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: LUCAPPS - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Permit Number - T05SA00362
Review Name: LUCAPPS - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/02/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The Landscape Section has reviewed the application. Additional information is required before the application can be referred to the Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) for review and comment. No decision can be made until 5 days after the SAC review. Future submittals must contain the following information: 1. A study of the wash and its hydrology and hydraulics is required. In addition to the information required by Chapter 26, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, the hydrology/hydraulics study shall contain the following elements: A. 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. B. Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential. C. 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. D. 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. E. Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed. F. Groundwater recharge potential at this location. G. Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location. H. Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. I. Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. 2) All development proposals shall be accompanied by an inventory of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitats within the study area. The inventory must include the following: A. A numbered inventory list of all woody plants and cacti (living and dead) within the study area. (the study area consists of the channel, the banks, and the land area extending fifty (50) feet from the banks of the wash, the plans include only a partial inventory). B. Include trunk diameter, height measurements and viability ratings for all woody plants and cacti having basal trunk diameters greater than 5 cm (about 2 inches). C. An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1"= 60' showing the study area and the locations of all woody plants and cacti having basal trunk diameters greater than 5 cm (about 2 inches), identified by inventory number. D. Delineation of the resource area- the channel and banks of a wash, and those portions of the study area containing vegetative resources and wildlife habitat areas. E. Representative photographs of the study area. F. Discussion or description of any soil and channel morphologic characteristics or other local characteristics that impact wildlife habitat. 3. Where alteration to any portion of the resource area is proposed, the applicant is required to demonstrate why the resource area cannot be left in its natural condition. Describe specifically why the Resource Area cannot be left in its natural state on the plans. This is practically the most important element of the application. When considering whether or not to approve the submittal of this information and accept the assertion that the Resource Area cannot be left in its natural state, the Development Services Department should find all of the following: a. A showing of good and sufficient effort by the engineer or property owner. b. That failure to grant an approval would result in exceptional hardship to the property owner or developer. c. That approval of the assertion is the minimum necessary to afford protection of, and opportunities for restoration of, existing riparian vegetation found within and along washes listed in Table 1 of the ordinance. d. That granting an approval will not significantly harm remaining Resource Areas. e. That granting an approval will not significantly jeopardize existing and proposed open-space linkages recommended in the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan. 4. The site must be revegetated to the same or greater density, diversity, and volume of vegetation as existed prior to the alteration. TCC 29-16(b)(1) The mitigation plan must include a landscape/revegetation plan that shows the location of mitigation plantings. The mitigation required is based on WASH Guidelines, Attachment E. Trees are to be replaced at 2:1 or 3:1 ratio, depending on size. Shrubs and cacti are to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. The landscape/revegetation plan must include an irrigation and maintenance plan for the vegetation in the resource area. The Maintenance Plan shall include a schedule or frequency of visits, types of scheduled and emergency maintenance activities, access requirements, identification of short-term and long-term responsibility, and a list of required maintenance easements and agreements. 5. It shall be demonstrated and affirmed, in writing, that: (1) the introduction of new plant materials into the Mitigation Area shall improve or enhance the existing habitat value of the overall site without overcrowding the existing vegetation. Provide the required statement on the plans and ensure that the landscape revegetation plan complies. 6. The mitigation plan is to include a plan for preservation of native vegetation in the resource area. Include grading limits and preservation fencing. TCC Sec 29-16 7. Prior to issuance of building permits or grading permits, such measures as covenants, assurances, or homeowners' associations will be necessary to ensure the long-term maintenance and control measures per TCC 23A-51. A conservation easement or similar instrument will be required prior to permit approval for the remaining resource area and mitigation areas. Show the areas covered by the easement or covenant on the WASH mitigation plan. 8. It is unclear how the building envelope for Lot 49 can be accessed. Additional information is required. 9. The percentage listed for resource area disturbance on sheet L-1 should also include an amount of disturbance for the previously approved wash study. 10. Revise the plans to include a legend for all lines and symbols used on the plans. 11. The overview statement on sheet L-1 indicates that 14 building envelopes are impacted by the wash ordinance and lists the 14 lots by number. The list does not include Lot 23, which if added would total 15. Revise as necessary. 12. The delineation of the study area for lots 20 & 21 on sheet L-3 does not measure 50 feet at all points. 13. List square footage of additional natural areas proposed as mitigation as part of the mitigation plan. 14. The mitigation statement on the plan proposes relocation of significant vegetative resources to undisturbed portions of the lot. These locations must be shown on a landscape revegetation plan. Per the WASH Guidelines "the proposed Mitigation Area shall be located immediately adjacent to, and outside of, the Top of Bank of the regulated wash, or along the streambanks of tributaries to these regulated washes. Only areas formerly covered by Vegetative Resources, and which have been degraded and are now sparsely vegetated, shall be used as a Mitigation Area". Revise as necessary. 15. The study/resource area delineation for lots 6, 7, & 49 is missing on sheet L-4. Revise as necessary. 16. The inventory for lot 36 includes 7 Acacia constricta, but the table on L-1 lists only 6. There may be other instances where this type of conflict occurs on the plans. Check and revise as necessary. |
| 11/10/2005 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The Engineering Division has reviewed the application. Additional information is required before the application can be referred to the Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) for review and comment. No decision can be made until 5 days after the SAC review. The drainage report submitted did not contain the following information required with WASH submittals: A. 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. B. Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential. C. 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. D. 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. E. Groundwater recharge potential at this location. F. Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location. G. Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. H. Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. 2. All development proposals shall be accompanied by an inventory of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitats within the study area. The inventory must include the following: A. Delineation of the resource area- the channel and banks of a wash, and those portions of the study area containing vegetative resources and wildlife habitat areas. B. Representative photographs of the study area. C. Discussion or description of any soil and channel morphologic characteristics or other local characteristics that impact wildlife habitat. 3. Where alteration to any portion of the resource area is proposed, the applicant is required to demonstrate why the resource area cannot be left in its natural condition. Describe specifically why the Resource Area cannot be left in its natural state on the plans. 4. Provide information required for DSD to consider the following when deciding whether or not to approve the submittal of this information and accept the assertion that the Resource Area cannot be left in its natural state: a. A showing of good and sufficient effort by the engineer or property owner. b. That failure to grant an approval would result in exceptional hardship to the property owner or developer. c. That approval of the assertion is the minimum necessary to afford protection of, and opportunities for restoration of, existing riparian vegetation found within and along washes listed in Table 1 of the ordinance. d. That granting an approval will not significantly harm remaining Resource Areas. e. That granting an approval will not significantly jeopardize existing and proposed open-space linkages recommended in the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan. 5. Show grading limits and preservation fencing. 6. The study area for Lot 49 does not appear to address access to the lot. The applicant is strongly urged to submit a drainage submittal in a format following the outline presented in the WASH Ordinance. |
| 11/30/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 30, 2005 Greg Shinn GRS Landscape Architects, Inc. 1530 West Wetmore Road, Suite B Tucson, Arizona 85737 Subject: T05SA00362 WASH Overlay for Wildcat Pass Dear Greg: Your submittal of October 14, 2005 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 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: 877-8079 |