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 - T10BU00852
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
06/09/2010 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 11, 2010 SUBJECT: 2102 SOUTH TWINKLING STARR DR, Lot 12 Wildcat Pass Site/Grading Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T10CM01432, T10BU00852 Summary: Engineering Division has reviewed the site plan and grading plan submittal package and does not recommend approval at this time. Address the following comments for resubmittal. See also redlines for clarification of comments. SITE AND GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2: Provide general Site Plan information: a) TC Sec.25.38(a): The minimum distance between curb cuts for residential driveways is 12 feet. Dimension distance between proposed driveway and existing driveway to the south. b) Assure that Site Grading plan is legible; topo lines and other delineations are too close in linetype and are difficult to read. A larger scale or revised linetypes may be needed for legibility. 2) DS Sec.11-01.4: Address the following grading comments: a) Label a few more contour lines on planview. b) Show basis of elevation on planview. c) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Delineate grading limits to show as including the proposed utilities and the limits need to provide for sufficient space for grading construction. It may be necessary to indicate heavy duty construction fence to restrict construction activity along the side yard grading limit boundaries. At all locations near lot property boundary, a minimum of 2-ft offset shall be provided for grading limits. Revise plan to assure all grading is pulled back from property line. d) DS Sec.2-02.2.11: Address the following driveway comments: i) Driveway slope grade shall not exceed 14%. Revise driveway design so that no location exceeds 14%. ii) South driveway fill slope appears to exceed grading limit; a retaining wall may be necessary at this location. Revise. iii) Geotechnical report has a maximum cut slope grade at 1:1(H:V). Plans indicate 0.5 to 1 (H:V). Revise this cut slope design on north side of driveway or provide geotechnical addendum. e) DS Sec.11-01.4: Indicate cut slope or retaining wall design on plan view for north cut slope where north pipe is proposed. Provide a cross section as well to clarify north slope at pad. f) DS Sec. 11-01.10.5: Show additional erosion protection / embankment at downstream sides of interceptor swale at the locations where the stormwater from existing washes connect to the interceptor swale. g) Label dimensions of splash pads. h) DS Sec.11-01.4: Per IBC code and geotechnical report, 10 feet at 5% slope must be provided for positive gradient away from proposed building. Provide a few additional proposed spot elevations in rear of yard and front yards to indicate positive drainage away from foundation and toward drainage focal points. Also label the grade break elevation at rear of yard. 3) DS Sec.11-01.2.1.A: Assure all proposed grading design information shown on sheet AO matches information and any revisions shown on sheet 1 for the Site Grading Plan. 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Address the following General Notes comments: a) Clarify Note 1 on sheet 1 of the Site Grading Plan that any rip rap shall be handplaced per HDZ requirements. b) To General Note 8, remove statement starting "Slopes greater than 2:1 …" as the geotechnical report states that permanent fill slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1(H:V). c) Add note referencing the City of Tucson Development Standards 11-01 for grading standards. d) Add the following notes to the plan: i) CALL FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. FOR A DSD ENGINEERING INSPECTION, 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 ii) 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. iii) 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. iv) PERMITEE SHALL NOTIFY THE DSD WHEN THE GRADING OPERATION IS READY FOR FINAL GRADING INSPECTION. FINAL GRADING APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE GIVEN UNTIL ALL WORK, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF ALL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEIR PERMANENT PROTECTIVE DEVICES, AND ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN AND GRADING PERMIT, AND ALL CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ARE COMPLETED. AS-BUILTS MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING INSPECTIONS. v) THERE SHALL BE NO DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THE DISTURBANCE/GRADING LIMITS. 5) For resubmittal, provide redline copy and 2 copies of the revised Site/Grading Plan and other supporting documents, with a response letter. I can be reached at 837-4934 if you have questions or would like to set up a meeting to go over resubmittal. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
06/18/2010 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | June 18, 2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T10BU00852 Grading Plans for T10CM01432 2102 South Twinkling Starr Drive Wildcat Pass (S02-008) 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. We cannot verify that the grading plan is in compliance with an approved site plan for this site. Please provide one copy of the stamped approved site plan with your next submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
06/24/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Each lot within Wildcat Pass must submit a separate NPPO plan. 2. The NPPO shall include an inventory and analysis of all plants listed as Federal Endangered Species, all Saguaros, and all Ironwoods designated as Protected Native Plants according to Sec. 3.8.5. Preservation and mitigation requirements for these genus and species shall conform to Sec. 3.8.6.2. 3. Set Aside Protection. Boundaries to meet NPPO requirements shall be clearly delineated on an aerial photograph and site plan, development plan, or subdivision plat and fenced per Development Standard 2-06.2.2. (Ord. No. 9246, §1, 10/11/99). 4. 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. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
Final Status
Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
---|---|---|---|
07/26/2010 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
07/26/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |