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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T04OT00840
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June, 28 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. 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 Drainage Report Addendum is not acceptable. The Drainage Report proper must be revised to reflect all changes. The report must be one document. 2. The HEC-2 run assumes a starting WSEL at Section 1 of 2322.0. The as-built plans for the box culvert supplied with the Drainage Addendum shows the inlet invert at 13.61. The Grading Plan at this location shows a bottom elevation of approximately 19.5. Therefore the as-built drawings are showing the culvert as being considerably below grade. The Grading Plans must show accurate elevations and the HEC-2 model must reflect those grades. (Previous review comment) 3. The floodplain limits on Figure 7 are not plotted correctly. The WSEL indicated on the sections does not match the elevation of the floodplain line. (Previous review comment) 4. The HEC-2 analysis does not have the proposed offsite berm (on the south bank) in the model. The model shows approximately 100 cfs in the left overbank. The model must be changed to properly delineate these cross-sections. The effected cross-sections must show the berm. (Previous review comment) 5. 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. The transition should follow the proposed right bank such that flows are gradually directed into the channel. Also, the toe down depth of the bank protection must be quantified. Show proper design calculations. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.C also SMDDFM 8.5.5 and chapter VI for scour. . (Previous review comment) 6. A detailed drainageway and basin maintenance checklist and schedule must be included in the report. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.C . (Previous review comment) 7. 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. SMDDFM, 12.5 . (Previous review comment) 8. The WSEL on Sections 8 and 9 of figure 7 do not match the HEC-1 results. Change. (Previous review comment) 9. The proposed plan significantly increases the velocity of the flow in the channel (to over 7 fps). This velocity is highly erosive. See SMDDFM 7.5. Maximum allowable velocity for an unlined channel would be about 4 fps. Erosion protection is required. (Previous review comment) |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/02/2004 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/02/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |