Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-114
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/07/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/08/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | December 8, 2004 TO: Derek Roberts Arcadis THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Limberlost Townhomes, Lots 1-49 and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S04-114 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. SHEET 1. Revise General Note 10 to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PUBLIC AND WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND MUST BE ACCEPTED AND RELEASED FOR SERVICE BY PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNECTION PERMITS. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. 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 |
| 12/08/2004 | 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: S04-114 LIMBERLOST TOWNHOUSES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: December 8, 2004 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: Change Guadalajara Court to Fortune Loop on pg. 2. jg |
| 12/13/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the proposed retention basins to comply with the requirements for basin configuration per DS 10-01.0, p. 74-78. Vary the shape and sideslopes of the basin and revise the plans such that slopes for basins 3 feet deep and greater are no steeper than 4:1. 2) Revise landscape note 5 on sheet L-1. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 12/16/2004 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering Review Comments for S04-114 - Limberlost Townhomes (2nd submittal) Resubmittal Required: Tentative Plat Drainage Report Landscape Plan The development plan, drainage report and landscape plan have been reviewed and are not acceptable for approval. The drainage report and landscape plan were reviewed for tentative plat purposes only. The following comments are offered: 1. Differential grading. Sufficient technical justification for the fills in excess of 2' has not been established. The tentative plat will not be approved prior to City acceptance of the technical justification for differential grading. Please be aware that 2 common mitigation measures (setbacks and buffering/landscaping) might adversely affect the lots. 2. Retention basin. Water ponds in the "channel" from the north property line along Limberlost to the south property line where Park Avenue ends. This "channel" also provides the required retention storage volume. The requirements for retention basins as it regards geometry, plantings, etc. still apply. The common area for the retention facility must be designated separately from other common area designations. 3. Existing 100-year floodplain. Please show the existing 100-year floodplain on the tentative plat. It can be labeled "to be removed upon completion of construction". If keynote 13 is used for the existing 100-year flood wsel (floodplain?), provide another keynote for developed conditions. 4. Collector channel design. Although the channel is not collecting sheet flow as most collector channels are designed to do, the proposed channel south of Lots 19-22 still functions more as a collector channel than a conventional open-channel flow channel and must be designed accordingly. Sufficient erosion protection must be provided along the southern edge of the channel to prevent failure due to headcutting or scour (SMDDFM 8.5.13.3). If the channel cannot be designed with a depth equal to twice the flow depth, a floodwall can be designed in lieu of the levee discussed in Sec. 8.5.13.5 of the SMDDFM. This would require that there be no openings in the wall and the wall would require a design to withstand the anticipated forces of the flowing water. 5. Limberlost sidewalk. Detail how the 10-year flow will be discharged beneath the sidewalk in accordance with DS 3-01 (multiple locations in DS). 6. Lot drainage. Detail H on Sheet 4 shows split flow lots whereas Exhibit 2 in the drainage report appears to indicate otherwise for Lots 1-13 and 38-40. Indicate how the backyards of these lots drain toward the street. If there are further questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, ext. 1192 or Matthew.Flick@tucsonaz.gov. Matt Flick, PE Engineering Manager |
| 12/17/2004 | 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 S04-114 Limberlost Townhouses 12/16/04 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO, Irrigation) CROSS REFERENCE: C15-88-04 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Northside Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: December 20, 2004 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: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 12/14/2004 Elevations provided are to include a color palette and identification of the application of those colors on the structures. The idea of rezoning condition 12 was to allow adjacent neighbors and neighborhood associations to review the project prior to CDRC submittal. The required submittal should include a copy of the invitation, sign-in sheets, and minutes from said meeting. The letter submitted from the Campus Farms Association Steering and Land Use Committee is only a portion of the requirement. Please correct the spelling of “guest” in the legend on sheet 3 of 8 of the tentative plat. The proposed passive/active area behind lots 14-19 does not fit the requirement of a centrally located amenity within the subdivision as indicated by rezoning condition 9. Please revise location to meet requirement. |
| 12/20/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. The Consultant should note however: 1. Taper is misspelled several times in detail S/7. 2. There are several what appear to be attribute tags in detail S/7 that read "project name" that I don't think belong there. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/27/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/27/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S04-114 Limberlost Townhouses, Lots 1- 49 and Common Areas "A" and "B" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: December 27, 2004 DUE DATE: December 21, 2004 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 August 25, 2005. 2. The street is to be wide enough to allow for parking on both sides of the street. Per the tentative plat drawing, sheet three it does not appear that parking has been provided on both sides of the street as required. Please demonstrate on the drawing that parking can be accommodated on both sides of the street and without interfering with the driveway locations. Previous Comment: I acknowledge that 13 spaces are required and have been depicted on the plan based on .25 spaces per unit. For clarity and reference, please depict other locations on the street where cars may park without interfering with driveways. Also for clarity please draw more clearly the footprint of the dwelling units and carport/garages. Depict the parking spaces on site. DS 2-02.2.2.G 3. Per the landscape plan the lots 1-14 are not designed with ten-foot landscape buffers. Detail "I" on sheet 4 notes that the perimeter yard setback is ¾ the h or ten-foot landscape buffer. Please revise the note to state that the setback is based on the greatest of ten feet or the height of the structure. List the lot numbers that are affected by this building setback and draw and label the perimeter yard setback on sheet two. Previous comment in its entirety as reference: Draw and label the perimeter yard building setbacks. The setback adjacent to the R-2 Zone is based on the greatest of 10 feet or ¾ the height of the structure. The building setback from Limberlost Drive is based on the ADT for the roadway. With and ADT of 140 to 1000 the setback is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. If the ADT exceeds 1000 the required building setback is the same but is measured from the back of the future curb location. Please add and label the perimeter setbacks as required. The interior building setbacks are based on the proposed town home development criteria. It is clear that interior building setbacks will be 0 feet except for lots 14, 15, 22, and 23. Please add on the plan the approximate building setback for these lots where applicable. Add typical lot detail drawings for a corner and interior lots based on the proposed models. The lot details must depict the carports/garages and dwelling footprints along with the open areas clearly defined and dimensioned. A total of 300 square feet of the open space with a total of 100 square feet of the contiguous open space is required for each unit. DS 2-10.3.1.A and .B 4. Please submit legible copies of the building elevations. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S040114tpb.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, land landscape plans, and additional requested documents |