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 - T06SA00259
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/11/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) The Landscape Section recommends approval subject to the following: The plans propose encroachments into the floodplain for pipe installation associated with basin development and trail improvements in close proximity to the floodplain. The grading limits proposed are identified as approximate on the native plant preservation plan. Applicants proposing a project with no encroachment into the one hundred (100) year floodplain are required to indicate the one hundred (100) year floodplain on the plans. The plan is also to indicate the proposed location of the temporary fencing which is required to protect the natural areas (ERZ floodplain) during construction. Revise the plans to confirm that no encroachment or grading will occur in the floodplain. |
| 04/13/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/05/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Mission Hill Tentative Plat core review & Overlay Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 22 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach, PE CASE NUMBER: S07-040, (S05-023 4th submittal), T06SA00259 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, geotechnical addendum, Landscape documents, title report, SCZ/HDZ/ERR Overlay response, and Tentative Plat response letter were received by Engineering. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report and grading sheets were reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. HDZ SUMMARY: HDZ calculation is acceptable. There are remaining HDZ grading comments that need to be addressed. (See comments 11 and 13) SCZ SUMMARY: Scenic Corridor Zone design remains acceptable to Engineering for Tentative Plat purposes. PROJECT SAC SUMMARY: This subdivision project is adjacent to an ERZ wash named San Juan Wash. There are proposed drainage improvement development encroachment into the San Juan ERZ wash. The existing San Juan ERZ is within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AE and consists of an existing constructed channel, approximately 5 feet deep and bottom width 60 feet, with sandy earthen bottom that has grade control structures and 1.5:1(H:V) shotcrete side slopes with toedowns. A CLOMR has been obtained from FEMA, as the jurisdictional flow is proposed as being contained within the channel. Proposed encroachment includes proposed bleed pipes with flap gates for outlets from two of the proposed basins, and shotcrete weir outlet / trail crossing the bank protection along the south side of the project. Engineering recommends SAC scheduling after trail or other easement clarifications are addressed. (See comments 3, 6, 12, and 13) DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.4.G, 2-03.2.4.L.4&6: Regarding the San Juan Wash Zone AE FEMA floodplain which is partially on this project, provide updated FEMA status upon resubmittal. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Discuss and explain elevations for basin 3, bottom elevation and bleed pipe invert at basin outlet. There is only a 0.2% grade along the bottom of this basin. Minimum grade required per recent directive is 1% or 0.5% with as-built showing elevations at 10-ft grid intervals. Revise basin 3 bottom elevations. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L.5: This following comment remains until acceptance of proposed drainage improvements are accepted by offsite owner: Verification will need to be provided that any drainage solutions, which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area, are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) Please be aware that the concrete weir outlets which are proposed to cross the maintenance road are not necessarily accepted. The proposed designs must meet SCZ and ERZ requirements. The SCZ and ERZ submittals must be submitted prior to next submittal of the Tentative Plat. Applicability of ERZ is dependent on CLOMR status. If the structures are approved, a drainage maintenance or construction easement will be needed at the south side of the project for those areas of drainage structures that are proposed outside of the property boundaries, including the flap-gated pipe outlets. 4) DS Sec.11-01.10.5: Size and provide interceptor swale section on a drainage exhibit for top of slopes for lots 26-38. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Basin 2 is showing 1:1(H:V) slopes that are not consistent with the geotechnical recommendations (addendum states maximum slope at 2:1(H:V). Assure capacity of basin is provided after revising slopes, associated runout, and providing any applicable setbacks. 6) Provide statement in Drainage Report regarding whether there are toedowns and key-in for the existing bank protection and whether the existing bank protection is sufficient for 100-year scour event. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Show feasibility of lot layout by addressing the following comments: a) For lots 26-28, clarify proposed building pad/layouts to show feasibility of product on these lots given the slope runout / change of grades on the north sides of these lots, adjusting for revision to slope grades per geotechnical recommendations. b) Basin 2 is showing slopes that are not consistent with the geotechnical addendum recommendations. After revising slopes, associated runout, and providing any applicable setbacks, lot 21 may not be feasible. Revise lot layout and basin 2 accordingly. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.1.a: Regarding San Jose Drive and San Raphael Avenue, address the following: a) Show full street improvements for San Jose Drive as this street shall be fully built for the project, or show alignment through from cul-de-sac to 33rd Street. b) On detail B/3, proposed grade in San Jose Drive is not safe for a sharp 90% turn and therefore proposed elevation of 15 is about 5 feet to low. Provide design grades in San Jose Drive and revise detail B/3. Interceptor swales are required at tops of slopes; show in cross sections. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: In order to show feasibility of the RCP lots on this HDZ site, the typical lot grading detail will help to show conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and other restrictions including setbacks. Geotechnical addendum did not change sideyard setbacks. Address the remaining comments: a) Geotechnical Engineering Report indicates a minimum of 5 feet, yet sideyards are dimensioned at 3 feet. For the typical lot grading details and lot setback details, clarify minimum side yard setback. Clarify how distances for minimum setbacks provide appropriate area for drainage swales, mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access. b) DS Sec.9-04.3.B.4: There is proposed pad elevations and cut slopes at rear of lots 26 through 36 that in some cases are close to 15 feet of elevation change with only 20 feet of runout. Feasibility of these proposed lots shall be shown on the Tentative Plat. Address the following: i) Provide cross sections that reflect maximum slope grade of 2:1(H:V) and provide sufficient area for building pad. ii) Check driveway slope grades for lots on north side of proposed street. Label maximum driveway slopes on typical grading detail. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Clarify in response letter whether there are no fiber optic cable lines at the site. 11) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Label 2:1(H:V) slopes as handplaced rip rap with filter fabric. 12) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Label bleeder pipe for Basin 3 with flap gate or other design as acceptable to TDOT. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Clarify the proposed erosion protection shown in the remaining 9-ft in the trail corridor in detail E/2. In HDZ areas handplaced rip rap is required. Label type of easement (private slope maintenance easement) outside of the common area where the key-in extends into the lot property line. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, the revised drainage report, authorization document for flap gates, copy of geotechnical report bound with addendum, and response letter. Call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, and if you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/06/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 6, 2007 Chuck Martin Rick Engineering Company Inc. 1745 East River Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: T06SA00259 Scenic Corridor, Environmental Resource, and Hillside Development Zone Overlays for Mission Hill (S05-023) Dear Chuck: Your submittal of March 14, 2007 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 Overlay zone 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 |