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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T08CM02544
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/08/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 10/13/2008 | HENRY DURAZO | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/21/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Replace Pima County Inclusive Home Design with City of Tucson's requirements. The City of Tucson is not part of unincorporated Pima County. Also replace the 2003 IRC references with 2006 IRC. Grading plan approvals are required. |
| 10/24/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 24, 2008 TO: Paul Nzomo, PE SUBJECT: 300 S Corte Tortuga Vista, Sierra Tortuga Site & Grading Resubmittal Review LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 17 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T08CM02544/T08BU01787 Summary: Engineering Division has reviewed the revised plan package for T08CM02544 and T08BU01787, and does not recommend approval at this time. Address the remaining comments: SITE / GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Land Use Code (LUC) Sec. 2.8.1-I: Revise grading limits to provide sufficient area for wall and slope grading as well as construction staging area. Assure sufficient grading area is provided for grading construction of lot 10 while conforming to maximum allowable gradable area. 2) Per Inclusive Home Design Requirements, address the following: a) Revise notes on sheet 1 to state that the project conforms to the City of Tucson's Inclusive Home Design Ordinance effective January 2008. b) Unless a waiver is granted by the Building Official per Ordinance, the site must show an accessible route from access easement / road frontage to front door or garage if the garage does not open into a bedroom. 3) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: Address the remaining grading comments: a) Address the following driveway comments: i) A 25 % driveway slope is not acceptable. Label driveway slope grade for access from cul-de-sac. Revise layout for driveway so that the driveway does not exceed 14%. ii) Provide proposed contours tied to existing contour lines adjacent to driveway. iii) Label and show erosion protection for cut and fill slopes along driveway. Provide grouted rock or other erosion protection design to reduce velocity / erosion potential from stormwater flow conditions along sides of and at ends of driveway. iv) Show benchmark elevation for project on planview. b) Regarding the geotechnical engineering documentation, revise slope designs to show compliance with geotechnical recommendations, and provide slope stability analysis for locations of 1:1(H:V) slopes per addenda dated October 6, 2008. c) Address the following grading limits comments: i) Include runout for side slopes of driveway cut/fill to be included in grading limits. ii) DS Sec.9-04.3.1.A.2: Label locations within grading limits for construction staging areas, construction materials, and vehicle parking. iii) 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, associated trenches, slope run out, construction area, and yard improvements. iv) Label revised Grading Limits on section details sheet 2. d) Address the following general grading note comments: i) Revise General Note 11 on sheet 1 of the Site-Grading Plan to reflect Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation letter dated October 6, 2008 for slope recommendations. ii) Provide the square footage of disturbance area that reflects the revised, actual proposed graded area. Please provide 2 copies of the revised site/grading plans, response letter, a copy of the geotechnical report, a copy of geotechnical addenda, and any other supporting documentation. As stated in prior comment letter, a discussion regarding gradable limits is recommended. I can be reached at 837-4934 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/27/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/27/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |