential development or residentially zoned property (excepting multifamily developments greater than single story), or unsubdivided non-commercial property. This criteria does not apply to phase boundaries within a master planned development or to individual lots within the interior of a residential development, or to small swales and drainage rills. Placement of fill in excess of two (2) feet [or a finished floor elevation (FFE) in excess of two (2) feet plus the slab thickness] above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred (100) feet of the developing site (less any intervening non-developable property outside of the site) shall require: 1) Written justification based on engineering/technical reasons. 2) Written permission of the Director of the Development Services Center (DSC) or his/her assignee. 3) Notification of the property owner(s) adjacent to the fill site (with copies to the Council Office and the Director of DSC) prior to the approval of a grading plan. Said notification shall include reference to this ordinance, the justification presented as the basis for the excess fill, the approval letter from DSC, and the name, address, & phone number of the owner/developer and the engineer of record. This notification shall occur early in the development process. 4) Preparation of a mitigation plan (i.e. additional setbacks, terracing, enhanced buffering/landscaping, etc.) acceptable to a simple majority of the notified property owners. The acceptability of the mitigation plan by the notified property owner(s) must be documented and made a part of the approved grading plan and permit. If the owner/developer and the notified property owner(s) cannot reach consensus on a mitigation plan within 15 working days of receipt of the mitigation plan by the notified property owners, the Director of DSC shall review the issues and information and then render a final decision. Monitoring of grading activities shall be the responsibility of the engineer of record and certification of FFE's shall be done by a registered land surveyor hired by the permittee. Regulation, inspection, control of work, and enforcement of the above criteria shall be the responsibility of the Director of DSC/Building Official as stated in Section 17 of Exhibit 3 of Ordinance No. 9155. 13.2 Preparation of Ground. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal (50% slope). The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, non-complying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable materials scarifying to provide a bode with the new fill and, where slopes are steeper than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope) and the height is greater than 5 feet (1524 mm), by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope) shall be at least 10 feet (3048 mm) wide. The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or a paved drain shall be provided. When fill is to be placed over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least 10 feet (3048 mm) wide but the cut shall be made before placing the fill and acceptance by the soils engineer or engineering geologist or both as a suitable foundation for fill. 13.3 Fill Material. Detrimental amounts of organic material shall not be permitted in fills. Except as permitted by the Building Official, no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches (305 mm) shall be buried or placed in fills. EXCEPTION: The Building Official may permit placement of larger rock when the soils engineer properly devises a method of placement, and continuously inspects its placement and approves the fill stability. The following conditions shall also apply: 1. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, potential rock disposal areas shall be delineated on the grading plan. 2. Rock sizes greater than 12 inches (305 mm) in maximum dimension shall be 10 feet (3048 mm) or more below grade, measured vertically. 3. Rocks shall be placed as to assure filling of all voids with well-graded soil. 13.4 Compaction. All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density. 13.5 Slope. The slopes of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal (50% slope). 4. It is not clear what the delineation consisting of a solid line, three dots and solid line represent. The symbol does not appear to be included in the Legend. 5. In order to ensure that Atterbury Wash runoff will flow freely and that the City has right to order the wash cleaned or repaired, dedicate a flowage easement over Atterbury Wash 100-year floodplain as required by Section 3.4 of Chapter III of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ (SMDDFM). If the Wash is proposed to be dedicated to the City, verify with the Transportation Department that the City will accept the dedication. Additionally, clarify on the Tentative Plat how the owner is proposing to dedicate the Wash (i.e. by final plat or a separate instrument). 6. All proposed easements must be dimensioned (D.S.2-05.2.4.G.) 7. Clarify where the existing easements and their recordation information, locations, widths and their purpose are shown on the Tentative Plat as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.C. 8. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions 4 through 10. Demonstrate compliance on the TP. The submittal did not include an attached letter, which addresses compliance. 9. Clarify where the proposed easements are shown as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.J. 10. All survey monuments should be shown and described as either found or set (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A). Additionally, Provide survey monuments for all proposed lots. 11. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. 12. Rezoning Condition #4 requires completing a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The Tentative Plat can be approved only when the CLOMR is approved by FEMA. The City will review the CLOMR application for completeness, but the City's acceptance of the completed application does not constitute an approval of the CLOMR. Submit a CLOMR application to FEMA as soon as possible. 13. For future reference, provide detailed response letters to our comments. Responses such as "done" and "corrected" are not enough to facilitate and expedite the resubmittal review. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Statement and an approved CLOMR |
| 05/21/2003 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Lakeside Ridge RCP S03-001 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: May 21, 2003 DUE DATE: May 22, 2003 The Zoning Review Section at Development Services verifies that the tentative plat meets the requirements of the Land Use Code, subject to the following changes. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the approval is void, and we request copies of the corrected tentative plat to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 1. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition g. by labeling the required bike rack and vegetative buffer. 2. Add a general note to the plat, which details the requirements for completion of project amenities and site improvements as stated in LUC 3.6.1.4.H. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 05/22/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: May 20, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-001 Lakeside Ridge CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed and approved. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 05/22/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: S03-001 LAKESIDE RIDGE/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: May 16, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 05/23/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Based on the October 25, 2001 letter from Mr. Benny Young, we understand that approval may be forthcoming with application for the easement and upon provision of the covenant mentioned. Please include on the plans the recording information and any information regarding the TRE. |
| 05/23/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-001 Lakeside Ridge 2/09/03 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-11 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 5/22/03 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment (X) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions (X) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: MSP DATE: 5/22/03 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-001 Lakeside Ridge 1/16/03 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-11 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 2/06/03 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment (X) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions (X) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: MSP DATE: 2/16/03 |
| 05/29/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering rejects this T.P.: 1. Stella Road is a collector as defined by MSRP. The near side SVT from Lakeside View Drive is required to be 260'. 2. The near side SVT from Lakeside View Drive intersecting SARNOFF is only required to be 180'. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division |