Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T06BU01767
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/24/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan (Case # T06CM00943), including landscape plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 08/02/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 8, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU01767 PROJECT NAME: La Casita Day Care Center PROJECT ADDRESS: 1412 West Ajo Way PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GEOTECHNICIAL REPORT, FIRST SUMBITTAL GRADING PLAN (7.11.06) 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. If applicable indicate grade breaks. Indicate a grade break symbol in the legend. 4. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. The top of cut slopes shall not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 10 feet (3048 mm). The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 20 feet (6096 mm). Revise the grading plan to show the required setbacks from the property line. 5. Keynote 12 indicates roof downspouts and type 1 scuppers. However keynote 12 is depicted in the middle of the roof and it is not clear where exactly the downspouts and scuppers are located. Show the direction of roof drainage (flow arrows). Graphically indicate the location of the downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. Provide any used symbols in the legend. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 6. Provide finish grades through out the parking lot to determine the direction of drainage. It is acknowledged top of curb grades have been shown through out the parking lot however finish grades or slope information must be provided to determine positive drainage to the retention and landscape areas. Revise the grading plan accordingly. 7. A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will have a three (3) foot radii. Label on the grading plan the 3' radii. (See Figure 2.) DS 3-05.2.2.D. 8. Show on the grading plan the location of the existing and proposed 100-year discharge concentration point that exits the north side of the site. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A. 9. Per SMDDFM 14.3.4. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Alternate means of access can be reviewed by the Engineering Division on a case-by-case basis. The basin is small, with a depth of 1' and a slope of 3:1. An alternative means could be acceptable. Clearly indicate where there is a gate in the chain link fence for access to the basin and indicate the location of a maintenance ramp in the basin. Ensure the maintenance ramp does not interfere with any required landscaping. 10. Refer to the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 4, for design guidelines on Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design. Retention/Detention Basins must meet the Multiple-Use and Aesthetic Design Guidelines. When the site plan is submitted with the second submittal include the landscape plan for verification the Multiple-Use and Aesthetic Design Guidelines are being met. 11. It is recommended to use curvilinear shapes rather than rectilinear or geometric shapes. However due to site constraints if rectilinear are used for basin shape a 10' radius at the corners of the basin is preferred to meet the Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design guidelines. Revise the basin appropriately to show 10' radius at the corners at each corner of the basin. SDRM 4.3.1. 12. Retaining walls are acceptable for up to 35% of a basin perimeter. The current proposal is exceeding this guideline. The retaining wall takes up 42% of the basin perimeter. Revise the basin to only show the retaining wall taking a maximum of 35% of the basin perimeter. SDRM 4.3.1. 13. Be advised a permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 14. Handicap curb access ramps are required to be constructed with truncated domes, per recent a Federal ADA requirement. Show a detail or add a general note to the grading plan indicating all public and private handicap curb access ramps will have truncated domes. 15. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. GEOTECHICIAL REPORT COMMENTS 1. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Provide a soil's report that addresses the maximum disposal time for a storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of drainage. SDRM 3.5.1.5. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 2. The north patio/retaining wall will be subject to periodical indunation and submersion. The integrity of the wall could diminish by the continual submersion and indunation. Provide structural recommendations for the wall adjacent to the basin. |
| 08/08/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/08/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/24/2006 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/24/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |