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: FLOODPLAIN
Permit Number - T04OT00840
Review Name: FLOODPLAIN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/04/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 4, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04OT00840 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 E. River Rd. PROJECT NAME: Fire Station No. 20 PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Resubmittal Required: Flood Use Permit Application, Site Plan, Grading Plan, Drainage Report 1. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 2. The following items must be shown on the Site Plan (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4 and DS 2-02.2.1.a.15) 1. All 100-yr. peak floodplain limits and areas of sheet flooding resulting from 100-yr. flood peaks of 100 cfs or more must be clearly shown and labeled, and must also include water surface elevations. 2. Those areas subject to flooding from flows smaller than 100 cfs must also be identified and labeled with flow arrows. 3. Each significant concentration point, along with its 100-yr. peak discharge must be labeled. 4. Any Regulatory Flood Plain must be clearly labeled as "Regulatory Flood Plain". 5. All flood plains must be labeled in one of the following ways: "To be left natural," "To be channelized," "Public or Private Drainage Easement," "Public or Private Right-Of-Way." 6. 100-yr. floodplain limits which are entirely contained within a street section or constructed drainageway must be labeled as such on the plan. 3. The plan shows that the flood limits are being pushed further to the south on Pima County property. Written approval from Pima County, Flood Control, is required prior to Site Plan approval. 4. 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) 5. 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 6. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building must be located not less than 25 feet from the edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. The west side of the proposed building is approximately 6 feet from the edge of the fill slope. The building must be relocated or the above study must be prepared and submitted. Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec 26-8(d)(2) 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 |
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 |