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 - T05OT01618
Review Name: FLOODPLAIN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/01/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 20, 2005 TO: Rick Engineering SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos S03-004 Final Grading Plan and Floodplain Use Permit Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU01674, T05OT01618 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department reviewed the Final Grading Plan and floodplain use permit application submittal, and does not recommend approval of the grading plan or floodplain use permit at this time. Previously-submitted grading plans and drainage reports did not account for the changes shown on this version of the tentative plat. Assure the drainage report is modified to reflect the following comments: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec.29-16(b)(1)a.5: For the northeast channel outlet, north basin and channel outlets, the materials used for the outlets and the spillways into the Rodeo Wash must meet W.A.S.H. requirements as well as be stable (so as to not wash away in Rodeo Wash). Address any relocation and possible reconfiguration of the outlet weirs and the addition of the outlet channels. Please be aware that per Tucson Code Sec.29-16(b)(1)b, certain wash treatments (rock veneer, soil cement, reinforced concrete, including textured, tinted, or colored concrete) may be used only if the city engineer determines that an existing safety hazard warrants such treatment, and the wash treatment method is approved by the mayor and council. 2) Tucson Code Sec.26.8(b)(2)c: The 3:1(H:V) slopes along the west side of the west channel within the floodplain are not sufficiently protected against potential erosion and sediment equilibrium with the 7fps velocity. Provide erosion protection for the jurisdictional flow within the west floodplain, to include sediment/erosion protection design of the west bank of the west channel for the 100-year event (in drainage report and show on plans). Revise detail J on sheet 10. Also, revise Typical Slope Treatment notation block on the plan view sheets to reflect changes for 3:1(H:V) slopes. 3) Development Standards (DS) Section 11-01. On sheet 1 address the following comments: a) Add a general note to reference the rough grading permit number for reseed bond information. b) Label phase lines on the cover sheet per sheets 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. State in response letter which phases will be proposed under this grading permit. c) DS Sec.11-01.16.2: Add a general grading note regarding DSD Engineering Division Inspections that are required for: initial stormwater controls, toe down or cut-off walls, and permanent erosion protection. Call IVR at 740-6970 for requesting DSD Engineering Division grading or floodplain inspections. d) Revise or add symbol to legend for variable slope that will require rip rap (grouted or with filter fabric). 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: On sheet 2 address the following comments: a) Scour calculation of 3.5 feet for the north section of the west channel appears to shallow and is not accepted. Provide additional cross section in analysis to accommodate for change in slope north of section 1. Revise depth of scour protection north of the 7' scour depth section. b) Provide a detail of the sidewalk crossing at the catch basin entrance to basin 5. c) Label typical riprap sizing for basin entrance spillways. d) Label "Zone A" for the FEMA floodplain. e) The 3:1(H:V) slopes along the northwest pedestrian crossing area near basin 5 is within the floodplain and is not sufficiently protected against potential erosion. Provide erosion protection design in drainage report and show on plans for the 100-year stormwater flow. f) On the Drainage exhibit and the grading plan, the proposed FFE for Lots 25 and 26 appear too low with respect to the adjacent floodplain WSEL. These two lots are one foot lower than Lot 24; revise FFE's for lots 25 & 26. 5) DS Sec.11-01.9.3.a, 11-01.4.C.6: Between all basins and lots, label dimensions for the (typical) setback from ponding elevations to structures per the GRC geotechnical recommendations page 10. 6) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: On sheet 3 address the following comments: a) Clarify FEMA floodplain line shown - if the rough grading plan has constructed fill as to change this delineation, then these lines should be removed from this plan. b) Clarify width of basin access ramps which should be 15' wide. (Typical) 7) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: On sheet 4 address the following comments: a) Revise elevations along knuckle at Calle Arroyo Lindo and Avenida Barranca Seca (sheet 7) as well as lot 294; these elevations appear to be too low adjacent to the Rodeo floodplain WSEL's. 8) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: On sheet 5 address the following comments: a) Revise basin 6 weir outlet elevations to prevent backwater during 100-year event from west floodplain. Revise routing calculations for this basin. b) Depict curb access ramp at the northwest corner of lot 491. c) Channel bottom elevations are in discrepancy with WSEL and lot pad elevations. Check these elevations - specifically adjacent to lots 483 and 484. Revise hydraulics if necessary. d) Provide a few additional spot elevations for culvert inlet / outlet. e) Provide hydraulic calculations for the pipe located at subdivision entrance at Campbell. Provide hydrologic calculations as well at this concentration point. Provide cross section with any WSEL and depth of flow at this culvert. All of the 10-year flows shall be conveyed under pedestrian areas. Discuss thoroughly in drainage report. 9) Typical: provide pipe invert elevations for all pipes inlet/outlets. (See sheet 5 basin 6) 10) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: On sheet 6 address the following comments: a) Adjust basin 4 slope of 0.3%, it is preferred that a steeper slope be provided to prevent ponding conditions in the basin bottom; 1-2% slopes have been found to reduce ponding problems. b) Add dimensions for rip-rap in basin 4. 11) Provide a detail for the curb access ramps with notation to provide truncated domes per ADAAG. This is an update to COT standard detail 207. 12) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: On sheet 10 address the following comments: a) Revise property line location for retaining wall detail 2-2 in detail F. Depict entire retaining system including footer within the high side lot. b) Typical detail H-10 is insufficient as there are changes in elevations of 6 feet from the street to proposed bottom of channel. Provide several actual cross sections for channel along Tucson Boulevard that shows lot number location, bottom channel elevation, and change in elevations from Tucson Boulevard to lots 294 - 402. c) Label rip rap dimensions for detail F. 13) For vehicular access to basins over sidewalk areas, provide driveway aprons per standard detail 206. 14) DS Sec.11-01.10.3: Provide scuppers beneath the paths along Rodeo Wash. Provide scupper hydraulics in drainage report. Clarify the drainage addendum to clearly label which calculation is for which location. If the scuppers are an integral part of the detention basin hydraulics, evaluate in the drainage report. It must be shown that the outflows from the basins meet COT requirements. 15) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: If the outlet weirs are at a different elevation or are of a different length or height than the previous weirs, the detention basins must be re-routed for the appropriate recurrence intervals and shown to meet COT requirements. 16) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: When submitting the revised drainage report and grading plan, provide a detailed response indicating the revisions made to the report and plans, as well as stating which phase(s) are proposed to be covered by this permit. Failure to submit the detailed response will be grounds for rejection of the resubmittal package. Since we have not had an opportunity to review these revised items, it is likely that there will be review comments which have not previously been supplied to Rick Engineering. Rick Engineering must understand that the resubmittal carries a risk of "new" comments since this will be the first time some of this information is reviewed by COT. 17) DS Sec.11-01: Revise the floodplain use permit application to state that the grading construction work will include the Rodeo Wash floodplain. Please submit 2 copies of the revised complete drainage report, three copies of the revised grading plan, and the other items as previously submitted. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/21/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/21/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |