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: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S02-052
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/29/2003 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/02/2003 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P. on the following conditions.:

1. SVT's still do not have the dimensions on the plans. (ie 20x110)
2. The symbol used for new signs is not IAW the Standard Details for Public Improvements 1994 edition. New signs are to have solid posts IAW SD100 sht 5 of 8.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us
05/06/2003 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING REVIEW 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: May 6, 2003
DUE DATE: May 12, 2003

1. Fill in the S02-052 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the NPPO plan.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

2. 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, revise the typical plot plan layout to be to scale (at the 1"=50' scale the dimensioned 10 feet in front of the homes only scales to 5 feet on the drawing). The side street building setback must also meet the requirement of the greater of 21 feet or (H). Revise detail drawing by removing the 3-foot side street dimension and dimensioning from nearest edge of travel lane.
LUC 3.2.6.5

3. Remove note stating all setbacks are measured from property line as some are measured from travel lane and must be dimensioned that way.
LUC 3.2.6.5

4. 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


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608.
05/08/2003 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: May 8, 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: Lots 67 thru 71 will be addressed from “Monks Tale Drive”. Therefore, “Monks Tale Drive” will need to labeled adjacent to these lots on sheet 4 of Final plat.


***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.***
05/08/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
05/12/2003 CRAIG GROSS PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved 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
June 12, 2003

TO: Linda Thompson / David Little, 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 1-141 and Common Areas A
Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal
S02-052



The above-referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use:

1. Pursuant to Pima County Title Code 13.20.040.B.3.a, Lots 1-3 will qualify for the Participating sewer connection fee rate, based on the construction of approximately 65' of off-site public gravity sewer line. Lots 4-141 will qualify for the Non-Participating sewer connection fee rate

2. All Sheets: Show the subdivision plat case number, S02-052, larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers.

3. Sheet 3: Show the manhole number, rim elevation, and invert elevation of the "existing" manhole in G-2002-170, to which the proposed sewers will be connected.

4. Sheet 3: Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A requires that public sewer lines be put under the paved portions of streets to the maximum extent viable.

Move Manhole #1 to the west so that it is directly south of the "existing" manhole in G-2002-170. Eliminate Manhole #1A and the proposed sewer easement across the corner of Lot 135.

Also, delete the C.A. "C" labels shown on Lot 135.

5. Sheet 4: Sewer line 13 must have a minimum slope of 1.0% to comply with PCWWM Engineering Standards, as it is a terminal reach.

6. Sheet 4: Modify the sewer design data tables as necessary to reflect the above changes.

Note: Placing all of the sewer design information in a single table shown on just one sheet greatly slows our review processes, and this strongly contributes to the backlogs that this office regularly experiences. It also makes the sewer design data extremely difficult to find on the scanned images of the tentative plat Mylars.

For these reasons, we are requesting that all engineering companies show the design data for the proposed sewers in labels within the drawing for all future projects submitted to this office for review. We are not asking that the drawings for this project be revised in this manner, however. The design data for sewers may be in a single table shown on just one sheet for the next submittal of this project.

6. Sheets1 & 2: Modify as necessary to reflect the above changes.

7. Subject to the above, the tentative plat is hereby approved. The required changes may be shown on the Mylars.

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
05/13/2003 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

S02-052 Cantebury Ranch 05/12/03

( X ) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( X ) 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: May 12, 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
( X ) See Additional Comments Attached
( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
( X ) Resubmittal Required:
( X ) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( X ) Landscape Plan
( ) Other

REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 5-6-03
05/18/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Canterbury Ranch Tentative Plat second submittal
ACTIVITY #: S02-052

SUMMARY: The revised documents, including the Tentative Plat, Landscape Construction Documents, Native Plant Preservation Plan, and Drainage Report, were received by Engineering on April 29, 2003. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. Please completely address the following comments.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1) Substantial redesign due to Drainage Report comments will result in additional comments.
2) A meeting must be schedule to go over these comments prior to resubmittal.
3) For resubmittal, provide soils report with results from infiltration testing, revised Tentative Plat, and revised Drainage Report.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
4) Revise basin locations; no on-line detention facilities will be accepted since portions of the upstream wash are natural. As stated in first set of comments, 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 basins do not conform to these standards and need to be revised. SDRM, 3.5.1 (DS Sec.10-01.III.5.1.7)
5) On sheet 3 and 4, show 50-foot ROW tangents, label 60-foot radial dimensions, and revise proposed survey monument locations for standard curb knuckle for Millers Tale Drive to Franklin Tale Drive per DS Sec.3-01.10.Fig.22.
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. Add a general note to the Tentative Plat stating that all proposed fills shall meet grading differential requirements as outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1.
7) Revise sheet 6, Section 4, which references Lot 31; should this be Lot 56?
8) Label ramp slope for north basin access ramp (maximum ramp slope is 15%) per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4. Sheet 7 shows a slope labeled as 10:1(H:V) on section view, and on sheet 3 plan view shows a steeper slope closer to 20:1(H:V). Clarify slope for this ramp.
9) Provide all locations for security barriers on the plan and appropriate sections. DS Sec.10-01.3.6.2. Surround basins and allow for access (gate?) to ramps.
10) Percolation tests are required for any basin that utilizes infiltration as a means of basin drainage. Provide soils report with results from infiltration testing. SDRM 3.5.1. Please note, additional percolation testing may be required at post-construction inspection.
11) Finish floor elevations of structures must be a minimum of one foot above the 100-yr. peak WSEL of adjacent basin including any revised basin locations. SDRM, 3.5.1.10
12) Remove the term "weep" from sections, unless weep holes are provided for releasing pore water pressure in retaining wall systems.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
13) Revise basin location; no on-line detention facilities will be accepted since portions of the upstream wash are natural. 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, 3.5.1.7 (DS Sec.10-01.III.5.1.7)
14) Please provide all contours or basis of watershed delineation.
15) Storm waters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. After the drainage scheme has been revised to meet the no on-line basin requirements, assure that the inlets and outlets are modified to show that the storm waters are released at the same locations and with the same magnitudes as existing conditions. SMDDFM, 12.5
16) Clarify discrepancy in the length of the weir structure and cut-off wall at west side of project near lots 131-133; the Drainage Concept Map depicts a length of 85 feet and sheet 3 is labeled as 70 feet.
17) 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. Address the following:
a) The Drainage Report sizes a 70-foot 24" RCP for this location. Clarify discrepancy in length shown on Drainage Map and length shown on Section 1 on sheet 5. Also, provide capacity calculation for Q100.
b) Revise length on sheet 5 labeled as "81.72 LF".
c) Section 1 Sheet 5 of the Tentative Plat shows a proposed swale is to be cut adjacent to the pavement on the south side of the road. It is still unclear how this offsite flow will enter the property; discuss and show on the plan.
18) Provide letter(s) of acceptance from adjacent property owners where drainage improvements extend beyond property limits. (DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.G.) Contact Permits and Codes (791-5100) for any right-of-way requirements. Any related drainage easements for the proposed offsite drainage improvements, including that area for the 24" RCP at Los Reales Road Extension may be required to be shown on the Final Plat.
19) Once the basin redesign is completed, assure that peak discharges for the critical basin detention system is reduced by 15%.
20) Emergency spillways must be incorporated into the design of any basin that employs embankments as a mechanism for storing floodwaters. The minimum design standard shall be the unattenuated 100-yr. peak discharge. Provide sizing for structures. SDRM, 3.3.4
21) Provide design that takes into account flows from Window Rock East that impacts site from the east boundary of this project, for both existing conditions since Window Rock East has not been completed to date, as well as, full build-out conditions as shown on approved plans. Quantify and show the location of all existing flows that enter the property. The Drainage Report shows a total of 367 cfs. Justify the lower quantity.
22) Existing contours show on off-site flow entering the property at Lot 107; is there a culvert here? Describe and quantify this concentrated flow. Storm waters must be accepted from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. Clarify how drainage will enter the property from the Frontage Road.
23) Provide / clarify thickness of riprap for slopes as well as splash pad for Section 3 on sheet 6.

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 Department