Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T10CM00023
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/07/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire Comments: Automatic fire sprinklers required due to fire access. |
| 06/08/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The following comment was not addressed from previous review: According to the approved tentative plat this site is subject to the provisions provided in: CITY OF TUCSON DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NO. 9-01.0 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE Add the following notes to site/grading plan pertaining to: Vegetation Retention and Re-vegetation: 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 revegetation must be the same as the native vegetation on the site or any adjacent site prior to grading or clearing. 2. Revegetation will be accomplished with the following minimum requirements for plants. a. Desert 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. NPPO PRE PERMIT INSPECTION MUST BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO GRUBBING OR GRADING. 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 |
| 06/10/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T10CM00023 10765 E Placita Merengue Proposed Single Family Residence TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 10, 2010 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. It does not appear that the previous comments were addressed as requested. Please encoporate any changes to teh site plan related to zoning comments. Include a detailed response letter detailing how the comments have been addressed. In addition, a grading plan submittal is required prior to approval of the site plan. It also appears that engineering still has concerns about the driveway at the turnaround. Contact Elizabeth Liebold for more info. The lot coverage items must be listed with the square footages of each in order to verify the allowed lot coverage per the plat. 1. Address the following items on the site plan. a. Add the building setbacks from all property lines to the structures. b. Revise the lot coverage calculations to identify all areas that are to be included in lot coverage, driveway, all enclosed structures which include the dwelling, carports, garages, and accessory structures. Open porch structures or pools are not included in the coverage. List these areas as Dwelling, carport/garage, driveway, accessory structure(s) etc. See the attached plot plan requirements. 2. See the attached copies of the tentative plat and final plat documents and address the following items. a. Per document one (1) tentative plat, the maximum allowable buildable area is 43% of 1.48 Acres. Clearly define the buildable area and list the square footage/acreage not to exceed 43%. Access areas do not count towards the buildable area. b. Per Document one (1) tentative plat, slopes equal to or exceeding 25% shall not be used for development except as required for access and utility construction. Clearly delineate and label these areas. c. Once the grading plan is approved the plot plan can be approved by zoning. The building plans will be reviewed after the residential reviewers have had a chance to review the plans. Building cannot be approved until the grading plan and plot plan is approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. C:\DSD\T10CM00023.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised grading and site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/16/2010 | KEN VAN KARSEN | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/18/2010 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 18, 2010 TO: Simons Home Design SUBJECT: Rancho Cancion lot 3 Engineering SFR Review Submittal ADDRESS: 10765 E PLACITA MERENGUE REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold ACTIVITY NUMBER: T10CM00023 SUMMARY: The SFR site plan resubmittal did not include a grading plan as required per previous comment letter. Engineering recommends denial of the site plan until a grading plan is submitted and reviewed. See the following comments. COMMENTS 1) As stated previously, a grading permit will be required for this project. Submit 2 copies of the grading plan with the next submittal with a grading application and a copy of the geotechnical report. 2) Address all previous redline comments from the counter review. Submit previous redlines with resubmittal. 3) You may submit the site plan entitled as a "Site/Grading Plan" and provide all the information on the Site/Grading Plan sheets, or have separate grading plan sheets. 4) On the grading plan show all lot linework as depicted on the Final Plat, and any easements are delineated and labeled. 5) Per Development Standards (DS) Section 9-04.3, LUC 2.8.1, and as discussed at the counter, the grading plan shall show any revised FFE, design shall reflect any geotechnical recommendations, and slopes shall blend with the natural appearance of the site or lot and the surrounding terrain, with the use of handplaced rip rap and terracing. 6) If FFE changes, a revised Site Plan is needed and may impact building plans. 7) Show on planview and provide cross sections that clarify and shows the revised rear slope configuration. Geotechnical Report maximum slope shall not be exceeded. Label all slopes. Turn-around area for driveway needs to be clearly depicted in cross section to show that slope runout does not exceed the distance within 2-ft of the property boundary - currently the plan indicates that this slope would not fit and would more than likely runout onto neighboring lot which is not permitted. 8) Slopes equal to or exceeding 25% shall not be used for development except as required for access and utility construction. Clearly delineate and label these areas. 9) Additional grading comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a grading plan. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 06/25/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 3; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 4): DID NOT LOCATE BEAMS B27 OR B28 ON SHEET 4. PROVIDE. 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT 4; SHEET 9 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 5): THE FRAMING PLAN INDICATES PRE-FAB TRUSSES AT THE ROOF FRAMING, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE LPI JOISTS. CLARIFY. 3. PREVIOUS COMMENT 6; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEETS 16 AND 21): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE W-2 HAS A 4' LENGTH FOR LATERAL DESIGN. TWO EXTERIOR WALLS AT THE NOOK AREA (DESIGNATED SW-1A AND SW-5) ARE NOT 4' LONG. REVISE THE CALCULATIONS AND/OR DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED, AND CHECK THE HOLDOWNS FOR THESE WALLS. 4. PREVIOUS COMMENT 8; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEETS 16 AND 22): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE W-4 HAS A 21' LENGTH FOR LATERAL DESIGN WITH HPAHD22 HOLDOWNS EACH END. REVIEW AND REVISE SHEET 9 OF THE PLANS TO MATCH THIS DESIGN. 5. PREVIOUS COMMENT 9; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 16): NO CALCULATIONS WERE LOCATED FOR THE LATERAL DESIGN OF W-5 AND W-6. PROVIDE. 6. PREVIOUS COMMENT 10; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 16): NO CALCULATIONS WERE LOCATED FOR THE LATERAL DESIGN OF W-9 AND W-10. PROVIDE. 7. PREVIOUS COMMENT 11; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 16): IT IS NOT CLEAR ON SHEET 9 OF THE PLANS HOW LONG WALL W-11 IS. THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE 20', BUT SHEET 9 DOES NOT SHOW A 20' WALL. REVISE THE CALCULATIONS AND/OR DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 8. PREVIOUS COMMENT 12; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 16): NO CALCULATIONS WERE LOCATED FOR THE LATERAL DESIGN OF W-12. PROVIDE. 9. PREVIOUS COMMENT 13; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEETS 16 AND 27): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE W-14 HAS AN 8' LENGTH FOR LATERAL DESIGN. THIS WALL IS NOT 8' LONG. REVISE THE CALCULATIONS AND/OR DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 10. PREVIOUS COMMENT 15; GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES FOR ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/01/2010 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/01/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |