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: GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU01758
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/21/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. According to the approved final plat Case # S97-001 the following comments apply to this site: 2. Construction limits will be marked per DS 2-06.8.0 Figure-1 to preserve native vegetation; trees and cacti within construction zone will be salvaged wherever possible all salvageable plants will be used on site. Clearly identify limits of disturbance on grading plan and include this note. 3. Add note to plan: Disturbed open space will be hydro-seeded with the approved upland seed mix indicated in approved tentative plat Case # S97-001 the prescribed rate is 7lbs per acre after construction. 4. Custom lot owners will be required to plant 6-15gal. Cercidium microphyllum (Foothills Palo Verde) per lot. Show the locations on plan of the required replacement trees (including all transplanted plant materials). 5. Note on grading plan: Prior to any site disturbance a pre-grading inspection is required. Inspections may be scheduled by calling the IVR system at (520) 740-6970, inspection #09015 or by calling the Landscape Field Representative directly at 791-5640 Ext. 1140. |
| 11/10/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 11/10/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections. 2. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 11/25/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: William Daniels, PE, Gregor and Grenier Engineering, Inc. SUBJECT: 3237 W LOST MESA PL Grading Review LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 20 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU01758, T05CM03124 Summary: Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted items, and does not recommend approval at this time. Address the following comments for the grading plan sheets 1 and 2 labeled "Grading and Drainage Plan": GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: Provide the following clarification/notations on the grading plan: a) Address the following grading limit comments: i) Delineate grading limits that includes disturbance area and any additional construction staging areas, construction materials, and vehicle parking. It is important to clarify actual disturbance area that will be needed to construct the house, retaining walls, and yard improvements. ii) Assure the note for square footage of disturbance reflects the actual graded area. iii) Label any construction staging area that will be revegetated or improved as noted. b) DS Sec.11-01.10.5: Address the following interceptor swale comments: i) Capacity for interceptors shall have a minimum of 30-in wide and 12-in deep, unless a larger capacity is necessary for the uphill contributing watershed. ii) Concrete swales have higher potential for erosion at swale exits and may breakover edges at turns in the swale since concrete conveys stormwater at higher velocities than grouted rip rap. Provide grouted rock or other design to reduce velocity or provide calculations to show that the swales contain the flow and the flow exits at a non-erosive velocity. iii) There appears to be a potential for stormwater from the upstream watershed to enter into the small rear yard area. To reduce the amount of ponding in this yard area, continuation of the interceptor swale is required. c) There are cut / fill slopes proposed at over 10-ft in height at 1:1(H:V). Provide geotechnical report that discusses stability as well as erosion protection. Provide documentation from a geotechnical engineer that provides an assessment with any recommendations of the proposed slope design. d) Address the following general grading note comments: i) Add a general note stating that materials and / or construction equipment may not be stockpiled or parked outside of grading limits at any time. ii) Revise Standard Paving and Grading Note 9 to state that all grading construction work shall conform to IBC Chapter 18, City of Tucson DS Sec.11-01 and Hillside Development Zone requirements DS Sec.9-04.3. iii) Add a note that clarifies that separate building permit applications are required for the retaining walls. e) Show detail 2-3 as referenced on sheet 2, keynote 1. 2) Land Use Code (LUC) Sec. 2.8.1: The General Note 9 on the Quail Hollow at Starr Pass Final Plat states that prior to issuance of any building permits, Hillside Development Zone approval is required for lots 32 - 34. Contact Zoning for compliance procedure, that may include ACS calculations and an overlay application. 3) For resubmittal, assure all information is filled out on grading application (green card). Please provide three copies of the revised grading plan, response letter, any drainage supporting documentation, and geotechnical report / documentation. I can be reached at 791-5550, ext.2204 if you have questions. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/07/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |