Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T08OT02777
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2009 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 2, 2009 TO: Richard Macias, PE, Olsson Associates, Clint Glass, PE, CMG Drainage, & Walt Rogers, RLA, Acacia Group SUBJECT: Julian Wash Greenway park improvements Resubmittal LOCATION: 7501 S KOLB RD, T15S R15E Secs20, 21, 27, & 28, Ward 4 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE ACTIVITY: T08OT02777 (Floodplain Use Permit) FLOODPLAIN: Balanced Basin Management Plan, FIRM 2855K SUMMARY: The subject property and proposed improvements are located within a Zone A SFHA as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community- Panel No. 04019C-2855K, effective date February 8, 1999. Pedestrian crossings, erosion protection improvements, and other drainage structures are proposed to accommodate for the proposed Julian Wash Greenway Park. Engineering Division of the City of Tucson Development Services Department has received and reviewed the resubmittal package. The resubmittal does not appear to have addressed the majority of the drainage comments and therefore does not recommend approval of the floodplain use permit application until the following comments are addressed. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) Clarify project site area on drainage reports with plans for consistency. Figure 1 appears corrected but other "Figure 1" shows other limited location. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.G: If the project grading construction is proposed to begin before the annexation, as referenced in letter dated October 20, 2008 from Pima County Parks & Rec, then the following comments applies. The project appears to cross several parcels owned by several owners including Az Board of Regents, Arizona Glass Properties, and Pima County. For drainage improvements on more than one parcel, either a recorded drainage easement or written permission must be obtained from the appropriate property owner(s) prior to issuance of Grading Permits and Building Permits. Place a note on the Site Plan and Grading Plan, which indicates same. If drainage improvements are proposed for offsite areas other than parcels owned by the City of Tucson, written approval from the offsite property owner(s) will be required. 3) DS Sec.10-02.Table8.1: Desert overbank floodplains with normal vegetative density are listed as a Manning's of 0.060 and the HEC analysis was updated from 0.045. Explain assumptions for Mannings roughness coefficient in drainage report. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.B: Consideration must always be given to the potential for physical threat to the safety of children, handicapped individuals, and others during periods of both flooding and nonflooding. Delineate on drainage exhibits and provide cross sections and details in drainage report for the realignment of the existing berm that directs water toward the channel south of the proposed pedestrian crossing, as referenced in Section V (CMG, page 8). Show location of pedestrian bridge with protection key-in, erosion hazard setback delineations, floodplain limits, and sufficiently labeled contour lines for these details in drainage report. 5) DS Sec.10-02.9.5.3: In drainage report, provide a calculations and a section describing bridge hydraulic parameters including low chord elevations, WSEL at bridge, and provided freeboard. Explain how scour depth was determined. 6) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.1(11), 26-11.2(2)e: Large sections of the trails fall within jurisdictional sheet flow floodplain. Pedestrian access and safety is a concern during flood events. Provide discussion in report for the project's path and trail depth of flows where path/trail crosses floodplain areas. Consider or discuss intermittent refuge areas within the floodplain areas. Discuss whether signage is needed for pedestrian traffic to clarify areas of inundation by potential flooding. 7) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4: Address the following other drainage comments: a) Provide clarifications for description of HEC runs in CMG Report. b) Explain in report why 1,084 cfs is used for calculations for north reach sections 1-5 in CMG Report. c) Check and confirm soil type "D" indicated on Soil Map (Olsson). City maps indicate C soils where D soils are indicated on report exhibit. d) At drainage focal points, show locations of trail or path where drainage pipe crossings or scuppers are needed to address local flowage across trail/path. 8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.C.1: Provide maintenance outline for park drainage improvements in drainage report. 9) A meeting is required prior to resubmittal to assure all comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. Further comments forthcoming. Submit 2 copies of the plans, one copy each of the drainage reports, any other supporting documentation, and response letter. I can be reached at 837-4934 if you have questions or if you would like to set up a meeting to go over comments or resubmittal. Elizabeth Leibold, PE, CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/16/2009 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/16/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |