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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D11-0032
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/29/2012 | 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 (2nd Review) D11-0032 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 29, 2012 DUE DATE: April 26, 2012 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 SWPPP should follow the native plant preservation plan. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0 1. This comment has not been addressed. A search of Permits Plus does not show a lot split for this project. Provide the lot split number on the plan adjacent to the title block. 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. 2. This comment was not addressed Sheets C2.0, C3.0 & C3.1 all have Keynote 19 "BICYCLE PARKING, 2 SPACES (CLASS 2). Zoning was not able to locate a Keynote 19 reference on the plan. 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. 3. Based on Detail Y Sheet C0.4 there are six (6) Short-Term Bicycle parking spaces provided and zero (0) Long-Term. Revise the bicycle parking calculation to show the two (2) Short-Term required, six (6) Short-Term provided, and four (4) Long-term required, ?? Long-term provided. Show the proposed location for the Long-term bicycle parking on the plan. 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. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a detail for the Long-term bicycle parking on the plan. 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. 5. Once the "PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT" has be recorded provide the sequence number on the plan. 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. 6. Provide the height for "Bldg. 10" on the plan. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the proposed building heights within the building footprints on the site plan. 7. This comment was not addressed. 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 (2nd Review) T11BU01259 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 29, 2012 DUE DATE: April 26, 2012 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 |
| 04/19/2012 | JWILLIA4 | 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 April 13, 2012 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 – 2nd 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 9: Provide a joint use agreement in order to connect to the existing private line as shown on plan. The agreement will need to be recorded before approval of this development plan. Ref. A. 2. Sheet 10: The private sewer easement proposed will need to be recorded before approval of this development plan 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. 3. Sheet 1: Eliminate one of the duplicate notes either General Note # 15 or #19 and also between General Note #14 and #18. 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/ |
| 04/26/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/26/2012 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Regina Beem, P.E., LEED AP, PSOMAS Engineering SUBJECT: Silverwood Sr Housing Development Package Engineering Resubmittal Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 3 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: D11-0032 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the revised Development Package, utility correspondence, geotechnical report and addendum, and revised Drainage Report and does not recommend approval of the Development Package or the Drainage Report at this time. Address the following remaining comments. Separate floodplain use permit application and SWPPP may be submitted for bridge demolition and/or construction prior to Development Package approval for this project. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the remaining Development Package general note comments: a) Add verbiage per this section of the drainage standards: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2. b) DS Sec.11-01.2.1.A: Add to General Grading Notes: i) Add note to plans that a scupper may be needed for the future development depending on sidewalk access requirements along east boundary of parcel 1. ii) Add a note for the Kinder Morgan gas lines affecting the proposed project (if not abandoned), 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. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: Clarify if boundary data is measured, recorded or calculated on the development package for all boundary lines on sheet as a note, or label on planview on site plan sheets or base layer. SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 3) A wrought Iron fence is indicated on C2.0. Clarify location of gate and explain further 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. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I, 10-01.4.3.1: Address the remaining drainage report comments: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L, 2-03.2.3.J.2: Include FIRM panel 1669L in section 2.2.1 for northern portion of the project in the report. b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A: In report section 1.4 or other section, provide assumptions for offsite watershed & Q100 flowrates including concentration point at Grant Road for Brichta Wash. Explain 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. c) 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. (Check CP 2) Provide revised table showing existing and design values for Detention. 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. d) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Provide a basin maintenance checklist, include new bridge crossing in a drainage maintenance list. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N: The soil information in the drainage report should be updated to reflect information provided in the Soils Report for the project. The soils report indicates poor percolation for the site with sandy clay in all of the boring tests. Percolation is expected to be poor and therefore bleed pipes and positive gradients will be needed on all retention areas including water harvesting areas. Keep in mind that 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 statement in the drainage report requesting waiver and discuss subsurface constraints (such as poor percolation, sandy clay soils at site, proximity to existing channel bank protection, or other subsurface constraint) that would provide reason for waiving retention, as this will be accepted by the City if requested. 6) DS Sec.10-02.6.6: Regarding new bridge, provide discussion of design of abutments and how connection to existing channel lining will be provided. 7) DS Sec.10-02.2.2.3: Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project. Submit Floodplain Use permit Application with next submittal. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 8) Landscape plan needs to reflect requirements of Geotechnical Engineering Report. Address the remaining comments: a) Clarify notes 6 & 7 on L2 to match geotechnical report recommendations and any revisions or addenda. b) Show irrigation line setback from building per geotechnical report recommendations, or add as note to sheet L3. c) There is proposed landscaping with in the Drainage Maintenance & Access Easement. Access must be available to the maintenance vehicles within this drainage maintenance easement area; adjust landscaping. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.1: Address the remaining grading sheet comments: a) Label existing contour lines on sheet C3.1. b) On sheet C3.0 & C3.1 or other grading or detail plan sheet, label material for existing channel and embankment. 10) DS Sec.10-02.6.6: Regarding new bridge, show how proposed abutments are tied to existing back protection of channel to assure protection of embankment. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the remaining drainage comments on the grading plans: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Label and delineate 15-ft setbacks for retention areas on grading sheets. b) Add note that additional scuppers may be needed as determined during construction activity. c) Label portion or all of the stormdrain pipe entering the existing Brichta Wash channel shall be RCP. d) Dimension width of pavement and sidewalk for proposed crossing. e) Label 100-year floodplain limits along Brichta Wash. f) Label dimensions for basin areas including waterharvesting areas for inspection purposes. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Clarify minimum 2% slope for concrete approach and waste pick-up pad on plan view Sheet C3.0. 13) 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. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Clarify minimum 2% slope for concrete approach at waste pick-up pad on Sheet. UTILITIES / DEMOLITION PLAN COMMENTS: 15) DS Secs.2-03.2.3.C, 2-01.3.8.B: Regarding title report, 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. For resubmittal, provide how each of the Schedule B Section II items 11-17 have been addressed by notation on plans. 16) DS Sec.10-02.15: Address the remaining easement related comments with regard to the proposed new access bridge: a) The new access bridge shall be labeled as private or public. b) For the legal descriptions provided in the meeting 25APR12, provide easement description for drainage easement to clarify that the drainage easement provides maintenance and construction access, and the access and utility easement provides flowage and private maintenance easement. c) Provide bridge maintenance checklist in drainage report. 17) DS Secs.2-01.3.9.H.3, 2-01.3.9.L: Address access comments on Utility, Demo, Grading, and Site sheets: a) Label new access bridge crossing as a private road or private access easement on Site/Grading sheets. 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 by separate permit. 18) On Utility, Grading, and Demolition sheets, label and dimension of abandoned easements with Dkt/pg or SEQ# if intent is to abandon, including Kinder Morgan lines as well as other easements such as existing drainage easement as indicated on one of the stormdrain plans to cross diagonally through project. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 19) Tucson Code Chap.26 Article II: The remaining SWPPP comments were not addressed: 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: 20) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide page number where the following is addressed: Geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils & 30-foot test boring for basin design. 21) DS Sec.11-01.9: The addendum dated August 26, 2012 needs clarification; 7th paragraph is unclear with regard to setback for the Brichta Wash existing bank protection structure. The City wants to be sure that landscaping related irrigation and potential ponding does not increase pore water pressure against the City's drainage infrastructure. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, 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 |
| 04/27/2012 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 27, 2012 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 3 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE ROLLED 3 Rolled Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater) 1 Copies Revised Drainage Report 1 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report 1 Copies Revised SWPPP Documents 1 Check made out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $100.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 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: 292-1290 |