Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T00BU03727
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/13/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The CDRC case number shown in the title on sheet 1 should be changed to 'S99-043.' The grading plan number 'T00BU03727' should also be added to the title on sheet 1. 2. All drainage channel design information should be included on these grading plans and not as part of the PIA public paving plans. 3. The drainage channel depicted in detail section B on sheet 1 is significantly different from the channel that was approved in the drainage report and the tentative plat. A drainage report addendum should be submitted for review demonstrating the adequacy of the new channel section. 4. The drainage channel depicted in detail section C on sheet 1 and on plan sheet 2 and the associated sidewalk scupper at Forgeus Avenue were not proposed nor approved in the drainage report or the tentative plat. A drainage report addendum should be submitted for review demonstrating the adequacy of the new channel section and sidewalk scupper. In addition, the proposed private drainage easement must be recorded and the recording information noted on the grading plan prior to grading plan approval. 5. The key-in at the top of the drainage channel depicted in detail section D on sheet 1 should be designed per the approved tentative plat which is in accordance with paragraph 8.5.4 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management. 6. The key-in at the top of the drainage channel depicted in detail section E on sheet 1 should be designed per the approved tentative plat which is in accordance with paragraph 8.5.4 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management. In addition, the minimum setback from the property boundary at the top of the channel sideslope should be changed to 2-feet in accordance with U.B.C. chapter 33. 7. The public drainageway along the north and east perimeter of the development requires weep holes placed in the sideslopes at one foot above the channel bottom approximately every 15-feet along the length of the channel. 8. Grading note 13 on sheet 1 should read, 'All grading work will conform to …' 9. A basis of elevation should be provided on the plan based on City of Tucson Datum, including the City of Tucson field book number and page. 10. More complete horizontal control information to define the construction of the public drainage channel along the north boundary of the site should be provided on the grading plan. Spot grades in the channel invert should be provided at significant points such as grade breaks, PC/PT's, lot corners, etc. 11. The plan should include details for the connection between the new channel along the north site boundary and the existing retention basin outlet and the existing box culvert inlets in the vicinity of lot 1. 12. The plan should also include details for the connection between the new channel along the north site boundary and the existing retention basin outlet from Rancho Reyes I subdivision. The grading plan shows channel construction outside of the boundary of Rancho Reyes II. Any such construction requires the notarized written approval of the offsite property owner be submitted with the grading plan prior to grading plan approval. 13. The plan should include details for the connection between the new channel along the north site boundary and the outlet of the channel between lots 15 and 16. The portion of this smaller channel that crosses the 16-foot maintenance access easement of the larger channel should be designed in such a way that will allow vehicles to cross without damaging the smaller channel concrete sides. 14. There is a note on sheet 2 of the grading plan that states the inside of "T.O.CH." is to be superelevated to 3.20-feet in the vicinity of lots 15 through 17. This note should be changed to indicate that it is the outside, southwest, bank of the channel that is to be superelevated in accordance with the tentative plat. This superelevation should also be noted on detail sections E and F on sheet 1. It should be verified that this superelevation will not decrease the 16-foot width of the maintenance access road along the channel. 15. The drainage swale and series of culverts proposed in Common Area 'C' southeast of lots 27 and 28 were not proposed nor approved in the drainage report or the tentative plat. A drainage report addendum should be submitted for review demonstrating the adequacy of the new swale section and culverts. The culverts cross public right-of-way and are therefore required to be reinforced concrete pipe. The outlet of the downstream culvert as shown in profile section A on sheet 2 indicates a channel depth of 1.7-feet for the public drainageway that the culvert outlets into. This drainageway as shown in detail section F on sheet 1 is to have a minimum depth of 2.0-feet. Profile section A should be corrected. 16. Detail section G on sheet 1 indicates that the lots represented by this detail, lots 28 through 35, will be at a finished grade that is higher than the adjacent property to the south. The contours shown on the plan relative to the F.G. elevations shown for each lot indicate that the lot grades will be at or slightly below the adjacent property. If section G is accurate, then some means of conveying drainage from the back of these lots should be provided. Otherwise, section G should be revised to depict the actual lot configuration. Spot elevations should be shown at the rear of these lots if they will be set at an elevation other than the F.G. elevation. 17. The slope detail at lot 44 appears to be more like detail J than detail H. 18. Proposed site grading is not in conformance with the City of Tucson Differential Grading Ordinance. The developer or his representative should revise the sight grading to comply with the Grading Ordinance, or should provide documentation required by the ordinance that justifies the proposed grading. 19. All redlines should be returned with the next plan submittal. |
| 02/13/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering comments |
| 02/14/2001 | PATRICIA GILBERT | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 02/14/2001 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 03/02/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/05/2001 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |