Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU02456
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/07/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Include the locations and designation of all TOS and PIP saguaros on the grading plan identical to approved NPP plan. |
| 11/04/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 11/04/05 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 could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. 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. 4. A separate site plan review and approval is required for the building permits. 5. The entire lot must be depicted on the plan along with perimeter boundary distances and bearings. |
| 12/05/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Allied Homes c/o Carl Ewing RA SUBJECT: Montage Vista II Lot 66 Grading Review LOCATION: 3046 W Salvia Drive REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU02456 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Grading Plan submittal and permit application for lot 66 and does not recommend approval of the grading plan at this time. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) 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. 2) Development Standards (DS) Section 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. The north side slope is excessive and indicate that the runout could exceed the design shown. For the rear slope, the 10+ feet of fill needs to be reconsidered for benching and geotechnical recommendations, to blend with the natural appearance of the site or lot and the surrounding terrain. Revise planview and provide section that shows the revised rear slope configuration. 3) DS Sec.11-01.8.2: On sheet G-1, the runout depicted does not match the fill and grade proposed. Revise rear slope design to reflect HDZ design (terracing or benching) and to scale. Also, add spot elevation at top of north slope at north side of rear yard. 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Provide copy of geotechnical assessment letter or report, that provides any benching recommendations such as height and width of benching. This information shall conform to HDZ standards. The geotechnical assessment should includes recommendations for benching, side setbacks from slopes or from swales. 5) DS Sec.11-01.9.2: Provide section to include information about and depicting the top of east cut slope, the interceptor swale, and the east side of building with setbacks as recommended in soils report. Also, dimension distances from sides of building to slope on planview per geotechnical recommendations. This side of the project does not show change of elevation to existing grades; provide existing grades on section and depict the setback from lot boundary to edge of cut. 6) DS Sec.11-01.4.12: Add the following as general grading notes to help facilitate finalizing and inspections for the grading permit: a) If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. b) Call for DSD Engineering Pre-construction meeting. c) Any revision to the Grading Plan may require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. d) There shall be no disturbance or stockpiling outside of the approved Grading Limits as shown on the Grading Plan. Minimum 2' setback from property line to grading limits shall be maintained. 7) Revise the following general notes: a) Revise General Grading Note 3 to reflect that the Grading Permit, Geotechnical Reports, as well as the copy of the Grading Plan, shall be kept at the site at all times, until Final Grading approval. b) General Grading Note 4 refers to an additional document to be submitted - clarify what this document is and include with resubmittal for review. c) For General Grading Note 5, revise "…Differential Ordinance" to "differential grading per Development Standards 11-01.8.1". d) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: For General Grading Note 9, include temporary erosion control devices along toe of downhill slope. Also, show on plan view temporary erosion control devices placed at downstream side (north) of grading limits. e) For General Grading Note 10, add the word "approved" to something like: A Geotechnical Engineering inspection will be required prior to final grading inspection if any *approved* cut slopes steeper than 2:1(H:V) are constructed, per September 17, 2004 Rock Slope Evaluation Geotechnical Letter by LMT. Special Inspection would be required by Geotechnical Engineer for 1:1(H:V) slopes, or any slopes steeper than 2:1(H:V). Copies of the Geotechnical Evaluation would need to be submitted to DSD Engineering Division Inspector or office prior to scheduling Final Grading Inspection. f) For General Grading Note 7, if T02BU00170 is to be revised and the pavement plans change road grades at frontage of the lot, then the updated proposed pavement elevations need to be shown on this plan. Clarify in response letter whether this lot is affected. 8) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Clarify whether the spot elevation in Salvia right-of-way depicted on plan view is from the revised road plans. 9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Label material for driveway. 10) DS Sec.9-04.3.1.A.2: Show location of temporary fencing that will be installed at grading limits in order to prevent encroachment into the natural areas. 11) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Revise grading limits according to the following comments: a) include disturbance for utility trenching. Show utility lines from right-of-way to building. b) LUC Sec.2.8.1: Revise grading limits to reflect minimal disturbance of lot; pull back disturbance limits such that the grading limits shows prudent amount of construction area for building pad slope construction. 12) 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, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/19/2005 | GBONILL1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/19/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |