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: T09CM00017
Parcel: 116274000

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM

Permit Number - T09CM00017
Review Name: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/13/2009 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied According to the approved Tentative Plat / Development Plan Case # C12-92-10G dated 09/13/1993 this site is subject to the provisions as defined in LUC. 2.8.1 And compliance with regulations in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Hillside Development Zone (HDZ). Contact Patricia Gehlen 837- 4919 or via e-mail at Patricia.Gahlen@tucsonaz.gov for assistance with the review process.

Any lot or parcel containing slopes of fifteen (15) percent or greater, as shown on the HDZ Maps, must provide slope analysis. Methods of analyzing slope are given in Development Standard 9-10.0.

Add the following notes to site plan (Including heading):

CITY OF TUCSON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NO. 9-01
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT SITE IMPROVEMENT

Add the following notes to site plan (Including heading):

A. Vegetation Retention.

1. Existing trees with four (4) inch or greater trunk diameter and cacti will be preserved in their original locations, except for building sites and access and utilities serving building sites.

2. When retention of the above trees and cacti in their original locations is not possible due to building site location, the trees and cacti will be salvaged and replanted in areas requiring re-vegetation, whenever possible.

B. Re-vegetation. All cut or fill slopes, which are no steeper than three (3:1) and all utility trenches or septic leaching fields which are not located in parking or driveway areas will be re-vegetated in compliance with the following requirements.

1. All plants used in re-vegetation must be the same as the native vegetation on the site or any adjacent site prior to grading or clearing.

2. Re-vegetation will be accomplished with the following minimum requirements for plants.

a. Native trees, a minimum of fifteen (15) gallon size with a minimum trunk diameter of two (2) inches measured at the soil level, or large specimen cactus will be placed at the same vegetation density found on the site prior to any clearing, grubbing, or grading.

b. Seeds for trees, desert shrubs, and grasses will be planted with a density adequate to control erosion and may use one of the following methods of planting or any other method approved by the Zoning Review Section at DSD.

1) Raked into the soil with appropriate mulch materials;
2) Hydro-seeding;
3) Anchored mulches; or
4) Established on jute, rolled straw, or similar material.

C. A temporary watering system must be installed until the re-vegetation materials is established.

D. 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 @ 837-4950. Fencing shall be required during construction per DS 2-06.8.0 Fig.1 for all undisturbed natural desert areas

E. Grubbing, grading, and clearing are to occur only within the areas identified on the grading plan and staked on the site or lot. The limits should include all cut and fill areas, leach fields, septic tanks and future development areas identified

F. The portions of the site or lot to be left ungraded are to remain undisturbed and are not to be used for stockpiling of materials or excess fill, construction vehicle access, storage of vehicles during construction, or similar uses.

G. Development other than hiking trails will not be permitted within the legally described boundaries of the natural area.

H. Include the location, size, color, and textural treatment of all retaining walls, riprapped slopes, or other constructed means of slope stabilization must be shown on one (1) of the plans submitted. Vegetation retention and re-vegetation should be used in conjunction with riprapping.
01/20/2009 CRAIG GROSS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Hadden Residence
T09CM00017
Residential Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 21, 2009

1. The building & site plan have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. The proposed residence does not meet the height requirements as specified in LUC Section 2.8.1.8.A. Building Height. Buildings are limited to a building height of twenty-four (24) feet for residential development.
3. .Zoning will re-review the plan on the next submittal. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956

C:\planning\grading\t09cm00017.doc
01/22/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Email sent to applicant requesting additional info for 1st submittal review prior to denial.

Scott,

Good morning. DSD Engineering is starting the single-family residence review for this project and needs additional information to help with the Engineering review.

All projects within Starr pass are required to submit a separate grading plan application for review and approval of HDZ design and for the cut and fill quantities shown. This can be handled at the 2nd submittal of the building plan, however if you would like Engineering to do a more accurate review at the 1st submittal stage the Geotechnical Report that was done for this project needs to be submitted. Otherwise my comments will be simple. Denied with a few general comments and the request for the Geotechnical Report to be submitted due to the slopes, retaining walls, percent slopes, etc.

This project is due out of the Engineering Queue on the 23rd of January so if you can submit the Geotechnical Report now for review that will help Engineering and may limit the amount of comments you get back from us.

Please respond to this email and let me know if your firm can drop this off to Engineering today or tomorrow or at a minimum the beginning of next week. If a Geotechnical Report has not yet been completed please let Engineering know so that we can make comments on the plan set and get it back to the applicant for corrections currently found.

Regards,



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
*Phone: (520) 837-4929
Jason.Green@tucsonaz.gov
01/22/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: January 21, 2009
SUBJECT: Single Family Residence- Engineering Review
TO: Robinette Architects, Inc. Attn:
LOCATION: 3592 W Foxes Meadow Drive, T14S R13E Sec17 Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM00017 (Building Plan)

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan and Geotechnical Report (Pattison Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 09SEP08) for the above referenced activity. Engineering Division does not recommend approval at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


GRADING PLAN:

1) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: Provide a grading permit application for review and approval with the resubmittal of the site plan. A grading permit application is required due to the HDZ design review and the cut and fill quantities provided. The grading permit application must be submitted with the next site plan submittal and all comments associated with the site plan and HDZ design must be addressed. The plan set has been reviewed for both site and grading plan issues at this time, only the application is required by the applicant. The building permit may not be issued prior to grading plan approval.


BUILDING PLAN:

Sheet C1:

2) DS Sec.11-01.10.5: Revise the grading design of the project to label and dimension the required interceptor swale at the top of the cut slope. Per the referenced standard an interceptor swale is required at the top of the cut slope to prevent erosion and excess sedimentation from migrating down slope due to overland runoff. Provide a label for the swale on all plan sheets and revise Cross Sections A and B on Sheet C2 to show the interceptor swale in profile view with minimum dimensions (30" wide x 12" depth). Label and dimension the energy dissipations for erosion protection at the outlet (or day lighting) of the interceptor swale.

3) Revise the plan set to clearly show all areas of rock-outcropping cut slopes and proposed 1:1 slopes. The plan set must provide clear reference to the Geotechnical Report and state that all areas to be constructed at the 1:1 slopes will require a stability analysis for the design of a retaining wall, concrete revetment and or grouted rock rip rap slope protection.

4) Revise all Site Plan Keynotes to reference the supporting details on the adjacent sheets. One such example is Keynote #10 that references the drainage swale along the proposed roadway. Detail 6/C2 should be referenced in the keynote for clarity in the field.

5) Provide a separate detail for the roadway and any required erosion protection and toe of slopes for erosion protection where it intersects the natural drainage contours adjacent to Lot 15. The existing roadway has already been graded through the drainage arroyo. However verify the design of the roadway at this location if it differs from Detail 6/C2 (cut-off wall, slope protection, etc). Verify that the roadway does not exceed the maximum 15 % slope at this location. Verify that the grading limits shown at this location are adequate for construction.

6) Revise the plan set to label the existing manhole and sewer line within Foxes Meadow Drive. Label the sewer and the manhole as public or private and provide the manhole invert elevations for the existing sewer pipe and the proposed sewer connection.

7) Revise Grading and Drainage Note #8 to reference City of Tucson code instead of Town of Marana. Verify that all references and notes within the plan set refer to City of Tucson for code requirements and jurisdiction.

8) Provide a Grading and Drainage Note on the plan set stating that "All proposed fencing and walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments."

9) Provide a Grading and Drainage Note on the plan set to state the following: "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at:
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html

10) Revise the Grading Statement and the Slope Stabilization Requirement Section on the plan set to reference the Geotechnical Report that was prepared for this project. Provide the name, date and job number that relates to the Geotechnical Report for clarification.

11) Revise all keynotes and call outs that refer to the Geotechnical Report to include a reference to the Grading Statement and/or the Slope Stabilization Requirement Section on Sheet C1.

12) DS Sec.9-01.5.1.A: Revise the building plan to clearly label the limits of grading for all disturbed areas. Revise the grading limits to include the construction staging area. Provide Keynote #12 on Sheet C1 to label the shown area of disturbance, specifically along the driveway location and staging area. The disturbance line symbol is dashed along the driveway, but to be consistent with Sheet C2 the Keynote needs to be labeled in plan view.

13) DS Sec.9-01.5.1: Provide a Grading and Drainage Note on the building plan set to state "All cut and fill slopes must meet or exceed the minimum HDZ design requirements per DS Sec.9-01.5.1, DS Sec.9-01.5.2 and DS Sec.9-01.5.3 and the Geotechnical Report submitted for this project (Name, date, job number, etc.)."

14) Provide a Grading and Drainage Note on the building plan set to reference the City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).

15) Revise the Slope Stabilization Requirement Section within the slope call outs and provide a General Note to state the minimum requirements for HDZ design; "All rip rap (either rip rap with filter fabric or grouted rip rap) shall be hand placed."

Sheet C2:

16) Revise Detail 4/C2 to meet the minimum requirements within the Geotechnical Report and the Slope Stabilization Requirement Section on Sheet C1. The detail shows 1:1 slopes and calls out riprap over filter fabric which does not meet the 1:1 slope requirements of grouted rip rap, retaining wall or revetments as stated in the Slope Stabilization Requirement Section. Verify that all constructed slopes meet the minimum requirements of the Geotechnical Report.

17) Revise Detail 6/C2 to call out the proposed cut slope along the roadway cut or provide a statement in the detail that all cut slopes must be designed per the Geotechnical Report and/or the Slope Stabilization Requirements on Sheet C1.

18) Revise Detail 6/C2 to label the erosion protection at the ends of all drain pipes. Provide the rock size and filter fabric call outs for these areas. If Detail 5/C2 is proposed for these areas then provide the label for Detail 5 in Detail 6 for clarity.

19) Revise Cross Sections A and B to label and dimension the interceptor swale at top of slope, spot elevations at tops and bottoms of slopes, heights of cut slopes, slope percent call outs, slope protection call out, etc. Verify all slope heights to ensure that cut slopes do not exceed the 10-foot vertical cut slope per the Geotechnical Report design limits. Revise to show benching and terraces along cut slope in areas that exceed 10-feet refer to DS Sec.11-01.8.2.

20) IBC 1803.3: Verify that all slopes and distance from building foundations meet the minimum requirements within the International building Code for site grading and the proposed Geotechnical Report. Per the report "in areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, protective slopes should be provided with an outfall of at least 3 percent for at least 5 feet from perimeter walls." Specifically the slopes along the north side of the house adjacent to the Study and Dining Room areas. The drawing should not be scaled however rough estimates show only a 3-foot setback and does not adequately show the percent slope in this areas, clarify.

Sheet C3:

21) Revise the sheet to label and dimension the required interceptor swale at the top of the proposed cut slope.

22) Revise the sheet to label all proposed drainage pipes shown in plan view that drain into the swale at the bottom of the cut slope. Provide flow arrow for all areas of the proposed gradable area, driveway and proposed swales to verify drainage patterns.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised building plan set, Geotechnical Addendum (if applicable) and all associated information that addresses the comments provided above.

For any questions or to schedule a meeting I can be reached at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
02/02/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
02/02/2009 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
02/02/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. 3/32" LETTERING IS REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING.
2. SHEET S3 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS: DID NOT FIND JOISTS J5 OR J6 REFERENCED/DESIGNED IN THE CALCULATIONS. VERIFY.
3. SHEET S3 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 4: BEAM B10 IS LISTED IN THE CALCULATIONS AS A 4X10 (OR 3 1/2X11 7/8 GLULAM BEAM), WHILE S3 INDICATES A 5 1/8X10 1/2 GLULAM BEAM. CLARIFY.
4. SHEET S3 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 22: BEAM B11 IS LISTED IN THE CALCULATIONS AS A
8 3/4X12 GLULAM BEAM, WHILE S3 INDICATES A
6 3/4X15 GLULAM BEAM. CLARIFY.
5. SHEET S3 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 29: BEAM B18 IS LISTED IN THE CALCULATIONS AS A
6 3/4X16 1/2 GLULAM BEAM WHILE S3 INDICATES A
5 1/8X18 GLULAM BEAM (AGREES WITH CALCULATION PAGE 33). CLARIFY.
6. SHEET S3 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 34: CLARIFY THE FRAMING AT THE NORTH EXTERIOR WALL OF THE DINING ROOM. SHEET S3 AND CALCULATIONS DO NOT CALL OUT A DOUBLE JOIST.
7. SHEET S3 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 34: JOIST FJ1 'LONG' IS LISTED IN THE CALCULATIONS AS A 14LPI20PLUS AT 12" O.C., WHILE S3 INDICATES SPACING OF 16" O.C. FOR THE SAME SIZE JOIST. CLARIFY.
8. SHEET S4 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATION PAGES 3 AND 5 THROUGH 12: PLEASE CLARIFY ROOF JOIST DESIGN. JOIST LAYOUT ON THE CALCULATIONS PAGE 3 INDICATES J1(SIM.) OVER BEDROOM #1, #2, AND #3 AREAS, BUT ON SHEET S4, IT IS INDICATEDTHAT J3 IS OVER BEDROOMS #2 AND #3, AND J1 IS OVER BEDROOM #1. INDICATE ON PAGES 6,7,8,10,11, AND 12 OF THE CALCULATIONS WHAT JOIST IS BEING REFERENCED FROM THE CALCULATIONS PAGE 3.
9. SHEET S4 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGES 13 AND 15: BEAM B2 ON PAGE 13 OF THE CALCULATIONS INDICATES A 5 1/8X16.5 GLULAM BEAM, WHILE SHEET S4 AND THE CALCULATIONS PAGE 15 INDICATE A 6 3/4X
15 GLULAM BEAM. CLARIFY.
10. SHEET S4 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 19: BEAM B5 IN THE CALCULATIONS INDICATES 3-2X10 WHILE SHEET S4 INDICATES A 5 1/8X10 1/2 GLULAM BEAM. CLARIFY.
11. SHEET S4 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 19: BEAM B6 IN THE CALCULATIONS INDICATES 3-2X10 WHILE SHEET S4 INDICATES A 5 1/8X10 1/2 GLULAM BEAM. CLARIFY.
12. SHEET S4 (FRAMING PLAN); CALCULATIONS PAGE 3: CLARIFY FRAMING AT THE SOUTH EXTERIOR WALL OF THE STAIR. SHEET S4 DOES NOT CALL OUT A DOUBLE JOIST PER THE CALCULATIONS.
13. FOR THE NEXT REVIEW, PLEASE PROVIDE A LETTER OF RESPONSE TO THESE REVIEW COMMENTS.
02/04/2009 CLAYTON TREVILLYAN BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL REVIEW Denied PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Date: 2-04-09
Activity: T09CM00017
Address: 3592 W. Foxes Meadow Dr.
Applicant: Robinette Architects

Plan review for the above referenced structure has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. In order to facilitate a shorter back check time, we request that you please provide revised plans and calculations, along with a written response to each of the noted items indicating action taken.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:
The scope of this plan review includes architectural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and energy conservation. The purpose of this review is to verify compliance to the 2006 International Residential Code with local amendments. Other comment references may be derived from additional codes and standards adopted by The City of Tucson. All features have been checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided for review. All portions of this project are assumed to meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Provide two copies of the corrected set of drawings (no clouds or revision numbers please) along with a set of the first submission (cloud corrections on this set please). All corrections and revisions shall be made on original tracings or finished reproducible set. Pen or pencil corrections on final prints will not be acceptable. To avoid delays, ensure that all corrections have been made, are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable detail and note sheets.
2. Any architect and/or engineer involved in the design of the structure shall seal the related sheets of plans, details and calculations in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Technical Registration.

INCLUSIVE HOME DESIGN:
3. Specify all switches, receptacles, and controls within 48 inches of the floor but not less than 15 inches above the floor, 1003.9. Refer to thermostat height specification on sheet 0 and receptacle detail #2 on sheet E1.

FLOOR PLANS:
4. Specify safety glazing in hazardous locations, R308.4. Refer to master closet window within 24" of a doorway.

MECHANICAL PLAN:
5. Specify size and location of combustion air ventilation for gas fired appliances. Confined spaces require a minimum of two 100 SQ. IN. openings, M1702.2.
6. Specify location of appliance vent for water heater #2, M1801.1.

ELECTRICAL PLAN:
7. Show receptacle outlets at wall spaces 2' or more so that no point along the wall (excluding door openings) is more than 6' from a receptacle outlet, E3801.2. Refer to exterior wall locations in the great room and master bedroom, and the loft area over looking the kitchen.

If you have any questions please contact:
Clayton Trevillyan
520.837.4913
Residential Plan Review
02/04/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Clarify the meaning of the abbreviation, "HCW". Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
2. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required at the water meter for buildings that are greater than 34 feet above the water service level. Reference: COT Ordinance 9976, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/docs/backflow-ord.pdf
3. Provide water supply isometrics. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
4. Provide a natural gas schematic showing the sizes, loads and developed lengths of the piping. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 1217.0, UPC 2006.
5. Hose bibbs with integral vacuum breakers shall not be connected to irrigation systems that have any valves located downstream of the hose bibb. Reference: Section 603.4.6, UPC 2006.
6. Provide an expansion tank or other approved device for controlling thermal expansion for storage-type water heaters. Reference: Section 608.3, UPC 2006.
7. Revise the water calculations to include the pressure drops associated with the water meter, a reduced pressure backflow preventer, and any water treatment equipment. The basis for calculating the pipe sizes for the water service to the residence shall be the lowest pressure available to the meter and the minimum pressure at the booster pump shall be not less than 10 PSIG; the equivalent pipe length may be based on the distance from the meter to the booster pump. The water pressure calculations for the residence may be based on the minimum discharge pressure from the booster pump and the equivalent pipe length may be based on the furthest fixture from the booster pump. Reference Sections 608.1, 609.8, and 610.1, UPC 2006.
8. Provide a low pressure shutoff switch between the building water shutoff valve and the booster pump. Reference: Section 609.8, UPC 2006.
9. Include all fixtures (e.g. all of the hose bibbs) when calculating the total demand and determining pipe sizes. Reference: Section 610.1, UPC 2006.
10. Calculate the water demand using the fixture units shown in Tables 6-5 or A-2. Reference: Section 610.3, UPC 2006.
11. Substitution of alternate piping materials (e.g. PEX instead of copper piping) will require a revision of the water pipe sizing calculations to match the revised piping materials. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 610.0, UPC 2006.
12. Revise the waste and vent riser diagram to coordinate with the plumbing design shown on the plumbing floor plan. Show all of the required cleanouts and vents. Reference: Sections 103.2.3, 707.4, 707.11, and 901.0, UPC 2006.
13. Provide roof drainage calculations and plans (i.e. area served by each roof drain or scupper, including any contributing areas). Reference: Sections 1101.11 and 1106.0, UPC 2006.
14. Show that the size of the scuppers complies with Section 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006.
15. Revise the overflow drain (see detail 7/A15) to include a strainer. Reference: Section 1105.2, UPC 2006.
16. Revise the size of the gas main running between the branch feeding FC-4 and the branch feeding WH-1 to correspond to the requirements of Table 12-8, UPC 2006 or provide calculations to show that the pressure drop from the meter to any termination is not greater than 0.5 inches of water column. Reference: Section 1217.0, UPC 2006.
17. Correct the total connected natural gas load from 1,105,000 BTUH (sheets P1 and P2) to 1,225,000 BTUH. Reference: Section 1217, UPC 2006.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/11/2009 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
02/11/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed