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 - DP16-0002
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: February 1, 2016 DUE DATE: February 16, 2016 SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Estates Part G - Phase 1, Grading Only TO: Warren D. Thompson LOCATION: 11311 E Mary Ann Cleveland Way REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0002 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per TSM 2-01.4.1D please incorporate the recommendations of page 7 of the Soils Report as it relates to a subsurface drainage system behind retaining walls. Please see detail 3/5 where additional detail of this required system should be provided. Please also add notation to keynote 8 to reflect the subsurface drainage system requirement to be applied to the retaining wall by others. 2) Per TSM 2-01.4.1D please incorporate the recommendations of the table on page 12 of the Soils Report as it relates to slopes steeper than 1.5:1 to detail 3/5. This would require additional stability analysis. Alternatively, if the slope is reduced to a range of 2:1 to 1.5:1 an integrated toe-down at the base of the grouted rip rap slope should be increased in depth where the total slope height exceeds 4 feet. Since the northern boundary of part G, where it interfaces with part F has a total slope height greater than 4 feet, the integrated toe-down depth should be greater than 12" such that it equals a depth of at least ΒΌ the total slope height. 3) Per TSM 2-01.4.1D please show or explain how you incorporated the recommendations of page 14 of the Soils Report as it relates to areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure. Please show how drainage slopes of 5% for 10 feet can be obtained as part of detail 15/3 where only a 3' minimum setback to the interior lot line is being called for. A notation to the detail detailing the specific soils report recommendations should be provided. 4) There is a cross section callout between lots 74 and 355 on sheet 5 that references a "fire access, no parking" sign. Please update callout to refer to correct detail. 5) There is a detail callout on sheet 6 for a detail 3/16 between lots 43 and 56 that is not shown on a detail sheet. Please correct callout. 6) There is a detail callout on sheet 6 for a detail 10/2 between lots 39 and 40 that does not show up on a detail sheet. Please correct callout. 7) Please call out detail 5/4 (retaining wall for side lots with elevation differentials greater than 1 foot) as appropriate. It appears as though it may need to be called out on sheet 5 between lots 75 and 76 and between lots 73 and 74. Per TSM 2-01.4.1D please update this detail to show the subsurface drainage system as required by recommendations found on page 7 of the Soils report. 8) The cut sheet match line on sheet 5 where it reads "see sheet 8" on left side of the page should be modified to read "see sheet 7". 9) There appears to be an extraneous 26 foot long dimension line south of lot 23 on sheet 7. It is also showing this extraneous line work on sheet 8 south of lot 20. Please clarify as showing a 32' wide pavement width. 10) Please call out fully grouted 8" thick CMU wall with # 5 rebar @ 12" O.C. (typ) and 12" thick concrete footing with # 5 rebar @ 12" E.W. per floodwall design calculations. 11) The cut sheet match lines on sheets 9 to 12 should reflect the adjacent sheets from the SWPPP plan instead of the adjacent sheets on the grading plan. An example would be sheet 9 lists a match line for sheets 4 and 5. It should show a match line with sheets 10 and 11 instead. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 02/10/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 11311 E. Mary Ann Cleveland Way Grading Plan (1st Review) DP16-0002 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 10, 2016 DUE DATE: February 16, 2016 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. The grading plan has been reviewed by the Zoning Section but cannot approve the plan until all Engineering, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed. Once approved by Engineering Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review. Please call or email to schedule this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 02/11/2016 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/12/2016 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |