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 - T06BU02456
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/16/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. According to the approved NPPO plan included with the tentative plat Case # S98-065. This site contained more then one Saguaro. Verify the number of protected plants on-site. 2. Submit NPPO or Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants per DS 2-15.0 3. Add note to Sheet C1.4 and: Fencing shall be required during construction per DS 2-06.8.0 Fig.1 for all undisturbed natural desert areas of Protected Native Plants and for individual Protected Native Plants to be preserved-in-place. The area to be fenced shall be beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. For Saguaros and cacti, the area to be fenced shall be equal to the distance of one-half (½) the height of the plant per DS 2-15.6.0 4. Add note to Sheet C1.4: NPPO pre permit inspection is required prior to grading inspection can be scheduled by calling IVR system and entering inspection code 09015 or calling Landscape Field Representative directly @ 791-5550 EXT 1140 |
| 10/17/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading notes for permits plus. With SITE PLAN 10/17/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead 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. |
| 12/26/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: William Ford, RA, Wilson Builders, LLC. SUBJECT: 240 S Corte Tortuga Vista, Sierra Tortuga Grading Review LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 17 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU02456, T06CM05427 Summary: Engineering Division has reviewed sheets C1.2, A4.1, A5.1, and A5.2 and soils report, and does not recommend approval at this time. Address the following comments for the grading plan sheets C1.2, A4.1, A5.1, and A5.2: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: Provide the following clarification/notations on the grading plan: a) Address the following Geotechnical Engineering grading comments. Revise slope designs on sheets C1.2, A4.1, A5.1, and A5.2 to show compliance with geotechnical recommendations. i) There are cut / fill slopes proposed at approximately 10-ft in height at 1:1(H:V) along east building pad. The SAT geotechnical report that discusses stability as well as erosion protection, retaining for this slope grade of fill. The proposed 1:1(H:V) slope is not acceptable. ii) Slope at west side of building pad is indicating approximately 5 foot high 1:1H(:V) slope. This slope will also need to be revised to reflect geotechnical recommendations. iii) Revise design such that any less steep slopes remain within allowable grading limits; it may be necessary to consider terraced retaining systems along east and west slopes. 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. Show detail for this interceptor swale, with reference to sheet. ii) Provide grouted rock or other design to reduce velocity / erosion potential from stormwater flow conditions. iii) There appears to be a potential for stormwater from the upstream watershed to enter into the small rear yard area at northwest side of building pad. Show how design will reduce the amount of runoff into or ponding in this yard area. c) Address the following comments for sheet C1.2: i) Label sheet C1.2 as "Site/Grading and Utilities Plan". ii) Provide section callouts for all section details. iii) Add contour interval to the grading plan sheet C1.2. iv) Label material for driveway. v) Address the following grading limit comments: (1) Label any construction staging area or other disturbance areas that will be revegetated or improved as noted. (2) DS Sec.9-04.3.1.A.2: Label locations within the driveway or yard areas for construction staging areas, construction materials, and vehicle parking. (3) Revise delineation for grading limits to include grading construction disturbance area for any wall or slope runout/construction. It is important to clarify actual disturbance area that will be needed to construct the house, retaining walls, and yard improvements. (4) Label area outside of grading limits as "Natural Area to Remain Undisturbed". (5) Label heavy duty construction fence location along north and east sides of grading limits. vi) Address the following general grading note comments: (1) Revise first paragraph of Grading Notes to assure the square footage of disturbance reflects the actual graded area. (2) Add a general note stating that materials and / or construction equipment may not be stockpiled or parked outside of grading limits at any time. (3) Add a Grading Note to state that all grading construction work shall conform to IBC Chapter 18, City of Tucson DS Sec.11-01, Hillside Development Zone requirements DS Sec.9-04.3, and Soils Report for this site. (4) Revise Earthwork Notes to reflect current Soils Report recommendations. Update reference to SAT report and include seal date of soils report and SATL Project number. (5) Add a note that clarifies that separate building permit applications are required for all walls. (6) DS Sec.9-04.3.3.A: Add that all rip rapped slopes shall have handplaced stone with filter fabric. (7) DS Sec.9-04.3.1.A.2: Add note that in order to prevent encroachment into the natural areas, temporary fencing shall be installed where the designated natural areas abut construction areas. (8) Add note that wall openings shall be provided for surface drainage from yard or patio areas. (9) Add note that states that if grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact City of Tucson Development Services Department 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. (10) Add note to call for DSD Engineering Pre-construction meeting. (11) Add note that 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. (12) Add note that there shall be no disturbance or stockpiling outside of the approved Grading Limits as shown on the Grading Plan. (13) Add note stating that the Grading Permit, Soils Report, as well as the copy of the Grading Plan, shall be kept at the site at all times, until Final Grading approval. (14) Add note that special geotechnical inspections may be required per SAT Soils Report. (15) Add note that all rip rap shall be minimum diameter 6 inches. Consider adding table of slope recommendations per SAT soils report to sheet C1.2. d) DS Sec.11-01.4.C.2: Clarify the following elevation comments on sheet C1.2: i) Identify / clarify stone gabion location on planview, as referenced in legend. ii) DS Sec.11-01.9.3: The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope. Assure revised design for fill slopes meet minimum setback. Label setbacks from edge of disturbance/grading limits to east boundary line. iii) Provide clarification of east and west proposed slopes. Provide more spot elevations on sheet C1.2 and clarify cross sections on sheets A4.1, A5.1, and A5.2, showing change of grade for east slope will be accomplished within property boundary minus minimum setback. iv) Clarify elevation call outs as top of retaining wall (as opposed to top of any future screen wall). v) Provide more toe of slopes along east fill. vi) On sheet C1.2, clarify several spot elevations along east side of proposed driveway as these elevations do not match existing or proposed design grades. 2) Show all lot 12 boundary linework as depicted on the Final Plat (see attached). A small lot map with this data may be provided on cover sheet, or one of the sheets: C1.2, A4.1, A5.1, and A5.2. 3) Label sheets A4.1, A5.1, and A5.2 as "Site/Grading Plan - sections". 4) Land Use Code (LUC) Sec. 2.8.1: The General Note 6 on the Sierra Tortuga Final Plat states that prior to issuance of any building permits, Hillside Development Zone approval is required for lots 2-12. Contact Zoning for any compliance procedure, that may include an overlay application. 5) For resubmittal, assure information is filled out for owner and contractor (if available) on grading application (green card). Please provide 4 copies of the revised grading plan sheets, response letter, any other supporting 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/02/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |