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: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-031
Review Name: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 07/24/2002 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections for the final plat. Add bearings to the lot lines and the Common Area “A”. Add the complete curve data and the dimensions and bearings for the street centerline. If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. 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. |
| 07/24/2002 | JIM TATE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Chantlalli Estates Tentative Plat. The activity number is S02-031. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on July 11, 2002. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. The next submittal should address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Please provide the Assurance package with the Final Plat review. 2. Provide a copy of the Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) as outlined in Tucson Code Sec. 3.6.1.5. Include the maintenance notes as specified in Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 3. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. IBC Chapter 36 Sec. 6. Proposed grading in excess of 5000 yards is designated as "engineering grading" and a soils engineering and engineering geology report would be required. IBC Chapter 36 Sec. 9.3 4. Common areas with different uses must be designated with a separate letter designation. DS 2-03.2.4.C 5. Rezoning condition 2 requires a 25-ft. radius spandrel at the access road intersection. Show the radius on the plat. 6. Show the north arrow, scale, and contour interval on Sheet 4. 7. The plat must be sealed by a registered engineer. DS 2-03.2.2.A.2 8. Dimension the existing right-of-way width on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.D 9. Obtain written approval from Solid Waste for curbside pickup. 10. Dimension the cul-de-sacs per DS 3-01 Figure 21. 11. Dimension the turnaround per DS 3-01 Figure 23. 12. Vertical curb is required in the turnaround. DS 3-01 Figure 23. 13. Sidewalk is required in the turnaround area. Rezoning condition 9 14. For each basin list top elevation, bottom elevation, weir elevation, water surface elevation. Show 100-yr. inflow and outflow quantity and location on each basin. 15. Dimension the intersection of "A" and "B" streets per DS 3-01 Figure 22. 16. See IBC Chapter 36 Section 13.1 for proposed fills in excess of 2 ft. within 100 ft. of residentially zoned areas (Lots 7, 44,45,46, etc. appear to meet this criteria). 17. Show which lots are front drainage and which are rear drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 18. The Tucson Code specifies that the Scenic Corridor buffer be left in its natural state. Channel 5A is in the buffer. Tucson Land Use Code 2.8.2.4 19. Channels 5C and 7B are in the future right-of-way. Obtain written approval from transportation for these structures. What drainage provisions are made for the elimination of these structures with road widening? 20. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed two feet. Show location and types of security barriers around the basins. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.6.2 & SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.f 21. A minimum of one 15-ft. wide vehicular access ramp must be provided into each basin. Show location of ramps. SMDDRM, 14.3.4 & 2.3.1.6.A.4.b 22. Finished floor elevations must be a minimum of 1 ft. above the water surface elevation of any adjacent detention/retention basin. Show FFE on lots adjacent to basins. SDRM, 3.5.1.10 23. Show location of detail I Sheet 3 on Sheet 5 (weir detail for basin 1) 24. Show detail of outlet structure for basin 2 with elevations. Show location of outlet structure on sheet 4. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4.a 25. Label the Q100=35 cfs as "inflow" on basin 1 Sheet 5. 26. Detail K shows a water depth of 3 ft. The Drainage Report specifies 2.49. 27. Detail L shows a water depth of 4 ft. for basin 2. The Drainage Report specifies 3.79. 28. Where each channel is labeled include the 100-yr-flow quantity. 29. On Details G and D specify the type of slope protection (concrete?). 30. Detail H shows a WSEL of .70. The Drainage Report worksheet specifies .75. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The runoff coefficients for the retention calculations appear to be incorrect. The coefficient for type "B" soil for the 5-yr. event is .24. The table for CP-1 and CP-2 shows .31. Using the percent impervious data from the hydrologic data sheets the coefficients for CP1A and CP1B appear too high. 2. The retention calculations should be based on the site area of 23.32 acres. The calculations provided are based on 27.9 acres. 3. Peak outflow on the Tentative Plat for basin 3 shows 94 cfs. The Drainage Report routing shows 85.11. 4. Page 10 states that the retention volume in basin 3 is .84 ac-ft. Page 5.01 in Appendix D with the weir invert specified at 2297 gives a retention volume of .477 ac-ft. 5. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report must address, as a minimum, soil classification, soil erodibility, soil permeability, slope stability, and ground-water elevations. The report must also provide a minimum setback of buildings from basins. SDRM, 3.5.1.5 SMDDFM 14.2.6 6. Appendix D outlet data shows a circular outlet orifice at 2295. This is the bottom elevation of the basin. This eliminates all retention. Provide retention requirements. 7. Appendix D basin 3 outlet -rectangular weir data (p. 6.02) specifies an invert of 2297. Detail J Sheet 3 on the Tentative Plat shows 2297.5. 8. The channel 4 and 6 worksheets use a Mannings coefficient of .013 for shotcrete. This should be .019. 9. Design depth of channel 5B is 3 ft. The culvert design headwater depth is 3.5 ft. What are the results of the channel overflowing? Show quantity and location of flows on Tentative Plat relative to this analysis. 10. The Tentative Plat specifies the existing RCP crossing Silverbell as 48 in. The Drainage Report specifies 42 in. 11. Describe inlet structure for existing Silverbell culvert and how channels 5C and 7B join this structure. Show 100-yr flow quantities on Tentative Plat in culvert and over road. 12. What is the maximum flow on any subdivision road? Provide a worksheet for this flow to determine water depth. Stormwater runoff on an all weather access route can not exceed 1 ft. in depth during the 100-yr. storm. The 10-yr. storm can not cross a sidewalk. All streets shall be designed and constructed so that the maximum rate of storm runoff flowing in the direction of vehicular travel should not exceed 50 cfs. DS 3-01.4.4.E DS 3-01.4.4.F DS 3-01.4.4.B 13. Provide a table specifying predevelopment and post development 2-, 10-, and 100-yr. peak discharges for the purpose of showing that detention requirements have been met. James C. Tate, P.E. Senior Engineering Associate |
| 07/30/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the Tentative Plat submitted for review dated June, 2002. For your information, an additional 10 foot wide easement to TEP will be required through Common Area A and Block A for a loop system for the electrical feed from the south side of this project in Rinehart Court (Pole No. 52, shown on enclosed facilities map). The location of said easement(s) will be depicted on the preliminary construction drawing, and requested to be granted by Final Plat. The proposed dedication of the right-of-way of Silverbell Road will create a conflict with existing overhead 46KV and 13KV electrical facilities. The relocation costs of these facilities shall be borne by the developer. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. at the customer’s request, a design can be provided prior to the Approved Tentative Plat, however, once a design is provided, any design changes will be billable to the developer. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 884-3879. Sincerely, S. Glynda Rothwell Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgr |
| 07/30/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | Comments on file |
| 07/30/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | Comments on file |
| 07/31/2002 | CDRC Review Process | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | COMMENTS ON FILE |
| 08/02/2002 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | ENGINEERING - TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the tentative plat. Revise as noted. 1. Realign street section B/2 (Street A) at the westbound entrance to the subdivision. The alignment shown gives a trap right turn onto Street E. 2. The north curve/header shown at Silverbell and Street A does not reflect a southbound deceleration lane as required by rezoning condition # 3. 3. The location of the "No Parking Fire Access" signs shall be shown on the Tentative Plat according to Rezoning condition # 11. 4 Use the City of Tucson standard " No Parking Fire Access" detail. The detail shown does not reflect this standard. |
| 08/06/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | Plans and details for the scenic route buffer area must be revised in compliance with LUC 3.7.5.2.E which limits slopes to 3:1. Additionally the project may be evaluated to determine if the existing topography is sufficiently maintained in the course of the scenic corridor zone review. LUC 2.8.2.2 The scenic route buffer area is be a minimum of thirty feet wide, revise all landscape plans and notes to comply. LUC 3.7.5.2. The scenic route buffer area is required along the entire street frontage adjacent to the MS&R right of way line. The proposed landscape buffer terminates where it meets common area A. Revise the plans to provide for the buffer along the entire frontage. LUC 3.7.5.2.A Decomposed granite should not be used within the scenic route buffer area unless it occurs naturally on the site. Ground surface treatments within this area should include only native vegetation and inert materials native to the area. LUC 3.7.5.2.A Add the following two notes to the landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the SCZ requirements. Make any necessary revisions to comply with the requirements. Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R rightof-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. Within the the area between the property line LUC 3.7.5.2.D Provide a list of native indigenous vegetation occuring on the site or in the vicinity. Selection of plant material for the scenic buffer must be from that list. DS 9-06.4.0 Per rezoning condition a pedestrian/landscape area is to be provided adjacent to all interior street curbs. The tentative plat and landscape plan should identify these areas. Trees and shrubs are to be selected and located so that, at maturity, they do not interfere with existing onsite or off-site utility service lines or utility easements. LUC 3.7.2.6.B Additional information regarding the trees required by condition of rezoning is necessary. Include note regarding maintenance responsibility for the trees and plan for irrigation. |
| 08/06/2002 | FRODRIG2 | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | PROJECT: Chantlalli Estates S02-031 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: August 1, 2002 DUE DATE: July 31, 2002 COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 July 9, 2003. 2. This project has been assigned subdivision case number S02-031. Please note the case number on the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Add the following note to general note 22: “This plat is designed to meet the Hillside Development Zone criteria. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7 4. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) and Hillside Development Zone (HDZ). A separate review is required for the SCZ. The case number for the SCZ review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans. 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. The SCZ requires separate review. A thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS & R right-of-way, is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. Maximum height of a structure is one-third the distance of the structure from the future-right-of-way, not to exceed 24 feet in height. Material and/or paint description for areas of structures and signage visible from the Scenic Route are reviewed for colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earthtones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. For more specific information on this process, please contact our office. The HDZ review is done along with the review of the tentative plat. The ACS calculations must be reviewed and verified by the City Engineer. Refer to Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.1 for development criteria that needs to be submitted. Notes that must be added to the tentative plat include: 1) All proposed site work, including grading must comply with Development Standard 9-04.0. 2) Exposed exterior walls and roofs of structures, except satellite dishes, must be earthtone in color and will blend with the predominant natural colors found on the lot. Satellite dishes may be black. White is not permitted. 3) Building height is limited to 24 feet within the HDZ. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7 L.U.C. 2.8.1 L.U.C. 2.8.2 D.S. 9-04 5. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded by final plat, please so state D.S. 2-03.2.4.J 6. Add the following general note: “In every RCP, there shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council.” L.U.C. 3.6.1.4.A.10 7. Maximum site coverage allowed per RCP-4 is 50%. Site coverage calculation on sheet 2 of 5 indicates a maximum allowed site coverage of 62%. Revise as required. L.U.C. 3.6.1.4.B 8. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R’s are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R’s must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. The CC&R’s must also detail the restrictions on the proposed natural areas. L.U.C. 3.6.1.5 9. All requested revisions must be made to the Tentative Plat, Landscape and NPPO plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. DRC I:\tentplat2002\S02-031a.doc |
| 08/07/2002 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Subdivision and Development Pima Association of Governments Review Requests Transportation Planning Division CASE #: S02-031 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 NAME: Chantlalli Estates Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 DATE: 7/31/2002 STREET NUMBER 1 Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street Silverbell Rd (north of Ironwood Hill) Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? No Year: Planned Action: Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 10,100 Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 24,500 Existing Number of Lanes: 2 Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 50,825 Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” 40,000 Future Number of Lanes: 4 Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development 584 (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) None Existing or Planned Bikeway Paved Shoulder Remarks: STREET NUMBER 2 Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? No Year: Planned Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 0 Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 0 Existing Number of Lanes: 0 Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 0 Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” 0 Future Number of Lanes: 0 Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) Existing or Planned Bikeway |
| 08/13/2002 | CDRC Review Process | OTHER AGENCIES | REAL ESTATE | Approved | S02-031 Chantalli Estates No objection |
| 08/26/2002 | GLENN HICKS | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 22, 2002 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project S02-031 Chantlalli Estates CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed and approved. |
| 09/04/2002 | CDRC Review Process | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 03, 2002 TO: Wocky Redsar, Castro Engineering Corp. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Chantlalli Estates, Lots 1-61, Block A and Common Areas A and B Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S02-031 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on the preliminary sewer layout as shown on the referenced tentative plat, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. However, a final determination of this status cannot be made until approval of the sewer construction plans and/or preparation of the sewer service agreement. 3. Add the subdivision plat case number, S02-031, to the title block of each sheet. 4. Delete the second sentence in General Note 10. It is just a repetition of the last phrase of the first sentence. 5. Provide a viable method (easements only) for future flowthrough from the intersection of Rhinehart Court and Criswell Avenue on the south side of the proposed subdivision. The easements must be sufficiently wide to allow the installation of a manhole with a depth of 10' or more at this intersection. 6. We will require a revised development plan. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr |
| 09/25/2002 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | UTILITIES | QWEST | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | C. CHAVEZ | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | POLICE | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | MIKE CARLSON | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | CDRC Review Process | PIMA COUNTY | DEV REVIEW | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | CDRC Review Process | UTILITIES | SW GAS | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | WATER | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | BILL DODDS | OTHER AGENCIES | US POST OFFICE | Passed | No Response |
| 09/25/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | REVIEWER: Rafael Sebba DATE: July 30, 2002 COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS S02-031 Chantlalli Estates Subdivision This project is to comply with the conditions of Rezoning Case No. C9-02-04. Please address the following: Rezoning Condition 8 stipulates that a ten (10) foot landscape/pedestrian area shall be provided on both sides of all interior streets, measured from the back of the curb. The landscape/pedestrian area shall contain a minimum of one canopy tree for every two lots. Please relocate required canopy trees inside the 10 foot landscape area. Rezoning Condition 11 stipulates that the location of any “No Parking” signs shall be disclosed by a note on the final plat and shall be shown on the tentative plat. Please provide locations of “No Parking” signs on tentative plat where required. Rezoning Condition 14 stipulates that any required or proposed masonry screen walls shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate on of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please include on the tentative plat a detail of the wall treatments that satisfy this requirement. Rezoning Condition 15 stipulates that any continuous wall greater than 75 feet and 3 feet in height visible from the public right-of-way shall vary in alignment (jogs, curve, setback, notch, etc.) and include trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations. Please include on the tentative plat a detail of the wall treatments that satisfy this requirement. There appears to be a need for additional arterial modifications along Silverbell Road due the increased traffic from “Street A” and from Silverbell Tree Drive, which is directly across Silverbell Road Rezoning. In addition, Condition 3 stipulates that a seventeen (17) foot wide, 250 foot long, southbound right turn/deceleration lane and transition/tapers shall be constructed on Silverbell Road. This condition does not appear to have been met. However, Planning defers to Traffic Engineering on this matter. |