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: D11-0032
Parcel: 115202610

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D11-0032
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/28/2011 JWILLIA4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/29/2011 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
10/03/2011 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
10/04/2011 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied PIMA COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT
201 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207
JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500
DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135


September 29, 2011

To: REGINA BEEM, P.E.
PSOMAS

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department


____________________________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Subject: SILVERWOOD SENIOR HOUSING FAMILY HOUSING RESOURCES PHASE 1
Dev. Plan - 1st submittal
D11-0032

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use:
1. Sheet 1: Include the following General Notes (Ref. A.):

THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E).

And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values.

ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED).

2. Sheet 9: Call out the existing public cleanout in Grant Rd with IMS# and rim/invert elevations. Also call out the private pressure line in Grant Rd connecting to the cleanout. Ref. A.

3. Sheet 9: Call out the existing private manhole or cleanout at the bend in the line just south of the property line and call out the existing sewer line on site as private. Ref. A.

4. Sheet 9: Call out the private sewer easement with recordation information and width. Ref. A.

5. Sheet 9: Provide a joint use agreement in order to connect to the existing private line as shown on plan. Ref. A.

6. Sheet 9: A new private sewer easement will need to be created for the short section of proposed 6" private sewer shown crossing the adjoining property to the east and connecting to new MH# 1. Ref. A.

7. Sheet 9 and 10: Show in the Legend on Sheet 2 a symbol for proposed cleanout. Ref. A.

This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.
Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.
The next submittal of this project will be the second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.
If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.

cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________
Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager
DLU Project folder

Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements - Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J
http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf

Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205)
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm
and (R-18-9-E301)
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm

Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988)
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf

Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988)
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf

Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf

Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona

Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition
http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf

Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/
10/07/2011 FERNE RODRIGUEZ COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request at this time.
CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept
837-7428
10/14/2011 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

AUDREY FARENGA
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 740-6800
FAX #: 623-5411


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW
SUBJECT: D11-0032 SILVERWOOD SENIOR HOUSING/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: October 12, 2011



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:

1. Include the section, township and range on all title blocks.
2. Number the buildings, no letters.
3. Delete all tax codes and dockets and pages from the adjacent parcels.
4. How is this parcel going to be split into Parcel 1 and 2?
10/20/2011 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#242306 October 18, 2011

PSOMAS
Attn: Regina Beem
800 E Wetmore Rd. Suite 110
Tucson, Arizona 85719

Dear Ms. Beem :

SUBJECT: Silverwood Senior Housing
D11-0032

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted September 29, 2011. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans.

If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:
Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (DB-101)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth Miranda
Office Support Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
10/20/2011 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comment on this submittal and recommends approval of the development.
It will have no impact on any existing ADOT facilities.
Thank you.

Franklin Smith
Transportation Engineering Specialist
Arizona Department of Transportation
Tucson District
10/20/2011 DAVID MANN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Fire Comments:

Verify the bridge meets AASHTO HB-17 per IFC Section 503.2.6.
10/25/2011 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied SHEET C02
1. Detail F:
a. Provide grade slopes in all accessible parking spaces and aisles as per ICC~ANSI 117.1, Sections 502.5
b. Provide "Van Accessible" parking spaces as required by Section 1106.5 and ANSI 117.1, Section 502.2.
c. Detectable Warning strips are not required at accessible parking aisles unles thay are a part of a marked crossing.
2. Detail G:
a. Change the 6'-0" dimension to 7'-0" as per COT DOT requirements.
b. Provide "Van Accessible" signage.
SHEET C2.0
3. Note 11 is applicable for ramps in the public right of way. This is not compliant for accessibility within private property boundaries. Please detail and reference ICC~ANSI 117.1, Sections 405 and 406 for sidewalk and curb ramps.
4. Please show the ramp access from all the accessible parking ailses to the accessible route.
5. Just North of the two dumpsters there is a curb ramp with a detectable warning at the end of the sidewalk accessible route that leads to no where. Please delete this ramp and provide a 6" high curb.
6. Note 11 identifies two opposing ramps with detectable warnings. Please provide a marked crossing between these two ramps.
a. If this is intended as a passenger drop off zone, please comply with Section 1106.7 and ICC~ANSI 117.1, Section 503.
7. Please add a marked crossing at the PAAL crossing located in The South West corner of the site.
8. Please provide a large scale detail of all the different types of ramps including dimensions, slopes and landings as required.
9. Detectable Warnings are not required at the sidewalk ramps shown in front of the most Northerly accessible parking spaces.
SHEET 3.0 AND 3.1
10. Insure that the slopes of all accessible routes comply with ICC~ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3
END OF REVIEW
10/26/2011 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: October 26, 2011
TO: Regina Beem, P.E., LEED AP, PSOMAS Engineering
SUBJECT: Silverwood Sr Housing Development Package Engineering Review
LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 3
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E.
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D11-0032

SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the Development Package, utility correspondence, geotechnical report, and Drainage Report and does not recommend approval of the Development Package or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Package purposes only.

MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES:
1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the following Development Package general note comments:
a) Add as General Note or under new heading for Drainage Notes:
i) "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall."
ii) "The project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations. Floodplain Use Permits will be required for either phase of development."
iii) "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan."
iv) Contractor shall remove fine materials from bottom of any detention/retention basin and scarify basin bottom once construction activities are completed in order to remove any material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, contractor may utilize BMP's at basin inlets to prevent fines from entering any basins.
v) Add verbiage per this section of the drainage standards: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2.
b) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.B: Regarding area of phased development address the following comments:
i) Label square footage of each phase.
ii) Remove the word "approximate" from general note 2 on sheet C0.0. Disturbance area for improvement area should be relocated to grading notes.
c) DS Sec.11-01.2.1.A: Add to General Grading Notes:
i) Add as Grading Note: A Grading Permit will be required.
ii) Remove the word "approximate" from grading note 17 on sheet C0.1.
iii) Add disturbance area for Phase 1 improvements to grading notes.
iv) Add a note for the Kinder Morgan gas lines affecting the proposed project, stating that the project contains underground Kinder Morgan high pressure gas lines; all work within these easements must be coordinated with the proper utilities prior to any site construction.
v) Geotechnical Addendum sealed 8-26-11 shall also be observed; clarify/add to Grading Note 7 that conformance to report and addenda shall be required.
vi) Add note regarding Phase 2 development, state whether Development Plan or other plan is required to develop Phase 2 per CDRC & Zoning requirements.
vii) Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Planning and Development Services Inspector inspects work and accepts it.
viii) Call for DSD Engineering Inspection meetings. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 837-4888, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html .
ix) Add as General Grading Note that Engineer of Record shall provide As-builts (Final Revised Grading Plan), a statement of conformance for substantial completion for the overall project, a letter stating drainage facilities were constructed to meet City of Tucson drainage requirements and were constructed per the approved plans and reports.
x) Add to grading notes that Geotechnical Engineer shall be used during grading construction activities and that all geotechnical observation reports and testing results be provided at as-built stage to the City of Tucson PDSD Engineering prior to final grading approval.
xi) Add as another Grading Note: "If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required.
xii) Add as another Grading Note: The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required field reports or other closure documentation has been submitted.

BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS:
2) DS Sec.2-01.3.3.3: Add the D11-0032 subdivision case number.
3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: Clarify if boundary data is measured, recorded or calculated on the development package on sheet as a note, or label on planview on site plan sheets or base layer.
4) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, abandonment or vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.
a) On Sheets C1.0 at minimum, clarify whether there are existing Kinder Morgan lines abandoned in place, or state in response letter that these lines were removed.
b) Provide a copy of recent Title Report to check easement data.
5) The curbing, curb openings, proposed paved area, drainage improvements shall be shown on all plans as a base layer, or at minimum site, grading, and SWPPP sheets.
6) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: For the legend, address the following comments:
a) Add floodplain limits and WSEL to main legend.
b) Clarify SVT delineation.

SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS:
7) A wrought Iron fence is indicated on C2.0. Clarify how access will be provided to drainage maintenance access easement inside of proposed fence. Clarify drafting entity on this sheet at north end of proposed fence and whether this is a gate for access.
8) Label dimensions of the Brichta Wash drainage way.
9) DS Secs.2-01.3.8.E, 2-03.2.3.A: Show and label the basis of elevation location (or local benchmark elevation with datum) on a planview.
10) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: Show location of any fire hydrants within 100 feet of the site.
11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Bus Stop shall be shown on site plan sheets. Assure pedestrian access is provided from bus stop into pedestrian system of the proposed project. For example, there is an existing bus stop on Silverbell Road - this may need to be labeled as to be relocated and labeled for proposed location on sheet C3.1.
12) DS Sec.3-01.10.Fig.22: On planview sheets, show 50-foot ROW tangents, label 60-foot radial dimensions, and revise proposed survey monument locations for standard curb knuckle.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
13) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I, 10-01.4.3.1: Address the following drainage report comments:
a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.F: Provide seal and signature of registrant preparing the report. A Preliminary report will not be accepted for the approval.
b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.B: On the cover sheet, provide the administrative address of the development for which the report is being submitted, if available. Also provide case number (D11-0032). Please be aware that for archiving purposes, a CD of the final approved drainage report will be requested.
c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L, 2-03.2.3.J.2: Address the following floodplain comments:
i) Include FIRM panel 1669L for northern portion of the project in the report.
ii) Clarify section 2.2.1 to state that there are no FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas affecting this site. Also include status for FIRM 1669L.
iii) Include in section 2.2.1, that there is a City of Tucson Flood Hazard Area located at overbanks of Brichta Wash. Add discussion in the Drainage Report stating how the existing conditions of Brichta Wash convey the jurisdictional flow within the channel, and locations of break-out on embankment. Clarify capacity of existing Brichta Wash drainage channel including downstream culvert and impact from proposed runoff from development and proposed detention.
iv) Provide the 100-yr floodplain limits for the Brichta Wash on planview in drainage report exhibit.
v) Provide the 100-year water surface elevations along Brichta Wash and state datum for calculations in report. WSEL's shall be determined at minimum every 200-feet and derive minimum finish floor elevations.
d) DS Sec.10-01.3.3: Clarify that the 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr post-developed conditions shall not exceed existing runoff conditions for Detention requirements. Provide table showing existing and design values for Detention. Otherwise, provide explanation and documentation for satisfying Criterion 2.
e) Please be aware that ponding stormwater issues during final grading permit inspections can hold up CofO and final approvals. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. Provide statement in drainage report regarding infiltration, and whether bleed pipes and/or positive gradients are provided on all basins and waterharvesting areas.
f) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A: In report sections 1.4 or 2.1.1 or other section, provide assumptions for offsite watershed & Q100 flowrates including concentration point at Grant Road for Brichta Wash. Update or justify any different discharge amount. Based on City of Tucson Flood Hazard Report prepared by JE Fuller (16-27-07), a flowrate of 1,179 cfs for 100-yr event is indicated for Brichta Wash at Grant Road.
g) DS Sec.10-02.2.4: Add assumptions section to the drainage report discussing assumptions made in the report including the acceptance of the JE Fuller data.
h) Add statement in drainage report section 3.3.2, that the project falls within a balanced basin management area of the TSMS Silvercroft Wash Watershed. Clarify that the 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr post-developed conditions shall not exceed existing runoff conditions for Detention requirements. Provide table showing existing and design values for Detention. Otherwise, provide explanation and documentation for satisfying Criterion 2.
i) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Per Brichta Drainage Channel Plans E-85-021, positive gradient was to be provided for surface runoff to enter Brichta Wash drainageway. Explain in report how design will provide system or positive gradient to the existing channel structure. Explain in drainage report how the stormwater runoff is directed toward the Brichta Wash and can flow over the embankment areas from Phase 1.
j) DS Sec. 10-01.4.3: Provide typical details for proposed wall openings.
k) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Provide a basin maintenance checklist, include drainage facilities including catch basin inlets, stormdrain pipes, and stormdrain pipe outlets to the Drainage Report in a drainage maintenance list.
l) Provide clarification of developed conditions drainage exhibit.
i) Label existing and post developed flowrates at proposed pipe outlet into Brichta Wash and provide discussion showing that no increased flowrate is flowing into Brichta Wash.
ii) Show flows arrows for street flows and label concentration points.
m) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5: Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. Additional documentation of TDOT approval of any proposed construction disturbance to the Brichta Wash channel will need to be submitted with the drainage report.
n) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: For determining capacity of proposed roadways, revise worksheets for roadway capacities to reflect a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards.
o) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Address the following wash crossing comments:
i) In drainage report section 1.5, explain drainage structure maintenance responsibility for existing bridge, or if existing bridge is intended to be removed for this project provide discussion in report that describes how it will be removed. If existing bridge is to remain and be utilized by project, address the following:
(1) Provide information and details in drainage report for the WSEL's with freeboard distances between WSEL and low chord elevations.
(2) Discuss/state freeboard height with respect to low chord elevation of existing crossing structure.
(3) A palo verde tree was seen growing out of the middle of the concrete box culvert bridge structure. Discuss the existing condition of the structure in the Drainage Report. If existing bridge is to remain and be used for any form of access to this project, provide a current or latest copy of a structural engineer's bridge assessment report for this structure showing that the existing condition of the crossing can be utilized for the proposed development. Also, provide correspondence documentation from TDOT stating acceptance of crossing structure's condition for subdivision.
ii) Regarding existing bridge and intent to remove, include on sheet C1.0 that the removal shall be part of a PIA plan.
p) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: Water harvesting shall be incorporated into the design. Add statement in drainage report how this will be achieved.
i) Provide revised drainage schematic to show how stormwater runoff is directed to the Brichta Wash using positive gradient.
ii) Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas.
q) Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project. Submit Floodplain Use permit Application with next submittal.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Label SVT's on planviews on landscape plan.
15) Assure that corrections for site plan comments and grading comments are reflected on Landscape plan sheets.
16) Provide grading limits to match grading plan sheets.
17) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Regarding landscape sheets address the following comments:
a) Add a landscape note to the landscape plans that states that any existing trees or transplanted trees from onsite within the existing/remaining and proposed SVT's shall be checked and trimmed to assure that they are clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. The location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by the City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility.
b) If relocated, Bus Stop landscaping.
c) Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the bus stops, wash access ramps, or SVT's.
18) Landscape plan needs to reflect requirements of Geotechnical Engineering Report. Address the following:.
a) adding notes to landscape sheets per geotechnical report recommendations;
b) show setbacks per geotechnical report.

GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS:
19) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits / limits or work delineation symbol in the legend. If there is proposed disturbance in the Brichta Wash area for bridge removal or new crossing construction, show on grading & SWPP plan sheets. Otherwise the channel shall be excluded from the limits of work areas on all sheets.
20) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.1: Address the following grading sheet comments:
a) Label existing contour lines on planviews.
b) Bleed pipes, or Type 1 scuppers, or other outlet structures, that show low flow stormwater can be conveyed through surface drainage, Where these devices are are not provided for proposed drainage design, show positive gradients by labeling proposed spot elevations for all basins and waterharvesting areas. Assure all flow lines are delineated on grading planviews.
c) Please be aware that ponding stormwater issues during final grading permit inspections can hold up CofO and final approvals. In some locations, only 0.5% is provided in drainage areas to convey low flow to outlet areas. It recommended, to assure minimal delays for final approval or CofO and to conform to geotechnical recommendations, that a 1% or more grade be provided.
d) Provide spot elevations and provide invert elevations for all pipes on planviews and details.
e) Northwest proposed garden area does not appear to be labeled. Label and show grading around this feature and setback from channel.
f) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Label SVT's on planviews on landscape plan.
g) On sheet C3.0 & C3.1 address the following comments:
i) show existing spot elevations at top of existing channel embankment.
ii) Label material for existing channel embankment.
21) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the following drainage comments on the grading plans:
a) Geotechnical recommendations for building or pavement setbacks from basins should be shown on planviews.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: For clarification of proposed flow conditions, show on planviews direction of drainage around proposed buildings to explain the following:
i) Clarify and provide flow arrows, area for mechanical equipment, A/C unit locations, swale dimensions, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, building setbacks, minimum slope grades, and general access.
ii) Show general / typical high point or grade break locations, as well as minimum flow grades around buildings.
c) Regarding removal of existing bridge and construction of outlet from proposed stormdrain pipes, include on sheet C1.0 keynote 7 that the removal and proposed improvement shall be part of a PIA plan, or explain how existing structure will removed.
d) Provide clarification of outlet detail for stormdrain outlet near existing bridge:
i) Label 100-yr WSEL on detail S/C0.3.
ii) Be aware that the portion of the stormdrain pipe entering the existing Brichta Wash channel shall be RCP.
iii) Provide authorization from TDOT for improvements to connect to existing channel.
e) Dimension width of existing bridge and proposed crossing.
f) Delineate 100-year floodplain limits along Brichta Wash.
g) Show Q100 entering site on sheet C3.1.
h) Label and show 100-yr WSEL's for details S, U, V, and Section Views for details T, on sheet C0.3.
i) Delineate 100-year floodplain limits and Brichta Wash WSEL's every 200-ft.
j) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide clarification of FFE with respect to the finished pad grade for the lots as well as per minimum FFE's with respect to WSEL's to be shown on Brichta Wash floodplain.
k) On sheet C3.1, remove or clarify abutment/wingwall depiction and show with details on sheet C0.2 the location where south crossing spans the wash and dimension location where the crossing is connected to the ground on grading planview sheets.
l) DS Sec. 10-01.4.3: For future human activity zones in the southeast basin area, 8:1(H:V) side slopes are needed at location of pedestrian access, and shall not conflict with inlets to the basin. At least one or two of the north, east, or west side slopes shall provide this traversable slope grade.
m) DS Sec. 10-01.4.3.1: Continuous slopes shall not exceed 20% of the basin perimeter. Show varying basin perimeter design along north, east, and/or west basin boundaries for southeast basin.
n) Label dimensions for basin areas including waterharvesting areas.
o) Label 100-year ponding limits in southeast basin area.
22) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Clarify minimum 2% slope for concrete approach and waste pick-up pad on details K & L on Sheet C0.2. Also, assure solid waste pick-up areas are not located in proposed onsite flow paths.
23) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: Show on plans the existing Ironwood Tree Apartments wall with any opening size & locations along south boundaries.
24) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Sheet C0.2, add dimension for minimum 10-ft between enclosure gate and inside rear bollard for solid waste pick-up area details K & L. Clarify minimum 2% slope for concrete approach and waste pick-up pad on details K & L on Sheet C0.2.
25) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas.
26) Please be aware, for the drainage outlet detail N/C0.2 that a scupper may be needed for the future Phase 2 development depending on sidewalk access requirements for Phase 2.

UTILITIES / DEMOLITION PLAN COMMENTS:
27) The Kinder Morgan exhibit provided in this submittal indicates several gas lines running through the project site; in particular, the green lines depicted on this exhibit are labeled as abandoned 6-in and 8-in lines, run through the central portion of proposed Parcel 1. Clarify whether these lines have been de-activated, or explain how they have been removed / abandoned. Also there was discussion in the correspondence regarding Kinder Morgan providing an additional / new easement for the active line; provide Dkt&pg / SEQ# or status of this relocated easement.
28) DS Secs.2-03.2.3.C, 2-01.3.8.B: Provide a copy of the Title Report, Schedule B for current easement data. All existing easements need to be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If easements are relocated, not in use, or proposed for abandonment, then the documentation of the vacation/abandonment/relocation shall be submitted prior to approval of final development package plan. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Any easements in conflict with proposed footprints of new buildings must be resolved prior to final development package plan approval. There appears to be an existing water line in conflict with proposed structures that must be physically abandoned prior to final development package plan approval, otherwise revise layout.
29) DS Secs.2-01.3.9.H.3, 2-01.3.9.L: Address the following access comments on Utility, Demo, Grading, and Site sheets:
a) Label access bridge and/or crossing as a private road or private access easement.
b) For north access area, please provide a copy of Dkt 9830 / pg 2146 with resubmittal.
c) Regarding removal of existing bridge, include on sheet C1.0 keynote 7 that the removal shall be part of a PIA plan.
30) An existing drainage easement is indicated on one of the stormdrain plans to cross diagonally through phase 1. On Utility, Grading, and Demolition sheets, show and dimension this easement, and abandonment Dkt/pg or SEQ# if intent is to abandon.
31) Offsite improvements require authorization form property owner. Provide any documentation in next submittal.

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS:
32) Tucson Code Chap.26 Article II: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Part III.D.3:
a) SWPP plan shall be prepared by the Registrant not Contractor. In the legend on sheet SW1.2, remove the term "to be determined by Contractor", as coordination with the Engineer is required.
b) Due to failures of silt fence BMP, it is recommended that a detail be provided for the Silt Fence installation on the SWPP plans if indicated to be used for this project. The BMP Detail ES6 indicates a built-up berm against the upstream side of the silt fence interim control structure. Previous BMP details showed a drain rock, which is rarely if never used. Silt fence shall allow the stormwater to filter through the filter cloth, not channeled along the frontage of the fencing and create a concentrated flow and potential "blow-out". Silt fence detail should show grades flush with grades on either side of the fence so that flow is directed through the silt fence.

SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:
33) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N: If any type of retention is being proposed to be waived and detention requirements are met using surface basins and/or water harvesting areas, provide revised geotechnical report to substantiate subsurface constraints (such as poor percolation, proximity to existing channel bank protection, or other subsurface constraint) at site that would provide reason for waiving retention.
34) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design.

Due to the substantial number of comments additional comments may be forthcoming with revised design. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, authorization documentation, Title Report Schedule B, easement documentation, revised Geotechnical Report, revised SWPPP and Floodplain Use Permit Application that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
10/26/2011 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Silverwood Senior Housing - Phase 1
Development Package (1st Review)
D11-0032

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 26, 2011

DUE DATE: October 26, 2011

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is September 28, 2012.

The following comments are based on Development Package Submittal Requirements Dated 12-20-07:

1. The order of drawings is not correct. The details should follow the Grading Plan and the preservation plan should follow the landscape plans and the SWPPP should follow the preservation plan.

The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0

1. D.S. 2-01.2.2 The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. That said the site plan scale does not match the other drawings within the set.

2. D.S. 2-01.3.2.B Provide a brief legal description with in the title block.

3. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E The landscape and preservation plans do not reflect the correct page X of 19.

4. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet: D11-0032, T11BU01259, c12-94-32 & C9-86-65.

5. D.S. 2-01.3.4.A Project-location map, show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area.

6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.1 Under "LAND USE NOTES", "EXISTING ZONING" add "I-1" as part of this project is I'1 zoned.

7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide the allowed floor area ratio, 79,497 sq. ft., on the plan.

8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E There appears to be a proposed lot split shown on the plan. This lot split must be approved prior to approval of the development package.

9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G Based on the title block this is a phased plan. If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity.

10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H Provide dimensions for all existing and proposed parking area access lanes (PAALs) and access lanes on the plan. This includes the PAAL located on the parcel to the south that provides access to this project.

11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Show existing, and if applicable future, sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The provided loading space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.5 no loading spaces are required. Zoning acknowledges that this proposed project exceeds the requirement but the calculation needs to reflect 0 required, 2 provided.

13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Remove all references of "CLASS I & CLASS 2" bicycle parking form the plan as this type of bicycle parking is no longer relevant.

14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Residential Care Services, Short Term bicycle parking is required at 0.05 spaces per bedroom. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Long Term bicycle parking is required at 0.10 spaces per bedroom. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.

15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a detail for both Short & Long Term bicycle parking that meets the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2, 3, 4, & 5.

16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.6 If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. Some type of agreement will be required to provide assess to "PARCEL 2" to provide maintenance for the "RETENTION/DETENTION BASIN".

17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.L As the proposed south entrance off of Silverbell Road crosses over COT property an access easement will be required. This easement must be recorded prior to approval of the Development package. Show the easement and recordation information on the plan.

18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the proposed building heights within the building footprints on the site plan.

19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R As it appears that some proposed sidewalks do not meet the widths shown under 'KEYNOTES 12a, and 12b provide width dimensions on the plan.

20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Clearly show the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route from the north entrance to Grant Road.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com

Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D11-0032

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.

CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Silverwood Senior Housing - Phase 1
Development Package (1st Review)
T11BU01259

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 26, 2011

DUE DATE: October 26, 2011

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
10/26/2011 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Label PV8 on the Landscape and NPP Plans.
2) Fill in the "Site Area" calculation on Sheet L2.
3) Revise the Land Use Note on Sheet C0.0. relative to Landscaping and Screening. Compliance with LUC 3.7 as well as other landscape related codes is required.
4) Show and identify existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e. Address the vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed crossing of Brichta Wash and the impact to the existing street landscape.
5) Revise the landscape and NPP plans to show the limits of grading or disturbance. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5
6) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B. Revise the landscape and grading plans to provide identifiable water harvesting areas making maximum use of site runoff. The grading plans only show minimal water harvesting areas where no plantings are proposed. The landscape plan includes a general statement applicable to all landscape areas, but this is generally not implemented unless clarified on the grading plans. LUC 3.7.4.3.B
7) The proposal to use Dri Water for the trees along the Brichta Wash may be acceptable, in lieu of a permanent irrigation system if water harvesting can also be implemented in this area. Revise the plans to indicate water harvesting basins. LUC 3.7.4.5.D.B
8) Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A Revise the plans to include landscaping for the basins/drainage areas on Parcel 2.
9) Revise the landscape plan to provide the square footage of any oasis allowance area and calculation.
DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b. Include all proposed landscape areas on the landscape plans.
10/26/2011 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved
10/27/2011 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved
10/27/2011 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed
10/27/2011 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
10/27/2011 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied The Traffic Impact Analysis is acceptable, however the development plan needs to include offsite improvements at the Jiffy Lube driveway, and the revisions to the bus stop located south of the proposed driveway along Silverbell Road.

Curb return radius at the driveway entrance, and associated site visibility triangles.
10/27/2011 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
10/28/2011 FRODRIG2 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approv-Cond Date Case Number Project Address
October 28, 2011 D11-0032 Silver wood Senior Housing
Development Plan

Comments: The proposed Development Plan for the, The Silver wood Senior Housing
Development Case No.D11-0032, is acceptable to Environmental
Services, Solid Waste Disposal and Recycle Materials Standard 6-01, and is Approved.
With the exception that proof that use of the Ingress/ Egress Easement to the North
will be allowed for use by this development.

Environmental Services Department
Development Plan Review
Reviewer: Tony Teran
Office Phone (520) 837-3706
E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov
10/31/2011 JOHN WILLIAMS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

October 31, 2011

Regina Beem, P.E.
PSOMAS
800 E. Wetmore Road # 110
Tucson, Arizona 85719

Subject: D11-0032 SILVERWOOD SENIOR HOUSING Development Package

Dear Regina:

Your submittal of September 28, 2011 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and 5 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

5 Copies Revised Development Package (Wastewater, Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, PDSD)
2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD)
2 Copies Authorization Documentation (Engineering, PDSD)
2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, PDSD)
2 Copies Easement Documentation (Engineering, PDSD)
2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD)
2 Copies Revised SWPPP Report (Engineering, PDSD)
1 CD* Electronic Copy of ALL ITEMS listed above, including the addressed comments letter. (Addressing, Fire, HC Site, Traffic, Env Svcs, PDSD)
1 Check Made out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $100.00 (Wastewater)

* File Format Requirements are described on the CDRC Electronic Submittal Requirements form located on our website.
Should you have any questions, please call me at (520) 837-4893.

Sincerely,

John Williams
Planning Technician

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/

Via fax: (520) 292-1290