Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU02384
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/08/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 12/13/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 13, 2005 TO: Allied Homes c/o Carl Ewing RA SUBJECT: Montage Vista II Lot 65 Grading Resubmittal Review LOCATION: 30 W Salvia Drive REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU02384 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Grading Plan submittal and permit application for lot 65 and does not recommend approval of the grading plan at this time. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Development Standards (DS) Section 11-01.9.2: Previous comment regarding the western cut has not been addressed. The top of cut slopes shall not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The setback may need to be increased for any required interceptor drains. Revise location of cross section for the west side to reflect most extreme cut condition so that it is clear how the design will work. 2) Land Use Code (LUC) Section 2.8.1: Tucson's mountains and foothills are valuable scenic resources which should be preserved. Dominant peaks and ridges should be protected in order to preserve the city's unique visual setting, promote its economic well-being, and encourage tourism. Regulating the intensity of development according to the natural characteristics of hillside terrain, such as degree of slope, significant vegetation and landforms, and soil stability and existing drainage patterns, will allow for development in hillside areas while minimizing the physical impacts of such development. Both lots 65 and 66 show no preservation of the terrain between the lots. Design for lot 65 will not be approved to cut the existing ground 12 feet for the two lots. Grading for lot 66 shall reflect intent of HDZ Land Use Code by minimizing disturbance and providing a building pad that more closely matches the terrain. Mass grading of this natural feature across two lots are not accepted unless no other design is feasible. 3) DS Sec.9-04.3: The slopes that are steeper than 3:1(H:V) shall conform to Hillside Development grading standards; it is imperative that design for the building pad slopes conform to this section. Provide copy of geotechnical assessment letter or report, that provides any benching recommendations such as height and width of benching. This design based on the information shall conform to HDZ standards. The geotechnical assessment should include recommendations for benching and setbacks from swales. 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Revise the location of the temporary erosion control devices to be placed at downstream side of disturbance and grading limits. It is currently shown on planview at the base of the retaining wall however the disturbance limits are farther to the north downhill from the wall. 5) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3, LUC Sec.2.8.1: Revise grading limits to reflect minimal disturbance of lot; pull back disturbance limits from east and west boundaries such that the grading limits shows prudent amount of construction area for building pad slope construction and meets slope setback requirements. 6) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Show utilities from right-of-way to building. 7) Bk56 pg69 general note 8: Show locations of primary and secondary onsite sewage disposal areas; locations should be depicted to match generally central locations per the Final Plat. Show leachate fields within grading limits. It may be necessary to have a Civil Engineer review the design before resubmittal. For resubmittal, provide 3 copies of the revised grading plans, geotechnical assessment, and a response letter addressing all comments. If you have any questions, or would like to set up a meeting, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/15/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 12/15/05 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 and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the Engineering and Landscape reviewed and approved plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2006 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/03/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |