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

Permit Number: T04BU00996
Parcel: 10819009B

Address:
4798 N 1ST AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T04BU00996
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/04/2004 JIM TATE ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: April 29, 2004
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU00996
PROJECT NAME: Fire Station No. 20
PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 N. 1st Ave.
PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM

The following items must be revised or added to the Grading Plan. Please include a letter with the next submittal addressing how all the engineering and floodplain comments have been addressed.

Resubmittal Required: Grading Plan, Drainage Report

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal.

2. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval.

3. The Site Plan is currently in the review process. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan.

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS

1. Place a note on the plan that all roof downspouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E

2. Show area to be graded. Show all fill slopes with proposed slope and toe. The area to be left natural must be easily discernable. Grading setbacks from property lines can be found in IBC Chapter 36 Section 14. Proper setbacks must be indicated on the plan.

3. Placement of fill in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer
one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property shall require:

1) Written justification based on engineering/technical reasons.
2) Written permission of the Director of the Development Services Center or his
assignee.
3) Notification of the property owners adjacent to the fill site (with copies to the
Council Office and the Director of DSD) prior to the approval of a grading plan.
Said notification shall include reference to this ordinance, the justification
presented as the basis for the excess fill, the approval letter from DSD, and the
name, address, and phone number of the owner/developer and the engineer
of record.
4) Preparation of a mitigation plan (i.e. additional setbacks, terracing, enhanced
buffering/landscaping, etc.) acceptable to a simple majority of the notified
property owners. The acceptability of the mitigation plan by the notified
property owners must be documented and made a part of the approved grading
plan and permit.

The property to the south is residentially zoned. Proposed fills are in excess of two feet so the above requirements must be met. IBC Chapter 36, Section 13

4. Show a section through the proposed berm south of the basin. What type of bank protection is proposed? IBC Chapter 36, Section 9.4

5. Label all the contour lines on the plan. None of the existing contour lines are labeled.

6. Show a detail of the proposed basin outlet structure. The Site Plan shows a pvc pipe. Neither the Grading Plan nor the Drainage Report show this pipe. The plans must all agree. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9.4

7. There are lines on the plan not shown on the legend and not labeled anywhere on the plan. Please remove all lines not properly designated.

8. The access from 1st shows no curb on the south side of the pavement. It appears that drainage will flow over the bank in to the basin. Is this the intention? Show erosion protection for the bank. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9.4

9. The Geotechnical Report Section 3.2, "INFILTRATION TESTING" says, "For the test at this site, the initial infiltration rate was approximately 1,200 minutes per inch. With a rate this slow, an acceptable drainage rate of water of a standard basin is not indicated." A bleed pipe must be included in the design of the basin. Show this structure on the plan. The basin must completely drain in 12 hours.

10. The Geotechnical Report says, "where cut or fill slopes will be temporarily submerged under water, the slope ratio should be 4:1 or flatter. The fill slope on the south side of the proposed development shows a 2:1 slope. The fill slope on the west side of the development shows a slope of 3:1. Both of these are steeper than what is recommended in the Geotech report and both slopes are subject to being submerged (see floodplain limits). Flatten the slopes or modify the Geotech report.

11. Developments in floodplains must be constructed such as to protect placed fill from erosion which could be caused by flood waters. The type of erosion protection must be shown on the Grading Plan. All fill within the floodplain limits must be protected. Tucson Code Chapter 26 Section 26-5.2(12)

12. The parking area (south of the building) drains southwest to the basin via some sort of drainage structure (from the PAAL to the basin). Show a detail of this structure. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9.4

13. The proposed berm on the south channel bank must be protected from erosion. Show proposed bank protection. Show proposed slope. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9.4

14. The Drainage Report states on page 5 that the detention basin on the property to the north discharges on to the proposed development. However, the plan shows the proposed driveway along the north parcel boundary will completely block this flow. How will flow from the detention basin be routed? Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations and with the same magnitudes as encountered under existing conditions. The flow can not be blocked. SMDDFM, 12.5

15. Show the existing and proposed flood plain limits on the plan. Show the sections and label the water surface elevations from the Drainage Report.

16. The plan shows a dashed line around the basin. What does this line represent?

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS

1. The HEC-2 run assumes a starting WSEL at Section 1 of 2322.0. It appears that the capacity of the box culverts under 1st would result in a headwater elevation significantly higher than this. Show the proper calculations for this WSEL.

2. The floodplain limits on Figure 7 are not plotted correctly. For example, Section 9 south existing flood limit is plotted at about 26. The HEC-2 run WSEL is 28.49 for both existing and proposed conditions. The existing and proposed limits should be in the same place. They are not. The HEC-2 run shows the south bank lower than the WSEL. The limits should be plotted much further to the south. Section 8 south bank elevation (station 0) shows 2327.8 (HEC-2). Figure 7 shows this elevation to be about 26. The WSEL is specified as 27.5. It appears that the actual floodplain limits are considerably to the south. The existing and proposed limits are also plotted in much different locations for section 8 even though they are essentially the same. All the flood limits on Figure 7 need to be revised. The limits must match the HEC-2 analysis.

3. Development in the floodplain shall not increase the base flood elevation more than one-tenth of a foot. The proposed drainage plan increases the base flood by more than one foot. Change the plan. Tucson Code, Chapter 26-5.2(5)

4. The proposed plan significantly increases the velocity of the flow in the channel. Development in the floodplain must not result in higher floodwater velocities which significantly increase the potential for flood or erosion damage. Change the plan. Tucson Code Chapter 26-5.2(6)

5. The HEC-2 analysis does not have the proposed offsite berm (on the south bank) in the model.

6. The Grading Plan shows the proposed bank protection on the north channel bank abruptly starting (at section 7). It would seem that some sort of transition (taper) would be prudent to alleviate erosion. Also, the toe down depth must be quantified. Show proper design calculations. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.C

7. A detailed drainageway and basin maintenance checklist and schedule must be included in the report. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.C

8. The grades indicate that there is flow along the south gutter line of River Rd. adjacent to the property. The new proposed curb cut and driveway will direct this flow through the property to 1st Ave. . Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. Stormwater patterns must remain the same. Unless the flow on River currently crosses the property to 1st, the drainage plan must be changed to allow the drainage to continue on River.
SMDDFM, 12.5

DATE: April 30th, 2004
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU00994
PROJECT NAME: Fire Station # 20
PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 North First Avenue
PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate

The following items must be revised or added to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN.

1. Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and a copy to the City of Tucson. The contractor has not filled out the NOI. The NOI must be received by ADEQ at least two business working days prior to the start of construction activities.(Part IV.F)

2. The NOI submitted, has not been signed by the operator. ADEQ will not issue a permit when an NOI has not been signed. The operator is required to sign the NOI. Have the operator sign the certification on the NOI.

3. The certification statement needs to be signed prior to approval of the SWPPP. This assures the City of Tucson prior to issuance of a grading permit that there is a designated responsible party for the SWPPP.

4. On the site map provide general location map showing and identifying receiving waters within 1 mile. (Part IV.C.2.e)

5. For each major activity on the construction site, a description of the best management practice (BMP) for the construction activity is required to be in the SWPPP. The grading plan shows an existing natural area that will be utilized as a retention basin. The proposed plan has a berm on the southern side of the basin. There are no proposed stormwater controls (BMPs) for the work in this area. How will the natural area be protected? How will the imported dirt be stabilized temporary and permanently (pre and post construction)? Revise the narrative and the site map to include temporary and permanent stormwater controls for the southern berm. (Part IV.D.1)

6. The grading plan has 11,600 cubic yards of imported fill proposed for this project. Where is the off site location of the stockpile? Identify off-site material storage areas used solely by the project. Describe the best management practice (BMP) for the off site material storage area (stockpile). Or submit a SWPPP for the off-site material storage area. (Part IV.C.6)

7. The grading plan depicts a proposed berm located off-site on the southern boundary of the site. Because this berm is part of the proposed project, temporary stormwater controls are required to keep sediments and construction materials from leaving the disturbed area. Revise the narrative and the site map to include this off-site berm.

8. For the off-site berm what kind of permanent stormwater controls will be used? Revise the narrative and the site map. (Part IV.D.6.)

9. The site shows fill slopes on the north, east and west sides of the proposed building and parking area. What kind of permanent stormwater controls will be used to reduce sediments from leaving the site? Revise the narrative and the site map to show the permanent stormwater controls. (Part IV.D.6.)

10. The off-site berm is located near a significant amount of vegetation. Is the vegetation going to be removed or preserved in place? Document areas where existing vegetation will be preserved on and off-site on the SWPPP site map. (Part IV.D.4.a)

11. Clearly delineate areas of soil disturbance and areas which will not be disturbed on the SWPPP site map. (Part IV.C.3.b)

12. Describe BMPs for nonstorm discharges in the narrative. (Part IV.D.7)

13. If sediment does leave the site, off-site accumulation of sediment must be routinely removed to ensure no adverse effects on water quality. The narrative does not address how the site will clean up accumulated sediment surrounding the site and in the location where the off-site work will be. How will sediments, construction material be cleaned up in the undisturbed areas? Revise the SWPPP narrative and the site map to include stormwater controls for off-site accumulation of sediment and construction material. (Part IV.D.2.c)

14. How will the construction site try to prevent sediment tracking onto River road and First Avenue? The narrative mentions sweeping existing pavement but does not address preventive measures for the construction site (i.e. stabilized construction entrance).

15. It is difficult to see some of the stormwater controls on the SWPPP site map. Due to the extent of information on the site map it is recommended that scale is increased to 1" to 20' or 1" to 10'.

16. A 8" PVC Pipe Outlet for the retention basin is shown on the site plan. However on the SWPPP site map this 8" PVC pipe is not shown. Show the 8" PVC Pipe on the SWPPP site map.

17. A temporary sediment control is required at the inlet of the 8" PVC Pipe. A permanent sediment control is required at the outlet of the pipe. Revise the SWPPP narrative and site map to include these stormwater controls.

18. What is the purpose of the dashed line around in the retention basin? Please depict the purpose of the dashed line on the SWPPP site map.
05/13/2004 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied Zoning Review

Senior Planner: David Rivera

Date May 13, 2004

The grading plan cannot be approved until the site plan has been approved.

Zoning will review and approve the grading plan once the Engineering Section has approved the plan and an approval of the site plan has been granted.

Keep in mind that before the site plan can be approved this plan must be reviewed and approved for compliance with the Scenic Corridor criteria.
05/14/2004 Joseph Linville NPPO REVIEW Denied Revise the grading plan as requested by other agencies and as requested in the site plan review comments.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/19/2004 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/18/2004 TAMI ACHONG REJECT SHELF Completed