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: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Permit Number - T05SA00358
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The Landscape Section does not recommend approval of the application. 1) Revise the wash study summary on W1 and page 3 of the TMHS report to correct the section regarding identification of resource areas. The criteria mentioned is only a partial definition of vegetative resources typically present and does not constitute acceptable criteria for resource area delineation. Resource area identification is also based on the presence of wildlife habitat. Only areas of open, bare ground lacking vegetation are not considered to be wildlife habitat according ot the WASH Guidelines. Portions of the study area that contain native vegetation and wildlife habitat are considered resource areas. Revise the plans (W1, W2) to correct the resource area delineation and revise the area calculations on W1 as necessary. TCC 29-16.a 2) Revise the WASH plan to reference or include the irrigation plans under review as part of case # S05-134. |
| 06/30/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | TO: RICK Engineering SUBJECT: W.A.S.H. Engineering 2nd Resubmittal Review SUBDIVISION: (S05-134) Tres Pueblos II (Este) REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05SA00358 SUMMARY: The revised Overlay package including the W.A.S.H. Report including copy of the Tentative Plat, and response letter were received on May 31, 2006. The revised general design is acceptable however there are many minor comments to address. At this time Engineering recommends conditional approval of the overlay package with the following conditions. In order to give consent to proceed to SAC, the following conditions must be addressed. W.A.S.H. OVERLAY CONDITIONS: 1) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1) & 23A-50.(2): The revised design indicates a less number of stormwater runoff outlet locations entering the W.A.S.H. However, the revised W.A.S.H. report for Tres Pueblos Este that was provided with this submittal does not clearly address all of the items listed in this section of the Tucson Code. There are still some sections of the report which appear to be referencing the first Tres Pueblos project; this report should reflect the proposed conditions for Tres Pueblos Este project. Also, in order to be prepared for the Stormwater Advisory Committee presentation, revision to the report is necessary; assure that there are complete discussions regarding any effects on hydrology and hydraulics to the study area due to each of the elements a - i listed in this section of the Tucson Code. As stated previously, it is emphasized that any required improvements (including trail, maintenance access improvements, erosion protection, or other drainage improvements or grading activities), will require thorough justification and mitigation within the W.A.S.H. Report. The plans or report continue to indicate, but need clarification of, proposed grading for access and drainage facilities including two outfall channels in the study area and gabion outlets in the south embankment area of the Rodeo Wash along the north portion of the project. Address the following: i) In sections 3.2 and 7.2 of the W.A.S.H. report, clarify/state that there is a proposed trail, maintenance road, and two proposed drainage basin outlets with any scuppers and curb crossing the study area and entering the south side of the Rodeo Wash embankment. ii) Address the following: (1) To minimize erosion of the Rodeo W.A.S.H., adequate erosion protection similar to gabions used for the first Tres Pueblos project will be required. Show or add additional details on exhibit or report for the outlets for the (3)36" SRP's and the basins. In the exhibit(s) and on Tentative Plat planviews, clarify that gabion outlets are proposed in the south embankment area of the Rodeo Wash along the north portion of the project, as per page 10 of the W.A.S.H. Report. (2) On page 10, there is discussion in the Channels paragraph of gabion baskets at the Basin 4 outlet, however there are discrepancies throughout the report and there are no details provided. Revise this paragraph to reflect erosion protection as well for the adjacent outlet for the west channel outlet from the 36" SRP's. (3) Provide additional discussion in section 7.2, describe proposed improvements for the trail easement, maintenance access road, and any other grading disturbance activity proposed within the study area and wash. Correct and revise first paragraph in section 7.2 to reflect the proposed outlets, with erosion protection, that will enter the W.A.S.H. at the embankments within the wash channel. (4) The W.A.S.H. Report is conditionally approved upon revised report submittal including showing appropriate outlet protection. The Tres Pueblos first phase to the west is being constructed with gabion erosion protection; show equivalent protection in Tres Pueblos Este design; it will be necessary to include details showing expected general disturbance area for the two outlets with protection structures depicted. The future grading plan will need to be close to the proposed disturbance areas as shown in the approved W.A.S.H. Report. (5) Since there will be outlets constructed in the Rodeo W.A.S.H., correct and clarify: (a) third sentence from the top on page 8; (b) first sentence in section 7.2 on page 10; (c) first sentence of last paragraph on page 10; correctly discuss the outlet designs for the 4 basins. From the Tentative plat sheet, it appears that one basin discharges to another and that basin has a weir that outlets into the Study Area via a channel or sheet flow. The other two basins have pipe outlets that will require erosion protection designs. (i) Revise call-out on planview for section 3 detail on Figure 5. (ii) Revise section number for detail 2; there are two section 2's. (iii) Grades provided do not clearly show how basin 2 and 3 will outlet into the study area. Provide additional details so that it is clear where the stormwater outfall is to be located on planview. iii) Since the existing soils on the site are stated to be C and D soils, and to ensure drain-down of these two eastern basins, at minimum, Basin 3 will be required to have bleeder pipe per the Engineering Administrator as one of the conditions of approval. Depict on W.A.S.H. exhibit(s) and discuss in W.A.S.H. Report. iv) Since the grading plan details will eventually have to be close to proposed disturbance shown in an approved W.A.SH. Report, provide detail showing estimated / general disturbance area including sufficient construction area in the W.A.S.H. Report and Tentative Plat. v) In section 4.2 of the report grade control structures are referenced. If the structures are not located adjacent to the Tres Pueblos Este project, this should be clarified. If the grade control structures are within the stretch of the Rodeo W.A.S.H., show these structures on planviews, and add clarification to Section 7.1. In response letter, state which exhibit / page this has been clarified. vi) Revise section 4.2, to clarify the velocities upstream and downstream of the Tucson Boulevard drainage crossing, as the table on page 6 indicates higher velocities upstream than at crossing and at downstream sections. vii) In response letter, clarify why higher velocities are expected when table on page 6 shows differently in Section 4.2, first sentence on page 9. Revise verbiage in this section of the report. viii) Add clarification to end of Section 4.2 regarding justification of placement of path in erosion hazard setback area. In order to clarify proposed minimum disturbance of the wash and study area it is important to clarify the amount of proposed disturbance for trails, maintenance access, and drainage outlet improvements as stated previously. ix) Revise Section 5.0 on page 9. It is stated that the velocity is lower upstream of the Tucson Boulevard crossing which does not match the data presented. For Element g, clarify how energy changes through this reach and provide pre- and post developed sediment transport characteristics that explain changes in erosiveness. Include discussion of sediment transport changes due to the revised outlet designs. x) In section 3.1, for Element a, clarify how the flow rate increases between sections 21 and 20. xi) Regarding soil conditions and erosion potential, provide copy of the bound soils report and discuss results in the W.A.S.H. Report. Submit a bound copy of the soils report that discusses suitability and feasibility of the project. Besides description of existing soil constraints for the site, and other typical geotechnical data, the soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales, and provide slope stability recommendations. xii) For third bullet on page 12, revise statement with consideration of Figure 3 indicating limited infiltration due to the existing C & D soils for the site. xiii) Revise Appendix D: (1) On page 2, revise second paragraph to include erosion protection in the wash for the outlets of the underground pipes. (2) Show protective barricade on the cross sections, as referenced in last sentence of second to last paragraph on page 2. xiv) For Element I, address the following regarding any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site: (1) In last, Trail, paragraph of section 7.2, explain what improvements will be necessary for the Public Recreational Trail; provide reference to detail or section. Specifically discuss in report (and show on exhibit and Tentative Plat) any proposed grading activities, including placement of trail materials, compaction, or other type of earthwork or grading-related activity. (2) This comment was not adequately addressed: There are locations where concentrated flows from onsite are proposed to discharge into the wash through the study area. In section 3.2, specify exact type of materials proposed at the confluence of west channel and west end of Rodeo Wash north of the site. Add details to an exhibit or the report (section 3.2 or 7.2) for the drainage improvements that are proposed within the study area. Provide details that show drainage outlet facilities at the north portion of the site within the W.A.S.H. 50-ft study area, including details and cross sections identifying scuppers, curb, erosion protection, type of proposed materials, slope grades, and dimensions. Hydraulic data is necessary within the drainage report as well. (3) On the drainage exhibit Figure 5, address the following comments: (a) Add the delineation in legend for the existing maintenance road. (b) Provide delineation for the 50-ft offset line for the 50-ft study area on planview. (c) Describe on planview, with hatching or other linetype, the locations of the mitigated areas or the resource area within the study area. 2) Tucson Code Sec.29-12: It was stated in the response letter that the following comment was addressed in te Appendix. It is unclear where in the W.A.S.H. Report the discussion addressing this comment. Add discussion in W.A.S.H. Report regarding how the study area and especially any proposed disturbed resource area is restored as closely as possible to its pre-disturbance or more natural wash condition. Add discussion to section 1.3 and 10.0 regarding whether the proposed project is designed to accomplish the following: a) Maximizes opportunities for groundwater recharge through the preservation of specific washes with earthen channels and banks. b) Protects existing vegetation found within and near specific washes. c) Provides for restoration of vegetation disturbed as a result of development in and adjacent to specific washes. d) Assists in the reduction of the urban heat island effect by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing structural improvement of urban washes. Submit a revised report for the W.A.S.H. Report with revised exhibits as discussed in the above comments, a copy of the updated Tentative Plat, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, revised drainage report, response letter, and any other supporting documentation. The comments shall be addressed and acceptable to Engineering Division of DSD including revising the W.A.S.H. Report prior to the SAC meeting. A meeting or counter review of the revised W.A.S.H. Report is required prior to resubmittal. If you have questions or to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 07/13/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 13, 2006 James A. King Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 1745 East River Road, #101 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: T05SA00358 WASH Overlay for Tres Pueblos II Subdivision Dear James: Your submittal of May 31, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 3 Copies Revised WASH Overlay submittal package as detailed in the on line comments (Engineering, Landscape, DSD). Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 322-6956 |