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.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP13-0197
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2013 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/16/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Completed | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0197 Rio Hospitality - Oracle Road Hotel Drainage Report and Overlay Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 16, 2013 DUE DATE: November 6, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. Zoning has done a cursory review of the ERZ report but has no adverse comments as it relates to the report. Zoning will defer to the Landscape and Engineering review of the ERZ report and their findings. Zoning will do a full review of the development package if and when this project moves forward with the Annexation/rezoning. A full development package site plan review will be done by zoning and comments related to UDC zoning requirements applicable to the proposed use as well as any conditions of rezoning and annexation will be provided. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. |
| 11/04/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Technical Standards 1) 4-01.2.2.B. WASH Watercourses The regulated area for WASH watercourses includes channel and banks of a watercourse and the area within 50 feet of the top of the bank, or where there is no defined bank, 50 feet from the ten-year flood boundary. The proposal does not identify the regulated area as prescribed in the standard. 2) 4-01.2.4 Identification of Regulated Areas and Protected Riparian Areas All tentative plats, site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any regulated area as defined in Section 4-02.2. shall identify and delineate the regulated areas and the protected riparian area on the property and shall comply with this standard. The boundary of the regulated area and the protected riparian area should be clearly depicted on applicable submittal documents. There is no site plan application providing for approval of development on the property and there is no indication of compliance with standard. The regulated area and by association, the protected riparian area are not identified correctly. 3) 4-01.2.5 Development Restrictions The intent of this Technical standard is to preserve natural and existing drainage and 100% of the habitat areas within the protected riparian areas. To accomplish this, the regulations provide for two options: (1) no encroachment into the regulated area or (2) if encroachment is proposed into the regulated area, submittal of an environmental resource report in conformance with this section, and, if encroachment is proposed into the protected riparian areas, development in conformance with development restrictions and mitigation requirements in this section. The proposal does not preserve 100% of the habitat areas within the protected riparian areas and the proposed development is not in conformance with development restrictions and mitigation requirements. 4) 4-01.2.5.B.2.f For WASH watercourses, concrete, rock veneer and soil cement bank treatment for the culvert that is outside of the proposed or existing public right of way shall be permitted only with the approval of the Mayor and Council. For all other watercourses, concrete, rock veneer and soil cement should not be used where there is any practicable alternative. 5) 4-01.2.5.B.2.h. Temporary Fencing Required. No grubbing, grading, or construction will occur on a project site which includes areas designated as protected riparian area to be retained in a natural state until those designated areas are temporarily fenced. The temporary fencing shall remain in place during all phases of construction that could affect the protected riparian area. The proposal does not include a preservation or fencing plan. 6) 4-01.2.5.B.3.a.1. Revegetation should recreate the lost functions and values of the riparian habitat through the planting of native trees, shrubs, understory plants and seed mix native to the site which will result in comparable habitat that is equal to the predisturbance habitat in area, plant density, diversity, and volume on the net site. Revegetation should be conducted over a sufficient area to accomplish the following mitigation ratios while accomplishing the specified plant density, diversity and volume of the impacted area. 7) 4-02.3.4.A Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) Review Development which encroaches within the protected riparian areas, except for development limited to revegetation or restoration in accordance with an approved Floodplain Restoration Plan, shall be reviewed by the Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) as follows: A. All watercourses subject to adopted ERZ or WASH regulations are reviewed by SAC as part of Section 3.3.3, PDSD Director Approval Procedure. 8) 4-02.3.4.2 Technical Standard Modification Requests are processed in accordance with Section 1-01.6.0. 9) TCC Art. VIII Sec 29-16(a) Where alteration to any portion of the resource area is proposed, the applicant for a development permit is required to demonstrate why the resource area cannot be left in its natural condition. 10) TCC Art. VIII Sec 29-16(b)(1) Mitigation plan. The mitigation plan must demonstrate that the loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat as a result of development in the resource area is minimized, and that lost vegetation and wildlife habitat are restored or recreated through the specific wash treatment and the preservation/revegetation plan. If a vegetated area is altered, the site must be revegetated to the same or greater density, diversity, and volume of vegetation as existed prior to the alteration. The proposal does not provide for successful mitigation on site. A portion of the mitigation is proposed to be located on another site chosen by the City, on an adjacent property, within the floodway in an area where velocity is likely to increase and in a manner which provides only a very narrow revegetation area along the east bank of the wash, along with a number of other small planting areas on the site, resulting in a highly fragmented restoration effort. 11) TCC Art. VIII Sec 29-16(b)(1)a. Wash treatment. The treatment of the watercourse must be done in a manner which maintains the existing appearance or predevelopment condition of the resource area by using one (1) or a combination of the following methods, in order of priority. Alternative structural solutions consistent with the intent of these regulations are encouraged and may be proposed by the owner. 1. Earthen channel. 2. Retention of stormwater runoff to reduce the impact on an earthen channel. 3. Structural materials conducive to retaining existing vegetation or revegetation, including any use of a soil filter blanket. 4. Compound channels. 5. Riprap, whether exposed or buried. 6. Gabions. b. The following wash treatments may be used only if the city engineer determines that an existing safety hazard warrants such treatment, and the wash treatment method is approved by the mayor and council. 1. Rock veneer. 2. Soil cement. 3. Reinforced concrete, including textured, tinted, or colored concrete. The proposal does not discuss an existing safety hazard that warrants concrete on the west bank and the proposal fails to maintain the existing appearance or predevelopment condition of the resource area. 12) The Pima Wash Trail may have an impact on the site. Per TCC Art. VII, Sec. 29-17(a)(3), the preservation/revegetation plan is reviewed for its relationship to the parks, recreation, open space, and trails plan. That plan is implemented by the Pima County Regional Trails System Master Plan. The standard trail requirement for a single track trail next to a waterourse requires a minimum 32' wide corridor. The corridor is located adjacent to the wash and the width is measured from the top of the bank. |
| 11/06/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/06/2013, SUBJECT: Rio Hospitality LLC Oracle Road Hotel DP13-00197, T13S, R13E, SECTION 14 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on October 09, 2013 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Preliminary Hydrology Report and in the Preliminary ERR where the revisions were made: Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulic Report and ERR: 1. The proposed encroachment on Pima Wash creates a constricted area in the vicinity of cross section 0.466 with the highest velocity increase. There is a concern that this may cause erosion and scour problems in this area where preservation is proposed. 2. It appears that both reports failed to establish the Pima Wash study area which should consist of the channel, the banks, and the land area extending fifty (50) feet from the banks of the wash (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area). 3. Hydrology/Hydraulic study shall determine the location of the 100-year floodplain on, adjacent to, and a minimum of two hundred (200) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area). 4. Are there any existing rights-of-way or easement dedication along the wash for a distance of five hundred (500) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area)? 5. The Hydrology/Hydraulic Report did not address sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area). 6. The Hydrology/Hydraulic Report shall address the existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities. 7. The Hydrology/Hydraulic Report shall address previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed. 8. The Hydrology/Hydraulic Report shall address groundwater recharge potential at this location. 9. The Hydrology/Hydraulic Report shall address existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. 10. The Hydrology/Hydraulic Report shall address any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Hydrology/Hydraulic Report and ERR |
| 11/06/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Resubmittal is required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/12/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |