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

Permit Number: T06CM05427
Parcel: 116277210

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM

Permit Number - T06CM05427
Review Name: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM
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 CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T06CM05427
240 S. Corte Tortuga Vista
Site Plan - SFR

TRANSMITTAL: 10/17/06

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. This site will require a review for the Hillside Development Zone. Contact Patricia Gehlen @ 791-5608 ext. 1179 for information on applying for an Overlay Zone review for the Hillside Development Zone. Zoning cannot approve this site plan until the overlay zone review has been completed and approved.

2. On the site plan indicate the zoning of all adjacent properties

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000.

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\DSC\T06CM05427.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site, Landscape and NPPO Plans and any additional requested documents
10/18/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Fire sprinklers are required for this dwelling by IFC 503.1 and Appendix B.

Indicate on the plans an NFPA 13D system is to be installed and provide flow data.
11/02/2006 WILDAN 2ND PARTY REVIEW REVIEW Denied November 1, 2006

City of Tucson Development Services
201 N. Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701

RE: 240 SOUTH CORTE TORTUGA VISTA – 1ST REVIEW
CITY OF TUCSON LOG NO. T06CM05427
WILLDAN PROJECT NO. 13881-6060

The initial review for the above project has been completed. This letter contains comments which need to be addressed by written responses to each which indicate any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter second review, all corrections and revisions must be made on the original plans and two complete new sets of prints, along with one complete redlined set, must be returned to our office. To avoid delays, ensure that all corrections have been made, are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable detail and note sheets, and that all changes have been highlighted with appropriate revision numbers, revision dates, and “cloud bubbles.” Pen or pencil corrections on final prints are not acceptable.

This project has been reviewed for conformance with the 2003 IRC, 1997 UAC, 2003 IMC, 2003 IECC, 2002 NEC codes with local modifications, and the 2003 UPC with State of Arizona Amendments. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan.

Should you have questions regarding the comments herein, please contact your plans examiner Antonio Moya.

Occupancy Occup. Load Construction Area S.F. Sprinklered Alarms
SFR
Garage
Patio N/A V-B 3650
750
525 No Smoke

Special Inspection is required for the following items:
Soils
Epoxy Anchors
Masonry

The following items are acceptable for deferred submittals:
N/A

GENERAL COMMENTS:
General
A signed special inspection form from the City of Tucson is required at the time that the plans are resubmitted for a back check. Reference the City of Tucson Submittal Policy.

ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS:
Sheet A1.D
Provide ½” gypsum board on all walls common to the garage and house in compliance with R309.2. Where separation is a floor-ceiling assembly, the structure supporting the separation shall also be protected by a minimum ½” gypsum board or equivalent. Reference IRC Section R309.2.

Sheet A1.1
Note glass in hazardous areas shall be safety glass. Reference IRC Section R308.4.

Sheet A4.1
Note and dimension that the fireplace chimney must terminate a minimum of 2’ above any point of roof within 10’ measured horizontally and not less than 3’ above the point where the chimney passes through the roof. Reference IRC Section R1001.6.

Sheets A1.1 and D1.2
The walls and soffit of the enclosed space under stairs shall be protected on the enclosed side with ½” gypsum board. Reference IRC Section R311.2.2.

Sheets A1.1 and A1.2
Identify ceiling heights in all areas on floor plan. If sloped ceiling, note average height. Reference IRC Sections R305.1 and R106.1.1.

Sheets A1.2 and A2.1
Show calculation of attic ventilation area. Note location of all vents needed to comply or show compliance with an accepted Non-vented Roof Method Details 1-8, Dated 7/18-19/2001 as permitted by Section R104.11, Alternate Methods. Reference IRC Section R806.2.

Sheets A1.1 and A3.1
Openings between the garage and residence shall be equipped with solid wood doors not less than 1 3/8” (35mm) thick, solid or honeycomb core steel doors not less than 1 3/8” (35mm) thick, or 20-minute fire rated doors. Reference IRC Section 309.1.

STRUCTURAL COMMENTS:
Sheet A1.1
All slabs and pads, including landings at all doors, shall be shown and their thickness specified. Reference IRC Sections R506.1 and 403.1.

Indicate the slope for exterior slabs. Reference IRC Section R311.6.1.

Sheet S4.0
Note and specify the size, spacing, and length of anchor bolts for top plates and ledgers. Reference IRC Section R106.1.1.

Sheets S2.0 and S3.0
Specify anchor bolts to have a minimum of 7” embedment. Reference IRC Sections 403.1.6 and 403.1.6.1.

PLUMBING COMMENTS:
Sheet P3
Gas: Provide total demand, and total developed length from meter to the most remote appliance on the system. Reference UPC Section 1217.2.

Waterline: Provide the total fixture unit demand (based on Tables 6-4 & 7-3 or Tables L-1 & L-2) and the maximum developed length. Reference UPC Section 610.


The City of Tucson has adopted the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code with local amendments. All plans must reference the 2003 UPC with local amendments in its entirety.

MECHANICAL COMMENTS:
Sheet M1
Show on the plans how mechanical fresh air will be provided if using one of the non-vented roof methods. Reference Non-Vented Roof Details Dated 7/18-19/2001.

ELECTRICAL COMMENTS:
Sheet E1.1
Island or peninsula countertops shall have at least one receptacle outlet at each counter space with a long dimension of 24” or greater, and a short dimension of 12” or greater. Reference IRC Sections E3801.4.2 and E3802.4.3.

Note that at least one 20-amp branch circuit shall be installed to serve the laundry room and this circuit shall have no other outlets. Reference IRC Sections E3603.3 and E3801.8.

Sheet E2.1
Lights installed over a shower or bathtub must be approved for use in wet areas. Reference IRC Sections E3303.3 and E3903.8.

Where ceiling fans are shown on the plans, provide a note indicating only approved outlet boxes shall be used. Reference IRC Section E4001.6.

Note that light fixtures in clothes closets shall be installed in accordance with IRC Section E3903.11.

Show locations of smoke detectors. Reference IRC Sections R313.1 and R313.1.1.

The smoke detector outside the office could be moved into the office or a new one could be provided for inside the office. Reference IRC Section 313.

ENERGY CODE COMMENTS:
Reviewed and accepted.

ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS:
Reviewed and accepted.

Sincerely,

WILLDAN



Martin Haeberle, C.B.O.
Building Official

MAH/tb
11/09/2006 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied 1. CONNECTING TO EXISTING ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER #PV-2000-024
2. NEEDS WASTEWATER DESIGN REVIEW OF LIFT STATIO - HOWARD WOOLSONCROFT @ 617-8207 - 100 N STONE - 4TH FLOOR
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