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 - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-051
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/02/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved February 02, 2005. |
| 02/14/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN (Fourth Review – based on third plat submittal) Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-051 Gracious Estates, L. 1- 30 02/14/05 () Tentative Plat (RCP) ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Ordinance No. 5817, establishing City zoning NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Interim Silverbell Land Use Policy GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Silverbell is Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 2/15/05 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 Attached Comments () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 1/25/05 () No Resubmittal Required to UP & D ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 2/10/0505 |
| 02/15/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the tentative plat and related documents to comply with LUC 3-7.5.2.E which reads "Cut and Fill. Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length. TP sht. 9, Lot 27 & sec. M/10 on Sheet 10. 2) We request clarification as to which individual lots require mitigation plans. See note 18 on sheet 1 of the Native Plant Preservation Plan. |
| 02/23/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Gracious Estates 3rd Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-051 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat package was received on January 15, 2005. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. The drainage addenda were reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. The following remaining comments need to be addressed. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1/Tucson Code Sec.26-7.1: The Erosion Hazard Setback line is indicated in this submittal of the Drainage Letter addenda. This setback appears acceptable. This information including calculation for equation 7.7a must be placed in the Drainage Report. Discuss method and results of EHS determination clearly in revised complete Drainage Report. Also, provide radial circle on Rc/Tw Assessment drainage exhibit, to clarify how the erosion hazard setback line was determined. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: For lot 2, as shown on sheet 6 of the Tentative Plat, provide discussion in the Drainage Report for the EHS location of 19' setback for bank along this curve of the wash. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J: The delineations for the floodplain limits are still unclear on the Tentative Plat near lots 23 and 24. Confirm the flow adjacent to lot 23; check floodplain delineations in this area. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 4) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: Regarding grading, address the remaining conceptual grading comments: a) On sheet 10, clarify reference for details for driveway crossing. Clarify whether detail D/10 is associated with these details. b) It was stated in the response letter that the map on sheet 2 was to be removed although this sheet is still shows grading limits. If the sheet 2 map remains a part of the Tentative Plat, please revise "Grading Limits" to Maximum Grading Limits". 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Clarify delineations on sheets 7 and 8 of the Tentative Plat. Some of the linetypes are still confusing for the floodplain lines. Show the complete 100-yr Floodplain lines and FEMA 100-year Zone AE limits. Consider variation of linetype widths to clarify all the lines. 6) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Any lots proposing in excess of 2 feet of fill must follow this standard. Address the following: a) Provide maximum finished pad elevations or maximum finished floor grades for Lots 6 - 9, 17 and 30 on the Tentative Plat. The maximum finished elevations shall be differentiated from minimum finished elevations, for those lots with floodplain restrictions; clarify either in the legend, or in a table, or on planview. b) Submit the separate differential grading letter with engineering justification for any lots exceeding 2 feet of fill, including lot 2, as stated in response letter. Once the engineering justification is reviewed, Development Services will provide a response letter. Subsequent procedures for differential grading shall apply including notification to neighbors and submitting the responses. As previously stated, this issue must be promptly addressed at Tentative Plat stage. 7) DS Sec.2.3.2.2.B.7: In next submittal, provide updated status of overlay zone reviews. 8) Per DSMR 04-25 label the "4' pedestrian refuge/circulation areas" on details A, F and J. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.2: The plat must contain the signature and seal of the professional engineer, who prepared the plat; remove "PRELIMINARY…". Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised complete Drainage Report, and response letter. The next submittal should address all the above items. You may call to schedule a meeting to go over comments if desired, at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 02/23/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/23/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 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 April 27, 2005. 2. SCZ application must be approved prior to tentative plat approval. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 02/24/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |