Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-050
Review Name: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | Revise the landscape plans to include a summary, including quantities of the minimum number of TOS and mitigation plantings. DS 2-15.3.4.B A plant habitat inventory is required for development proposed within the study area of the Julian Wash. Sec 29-15 Development proposed within the resource area is subject to review and approval of a mitigation plan per Sec. 29-16. Submit the required reports and plans. Approval is required prior ot tentative plat approval. |
| 01/02/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: December 31, 2002 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project S02-050 Julian Ranch West CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed and has the following comments related to the Julian Wash River Park. Plans should indicate the following: Dedication of a 50ft wide, exclusive, public, non-motorized recreational trail easement for the Julian Wash River Park. The easement shall not be subject to any caveats or limits. Asphalt path specifications are two (2) inch thickness with (3) inch thick compacted ABC base. Trail specifications are two (2) inch thickness of ¼ inch minus stabilized decomposed granite compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. |
| 01/02/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S02-050 Julian Ranch West, Los 1-372, and Common Areas "A" and "B" ( RCP ) Tentative Plat - First Review TRANSMITTAL: December 27, 2002 DUE DATE: December 24, 2002 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 November 27, 2003. 2. Please label the following items in the location map; The City of Tucson/Pima County Limits, Julian Wash, Southern Pacific Railroad. DS 2-03.2.1.D. 3. On the index drawing on sheet one, revise the zoning classification labeled as C-2 to R-1. Also, label the areas designated as Common Areas "B". DS 2-03.2.1.E 4. Under the owners' text block the phone number is listed as 577-9898, on the CRDC application the owners' number is listed as 733-0051. Please revise the phone number as required. DS 2-05.2.2.A.1 5. This project has been assigned the following subdivision case number S02-050. Please list the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all tentative plat including landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 6. According to the city of Tucson Planning Department Zoning and Overlay maps, a portion of the subdivision is with the Airport Environs Zone Overlay. The AHD (150') boundary line lies along the most northern portion of the subdivision. Based on the location of the AHD (150') boundary line as shown on the overlay map, it does not appear that the site will be impacted in any way. For reference the boundary line must be drawn in and labeled. A note that states that this subdivision is designed to meet the criteria of the AEZ overlay zone must be added to sheet one (1). See Landscape and Engineering comments regarding the W.A.S.H ordinance overlay. General note 17 states that this project is designed to meet the criteria MS&R overlay criteria. None of the streets in the subdivision or the street that this subdivision has frontage on is a major street. The note is not required on this plan unless McKinley Avenue has been added to the MS&R plan map. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 DS 2-03.2.2.C.3 7. Label the Common Areas on the tentative plat sheets. DS 2-03.2.4.C 8. The ten (10) feet wide P.U.E. over lots 32-36 and 50-53 appears to have been inadvertently left off. Add the P.U.E. as required. Access easements have been proposed on lots190 and 317. These easements appear to provide access into the drainageway areas. These easements also may interfere with the placement of the homes and driveways and possibly the carports/garages. If the easements are to remain as shown on the plan demonstrate that the development on both these lots will not interfere with the easement and visa versa. How will the easements remain accessible? (It is recommended that the easements be relocated elsewhere to avoid any conflicts.) DS 2-03.2.4.J 9. Refer to Community Planning comments regarding conformance to the criteria of the general plan and any of its components, including adopted area and neighborhood plans. LUC section 3.6.1.4.A.1 10. General note 6 states that all mechanical equipment will be screened. Add to the same general note how the screening will be provided. If the mechanical equipment is to be ground mounted the screening is generally accomplished by the perimeter wall. If the equipment is to be roof mounted a detail drawing that demonstrates how the equipment will be screened must be added to the plan. The screening for roof mounted equipment must be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP. LUC section 3.6.1.4.A.9 11. Under the Lot Setback Requirements text block note 4, replace 6' with 10'. The required building setback along a perimeter lot line is the greatest of ten (10) feet or ¾ the height of the structure. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.D LUC 3.2.6.4 perimeter yard designator "BB" 12. The required building setbacks (for structures other than carports or garages) for this project from the front lot lines (street frontage sides) have been determined to be the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the proposed back of curb location. Garages or carports must be 19 feet from back of sidewalk with a minimum of 18 feet from the property line. The third typical lot detail drawing depicts setbacks for Alvernon and Transcon roads. Neither road is applicable to this site. The detail should be revised to reflect the required setbacks from McKinley Road. Revise as required. LUC 3.6.1.4.E LUC 3.2.6.5.B 13. If available at time of the next tentative plat submittal, provide copies of the CC&R's for review. LUC 3.6.1.5 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S02050tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat and landscape plan |
| 01/02/2003 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/07/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 11/27/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 11/29/2002 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved. 11/29/02 |
| 12/10/2002 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 12/12/2002 | JIM TATE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: August 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Julian Ranch West Tentative Plat. The activity number is S02-050. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on November 28, 2002. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included on the Final Plat or in the CC&Rs. 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 6. Proposed developments exceeding 5 acres are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 for submittal requirements. 7. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 8. A W.A.S.H. Ordinance report is required. See Chapter 29 Tucson Code for specific submittal requirements. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Show the Wash Ordinance Setback limit. Tucson Code Chapter 29 DS 2-03.2.4.M 2. Show the erosion hazard setback limit. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.4 DS 2-03.2.4.M 3. Show any wash dedication. 2-03.2.4.I 4. Show the wash pedestrian trail on the plan 5. Show the Julian Wash floodplain limits, WSEL's, and 100-yr. peak flow (2270 cfs) on the plan. DS 2-03.2.3.J 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. Lots 28-35 and 234 - 242 meet this criteria. 7. Show a typical front draining lot detail and rear draining lot detail with proposed grades. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 8. It is assumed that the R on some of the lots indicates a rear draining lot. Please include this in the Legend. 9. With the north arrow and scale on each sheet include the contour interval. DS 2-03.2.1.H 10. Correct the subdivision case number (the correct number is S02-050). 11. The Legend has "basin limits" and "new sidewalks" but these are not shown on the plan. 12. Show the location(s) of Common Area B on Sheet 1. Label Common Areas on all sheets. DS 2-03.2.4.C 13. Include the note, "A Flood Use Permit is required". DS 2-03.2.2.C2.b 14. The lot numbers on Sheet 1 do not match those on Sheets 5 and 7. 15. It appears that Avocet Drive widens for parking across from lots 108-111. It appears that the right-of-way line crosses over the curb and sidewalk area. It would be preferable to maintain the sidewalk area in the right-of-way. 16. Dimension all cul-de-sacs per DS 3-01 Figures 20 and 21. 17. Dimension all curb knuckles per DS 3-01 Figure 22. 18. Show all curb and property radii. DS 3-01 19. Show and label all 100-yr. flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more. Existing and proposed. 2-03.2.1.J 20. Show all drainage structures on the plan. This includes culverts, channels, scuppers, weirs, etc. Label the structure and provide the appropriate data (i.e. size, Q, etc.). DS 2-03.2.4.L.2,3 21. Show details of all drainage structures. This includes culverts, channels, scuppers, weirs, etc. Provide appropriate dimensions and data on the details. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2,3 22. Show and label all rip rap areas on the plan. Indicate which structures will be concrete, shotcrete, rip rap etc. Show basin inlet/outlet protection. Drainage channels with slopes of 3:1 must have rip rap slope protection. Slopes of 2:1 must have shotcrete or concrete protection. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2,3 23. Show and label the 100-yr. ponding limits for all the basins. 2-03.2.4.L.1 24. For each basin, list the 100-yr. WSEL, bottom elevation, top elevation, weir elevation. Volumes are not required. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.a 25. The basin maintenance access ramps must be provided to the bottom of each basin. Show this on the plan. The ramp grade to the bottom must not exceed 6:1. SMDDFM, 14.2.4 26. Show all basin slope grades on the plan. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed two feet. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.6.2 27. Show OFF1 offsite flow location and quantity (35 cfs) on plat (entering from Julian Ranch). 28. The Drainage Report specifies the Det 2 WSEL as 2733.22. Sheets 7 and 8 of the Tentative Plat show 2733.11. 29. Show the outflow quantity of 92 cfs from Det 3. 30. Sheet 3 shows 29 cfs inflow to Det 8 from Avocet. The Drainage Report Exhibit 4 shows 35 cfs. 31. Label and dimension all bleeder pipes. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2,3 32 Finish floor elevations of structures must be a minimum of 1 ft. above the 100-yr. WSEL of an adjacent basin. Depending on floor slab thickness, lots 203-216, 224-225, 188-191, 314-318, and 334 might be too low. Provide FFE for these lots. SDRM, 3.5.1.10 DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The Drainage Report must address 5-yr. threshold retention not 2-yr. SDRM, 2.2 2. Page 7 says OND-14 accepts flows from OND-12. This is incorrect. 3. Provide erosion hazard setback calculations. SMDDFM 7.6 4. Provide culvert worksheets for CL2 and CL3. SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.C 5. Provide a channel summary sheet. 6. Page 11 Table 6 culvert summary CL3 does not agree with Exhibit 4 neither of which agree with Tentative Plat Sheets 5 and 7 culvert data. 7. Page 15 says bottom elevation of Det 8 is 2739. Sheet 3 of the Tentative Plat shows 2738. 8. Page 15 Tables 9 and 10 show a total post detention 100-yr. flow of 685 cfs. Exhibit 4 summation of flows is 585. 9. Flood waters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. It appears that under existing conditions that all flows leave the property as sheet flow on the west side of the proposed development. The proposed drainage scheme concentrates the discharge to two locations. Show that this discharge is essentially the same as existing conditions. SMDDFM 12.5 10. The channel on the south side of the development (CH5) must be designed to collector channel standards. The Drainage Report indicates that there is some channelization of the offsite flow. Design of the collector channel must take into account this concentration of flow. Provide appropriate calculations for the design. See SMDDFM 8.5.13 11. How does flow in the collector channel CH5 pass under Tercel Drive? Provide an appropriate drainage structure and worksheets. SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.C 12. Collector channel CH5 makes a sharp turn at the southwest corner of the property. Provide calculations for the radius of curvature for this turn. See SMDDFM 8.5.10.4 13. No on-line detention facilities are permitted if the upstream watershed is greater than 100 acres. The 466 cfs of offsite flow from the south can not be detained. SDRM, 3.5.1.7 James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 12/18/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO : CITY PLANNING FROM : KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT : S02-050 JULIAN RANCH WEST/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE : December 13, 2002 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: Correct the legal description on all Title Blocks. Correct the numbering on the lots. There are duplicate lot numbers and missing lot numbers. Choose another name for “Avocet Drive.” It will be a different street name west of “Gull Lane.” Change “Harrier Loop Road” to “Harrier Loop.” Delete “Littletown 2 Bk 11, Pg 1” and “Littletown 1 Bk 10 Pg 100” on pg. 1 (not Location Plan.) Delete “Window Rock” on pg. 4. Change “See Sheet 4” to “See Sheet 5” on pg. 7. |
| 12/20/2002 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Subdivision and Development Pima Association of Governments Review Requests Transportation Planning Division CASE #: S02-050 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 NAME: Julian Ranch West Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 DATE: 12/20/2002 STREET NUMBER 1 Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street Wilmot Rd (Valencia to Los Reales) Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? No Year: Planned Action: Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 2,100 Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 24,500 Existing Number of Lanes: 2 Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 4,764 Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” 24,500 Future Number of Lanes: 2 Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development 3,560 (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) None Existing or Planned Bikeway None 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 Remarks: |
| 12/20/2002 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review | |
| 12/20/2002 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: December 19, 2002 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S02-050 Julian Ranch West T151413 (140-37) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections to the final plat. Remove hatching from the streets. Add bearings for the lot lines and the complete curve data. 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. Susan C. King |
| 12/23/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Tucson Electric Power Co 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#98251 December 23, 2002 Mr. Bruce Wilson Landmark Engineering Inc. 300 N. Main Avenue, Suite 104 Tucson, AZ 85701 Dear Mr. Wilson: SUBJECT: Julian Ranch West Lots 1-372 S02-050 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the Tentative Plat submitted for review stamped November 20, 2002. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from Wilmot Road along Avocet Drive. An electrical feeder system will be required to serve this project. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Tentative Plat by approximately February 14, 2003, at the customer’s request. In the event the design that is being created has to be revised due to changes in the Approved Tentative Plat, costs shall 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 cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson D. Winans, The Schomac Group |
| 12/24/2002 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | This replaces earlier comments: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-050 Julian Ranch West 12/24/02 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C15-95-16 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: December 24, 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 ( ) 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: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 12-24-02 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Julian Ranch West, S02-050 Because this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its components, including the Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The proposed residential cluster project does not appear to adequately address vehicular connectivity integrated with future and existing development, with a balanced vehicular network. The proposed residential cluster project needs to provide an additional ingress/egress access point onto S. McKinley Avenue to be aligned with Hackel Lane and Elvira Road. Please show on the Tentative Plat a vehicular ingress/egress access point onto S. McKinley Avenue aligned with Elvira Road to the west. The Plans call for a pedestrian circulation experience that promotes pedestrian connectivity to include pedestrian linkages to regional trail systems, i.e. Julian Wash. The pedestrian linkage for any development south of the applicant’s site is S. McKinley Avenue. |
| 12/27/2002 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering recommends DISAPPROVAL of this T.P. at this time. 1. SVT's need to be shown for both cross streets at the intersections of AVOCET Drive and HARRIER LOOP road, and at AVOCET Drive and HACKLE Lane 2. No parking is allowed in cul-de-sacs. So indicate on plans by showing locations of No Parking signs. 3. Detail "B" on sht 2 of 8 should state "NO PARKING ON EITHER SIDE." Show location of no parking sign in detail section. Indicate locations of no parking sings along Avocet in plan view. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |