Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T04OT01089
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 1, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04OT01089 PROJECT NAME: Delano Duplex PROJECT ADDRESS: 350 W. Delano PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Flood Use Permit is denied. COMMENTS: 1. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 2. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building line must be located not less than twenty-five feet land ward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shows a lesser distance is acceptable. Tucson Code Chapter 26, Sec 8(d) This must be provided with the grading plan submittal. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the fill shall be protected from erosion which could be accomplished by placing rip rap or other city engineer approved method. This must be shown on the grading plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 4. Show 100-yr. water surface elevations on the Site Plan. The WSEL can be included on the Grading Plan if desired, but it must be shown on the Site Plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 5. Show the erosion hazard setback on the Site Plan (See drainage report comment 2). The erosion hazard setback for bank protected washes is 10 ft. See Tucson Code Chapter 26-7.2 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 6. The Drainage Report must show where the sections used for the HEC model are located. Provide a drawing or map showing the section locations. The HEC model can not be properly reviewed until the location of the sections have been shown. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 7. Page 4 Section II refers to a WSEL of 2328.26-2328.99 and specifies the datum as NAVD 88. This is incorrect. This should be NGVD-29. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 8. It appears from the photos provided in the drainage report that erosion of the existing banks of the wash has not recently been a problem. The existing rock rip rap appears to be well seated and large trees and grass are growing on the bank. Perhaps the drainage report might address an alternative to concreting the bank (such as repair of the existing protection and providing appropriate toe down). The Drainage Report specifies shotcrete with a toe down. Perhaps what is meant is a concrete footer with shotcrete banks. Whatever is proposed, please show a section in the Drainage Report and on the site plan to illustrate the proposed bank protection. If elimination of the trees is proposed, written approval from DSD Landscape and also the City of Tucson Department of Transportation is required. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT |