Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-050
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/03/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 January 28, 2003 TO: Bruce Wilson, Landmark Engineering, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Julian Ranch West, Lots 1-372 Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S02-050 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, S02-050, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. Sheets 5 & 7: New Manholes 12, 39 & 40 are located in retention basins, washes, etc. that will not be accessible by PCWWM’s large, heavy maintenance vehicles during wet weather conditions. Title 13.20.030.A states in part, ". . . The size and location of public gravity sanitary sewage conveyance facilities shall be not less than eight inches in internal diameter and shall be routed so as to be positioned beneath the paved portions of public roads, streets, avenues, alleys and public rights-of-way, or within dedicated public sewer easements under paved private streets, to the maximum degree viable; to maximize visual access and to maximize unrestricted 24-hour maintenance vehicle access over and to the public sanitary sewerage facilities. The location of public sanitary sewerage facilities in easements or in areas with restricted vehicle access may be allowed on a case-by-case basis only if no alternative alignment is deemed viable by the department. In such instances, surface improvements sufficient to accommodate year round vehicular maintenance access and turning radii shall be required." Revise the design as necessary to comply with Title 13.20.030.A. Put the sewer lines under the paved portions of streets to the maximum extent possible. Show what surface improvements will be provided to drive to, and manuever around, all manholes not located in the streets. Show all turnaround areas that are necessary. Pima County’s maintenance vehicles have a minimum inside turning radius of 35' and a minimum outside turning radius of 55'. Any necessary turnaround areas must have an improved surface with a minimum 60' turnaround area. 5. It is my understanding that Glen Hitz of PCWWM has discussed a reconfiguration of the sewer lines for this subdivision with Landmark, and Ed Scalzo has also provided Landmark with feedback on this design during his review of the sewer improvement plans for this project (G-2002-170). Please revise the tentative plat and sewer improvement plans as suggested by Mr. Hitz and Mr. Scalzo, and to match each other. 6. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. 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 Copy: Project |
| 02/06/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of this T.P. 1. Sheet 1 - add general note 20 to read "All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W bock number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." 2. The symbol used for new no parking signs is incorrect. IAW SD100 the post shall be solid for new signs. Correct all sign symbols in the plan set. 3. Sheet 2 - show the location of the no parking sign in section B on both sides of the street. 4. Show no parking signs in cul-de-sac for Gull Court. 5. Sheet 7 - show SVT's for northbound traffic at the intersection of Egret Drive and Hackle Lane. The hatch pattern is missing for southbound SVT's at the same intersection. 6. In general, when placing No Parking signs, we try to place a minimum of 2 signs per block. The first to be placed as close as practical to the intersection for the oncoming traffic and the second near mid-block (a property line proximity is preferable). Relocate said signs appropriately along Egret Drive. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 02/06/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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 : February 6, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/ addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: ON FINAL PLAT Correct lot numbers for “Julian Ranch Subdivision” S02-024. Change “Parliment Drive” to “Parliament Drive” on pg. 7. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County=s Geographic Information System. Your Support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 02/07/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: February 4, 2003 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 January 30, 2003. 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. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific 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. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 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. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. The line table for the Tentative Plat is missing. 2. Sheet 2 Detail B shows a 10 ft. landscape common area on both sides of the street. Label this on all appropriate sheets. 3. It still appears that Egret Drive widens for parking across from lots 108-111 (comment 15 from first review), and 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. 4. Show existing flood limits for the flow from the south. These floodplain limits determine how the flows from the south must be released after development. Floodwaters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes as encountered under existing conditions. DS 2-03.2.1.J SMDDFM 12.5 5. The weir table lists the weirs by number. There are no labels on the plan. It can not be determined which weir goes where. Label the weirs on the plan. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2.3 6. Sheet 5 detention basin 7 info says weir elevation of 2732. The Cipolletti weir information (same sheet) shows 2733. The weir table and Drainage Report indicate 2732. 7. Detention basin 6 Sheet 5 information and Weir Table do not agree. 8. Basin 3 WSEL and Weir Table do not agree. 9. Sheet 8 Basin 1 information does not match Weir Table. 10. Include the weir location and weir data on Sheet 6 (basin 5). 11. Show the location of all culverts and channels as specified in the Tables on Sheet 9. 12. What is the proposed drainage structure between Basins 7 and 6? Identify this structure and show the appropriate data. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2.3 13. Basin 6 Sheet 5 shows outflow of 472 cfs. The Drainage Report routing shows 1 cfs. 14. The Tentative Plat shows an outflow from Det 1 of 112 cfs. The Drainage Report routing shows 19 cfs. 15. Basin ponding limits must not encroach on lots. Basin 4 ponding limits encroach onto lots 176 and 177. Basin 3 on lots 242, 242. Basin 5 on lots 189, 190. 16. A maintenance ramp is required into the southern channel (north and south of Tercel Drive). SMDDFM, 14.2.4 17. Basin maintenance ramps can not be accessed over a scupper. Several of the ramps appear to be inaccessible. 18. Provide a maintenance access ramp to Det 6. 19. Basins 2 and 5 encroach into the future wash dedication. Basins can not be located in the public right-of-way. 20. Lots 188-191 are showing FFE as 1.67 feet above finished grade. A typical foundation thickness is .67 ft. 21. The southern collector channel on the plat appears to end at lot 35 (where the flow from the proposed development from the south would enter the property). This channel must collect all the offsite flow from the south assuming existing conditions. Extend the channel. Drainage Report 1. The Channel Table gives the peak water depth (D) but not the minimum recommended channel depth (including freeboard). Show minimum recommended channel depth on the Channel Table in the Drainage Report and Tentative Plat. 2. The south channel must be designed to collector channel standards. It must be assumed that the proposed project to the south does not exist. The alternative is to set up the Assurances (as an assurable item in the Third Party Trust Agreement) such that there would be no lot releases allowed in the floodplain area (see note 4 above) until all drainage structures are complete in the proposed subdivision to the south. Substantial changes must be made to the plans submitted for that project. Remove from Sheet 4 all reference to this proposed subdivision (the lot lines, channels, flow quantities, etc.). Design the south channel to collector channel standards. See SMDDFM, 8.5.13 3. The southern collector channel on the plat appears to end at lot 35 (where the flow from the proposed development from the south would enter the property). This channel must collect all the offsite flow from the south assuming existing conditions. Design the channel to extend the full necessary length to capture the offsite flow. 4. Perform a backwater analysis of the flow in the south channel from the weir to the inflow as sheet flow. The WSEL along the entire length of this channel must be determined using a backwater analysis. Appropriate freeboard for the channel and curves must be provided. SMDDFM, 8.5.1.3, 8.5.1.4, 8.5.10.1 5. Page 1 and 17 refers to 2-year threshold retention. Change these to 5-yr. retention. 6. Determine the existing floodplain limits from the south (see comment 4 above). 7. The Weir Table data, weir information on the Tentative Plat, the HEC-1 routing, and the Detention Basin data do not agree. The routing, the tables, and the plat must all show the same information. There are so many discrepancies only a few examples will be given: 8. The Weir Table WR3 Q100 is 468. The routing for Det 6 shows 1 cfs. 9. The Weir Table WR1 Q100 shows 112 cfs. The routing shows 19 cfs. 10. The Weir Table WSEL for WR3 shows 2732.56. The routing shows 2731.48. 11. The Weir Table WSEL for WR1 shows 2729.86. The routing shows 2729.33. 12. Table 7 Det 3 WSEL (2730.97) does not agree with the routing (2731.20) 13. The Tentative Plat Sheet 7 Basin 4 WSEL shows 2735.68. The Drainage Report Table 7 shows 2734.68. 14. The Tentative Plat Sheet 7 Basin 3 WSEL shows 2730.91. The HEC-1 routing shows 2731.20. 15. It appears that the one-half weir outflow from Det 3 (38cfs) was not routed to Det 1 in the HEC-1 routing. 16. The Det 1 outflow in the HEC-1 routing shows 19 cfs. The Tentative Plat shows 112 cfs. 17. Page 6 specifies OFF-1 will outlet the site via a broad crested weir. Give specifications on this weir. Show and give appropriate data on the plat. James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 02/07/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: February 4, 2003 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 January 30, 2003. 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. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific 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. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 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. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. The line table for the Tentative Plat is missing. 2. Sheet 2 Detail B shows a 10 ft. landscape common area on both sides of the street. Label this on all appropriate sheets. 3. It still appears that Egret Drive widens for parking across from lots 108-111 (comment 15 from first review), and 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. 4. Show existing flood limits for the flow from the south. These floodplain limits determine how the flows from the south must be released after development. Floodwaters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes as encountered under existing conditions. DS 2-03.2.1.J SMDDFM 12.5 5. The weir table lists the weirs by number. There are no labels on the plan. It can not be determined which weir goes where. Label the weirs on the plan. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2.3 6. Sheet 5 detention basin 7 info says weir elevation of 2732. The Cipolletti weir information (same sheet) shows 2733. The weir table and Drainage Report indicate 2732. 7. Detention basin 6 Sheet 5 information and Weir Table do not agree. 8. Basin 3 WSEL and Weir Table do not agree. 9. Sheet 8 Basin 1 information does not match Weir Table. 10. Include the weir location and weir data on Sheet 6 (basin 5). 11. Show the location of all culverts and channels as specified in the Tables on Sheet 9. 12. What is the proposed drainage structure between Basins 7 and 6? Identify this structure and show the appropriate data. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2.3 13. Basin 6 Sheet 5 shows outflow of 472 cfs. The Drainage Report routing shows 1 cfs. 14. The Tentative Plat shows an outflow from Det 1 of 112 cfs. The Drainage Report routing shows 19 cfs. 15. Basin ponding limits must not encroach on lots. Basin 4 ponding limits encroach onto lots 176 and 177. Basin 3 on lots 242, 242. Basin 5 on lots 189, 190. 16. A maintenance ramp is required into the southern channel (north and south of Tercel Drive). SMDDFM, 14.2.4 17. Basin maintenance ramps can not be accessed over a scupper. Several of the ramps appear to be inaccessible. 18. Provide a maintenance access ramp to Det 6. 19. Basins 2 and 5 encroach into the future wash dedication. Basins can not be located in the public right-of-way. 20. Lots 188-191 are showing FFE as 1.67 feet above finished grade. A typical foundation thickness is .67 ft. 21. The southern collector channel on the plat appears to end at lot 35 (where the flow from the proposed development from the south would enter the property). This channel must collect all the offsite flow from the south assuming existing conditions. Extend the channel. Drainage Report 1. The Channel Table gives the peak water depth (D) but not the minimum recommended channel depth (including freeboard). Show minimum recommended channel depth on the Channel Table in the Drainage Report and Tentative Plat. 2. The south channel must be designed to collector channel standards. It must be assumed that the proposed project to the south does not exist. The alternative is to set up the Assurances (as an assurable item in the Third Party Trust Agreement) such that there would be no lot releases allowed in the floodplain area (see note 4 above) until all drainage structures are complete in the proposed subdivision to the south. Substantial changes must be made to the plans submitted for that project. Remove from Sheet 4 all reference to this proposed subdivision (the lot lines, channels, flow quantities, etc.). Design the south channel to collector channel standards. See SMDDFM, 8.5.13 3. The southern collector channel on the plat appears to end at lot 35 (where the flow from the proposed development from the south would enter the property). This channel must collect all the offsite flow from the south assuming existing conditions. Design the channel to extend the full necessary length to capture the offsite flow. 4. Perform a backwater analysis of the flow in the south channel from the weir to the inflow as sheet flow. The WSEL along the entire length of this channel must be determined using a backwater analysis. Appropriate freeboard for the channel and curves must be provided. SMDDFM, 8.5.1.3, 8.5.1.4, 8.5.10.1 5. Page 1 and 17 refers to 2-year threshold retention. Change these to 5-yr. retention. 6. Determine the existing floodplain limits from the south (see comment 4 above). 7. The Weir Table data, weir information on the Tentative Plat, the HEC-1 routing, and the Detention Basin data do not agree. The routing, the tables, and the plat must all show the same information. There are so many discrepancies only a few examples will be given: 8. The Weir Table WR3 Q100 is 468. The routing for Det 6 shows 1 cfs. 9. The Weir Table WR1 Q100 shows 112 cfs. The routing shows 19 cfs. 10. The Weir Table WSEL for WR3 shows 2732.56. The routing shows 2731.48. 11. The Weir Table WSEL for WR1 shows 2729.86. The routing shows 2729.33. 12. Table 7 Det 3 WSEL (2730.97) does not agree with the routing (2731.20) 13. The Tentative Plat Sheet 7 Basin 4 WSEL shows 2735.68. The Drainage Report Table 7 shows 2734.68. 14. The Tentative Plat Sheet 7 Basin 3 WSEL shows 2730.91. The HEC-1 routing shows 2731.20. 15. It appears that the one-half weir outflow from Det 3 (38cfs) was not routed to Det 1 in the HEC-1 routing. 16. The Det 1 outflow in the HEC-1 routing shows 19 cfs. The Tentative Plat shows 112 cfs. 17. Page 6 specifies OFF-1 will outlet the site via a broad crested weir. Give specifications on this weir. Show and give appropriate data on the plat. James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 02/10/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Approval of the wash mitigation plan is required prior to Tentative Plat approval. The landscape mitigation plan should be revised to include only native species on the wash side of the asphalt path, as was required in the initial Julian Ranch project. Confirmation from the Parks Department is required regarding the terms of the maintenance plan. Parks Department acceptance of the WASH proposal is appropriate and necessary prior to approval. |
| 02/10/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Approval of the wash mitigation plan is required prior to Tentative Plat approval. The landscape mitigation plan should be revised to include only native species on the wash side of the asphalt path, as was required in the initial Julian Ranch project. Confirmation from the Parks Department is required regarding the terms of the maintenance plan. Parks Department acceptance of the WASH proposal is appropriate and necessary prior to approval. |
| 02/12/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | TO: Plans Coordination Office Development Services Department PROJECT: S02-050 Julian Ranch West, Lots 1-371 and Common Areas "A" and "B" Tentative Plat FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner Zoning Review Section TRANSMITTAL: February 12, 2003 DUE DATE: February 10, 2003 COMMENTS: The Zoning Review Section approves the tentative plat for this subdivision, subject to the following changes on the executed tentative plat. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised tentative plat to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 1. Per conversation with Derek Roberts with Landmark Engineering all mechanical equipment is to be ground mounted. Please add to general 6 under the RCP data text block that the mechanical equipment is to be ground mounted and screened by the patio walls. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera at (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S02050tpca.doc |
| 02/13/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: February 12, 2003 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 approved the submittal dated January 28, 2003. |
| 02/13/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-050 Julian Ranch West 02/11/03 ( ) 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: February 10, 2003 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: 2-4-03 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 still does not adequately address vehicular connectivity integrated with future and existing development, with a balanced vehicular network. The tentative plat appears to show an unimproved future access point at Hackel Lane and S. McKinley Avenue. 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 that will be improved and developed now for this project. Please show on the Tentative Plat an improved 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. It appears that the proposed pedestrian linkage to the Julian Wash regional trail system is provide along S. McKinley Avenue, and then winds its way through the detention basin north of Hackle Lane onto the regional trail system. Is this correct? 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. |