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

Permit Number: T03CM00208
Parcel: 11615087J

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T03CM00208
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
12/01/2003 Doug Williams ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied The site plan may not be approved prior to drainage report and floodplain use permit approvals. Some revisions to the drainage report and/or grading plan may warrant additional information be provided on the Site Plan. Below are comments relating to the other components of this submittal.
* PLEASE NOTE FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENT #2 *


SUBJECT: St. Mary's Hospital ED expansion
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 5 December 2003
ACTIVITY #'s: T03CM00208/T03OT01270/T03BU02999

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Site, Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and Drainage Report submitted with the floodplain use permit application, received on November 21, 2003. Approvals are not recommended at this time. Drainage Report comments 1 and 2, below, relate to previous drainage report comment # 3, from the 7 August 2003 review. The report and exhibits submitted appear to propose changes to pre-developed discharge locations and flow rates along the eastern perimeter of the site. The submittal must clearly demonstrate no increases in flows along this property line, to Silverbell Road and the existing storm drain system. The following comments must be addressed:

DRAINAGE REPORT:
1. The drainage report must clearly show pre-developed onsite drainage conditions, addressing flow conveyance, regulatory floodplain limits, discharge rates and locations. These items must be depicted on a topographic map having a minimum scale of 1inch equaling 40 feet, with one-foot contour intervals. Please revise figure 4 to clearly depict these items and those listed below, in accordance with the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management - SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.3 B 2 (Development Standard 10-02.0):
a) watershed boundaries
b) all points of drainage concentration, and
c) flowlines and grade breaks used to compute basin lengths and average watercourse slopes;
2. Submit hydrologic data sheets for each point of drainage concentration. If different, calculations must be presented for both pre- and post-developed conditions (SMDDFM, Sec. 2.3.1.3 B 3);
3. Each concentration point, along with its 100-year peak discharge and contributing drainage area shall be labeled. The report must discuss in detail each concentration point's method of discharge under pre-developed conditions - whether surface/overland flow, via catch basins into the storm drain system, or a combination thereof (see previous comment # 8 of the 7 August 2003 review - the response letter and the 200' scale on figure 4 do not adequately address the comment). (SMDDFM, Sec's. 2.3.1.4 C 4 & 5.2.4);
4. The new ingress/egress', curb cuts and scuppers depicted appear to allow direct discharge of flows into the Silverbell Road right of way, whereas pre-developed conditions information indicates these flows may be detained onsite and metered into catch basins along the eastern perimeter of the site. Existing discharge methods (overland, surface, storm drain), locations and flow rates should be maintained under developed conditions. Conveyance through all new curb cuts, scuppers, and drive entrances must be discussed in the report in detail, and depicted and labeled on the developed conditions drainage exhibit (figure 6). Describe and present detailed and easily understandable hydraulic calculation sheets for each of these conveyance systems to be constructed as a part of the overall project (SMDDFM, Sec. 2.3.1.5 C);

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT:

1. Any increases in discharges to the right of way presents potential adverse impact, and may not be approved (Section 26-5.2, Tucson Code - Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations);
2. The floodplain permit application does not contain a valuation of the existing structure. In order to assess the percentage of improvements to this structure, this document must be available;

GRADING PLAN:
1. Revise Grading Note 2 to conform to the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) Local Amendment (Chapter 36 - Excavation and Grading);
2. Please include a note that a separate permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall, under keynote 20, and revise as necessary the additional information provided in this keynote regarding conveyance of flow to the concrete channel (see drainage report comment # 4 above);
3. The proposed scuppers along the eastern parking area perimeter are not addressed in the drainage report. Each structure proposed must be discussed in the report and approved, prior to grading plan approval (see drainage report comment # 4 regarding any new hydraulic structures);
4. The Silverbell Road contour elevations at not clear on the plan. Please provide these elevations, particularly at the new driveway entrances, to clarify site drainage at these locations;
5. Provide the existing catch basin inlet invert elevation with dimensions noted, on the east perimeter of the parking area, north of the primary drive entrance. The catch basin's pre- and post-developed conveyance capacities must be discussed in the drainage report (see drainage report comment #4);
6. Keynote 7 and spot elevations provided on the plan no not correspond with one another - please revise as necessary;
7. Provide sheet C-4, or provide details referenced on this sheet;
8. Revise or omit the (redlined) keynote 15 at the driveway entrance location;
9. Please indicate whether the concrete valley gutter (keynote 19) is to be constructed, and where;
10. Please provide additional finish and exiting grade information northwest of the proposed addition to clarify drainage in this area;

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP):
1. Clarify or revise the (redlined) barrier protection noted on sheet C-6. This location does not appear to correspond with the site or grading plan;
2. Please provide day to day and operator certifications;
3. Provide a copy of the signed Notice of Intent (NOI) sent to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ);
4. Please address any necessary controls northwest of the proposed addition - see grading plan comment 10;
5. Provide all written required elements based on the ADEQ "Construction SWPPP Checklist" with the resubmittal. For questions and details, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html#const

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us.

Doug Williams
Sr. Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
12/15/2003 DAN CASTRO HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Approved
12/15/2003 Daniel Castro ZONING REVIEW Denied COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.
CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

1. The following comment must be addressed prior to site plan approval.
Previous comment: Under the direction of the City Attorneys office, Development Services Department policy requires that all properties comprised of two (2) or more lots and which are developed as a single unified building site, be combined by a recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant and Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form. Attached to the yellow site plan card is a copy of the lot combination Covenant, which must be signed, notarized, and recorded. In addition to the covenant, a copy of the approved Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form must also be submitted to the Zoning Review Section for DSD records.

2. Replace the SCZ decision letter on sheet 0.2 dated June 5, 2003 with the SCZ approval letter dated December 4, 2003.
L.U.C. 2.8.2

3. The resubmitted plan may be reviewed at the counter for Zoning Review compliance. Please contact me at the number below to set an appointment..
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5

4. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans.
D.S. 2-07.2.1.A
12/18/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved
12/18/2003 Joseph Linville LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
12/22/2003 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approv-Cond 1. Fire approval for Site Only.
2. Separate permit and submittals required for Fire Lane sign installation

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/22/2003 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed