Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-021
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/09/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/12/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | no comments. |
| 01/12/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | 1. No on-street parking permitted on streets less than 28 feet in width. 2. Parking permitted on only one side of streets 28 feet to 36 feet in width. 3. Indicate side of street to be posted with fire lane signs on plans and on Street cross sections "D", "E", "F" &"G". 4. Remove center island from "Courtland Drive". 5. Minimum pavement width for fire access roadways is 20 feet. 6. Provide note on plan:"Prior to submitting for paving and grading permits, the Developer shall submit plans to the Fire Department for review of fire lane sign posting." |
| 01/21/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | COMMENTS ON FILE. |
| 01/21/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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: S03-021 CIVANOII/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: January 16, 2004 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 “City Limits” line on Location Map. Delete section 1 under Location Map. Point “Civano Villas 51-96” to the correct location on Location Map. Add “a portion of” to Blocks 79 & 14 on all Title Blocks. Include page numbers on pg. 2. Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. jg |
| 01/27/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | no comments. |
| 01/27/2004 | 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 S03-021 Civano II 01/27/04 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-91-14, S97-035 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Revised Civano Master Plan, MOU, and Impact Systems Standards GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Houghton Road (Scenic Route) COMMENTS DUE BY: February 5, 2004 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: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: February 29, 2004 Page 4, irrigation note 3 of the Landscape plan, call out the use of potable water for irrigation. Per the Revised Impact System, page 11, all landscape irrigation will be accomplished with non-potable water, including reclaimed water, graywater systems, water harvesting systems or other alternative irrigation harvesting/graywater equipment or other alternative irrigation strategies not dependent on potable water will be provided at all Civano properties. Reclaimed water will be utilized in common areas and for nonresidential uses. The plan shall identify the non-potable water source for irrigation. It is the Developer’s responsibility to provide this. Per MOU 5.2.11, extension of reclaimed water lines to all common areas and nonresidential uses is required. Please revise landscape plan to meet this requirement. Per Revised Impact System, page 13, a recycling target of 30% wastes will apply to residences and business, increasing to 60% by the date at which 1,250 residential units have been constructed. Programs are to be coordinated between the developer and the City’s Solid Waste Management Department and work with the CCA to establish the on-site recycling/ composting center. Per MOU 5.3.8 Plans shall provide for built-in recyclable separation features and storage of hazardous materials. It is the Developer's responsibility for the design and construction of buildings with built-in recyclables separation features, and curbside recyclable storage/pick-up. Per MOU 5.2.7, provisions for recyclable materials pick-up areas consistent with requirements of the City Solid Waste Department is required. Please indicate on the plan how this is to be accomplished. The use of recycled building materials in building construction is promoted within Civano. It is the responsibility of the Developer to use in each structure some recycled construction materials. Per MOU 5.3.9 Plans for each structure shall identify some recycled material used in the construction of the structure. Programs shall also be established for construction waste to be recycled, to the greatest extent feasible (MOU 5.3.1.6). Please indicate on the plan how this shall be accomplished and describe a program that identifies this process. A major goal within Civano is to create one job for every two dwelling units. A basic requirement to implement this is the design of telecommunications capacity to enable the expansion of fiber optics or similar infrastructure to all commercial and home office locations. The placement of conduit to allow expansion of telecommunications capabilities as the population grows and demands such services is required during construction per MOU 5.2.9. Per Revised Impact System, page 20, 20% of the eventual total number of all dwellings are to be priced for low and moderate-income households, and that the affordable housing include all dwelling types built in Civano. Design, construction, and marketing of residences in accordance with the affordability target falls on the Developers. The Developer is to do this to the extent that assistance from public agencies, foundations, and other sources to finance and construct affordable housing is made available. Per MOU 5.2.10 the construction of affordable housing shall be reasonably uniform throughout the development of Civano. The Civano development as a whole shall approximately conform with this requirement at the time 500 residential dwelling units have been constructed, at the time 1,000 residential dwelling units have been constructed, at the time 1,250 residential dwelling units have been constructed, and at full buildout of Civano. Please indicate on the plan how this is to be accomplished. Per MOU 5.2.2 site design and grading plans shall limit site clearance on residential lots to preserve existing desert vegetation and maximize natural drainage in a manner consistent with the grading plans approved with the Master Plan. Areas not to be graded are to be temporary fenced to protect those areas that are to remain natural open space. Please identify these areas on the plan and how they are to be fenced off. MOU 5.2.4 requires the inclusion of commercial services and other mixed uses with residential developments, consistent with the adopted Master Plan. Access from residences to current or future commercial or employment areas by walking, bicycling or similar alternatives to automobile use are required. Please demonstrate on the plan how the current development connects to existing and future commercial/employment areas. The location of a community pool to be constructed early in the development of each neighborhood is required by the Developer and/or individual builders in an attempt to discourage construction of private pools (MOU 5.2.3). A community pool has not been indicated within this development. Please identify the location of this amenity. Residential energy demand is to be reduced by 65% through improvements to the shell, heating and cooling systems. All structures shall be designed and constructed to comply with the Civano Model Energy Code/Sustainable Energy Standard. All structures are to be designed and constructed so that there is minimal obstruction of solar light for adjacent properties at the level of a roof of a single story building constructed at the established setback. All structures must incorporate some beneficial solar application. Landscape and hardscape coloration and/or vegetation are to be used to reduce microclimate temperatures adjacent to buildings. Average reflectivity of all major exterior surfaces must be 0.5 or greater on the albedo scale. Compliance to MOU 5.3.1.3, 5.3.1.4, and 5.3.1.5 is required. A note must be placed on the plan indicating that all structures have complied and met these requirements and are certified by a professional in that field. This same note must also be placed on each individual plot plan when presented for building review. Per the Civano revised Master Development Plan, page 30; there are certain criteria that must be met when building within the R-2 zoned property. The R-2 zone is to be developed utilizing the Residential Cluster Project. 20 of the 31 energy-related criteria listed in Development Standards (DS) 2-10.5.0 must be met in order for this flexibility to be available. Please provide a note on the tentative plat that addresses which of the 31 energy criteria per DS 2-10.5.0 is being met. In addition the lot layout as specified in the R-2 zone is described as being groupings of attached single-family units (8-16 per grouping) oriented around a courtyard and common parking facilities at the ends of cul-de-sacs or loop roads. Please provide information as to how the current configuration submitted meets this design criterion. |
| 01/30/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: CIVANO II Lots 1-237 S03-021 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated January 7, 2004. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities along Bilby Road. These facilities must be shown on the plat prior to approval. A copy of a TEP facilities map is enclosed showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within twenty two (22) working days after receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for design completion are: building plans including water, electrical load, paving and driveway placement. 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. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 02/02/2004 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Civano II S03-021, T15S, R15E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on January 09, 2004 The subject submittal has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The contour line elevations on the drainage exhibits are not readable. Revise. 2. It appears that in Section 4.3 "Inlet Design", on page 9, CP D18 was inadvertently included in the first paragraph. 3. It appears that from the text in Section 4.4 on page 10, below Table 4, sidewalk scuppers will not be provided at the mentioned concentration points. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report. 4. It appears that Figure 3 does not show the proposed 1-24" RCP at CP D25. Instead it appears that it show a storm drain from CP D25 to Basin 4. Clarify and revise as necessary. 5. The HEC RAS analyses do not include cross sections that contain the existing culverts underneath Bilby Road. Revise as needed. 6. Provide the HEC-RAS cross-sections plots. 7. The proposed roadway cross-sections are not the standard sections. Consequently, the roadway rating calculations are not acceptable. Revise the roadway ratings based on the standard roadway cross-sections. 8. Define "Cs" in the Inlet Calculations equation. 9. It is not clear what the calculations titled "Calculations for Weir at Basin X" in the Weir Calculation Section, are for. Their results appear to have discharges that are higher than the Qin's. Clarify. 10. It appears that erosion control measures should be provided at the proposed culvert outlets, storm drain system and some low flow pipes. 11. It is not clear why the discharge used to size the splash pad CP D25 is 15 cfs since the runoff in channel #3 is 26 cfs. 12. The scupper at D22 provided in the " Summary of Proposed Inlet Design" table in Figure 3, does not match the recommendation of the drainage report. Revise. 13. Runoff at D11 should be conveyed under a scupper. Revise. 14. All proposed detention/retention basins shall include maintenance ramps. 15. Address drainage facilities maintenance responsibility and provide a maintenance checklist. We also recommend including a copy of the check list in the CC & R's to allow the Home Owners Association access to the list and facilitate their maintenance responsibility. 16. Address water harvesting. Tentative Plat: 1. Place the C9-____-____-____ Rezoning case number as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. Revise General Note 29 to state that the "Home Owners Association" is responsible for maintaining the drainage facilities. 3. General Note 38 is needed. If the DSMR is approved, the approval can be stated in a general note. 4. Show the basis of bearing and provide the distance between it and the subject site (D.S. 2-03.2.3.B). 5. With the provision of the trail and multi purpose path along Houghton Road, a sidewalk is not required. 6. The proposed path and trail are not shown clearly on sheets 4 and 5. 7. Detail "A" on sheet 8 shows the path being very close to the channel which can be hazardous and therefore not acceptable. Move the path away from the channel. 8. It does not appear that the shown splash pads comply with the drainage report recommended of 3 culvert diameter widths. Revise as necessary. 9. According to Section 2.8.2.4 of the Land Use Code, the 30' buffer area should preserved and maintained in a natural state. The proposed detention basins are not acceptable within the buffer area. Relocate the basins and revise as necessary. 10. The scupper at D22 in detail S/10 does not match the recommendation of the drainage report. Revise. 11. Key note symbol "19" does not point correctly to the post barricade at the Bilby entrance. 12. Basin 2A grate elevations do not appear to match the elevation in the drainage report. Revise. 13. The 18" RCP slope at Basin 2A is different from the drainage report recommendation. 14. The water surface elevation for Basin 2B shown in the "Basin Weir Data" in detail X/10, is different from the drainage report recommendation. Revise. 15. The Q100 (out) for basins 1 and 2B do not match the information in the drainage report. Revise. 16. The proposed roadway cross-sections are not the standard sections. Revise. 17. The Tentative Plat shows in Detail V/10 a Geotextile Grid covering the surface of Channel 1. Does this material allow landscaping? Submit a sample of the material. Please be advised that channel 1 should look natural. 17. Show maintenance access ramps to all detention/retention basins 18. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions 4, 9 and 14, listed in Exhibit "B" to Ordinance No. 9919. 19. Verify that Detention Basin 2B has a sediment trap as required by Rezoning Condition 13, listed in Exhibit "B" to Ordinance No. 9919. 18. Scupper 18 shown on sheet 6/11 does not show on detail S/10. Verify and revise as necessary. 19. The way the common areas are labeled can be confusing. It appears that some of Common Areas "A" resemble some of Common Areas "B". Common areas should be labeled differently based on their main purpose. Detention basins, which are proposed to be used as recreation facilities, should be labeled as such on the plan/plat and described as such. Drainage channels may need to be labeled differently from detention/recreational facilities (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C.). Revise as necessary. 20. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: Address water harvesting on the Landscape Plan. Please be advised that due to the size and complexity of this project, additional comments may be offered on the next submittal. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 02/03/2004 | 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: February 3, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-021 Civano II T151512 (141-01) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 shading and hatching. Add bearings for the lot lines and the complete curve data. Add perimeter dimensions and bearings to all sheets. 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 |
| 02/04/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org S03-021 Civano II 2/3/2004 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Corridor Study Houghton Rd (Irvington to Valencia) Yes 2003 14,300 24,500 2 42,000 69,024 4 1,912 None Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 02/05/2004 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St.Paul FOR: Patricia Gehlen Planning Technician Principal Planner PROJECT: S03-021 Civano II Pulte Home TRANSMITTAL: February 5, 2004 DUE DATE: February 5, 2004 COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 January 10, 2005. 2. Provide a small index drawing of the site showing the area represented on each sheet on the first sheet. In this case you may provide this information on Sheet 2 where the entire subdivision is depicted. DS 2-03.2.1.E 3. Provide the annexation case number (C9-84-84) and the rezoning case numbers (C9-91-14) in the lower right corner next to the title block. Please add the new number when it becomes available. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. In General Notes #2 just state the use without all the additional zoning information. "The proposed use for Block 1 is General Commercial and for Lots 1 through 237 is detached and attached single family residential." Subdivision Plat approval for Block 1 is required prior to the issuance of building permits. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 5. The site area in General Note #4 (49.45 acres) does not match the site area in the RCP Calculations (48.49 acres). Please correct this inconsistency. 6. In the General Notes #20 change the conjunction "and" to "or" in the first three words of the sentence: "Building and structure…" It should read: "Building or structure surfaces,…" LUC Sec 2.8.2.10.A 7. The minimum sidewalk width is five feet (5'-0") for all new subdivisions for the entire length of the street frontage. The sidewalks are depicted as four feet (4'-0") throughout much of this subdivision, and these widths are called out as four feet on Details C, D, E, F and K on Sheet #8 and on the Typicals on Sheet #9. Please revise all sidewalks that are less than five feet to a minimum of five feet (5'-0"). There is an additional six inches (6") of right-of-way required between the sidewalk and the property line of the adjacent property. DS 3-01.3.3.A DS 3-01.4.1.A.1.a 8. All streets with an ADT of zero to one thousand (0 - 1000) are required to have minimum travel lane widths of the feet (10'). Streets B, C, D, E, F and G and/or all streets using Details E and F on Sheet #8 have travel lanes of nine feet (9'). Please revise the plans to meet or exceed the minimum standards. DS 2-03.2.4.G DS 3-01.2.3.A.1 DS 3-01.Figure #2 9. Common Area B, Private Driveway Access must meet minimum street standards. (See Comments 7 and 8 above.) Please revise Detail G, Sheet #8, Detail Q, Sheet #9 and Key Note #39. See also; DS 3-01 Figure #1 10. Remove General Notes #8 and #37 H from the Tentative Plat. Also remove "SCZ case review is in process" from the General Notes (#15, #17 & #20). 11. Fully dimension all typicals. The minimum driveway length from a garage or carport facing a street with ADT of 140 or greater is eighteen feet (18') to the property line and nineteen feet (19') to the back of the sidewalk. Both of these minimums apply. It appears that all of the public streets exceed an ADT of 140. The setbacks along the Private Street (See Comment #9) for the Attached Lots are "the greater of 5 feet or ½ the height from the back of existing or future curb;" or 1 foot, "from the property line or from the nearest edge of the sidewalk or future sidewalk location." Please remove any reference to "EP or Edge of Pavement." The setbacks for all structures to public streets within this subdivision are the greater of 21 feet or the height "from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane." Remove all references to "travel way." The minimum setback to the property line with any other lot or common area within the subdivision, and not along the perimeter of the subdivision, is three feet (3'). A setback of zero feet (0') is permitted on one side if a width of six feet (6') is provided on the other lot. Minimum setbacks are not required for attached dwellings. Please revise the Lot Typicals accordingly. Please clarify the setback matrix in the lower right corner of Sheet #9 by changing "To Travel Way" to "Travel Lane" and replacing the "(1)" with "21 feet or Height." LUC Sec.3.2.6.5.B.2.a Sec.3.4.6.5.B.1 Sec 3.6.1.4.D.2.d.3 Sec.3.6.1.4.D.2.c 12. Bikeways, Lanes and Paths that are separated from the paved roadway, such as street A, are required to have a minimum width of five feet (5') for one-way travel and ten (10') feet for two-way travel. Detail D on Sheet #8 only provides a width of eight feet (8'). It appears that the Path is intended as a multi-use path, which includes bicycle use, for two-way travel. Please revise the plans to depict the minimum ten-foot (10') width requirement. DS 3-01.2.6.A & C 13. Residential Street G has Detail E Sheet #8 called out on Sheet #4 as the detail cross section. The appears to be correct, but on Sheet #8 Detail F is identified as the cross section for Residential Street G. The latter appears to be incorrect. Detail F is identified as having no parking and the location of the cross section depicts parking. Please note parking on both sides of the street is required. (See Rezoning Condition #10.) Please revise the plat. DS 3-01.2.4.D 14. Keynote #20 for Refuse Collection refers to General Note #29, which is about the maintenance of drainage structure. Please provide the appropriate note for the refuse containers. 15. Provide dimensions from pack-up spur to property line on Sheet #7 and Detail K, Sheet #8. DS 3-05 Fig #2 16. Revise the RCP Calculations (Also see Comment #5). Block 1 must be excluded from the denominator. Revise the driveway lengths to nineteen feet (19'). The calculation should be 19' x 20' x 237 lots. The Private Street (aka Common Area B, Private Driveway Access) and Common Area B, Parking Lot must also be included as coverage in the Site Coverage Calculation. LUC Sec 3.2.3.1.F & Sec.3.2.6.5.B.2.a 17. Provide all Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) information on the Tentative Plat. The Tentative Plat may not be approved until the SCZ is approved. Please add the case number, date of approval, color palette and conditions imposed to General Note #15. 18. Revise General Note #38 to include the DSMR case number, date of approval, modifications granted and conditions imposed. 19. Demonstrate compliance with the minimum open space requirement of three hundred square feet (300 SF) for the attached units in the Typicals on Sheet #9. Note this information shall also need to be provided on the Plot Plans. LUC Sec.3.6.1.4.D.2.c 20. Please coordinate all revisions to and within the Tentative Plat and the Landscape Plans. Demonstrate compliance with all the review comments made by the Planning Task Force. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St.Paul, (520) 791-5608 x1184. |
| 02/09/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | NPPO Clarify the notes accompanying the native plant summary as necessary to note the requirement to include other protected plants which do not meet 4" standard for native trees. Revise the native plant preservation plans to include the: Location of proposed roads and utility easements. Existing topographic contours at two (2) foot maximum contour intervals. Revise the undisturbed natural open space calculations on sheet 1 of the native plant preservation plan to account for the areas preserved to meet the requirements to preserve natural open space adjacent to the Mesquite Ranch Wash and as required in the scenic route buffer area. Identify the preserved portions of the scenic route buffer area and the WASH study area on the native plant preservation plans. DS 2-15.3.4.A Revise the native plant preservation plan to include the grading limits for the entire site, only the northern limits are identified. DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 Include a key to abbreviations used in the native plant inventory. Revise the native plant preservation plan to comply with the condition of rezoning which requires that "existing significant mature vegetation along the basins perimeter shall be preserved" C9-91-14 Show existing vegetation to be preserved on the landscape plan. Revise the introductory paragraph of note 5 on sheet 1 of the native plant preservation plan to identify the Development Services Landscape Section as the party to receive the on site monitoring reports. SCZ This development is subject to the provisions of the scenic corridor zone. A separate review is required. Revise all plans as necessary to include only permitted improvements within the thirty-foot wide scenic route buffer area per LUC 3.7.5.2. Disturbance of the buffer to accommodate drainage improvements is not listed as a permitted use of the buffer. Along the scenic route "Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length" per LUC 3.7.5.2.E. Revise all plans as necessary to comply with this requirement. Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. LUC 3.7.5.2.D.1 Revise the landscape plan to include revegetation for disturbed portions of the Houghton Road right of way. It was noted that a geo textile lining is proposed for the drainage channel on the tentative plat, while the landscape plan calls for an unidentified treatment. Revise as necessary to allow for revegetation with native plants. Landscape Submittal of master grading and open space plans including undisturbed natural areas as shown in the environmental resource report submitted by the rezoning applicant is required. Open space and grading shall conform to Exhibits 5 & 6 in the Civano Development Plan C9-91-14 Provide open space calculations for this phase in order to demonstrate compliance with the Civano Master Development Plan open space estimates. The Civano Master Development Plan includes minimum screening guidelines (p. 14) which include use of site found rock for any walls, to the extent possible and finishes that blend with the natural soil and plant materials. Revise the plans as necessary to comply with the guidelines. Walls are also subject to additional conditions of rezoning case C9-91-14. Revise the landscape plans to comply with the requirement to use non-potable water for all irrigation proposed for common areas and non-residential uses. Revised Civano Development Agreement. Identify retention basins and drainage channels on the landscape plans. Include slope ratios per DS 2-07.2.2 B Revise the landscape plans and plant preservation plans to identify the MS&R right of way lines per DS 2-07.2.1.A Provide dimensions for street landscape buffers on the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 Include a plan for the Houghton Greenway as directed by the Parks and Recreation Department. WASH Development in proximity to the Mesquite Ranch Wash is subject to the provisions of TCC Chapter 29, Article VIII. Submit a Plant/Habitat Inventory and a mitigation plan for any proposed disturbance within the study area. |
| 02/10/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | no comments. |
| 02/10/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 02/10/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: February 9, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-021 Civano II: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Luis Lara, Parks and Recreation Staff has reviewed the subject tentative plat and has the following comments: In Houghton Road Street Section on sheet 8, the label for the 8 ft meandering trail is incorrectly positioned. Clearly show the location of the Houghton Road Greenway - 12 ft paved path and 8 ft meandering trail. The trail should be located close to the scenic buffer. Please call me at 791-4873, ext. 215 if I can provide you with any additional information or assistance. |
| 02/10/2004 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comments. |
| 02/11/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | no comments. |
| 02/11/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." 2. Bilby Road is classified as an ARTERIAL road per the latest MS&R plan. The SVT's as depicted at the entries to the development from Bilby are sized according to an intersection between a collector and local roadway. Correct SVT sizes. 3. Near and Far side SVT's are required on all 4 legs of the intersection at Courtland Drive, "J" Street and "K" street. Depict said SVT's on sheets 5 and 6. 4. Sections E/8, F/8, the minimum travel lane width is 10' and then only with and ADT of less than 140. This also applies to access to interior streets from Street "A" and Courtland Drive. The minimum roadway width is 20', even at the intersections. 5. Section B/8, label the travel and turn lanes as you have labeled the bike lane and as are labeled in all other sections. 6. Section A/8, do not place the sidewalk immediately adjacent to a 55mph roadway. Provide a minimum 2' shy space or eliminate altogether as there is a pathway provided. 7. Revise the TIA to include a recommendation for a traffic signal at Houghton/Bilby when warrants are met and a funding mechanism for said signal. The developer shall be financially responsible for 25% of the signal. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |