Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: LUCAPPS - WASH ZONE REVIEW
Permit Number - T05SA00404
Review Name: LUCAPPS - WASH ZONE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/20/2005 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul Planner Technician PROJECT: T05SA00404 HDZ and WASH Overlays 2656 West Broadway Boulevard Canyon Ridge Apartments TRANSMITTAL: December 20, 2005 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This review is for the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) and the Wash Ordinance (WASH) overlays. 2. There are no adverse comments concerning the WASH Overlay from Zoning Review at this time. 3. Please provide dimensions for the full height of the structure on the elevation drawings along with the midpoint between the eave and the ridge so that the building height can be determined (LUC Section 3.2.7.2.A). |
| 12/21/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The application is required to include a Hydrology/hydraulic study. TCC Sec. 29-15(1) In addition to the information required by Chapter 26, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, the hydrology/hydraulics study shall contain the following elements: 1. 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. 2. Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed. 6. Groundwater recharge potential at this location. 7. Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location. 8. Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. 9. Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. Plant/habitat inventory. TCC Sec. 29-15(2) 1. The inventory is required to include a list of all woody plants and cacti having basal trunk diameters greater than 2 inches. Include a statement on the plans describing what was included. The mitigation plan is required to include a preservation/revegetation plan the following information: A. A preservation plan for native vegetation in the resource area. Show preservation fencing at the proposed construction limits for the utility crossings and other portions of the site adjacent to the study area. B. An access plan and maintenance schedule for the vegetation in the resource area. C. The mitigation plan is required to include 3:1 mitigation for lager trees and 2:1 mitigation for shrubs. The decision on the application is based upon consideration of a number of items. Incorporate discussion of the following into the submittal in order receive a timely decision. The application will be reviewed by the Stormwater Advisory Committee before DSD renders a decision, but only complete submittals will be forwarded for review and comment. A. Are there any reasonable alternatives to crossing the wash? B. Is it possible to route the utilities to minimize wash disturbance. Can lines be located with more direct crossings that disturb less habitat? C. Will failure to grant an approval result in exceptional hardship to the property owner or developer. Per 23A-51(1) Prior to approval of a subdivision plat or issuance of building permits, such measures as covenants, assurances, or homeowners' associations, as may be necessary to ensure the long-term maintenance and control measures, may be required. HDZ REVIEW The project is required to screen parking areas from adjacent zones other than Commercial. Additional screen walls will be required and must be shown on the site plan, as well as the landscape plan. These walls will be required to conform to the following standard LUC 2.8.1.8.C. "All exposed exterior walls and roofs of structures, retaining walls, and accessory structures, except satellite dishes, shall be earth tone in color and will blend with the predominant natural colors found on the lot or parcel. Satellite dishes may be black. White is not permitted." |
| 12/23/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge HDZ and W.A.S.H. Overlays Submittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05SA00404 SUMMARY: The plans, and were received on November 22, 2005. Development Services Department Engineering Division has done a review of the received items. As stated in the introduction to the May 18, 2005 comment letter, the watercourse adjacent to this site is designated as a Watercourse Amenities Safety and Habitat (W.A.S.H.) Ordinance wash and thus review and approval is necessary. Engineering does not recommend approval of the overlay package at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for overlay purposes only. W.A.S.H. OVERLAY COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): The Drainage Report submitted does not completely address all of the items listed in this section of the Tucson Code. Per this section of the W.A.S.H. Ordinance, a Wash Report must be submitted for Maxwell Wash along the east portion of the project. Address the following: a) The body of the drainage report may be included in the W.A.S. H. Report. The report will need to be entitled W.A.S.H. Report. b) Within the report submitted there is a Figure 4 drainage exhibit; please entitle this as a W.A.S.H. exhibit. c) Figure 4 drainage exhibit shows a City W.A.S.H. Ordinance Limits line along the boundary of the development near the wash. This line does not appear to describe the edge of the W.A.S.H. study area and it is unclear from the submittal how this line was determined. Provide the following delineations for clarification: i) a top of bank line, ii) a 50-ft offset for the 50-ft Study Area iii) any delineation for the resource area found within that study area. d) Tucson Code Sec.29-15(b)(1): 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. Typically, each element is given a section within the W.A.S.H. Report for discussion. Address the following element comments: i) Element a - Clearly show the 100-yr floodplain 200 feet upstream and downstream of the project on an exhibit. ii) Element b - discuss results of soils report iii) Element c - all existing rights-of-way or easement dedications along the wash for a distance of 500 feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development shall be identified in report and/or on an exhibit. The two easements indicated on the landscape documents shall be dimensioned on the W.A.S.H. exhibit. State ownership / maintenance of Maxwell Wash. iv) Element d - explain whether there are any existing and proposed drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identify the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities. v) Element e - W.A.S.H. report should refer to any hydraulic/hydrologic impact to the W.A.S.H. as indicated in the University House drainage report. vi) Element f - the W.A.S.H. report shall provide discussion of groundwater recharge potential along this stretch of the Maxwell Wash. vii) Element g - Provide a discussion of sediment transport characteristics for the existing wash and how the development maintains the conditions. viii) Element h - There are two proposed utility crossings shown on sheet VRI of the mitigation/landscape documents. However they are not clearly depicted on the improvement plans. Show extents of sewer or water easement disturbance areas within the W.A.S.H. study and resource areas on the W.A.S.H. exhibit with revised contour lines along the embankments. (1) Explain how any proposed new utility crossings are laid out on the topography to prevent scour or erosion problems. (2) Also state whether reasonable alternative locations for new utility lines improvements are available. (3) Provide cross sections for existing and proposed grades and conditions at the utility crossings through the 50-ft study area and across the wash. ix) Element i- (1) On improvement plan sheet C-4, there are 3 locations where concentrated flows from onsite are proposed to discharge into the wash. Explain in the report if/how this will impact the existing embankment and whether the proposed spillways are sufficient to prevent additional erosion along the embankment of the wash. (2) There are 13 to 15 feet of retaining wall surrounding the south parking improvement. Describe adjacent conditions along wash for existing project to the east of the site and whether the proposed project matches the hydraulic and fill characteristics of other parcels along the wash. (3) State whether alternative locations for parking area are available. x) Provide introductory or closing statement in the W.A.S.H. report as to whether the development proposed, whether in the study area but not in the resource area, or within the resource area, is compatible with the purpose and intent of the W.A.S.H. Ordinance regulations. e) Tucson Code Sec.23A-50.(2): As previously discussed at the counter, it was stated that a W.A.S.H. review is critical to the review of this project due to the extent of proposed development that appears to fall within the W.A.S.H. Ordinance study area. The plans continue to indicate a substantial amount of proposed grading for structures such as buildings, retaining walls, sidewalk, and parking improvements. Typically, these improvements are discouraged within the resource areas of the study area. Per the new W.A.S.H. Ordinance of January of this year, if any portion of the 50-ft study area is proposed to be developed, the following needs to be addressed: i) After addressing the comments for this submittal and acceptance of the review package is provided by DSD, the W.A.S.H. submittal package will need to proceed to City of Tucson stormwater committee(s) for review including Stormwater Advisory Committee. This will occur if there are any placement of structures, paths of any type, or other grading disturbance proposed within the resource areas of the Study Area. ii) Tucson Code Chapter 23A.Article II.Division 3.Sec.23A-50: Full notice procedure will also be required if there are any proposed disturbance within the study area. iii) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): If any portion of the 50-ft study area is proposed to be developed, a W.A.S.H. Mitigation Plan shall be included in the W.A.S. H. Report. 2) Tucson Code Sec.23A-50.(1) 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. HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: The HDZ calculation for the ACS which was submitted with this package is accepted. 4) DS Sec.9-04.3: The grading plan shall be reviewed for this section of the standards for HDZ grading. Submit a revised report for the W.A.S.H. Report with exhibits discussed in the above comments, revised improvement plans, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, response letter, and any other supporting documentation. The next submittal should address all the above W.A.S.H. items. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/29/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 29, 2005 Paul Keesler Stantec 201 North Bonita Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: T05SA00404 Hillside and WASH Overlays for Canyon Ridge Apartments (T05CM01524) Dear Paul: Your submittal of November 22, 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 4 Copies Revised Scenic Corridor Overlay zone submittal package as detailed in the on line comments (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, 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: 750-7470 |