Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Permit Number - T05SA00404
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/14/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) This application is required to be reviewed through the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Chapter 23A-50 and 51. A new application is required per DS 9-06.1.2. 2) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 9-06.2.5.B.1 if encroachment is proposed in the regulatory area (WASH Study Area). New standards for plan preparation and information to be included with the application have been adopted since the previous application. The plans (C4, C5) appear to show "grading/disturbance limits" within the regulatory limits of the WASH Ordinance Study Area that is not addressed in the previously submitted Wash Ordinance Mitigation Report. The ERR is required to document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain. 3) Provide cross sections for areas where the proposed retaining walls are directly abutting the WASH Study Area. In the majority of instances the walls appear to be located less than five feet from the regulated area, while the sections provided are for areas that exceed ten feet. 4) All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 for the section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary to comply. 5) Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report demonstrating that the proposed mitigation is in conformance with this subsection and applicable codes. DS 2-13.2.5.C 6) Landscape plans are required to document compliance with the mitigation plan requirements. A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included on the plans. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; techniques used for mitigating impacts to, or preservation of, natural areas; specifications for restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas; and general compliance with the applicable standards. Revise as necessary. 7) Ownership of the Protected Riparian Area shall be provided in one or more of the methods set forth in DS 2-13.2.6 to insure continued preservation of the area. Refer to the standards and revise the plans and provide additional documentation as appropriate. 8) A site plan per DS 2-02.0 is required. Include all specified information and add all required notes and references regarding the Overlay Zones to the site plan. 9) All tentative plats, development plans, site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 2-13.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. Revise the site plans as necessary. 10) Submit revised Landscape and Native Plant Preservation Plans that correspond with the revised site/Grading/Paving/Utility plans. DS 2-07.2.2 11) Submit the HDZ Plans. Revise the site plan to designate any natural areas per 2.8.1.7 . Natural areas are to designated by legal description on a document recorded with the Pima County Recorder for a lot division. |
| 04/17/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planner Technician PROJECT: T05SA00404 (T05CM01524 & T05BU00798) HDZ and WASH Overlays 2656 West Broadway Boulevard Canyon Ridge Apartments 4th Review TRANSMITTAL: April 17, 2008 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. The HDZ cannot be approved as presented. 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. This height measurement is from design grade (usually ground level) to the midpoint. The elevation plans submitted provide the dimensions from finished grade. It appears that these buildings maybe too high. The top of the ridge is twenty-seven feet six inches (27'-6") and the eave is twenty-two feet (22'-0"). This would make the midpoint twenty-four feet nine inches (24'-9") from finish grade. When measured from design grade usually adds several inches to the height over finished grade. (LUC Section 3.2.7.2.A and Section 2.8.1.8.A with illustration). 4. The deck for a mansard roof is at the top; therefore the minimum building height as presented is twenty-six feet four inches (LUC Section 3.2.7.2.A). The elevations as presented may be even higher that claimed. 5. The elevation drawings do not match the descriptions provided in your response letter and there are no building section drawings. They may be the same elevations previously submitted. In addition we cannot assume 4" from finish grade to finished floor. The height measurement must be from design grade. Please see the illustration for LUC Section 2.8.1.8.A. (Please be aware that David Rivera and Craig Gross have assisted me with this review and have come to the same conclusions pertaining to the height requirements and the plans submitted.) |
| 06/03/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | TO: Stantec SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge Grading Engineering 5th Resubmittal Review ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU00798 / T05CM01524 / T05SA00404 LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 9 SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the grading plan resubmittal package. Approval is not recommended at this time. A meeting to go over comments may be beneficial to go over remaining comments. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.4 C 2 & 4: For sheets C-3 through C-5, address the following comments: a) On sheet C-4, revise keynote 16 regarding grouted rip rap see comment below for sheet C-12. b) For sheet C-5, dimension length and width of spillway (keynote 12) southwest of solid waste pick-up area on sheet C-5. c) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 11-01.4.1.C.4: The structural review of the retaining walls require separate permit however the grading and erosion protection associated with these proposed walls shown on the grading plans for review so that the feasibility and construction of the walls with the associated runout and cut/fill, impact with relation to EHS, and surcharges from proposed buildings and parking, are shown on the plans for construction as well as grading inspection. In this submittal, a structural calculation was provided. The following grading related comments need to be addressed: i) On all plan view sheets, check and clarify locations of all retaining walls, differentiating the CMU type of retaining systems from the proposed structural stacked wall design provided in this submittal. ii) Structural calculation shall reflect parking surcharge to show feasibility of wall. iii) Minimum width of top of stacked rock structure shall be clarified. Sufficient area and runout needs to be available at locations of the proposed retaining structure. iv) Width of base of wall appears to have discrepancy with side slope. Check minimum wall base width chart. v) For this project provide status of retaining wall review. 2) It was stated in response letter that the water easement recording information will be added when available. Address the remaining comments for sheet C-9: a) A public water easement is shown on this sheet with missing dkt and pg info. Provide docket and page for any water easements. 3) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-12: a) The City's experience with grouted riprap is that it is usually installed improperly and the grout thickness is not adequate. This Office recommends that the thickness of the grouted riprap be at least 8" to help reduce future maintenance requirements and cost. The revised detail 9 on sheet C-12 shows only 4" grout with gaps between rock. Revise the detail to indicate full coverage of rip rap and revise the thickness to 8" or at minimum 6" per previous Stantec project submittals. For the grading permit the following condition is being considered to be added as a condition of the permit: If it is determined to be insufficient to hold the rap rap, unstable, or unconstructable, reconstruction of the grouted rip rap may be required to provide at least twice the dimension for D50 minimum for thickness for the grout. 4) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-13: a) Label filter fabric for detail section D-D on sheet C-13. 5) Tucson Code Sec.26-23: Provide revised SWPPP that addresses the following remaining comments: a) If silt fencing is proposed as a sediment barrier, the barrier must follow existing contours onsite as discussed in page 3 of 5 of SC -1 in the appendix. Concentrated flows at locations where the silt fence does not run parallel to contours creates potential for break out and discharge of contaminants. On the exhibit, the SWPPP indicates silt fencing that concentrates flow at north project disturbance boundary, northeast of Bldg B. Revise Silt fence installation locations to assure that the contractor does not concentrate flows. A series of parallel silt fencing should be shown on the exhibit or other SWPPP control design. b) Assure that a current, new NOI form is used for your project per recent ADEQ update to the CGP. The updated NOI, NOT, and Waiver Certification forms can be found at the ADEQ websites at: http://www.azdeq.gov/function/forms/appswater.html#cgp http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnoi.pdf c) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. 6) Landscaping review has requested an ERR Report. The drainage report may be incorporated in the ERR-W.A.S.H. Report as an appendix. The ERR standards should be used as supplemental information to clarify how the W.A.S.H. code provisions are addressed in the report. a) Here is the link to the ERR requirements: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/agdocs/20061107/nov7-06-610-2b.pdf b) Try page 8 for report contents. The report is somewhat similar to WASH Ordinance report (Tucson Code Chapter 29 Article VIII section 15) and asks for similar information to be discussed in the report, however since there is a WASH Ordinance wash area that is proposed to be disturbed on this site, follow WASH report format and supplement the report with ERR discussion. c) Items to discuss on the ERR-W.A.S.H. Report: i) Discuss how the W.A.S.H. Ordinance line was determined. ii) Discuss PRA and W.A.S.H. Study area. iii) Explain all encroachments beyond the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Limits. Include: (1) Retaining wall construction. (2) Include proposed disturbance areas for any water main installation and sewer tie-in within the WASH Study Areas and PRA's (Protected Resource Areas). THIS WORK MUST ALSO BE ADDRESSED IN THE E.R.R. WASH SUBMITTAL. Sewer information indicates that the sewer line is approximately 10 feet deep. Due to impact to ERR / W.A.S.H. Ordinance area, disturbance area for this utility trenching, a discussion regarding the grading and construction for the sewer lines should be provided. (3) Erosion protection for drainage outlets. (4) Any other encroachment. iv) Call for clarification of items required for this report. d) This report shall be entitled ERR-W.A.S.H. Report. Submit other documents previously submitted and revised documents including: 2 copies of drainage report, a revised set of improvement plans (2 copies) for the Grading Plan submittal, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, 2 copies of the revised SWPPP including SWP plan sheet(s), 2 copies of the ERR-W.A.S.H. Report, response letter, any other supporting documentation. The resubmittal shall address all of the above comments as well as all remaining W.A.S.H. comments from prior review (T05SA00404). A meeting, to go over engineering remaining comments, may be beneficial prior to resubmittal. If you have questions or to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/03/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | approved per meeting 25NOV08 |
| 06/05/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 5, 2008 Corey Thompson P.E. Stantec 201 North Bonita Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: T05SA00404 Hillside and WASH Overlays for Canyon Ridge Apartments (T05CM01524) Dear Paul: Your submittal of March 20, 2008 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 Hillside and WASH Overlays zone submittal package as detailed in the on line comments (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD). THE REVIEW PERIOD FOR THIS OVERLAY HAS EXPIRED. NEW FEES WILL BE REQUIRED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL OF THESE PLANS. THE FEE IS $315. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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 |