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 RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-040
Review Name: CDRC RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/18/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 11/27/2002 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-040 Drexel Manor 11/27/02 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C15-98-07 Annexation Alvernon/Benson Highway District NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: December 2, 2002 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 Attached (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: September 30, 2002 gtVIEWER: msp DATE: November 27, 2002 |
| 12/02/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Approved | |
| 12/02/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Drexel Manor RCP S02-040 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: December 2, 2002 DUE DATE: December 2, 2002 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. Revise the adjacent zoning designations on sheets 1, 3 and 4 of the plat to show the correct zonings to the northeast of the site, across Felix Blvd. are also zoned R-2 and C-2, and that property to the southeast across Benson Highway is zoned MU. Also, revise sheet 4 by removing the "C.O.T" designation outside of the property boundary near the southwest corner of the site, as this adjacent property is within unincorporated Pima County. DS 2-03.2.4.D 2. Revise the project location map to show all recorded subdivisions by book and page numbers (not docket and page numbers as shown) within the square mile shown. Also, remove docket and page numbers from the sheet index map on sheet 1. DS 2-03.2.1.D.3 3. Provide the approximate square footages and all dimensions of common area "A". DS 2-03.2.4.I Should the CDRC recommend approval of the tentative plat, please have the applicant submit sign-off copies for approval. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 12/03/2002 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering recommends DISAPPROVAL of this tentative plat. 1. Add general note 18 to sheet 1: "ALL NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STREET MANES MUST HAVE E-W BLOCK NUMBER ADDRESSES FOR E-W ROADWAYS AND N-S BLOCK NUMBER ADDRESSES FOR N-S ROADWAYS." 2. The SVT's are missing from sheet 3 that were present on previous submittal. 3. The SVT's on sheet 4 don't scale to the proper size. I show them scaling at 20x115 and 20x175. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 12/06/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | COMMENTS OF FILE |
| 12/11/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | SUBJECT: Drexel Manor Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: December 11, 2002 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S02-040 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat and revised Drainage Report were received by Engineering on November 18, 2002. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.4.L.5: Submit documentation from Pima County for acceptance of proposed construction in Pima County right-of-way. 2) On page 6, clarify discussions in sections for the Offsite Hydrology (developed) and Onsite Hydrology (developed). Your response asked for specific comments. Specifically: a) as discussed in Onsite Hydrology (existing) on page 6, watershed "ON2E" is labeled as "ONE-2" (Q100=41cfs) in Table 2, as "ON-2E" in hydrologic data sheet, and as "ON1" (Q100=43cfs) in Exhibit 1; "ON1" is used as onsite and offsite watershed labels; this watershed data is inconsistent throughout the report and needs clarification; b) there are references to both Exhibit 1 and 2 for the Onsite Hydrology (existing) section although the watershed labels for these exhibits do not match; c) Exhibit 1 watersheds OFF1 and OFF3 are discussed in various sections of the report, however the watershed data on Exhibit 1 does not match watershed data on Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 and discussion in Offsite Hydrology (developed) section of the report; d) the Offsite Hydrology (developed) section appears to reference Exhibit 1, however locations for "ON4" and "ON9" are not delineated on Exhibit 1; this section needs clarification to which exhibit it is describing; e) drainage areas for "ONE-1" and "ONE-2" on Table 2 on page 6, as well as acreage on hydrologic data sheets for "ON-1E" and "ON-2E" do not match acreage for "ON1E" and "ON2E" on Exhibit 2 table. 3) Clarify crest elevation 2600.3 in detention paragraph for basin DET2 WR-1 and in Table 9 on page 11. Assure data for all tables matches report and Tentative Plat. 4) Label the locations for the warped section analyses in Appendix D; resubmittal letter stated this was identified on sheet 3 and Exhibit 3 however it is not shown. Capacity for warped sections must assure that the 100-year flows are maintained within watershed boundaries and do not exceed maximum depth of flow. Scupper data has changed since first submittal. For basin DET3, warped section analysis states that the Q100 flow capacity for the street section in front of scupper SC2 is 33cfs, yet flow entering basin 3 on sheet 4 is labeled for 46cfs. The data shown on Table 6 on page 9 as well as the hydraulic calculation sheet entitled DREXEL HEIGHTS SCUPPERS in Appendix D does not match scupper data shown in SCUPPER OVERTOPPING ANALYSIS Table on Drainage Exhibit 4 (Developed) or in SCUPPER DATA Table on sheet 2. Check both the number of cells and Q values. 5) DS Sec.10-01.II.2.1: Watershed boundaries and existing flow patterns at property limits shall be maintained and the balanced and critical basin requirements must be met. Since the first submittal, the detained amounts for basin 4 have changed. In the balanced basin watershed, developed condition flows must be no more than existing conditions, yet the outflow for basin 4 has increased from 41cfs to 45cfs for the Q100 as well as 15cfs to 16cfs for the Q10. Developments in Balanced Basins shall show that post developed 2-, 10- and 100-year peak discharges do not exceed pre-developed conditions; revise 10- and 100-year event design for basin 4 to provide the adequate detention. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.Iand DS Sec.3-01.4.4.C: Specifically, explain result from your study of Alvernon flows. The report states that drainage for OFF5 and OFF6 flows east to west and yet "there is little chance that any flows will ever discharge to the east and then only in the 100-year event". The report states that flows from the intersection would be split North along Alvernon and East along Drexel Road", however topography indicates flow would be westerly along Drexel. Please clarify this section and state whether the 100-year flows will flow west from Alvernon, and, if and how the 100-year flows will impact the project. 7) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Provide soils report of percolation test results per this section. 8) Based on a review calculation, an impervious number of 65% was determined for watershed evaluations in developed conditions. Clarify discrepancy regarding average first floor area of 1,670 square feet on sheet 1 and the TYPICAL LOT DETAIL showing first floor of house not to exceed 3,100 square feet on sheet 2; square footage of 1,670 appears too low for an average first floor area, given that the maximum is almost twice the area. When lots are built using maximum lot coverage, with 3,100 square feet, a conservative value for imperviousness would be provided. 9) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.3: Per section on Erosion Control Downstream of Outlets, associated erosion protection for basin spillways and exits shall be designed. Once basin 4 has been designed to meet detention requirements, provide basin DET4 velocity and erosion protection calculations. Provide basin spillway embankment cross section detail showing the location for the proposed erosion protection. 10) Clarify flows entering basin 4. Drainage Exhibit shows 40 cfs entering basin DT4, yet data sheets for v-channel, rectangular channel, and 18" CMP show 11 cfs, 26 cfs, and 8 cfs entering basin 4. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: For boundary data, clarify the following: a) indicate datum location on a plan view and tie project to basis of bearing and shown section bearings; b) northeast and southwest boundary distances, as well as northwest and L1 boundary bearings shall match boundary closure calculations; c) note that for Final Plat, data shall match title report exhibit; 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Provide the following existing conditions: a) on sheet 4, label existing public right-of-way dimensions (and any MS&R future right-of-ways) and recordation data for Drexel Road. Show Pima County right-of-way dimension per MS&R Plan. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Cul-de-sac radii shown to edge of hatching for PROPOSED PAVEMENT AND CURB is labeled as 41 feet; minimum radius is 42 feet per 3-01.10.Fig.21. Clarify cul-de-sac radii to conform to dimensions per this section. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide elevations for future grading and drainage: a) provide scupper SC-4 invert elevation; b) provide inlet invert elevation for existing 3'X8' RCBC and labeled existing contours / existing spot elevations adjacent to basin 3 to assure basin is not accepting flows from Benson highway right-of-way; c) clarify location for basin 3 weir on sheet 4; d) provide cross sections at lots 134 and 140 to show adjacent offsite grades and drainage areas; e) please label existing contours on sheet 3; proposed elevations appear too low for channels and basins along southwest side of project; explain how flows from offsite watersheds are prevented from filling into proposed channels and basins; f) proposed street spot elevations are missing from first submittal, provide general grade break spot elevations in streets. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5: If area for erosion protection is needed for basin 4, verification of adjacent owners' permission would be required for any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the project. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the revised drainage report.) 16) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.3: Long-term channel degradation downstream of detention / retention basins must be considered as an integral part of the design of any stormwater detention / retention facility. Area for the associated erosion protection shall be shown for basin spillways and exits on the Tentative Plat. 17) Provide cross section showing proposed pad grades, existing and proposed slopes adjacent to Benson Highway, and any proposed walls with openings. Label wall opening size and spacing for any future walls. "Weep" holes are used to relieve pore pressure in retaining systems; please use the term wall openings, or similar, for surface drainage through patio walls. 18) Clarify discrepancy in square feet for lot coverage provided on sheet 1 and 2. (see above) LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS 19) Explain how water harvesting will be provided on Landscape Plan. Design shall correspond to Drainage Exhibit in Drainage Report. 20) Provide notation for restriction of existing or proposed structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility easements. A meeting with me to go over comments is required. Resubmittal is required. Submit the soils report, revised Drainage Report, and revised Tentative Plat. The next submittal should address all the above items. To set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
| 12/17/2002 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review |