Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

The login landing page when selecting 'View' is still occurring and is still pending further investigation. 

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S02-052
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S02-052
Review Name: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/02/2003 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

S02-052 Cantebury Ranch 01/02/03

( ) 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: January 2, 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: 12-31-02
Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments
Cantebury Ranch, S02-052

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 Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual.

The proposed residential cluster project does not appear to adequately meet the intent of these Plans in providing pedestrian circulation experience which emphasizes creative site design, promotes pedestrian-friendly environment, and pedestrian connectivity within the proposed development, including linkages to regional trail systems, i.e. Julian Wash. It seems that the most probable pathway linkage to the Julian Wash for the proposed cluster project is either through connection with the interior trail system of the development immediately adjacent to the north, or through the use of S. McKinley Avenue. Please demonstrate on the Tentative Plat a designated pedestrian circulation system that connects residents to all open space/common areas, and linkages to regional trail system, i.e. Julian Wash, using sidewalks, bike paths, and decomposed granite trails. Provide a cross-section of these pedestrian pathways with the Tentative Plat.

Buffers shall be provided to mitigate adverse impacts of sound, views, and traffic. The Tentative Plat indicates that there will be approximately 19 units along the frontage road, with a 10’ street border. The Plans allow for additional buffering in addition to LUC requirements when the project is to be clustered at the edge of the project site, in order to mitigate any potential negative impacts regarding sound, views, odor, and traffic. Please show on the Landscape Plan that the area along the frontage road, Lots 105 through 124, will have additional denser vegetative buffering with 24 inch box canopy trees every 25’ to 30’.

The proposed residential cluster project layout appears to have provided only one ingress/egress access point for this development. It is important for safety and vehicular connectivity that new developments provide multiple ingress/egress access points. Please provide an ingress/egress access point along S. McKinley Avenue, and connect Los Reales Road to the I-10 Frontage Road.

Although the tentative plat for the proposed residential cluster project indicates common areas, these areas do not appear to be sufficient or easily accessible for this 144 unit, development. There appears to be ample opportunity to redesign or reconfigure this subdivision design in order to provide conveniently dispersed recreation/open space areas that are easily accessed through pedestrian circulation pathways. It seems possible that common area “B” and “C” could be designed as a pedestrian trail system for the proposed project, linking residents to all common area and appropriately dispersed “tot” lots/pocket parks. Please demonstrate on the Tentative Plat how all units have connectivity, pedestrian/bicycle, to all common areas, functional or open space; and provide usable recreational opportunities through “tot” lots/pocket parks that are appropriate for a 144 unit, development. Provide a cross section of the pedestrian trail system.

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 most appropriate pedestrian linkage to Julian Wash is either through interconnection with the trail system of the abutting development to the north or along S. McKinley Avenue. The pedestrian linkage along S. McKinley Avenue for example could be curb and sidewalk up to Elvira Road with an appropriate comparable path north of Elvira Road that connects into the Julian Wash regional trail system. Provide a cross section of this pedestrian circulation linkage that will connect into the Julian Wash regional trail system.
01/03/2003 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Craig and Ferne,
Attached is the transportation information for case #S02-052. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sandy White
Research & Statistical Analyst
Pima Association of Governments
ph: 520-792-1093 x108
fax: 520-792-9151
swhite@pagnet.org
01/03/2003 PETER MCLAUGHLIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ZONING Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Peter McLaughlin
Senior Planner

FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner


PROJECT:
Canterbury Ranch RCP
S02-052
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL: January 3, 2002
DUE DATE: January 2, 2002



1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before December 4, 2003.
LUC 4.1.7.1

2. Fill in the S02-052 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. Also, add the annexation case number (C15-95-16) to the lower right hand corner of all sheets.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

3. Provide the adjacent zoning designations for properties to the west across McKinley Avenue right-of-way (R-1 and C-2) and to the south across Los Reales Road right-of-way (RV). DS 2-03.2.4.D

4. Add the following general note: "This subdivision is subject to Ordinance No. 8677, which established zoning in the Wilmot/I-10 Annexation District per C15-95-16". Also, add any conditions of annexation as a general note.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.9

5. Add to general note 1 a statement that the RCP-4 portion of this development is subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.7.1.E and .F.
LUC 2.3.4.2.A.3

6. Revise the C-2 zone RCP note 1 to indicate that the maximum allowed building height is 40 feet. Revise both R-1 and C-2 RCP notes to also include the maximum proposed building height. Building setbacks may not be verified until proposed building heights are specified.
DS 2-03.2.4.M

7. Label Julian Wash within the project location map.
DS 2-03.2.1.D.2

8. Add the recordation information by docket and page numbers for all utility easements, or state that they will be "by final plat".
DS 2-03.2.3.C
DS 2-03.2.4.J

9. The project location map must be revised to show the city limits line. Also, fill in the subdivision case number for Julian Ranch (S02-050) to the north of the project site on the location map.
DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 &.4

10. A "common Area A-1,941 SF" and a 110.00' lot dimension are shown within proposed lot 54 on sheet 4 of 7, but no lot line is depicted and the common area does not show up on sheet 2 of 7. Please revise.

11. Provide the square footages for all three common areas.
DS 2-03.2.4.I

12. The required street perimeter yard building setback is incorrect as given. Revise street yard perimeter setback to read: "the greater of 21 feet or (H) measured from the outside edge of nearest adjacent travel lane." Also, remove the setback statement that reads "side: corner=5 feet". The side street building setback must also meet the requirement of the greater of 21 feet or (H). Also, revise drawing on sheet 2 of 7 accordingly. The only case where a 5-foot or (½H) street yard building setback may be used is in the case where the ADT is 140 or less, and in that case, the setback is measured from the curb, not the property line as shown. LUC 3.2.6.5

13. Revise the required perimeter street yard building setback to Interstate 10 (MS&R), to the southwest of site, to read: "the greater of 21 feet or (H) measured from back of future curb location." Revise the required perimeter street yard building setback to the south (Los Reales Road-non MS&R) and to the west (McKinley Avenue-non MS&R) to read: "the greater of 21 feet or (H) measured from outside edge of nearest adjacent travel lane." LUC 3.2.6.5

14. Add the telephone number of the owner/developer of the project to the plat. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

15. Add a general note to the plat, which details the requirements for completion of project amenities and site improvements as stated in LUC 3.6.1.4.H.
LUC 3.6.1.4.H

16. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6.
DS 2-10.3.2.E

17. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans.
DS 2-07.2.1.A



If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608.
01/03/2003 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


Telephone: 520-884-3879
Fax: 520-770-2002
WR#98656 December 23, 2002



Ms. Linda Thompson
The WLB Group
4444 E. Broadway Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Dear Ms. Thompson:

SUBJECT: Cantebury Ranch
Lots 1-144
S02-052

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the Tentative Plat submitted for review dated December, 2002.

The possible feed for this project will be from a proposed new feeder installation coming from Wilmot Road, along Avocet Drive. A feeder system, required to serve all 144 lots, will connect to an overhead line off of Benson Highway and Los Reales Road.

TEP will provide an electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within twenty-two (22) 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. Water and electrical load plans for single family residential houses will be required prior to creation of the design.

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
MJ Wilmot LLC
01/03/2003 FRODRIG2 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
February 07, 2003

TO: Steven Hill, The WLB Group, Inc.

THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services

FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater)
Pima County Development Review Division

SUBJECT: Canterbury Ranch, Lots 1-144 and Common Areas A-C
Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal
S02-052



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. It is not possible to determine with certainty what sewer connection fee rate should apply at this time, but it is likely that the Non-Participating rate will apply. If you believe that the Participating rate should apply to this project, please explain why, and provide all supporting documentation for this explanation.

3. Add the subdivision plat case number, S02-051, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers.

4. Show where and how the proposed new sewer lines, will connect to the existing public sewer system. Please note that Landmark Engineering has submitted a public sewer improvement plan (G-2002-170) for the proposed public sewer lines in the adjacent property to the north, Julian Ranch West (S02-051). It may be possible to connect to this proposed public sewer line.
Note: As of this date, this improvement plan has not been approved, and is therefore, possibly open for revision.

5. Sheet 3: Two circular symbols that are often used to represent existing manholes have been shown in the strip of Common Area C that runs northwest/southeast across this sheet. These symbols are adjacent to Lots 101 and 84. Show, and explain, this symbol in the legend.

6. Sheet 3: Two strips of Common Area C have been shown adjacent to each other between Lots 133 and 134. One of these is labeled as a 20' public sewer easement by plat on this sheet, but in Section 8 on Sheet 6 it is shown as 20' drainage easement. Revise as necessary for consistency.

7. Sheet 6: Show all underground utilities in Section 8.

8. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, to 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
01/03/2003 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 : S02-052 CANTEBURY RANCH/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE : December 31, 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:

Delete all street directions.

Change “Window Rock East-Unit 2 Bk 3, Pg 74” to “Bk 53, Pg 74” on project layout.

Change “Shiprock Dr.” to “Ship Rock Drive” (2 words) on project layout.

“Canterbury Drive” is a duplicate street name per 18.83.0405D. The street adjacent to lots 123-134 can also be named “Canterbury Tale Drive.”

Change “Chaucers Place” to “Chaucers Drive, Lane Trail or Way” per 18.83.04020.

Spell out all street suffixes except on site plan.

Change “Chaucers Place” to “Shipmans Tale Court” on pg. 2.

Delete “Via Rio Pico” on Site Plan.

Change “Chausers” to “Chaucers” on pg. 3.

Change “Canterbury Drive” to “Canterbury Tale Drive” on pg. 4.
01/06/2003 JIM TATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING Denied TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator
DATE: January 2, 2002
SUBJECT: First Engineering review of the Cantebury Ranch Tentative Plat. The activity number is S02-052.
SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on December 6, 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. 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.

8. Substantial redesign due to Drainage Report comments will result in additional comments.



The next submittal must address the following items:

TENTATIVE PLAT

1. Include the subdivision case no. (S02-052) on the Tentative Plat. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

2. Show the right-of-way width for McKinley. DS 2-03.2.3.D

3. The standard curb knuckle design, DS 3-01 Figure 22 must be used for the turns at Canterbury Drive to Chaucers Place and Millers Tale Drive to Franklin Tale Drive.

4. Streets with an ADT greater than 1000 must have vertical curb and roadway width of 40 ft. See DS 3-01 Figure 5. The total ADT for the subdivision is 1400. From Los Reales to Millers Tale Drive on Canterbury Tale Drive has an ADT greater than 1000. DS 3-01.2.2 and 2.3

5. The sight visibility triangle at Los Reales should measure 180 ft. DS 3-01.5.3

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. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. Lots 137-142 appear to meet this criteria.

7. Section 8 Sheet 5 says Lot No. 60. This should be Lot No. 141. Also, the finished grade does not match that shown on sheet 3.

8. Section 9 Sheet 5 says Lot No. 68. This should be Lot 133. Finished grade does not match sheet 3.

9. Section 5 Sheet 5 says Lots 8, 9, 10. These should be Lots 49-51.

10. Section 4 sheet 6 says Lot 58. This should be Lot 56. Show the 100-yr. peak WSEL.

11. Section 1 Sheet 6 says Lots 10, 11. This should be Lots 48, 49.

12. Section 6 Sheet 5 "STREET SECTION AT CULVERT" should be Section 4. The section shows a Q100=64 cfs. Sheet 3 shows 339 cfs. The drainage report CP 1 hydrograph summation shows 347.5 cfs. Revise.

13. Section 1 Sheet 5 shows a 100-yr. peak WSEL of 43.00. The other sheets show 43.9.

14. Section 6 Sheet 5 says Lot 90. This should be Lot 111. The grade does not match Sheet 4.

15. Section 2 Sheet 6 says Lots 65, 112. This should be 48, 49.

16. Section 8 Sheet 6 shows a 20 ft. drainage easement. Sheet 3 shows this as a sewer easement. Also, the pad grades do not match.

17. Section 3 Sheet 7 shows a cross sectional width of flow of 1.08. The Drainage Report specifies this to be 2 ft.

18. Sections 4, 5, and 6 Sheet 7 say 32' X 3' Trench Grate Structure. The Drainage Report specifies 32' X 3.33'.

19. The outlet for the Trench Grate Structure is specified as a 48" RCP in the Drainage Report. Sheet 5 and 7 shows the outlet structure to be 2-27"X42" HERCP. The Plat and the Drainage Report must match.

20. A minimum of one 15-ft.wide basin maintenance access ramp must be provided. The maximum ramp slope is 15%. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFFM, 14.3.4

21. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1, where water depths exceed two feet. Show the barriers on the plan and appropriate sections. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.6.2.

22. Emergency spillways must be incorporated into the design of any basin which employs embankments as a mechanism for storing floodwaters. The minimum design standard shall be the unattenuated 100-yr. peak discharge. Show on the plan and sections.
SDRM, 3.3.4

23. No "on-line" detention facilities are permitted if any portion of a wash is in a natural state upstream of the proposed basin, or if the upstream watershed is greater than 100 acres. The proposed on-line basin is not permitted. SDRM, 3.5.1

24. Percolation tests are required for any basin which utilizes infiltration as a means of basin drainage. Provide. SDRM 3.5.1

25. Finish floor elevations of structures must be a minimum of one foot above the 100-yr. peak WSEL of any adjacent basin. Show FFE for Lots 49-58. SDRM, 3.5.1.10

26. Maintenance access must be provided into all drainage channels. SMDDFM 1.5.1

27. Show the erosion hazard setback on those lots adjacent to the drainage channel. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4



DRAINAGE REPORT

1. No "on-line" detention facilities are permitted if any portion of a wash is in a natural state upstream of the proposed basin, or if the upstream watershed is greater than 100 acres. The proposed on-line basin is not permitted. Revise the plan. SDRM, 3.5.1.7

2. Storm waters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. The Drainage Report page 9 says that offsite flows are conveyed by sheet flow to the north boundary of the site. The proposed drainage scheme concentrates the flows at CP 1, CP 2, and CP 3. The drainage scheme must be modified to show storm waters released at the same locations and with the same magnitudes as existing conditions. SMDDFM, 12.5

3. Storm waters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. The Drainage Report shows offsite watershed 8.2 E must cross the proposed extension of Los Reales Rd. Section 1 Sheet 5 of the Tentative Plat shows a proposed swale adjacent to the pavement on the south side of the road. The Drainage Report sizes a 24" CMP (for this location?). It is unclear how this offsite flow will enter the property. Discuss and show on the plan.

4. The detention system for a critical basin must reduce peak discharge by 15%. The report shows a design reduction target of 10% (page 6). Revise.

5. Drainage must be contained within the right-of-way. Roadway sections and ponding depths at both trench grates show that the ponding limits will be outside the right-of-way. Revise.

6. The cross section of the 32'X3.33' Trench Grate Structure in the report shows a curb with an 8" reveal. Roadway sections in the report show a 6" reveal. An 8" reveal will require additional width to be shown on the plan. Revise.

7. Emergency spillways must be incorporated into the design of any basin which employs embankments as a mechanism for storing floodwaters. The minimum design standard shall be the unattenuated 100-yr. peak discharge. Size this structure. SDRM, 3.3.4

8. The Tentative Plat specifies the area of the subdivision as 28.56 acres. The Drainage Report uses 26 acres (page 1) in all the calculations. Revise all worksheets to reflect the total area of the development.

9. The Tentative Plat for Window Rock East shows 375 cfs of flow in the channel and 101 cfs of flow from the Window Rock East Detention basin impacting the proposed development. The Drainage Report shows a total of 367 cfs. Justify the lower quantity. Quantify and show the location of all existing flows that enter the property.

10. The outlet for the Trench Grate Structure is specified as a 48" RCP in the Drainage Report. Sheet 5 and 7 on the Tentative Plat shows the outlet structure to be 2-27"X42" HERCP. The Plat and the Drainage Report must match. The Drainage Report must properly size all proposed drainage structures. Compute the hydraulic grade line for this structure taking into consideration the flow in the proposed 8'X3" RCBC.

11. The detention basin outflow hydrograph used to sum for CP1 does not match the basin routing. The routing shows no outflow for the first 27 minutes. The hydrograph used to sum for CP1 shows flow. Revise.

12. The Hydrologic Data Sheet for CP1.1 shows a peak flow of 62.6 cfs. The hydrograph used to sum for CP1 shows a peak of 28.67. Revise.

13. The watershed that includes the drainage channel and lots 31-48 is not identified anywhere in the report. Provide the Hydrologic Data Sheet for this watershed and a hydrograph. Include this hydrograph in summing for CP1.

14. The watershed that includes the basin and lots 49-58 is not identified in the report. Provide the Hydrologic Data Sheet for this watershed and include this flow in the routing for the basin.

15. The depth of flow in channels can be computed by Mannings equation where relatively steady, uniform-flow conditions exist. Uniform flow does not exist in the proposed channel that carries discharge from the basin due to disturbances caused by changes in the channel width, discharge quantity, slope, etc. Whenever uniform-flow does not exist, the depth of flow must be determined from backwater computations. Provide these computations for the channel. SMDDFM, 8.5.1.3

16. Existing contours show on off-site flow entering the property at Lot 107 (culvert?). Describe and quantify this flow. Storm waters must be accepted from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. How will drainage from the Frontage Road enter the property?

17. The Hydrologic Data Sheets for existing onsite conditions use an imperviousness factor of 27% The existing site appears to have no impervious cover. The basin factor used is .04. This factor is incorrect for natural/rural dispersed flow conditions. The contributing area factor used is .9. This should be 1.0 for natural/rural conditions. Please provide sufficient supporting data (e.g., aerial-photographic analysis and field verification) to justify all the factors mentioned above for each watershed area and associated Hydrologic Data Sheet. SMDDFM, Table 4.2, 4.4

18. Worksheets for trench grates, scuppers, and roadway capacities use a roadway Mannings coefficient of .016. This should be .02 (maximum value for asphalt when cars are present). SMDDFM Table 8.1

19. Channel analysis worksheets use a Mannings coefficient of .016 for shotcrete. Normally this would be .019. Justify the lower figure.

20. Channel sections 8.1C and 8.1D show 3:1 side slopes with no bank protection. Rip Rap must be used. Show on the sections and apply the appropriate Mannings coefficient. Show these sections on the Tentative Plat.

21. Show the erosion hazard setback calculations for the lots adjacent to the drainage channel. SMDDFM, 7.6



James C. Tate, P.E.
Civil Engineer
01/08/2003 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: January 6, 2002

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project S02-052 Canterbury Ranch


CC: Craig Gross, Development Services



Staff has reviewed and approved.
01/08/2003 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: January 2, 2003


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
S02-052 Canterbury Ranch 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 in the final plat.
Remove the shading from the road.
Add the bearings for the lot lines and the complete curve data.
Show square footage for Common Area ”C” on sheets 3 & 4, and Common Area “B” on sheet 3.
If there are any questions, please contact Susan C. 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
01/13/2003 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Passed
01/13/2003 JOE LINVILLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LANDSCAPE Denied Revise note 31 on sheet 2 of the tentative plat to clarify that a NPPO Pre-Permit inspection is required. In addition, add the note to the Native Plant Preservation plan.

Add note to the Native Plant Presrevation Plan regarding the requirement to provide copies of monitoring to the Development Services Department. LUC 3.8.6.

Resubmittal of the NPPO Plan and the Tentative Plat is required.
01/13/2003 MARILYN KALTHOFF COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved From: Dorothy Robles, City of Tucson Real Estate
Date: 1/9/03
Re: S02-052
No Objection.
01/14/2003 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering DOES NOT RECOMMEND approval for this T.P.

1. Provide 2-way access from Los Reales Rd. to Benson Highway.
2. There shall be no parking in cul-de-sacs. Show locations of no parking signs in cul-de-sacs.
3. Label SVT's as to dimensions (ie. 125x20)


D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us
12/05/2002 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW Completed
12/06/2002 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Tentative Plat is approved 12/6/02.