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: T07CM00467
Parcel: 11621373C

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T07CM00467
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/12/2007 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
02/28/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning Comments
02/28/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: SENTINAL VISTAS APARTMENTS
T07CM00467
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 28, 2007

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

1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance as a commercial apartment complex.

2. Remove all references to property division from the plans.

3. Provide all D.S. 2-02 required information on sheet C1.1 as this will be the site plan that will be put into records

4. It appears that this project is comprised of six (6) different parcels. Prior to approval of the site plan provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.6 Based on the elevations provided the "BUILDING HEIGHT, PROPOSED" is incorrect, revise.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.7 Based on the proposed apartment complex the required street setback is twenty (20) feet or one and one-half the height of the building wall, which ever is greatest. LUC 3.2.6.5.A. If your basis for "DEVELOPING AREA" is the definition, provide documentation that supports the "LESS THEN FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE LINEAR STREET FRONTAGE AS UNDEVELOPED", LUC 6.2.4.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.7 Due to the complexity of the proposed structures, dimensioned floor plans are needed to determine the required setbacks. The following two (2) comments are based on scaling the provided elevations to determine the offsets of walls. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.7 Zoning acknowledges the use of setback averaging. Per LUC 3.2.6.3 the perimeter yard shall not be narrower at any point than half the required width. This said, the northern most corner of building #1 encroaches into the five (5) minimum setback. The northeast average setback is 9.74 feet, revise plan to meet the required setbacks.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.7 Building 3, 3 bedroom second floor, east setback average is 15.25 feet, revise plan to meet the required setbacks.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.7 Provide dimensions between buildings.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.F Sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas may not be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. The pedestrian circulation shown between the parking spaces and the PAAL will not work as shown.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 The sidewalks called out on the plan as "CONCRETE FLUSH WITH PAVING" do not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.4.1 "SIDEWALKS WITHIN A PROJECT MUST BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM ANY VEHICULAR TRAVEL LANE BY MEANS OF CURBING, GRADE SEPARATION, BARRIERS, REILINGS, OR OTHER MEANS". Delineate on the plans how this is accomplished.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Sheet C1.2, there is a detail call out for D3/C5.1 located at the south end of the plan which appears to call out a handicapped ramp. It does not appear that this type of ramp will work in this area, clarify.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Sheet C1.2, some type of handicapped access ramp will be required at the north side of the entrance PAAL at Sentinel Peak Road.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Sheet C1.3, there is a detail call out for D3/C5.1 located at the northwest corner of building #2 which appears to call out a handicapped ramp. It does not appear that this type of ramp will work in this area, clarify.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Sheet C1.3, there is a detail call out for A1/C5.1 located between the proposed garages of building "2. This sidewalk area appears to be flush with the pavement as no slope arrows are shown. Per detail A1 there is a six (6) inch vertical separation between the top of sidewalk, clarify.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Sheet C1.5, there is a detail call out for D3/C5.1 located at the southeast corner of building #4 which appears to call out a handicapped ramp. It does not appear that this type of ramp will work in this area, clarify.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.8 Per D.S. 2-08.5.1.A requires that the minimum sidewalk width is four (4) foot. This said the southwest corner of the garage attached to the two (2) bedroom unit of building 4 appears to encroach in to the minimum four (4) foot width.

19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.20 Provide documentation for the abandonment of the sewer easement.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The parking calculation is incorrect. The "REQUIRED" should be 26 and the "PROVIDED" should be 27.

21. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

22. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180

C\planning\cdrc\finaplat\t07cm00467.doc.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
02/28/2007 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
03/08/2007 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Remove all references to property division from the landscape plans.

2. One canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of the interior landscape borders. If this can not be achieved than an equivalent number of trees must be planted elsewhere on the site between the building(s) and the property lines, trees must be evenly distributed over the site. Verify that south property line meets requirement.

3. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.
03/08/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
03/12/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. A separate plumbing permit is required for the private sewer collection system for this project.
2. The portion of the sewage collection system serving buildings 1, 2, and 6 appears to have a flow greater than 3,000 gallons per day and shall be reviewed by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for a construction authorization under General Permit 4.01. Reference Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9.
3. The 2-bedroom portion of building 3 has a first floor elevation that is lower than the rim of the first upstream manhole. Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2003.
4. Show the location and size of the water mains that will be serving this tract. If the water mains are not located on or adjacent to this tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and the sizes of the water mains nearest the property.
04/11/2007 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To: Bright/Kliman DATE: April 19, 2007
Susan Kliman
1661 N. Swan Road, Ste. 128
Tucson, Arizona 85711

SUBJECT: Sentinal Vistas, 215 S. Sentinal Road
Site plan T07CM00467 (First Review)
T14S, R13E, Section 14

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report.

The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Site Plan:

1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP.
2. This parcel is subject to the W.A.S.H wash ordinance and a Xeroreparian Intermediate Habitat overlay zones. Applicants proposing a project with encroachment into the one hundred (100) year floodplain are required to submit a mitigation plan in accordance with Sec. 2.8.6.5.D of the LUC and an Environmental Resource Report as defined in Sec. 6.2.5 of the LUC. and compliance with regulations in accordance with the DSD - Procedure. Contact Patricia Gehlen 837-4919 or via e-mail at Patricia.Gahlen@tucsonaz.gov for assistance with the review application process.
3. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207.
4. A 2' grading setback from the property lines is required per D.S. 11-01.01. Revise as required.
5. Provide cross sections, around property boundaries every 100' to explain how the proposed design grades will match exist. grades at boundaries.
6. Due to the proximity and sensitivity of the Sentinel Peak wash (a W.A.S.H wash and Xeroreparian Intermediate Habitat) a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project.
7. Provide all existing and proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use per D.S. 2-02.2.1.6.
8. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10.
9. Show all points of egress and ingress including locations and width of driveways and parking area access lanes (P.A.A.L.) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.11.
10. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15.
11. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16.
12. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17.
13. Please show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19.
14. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the SP.
15. Sidewalks, curbs and wheelchair ramps are required per D.S. 3-01.3.0 and installed with "Detectable Warnings" per ADAAG.
16. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21.
17. Location and orientation of existing major physical features, such as drainageways per D.S. 2-02.2.1.22.
18. Show Site plan number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29.
19. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0.
20. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. Please address.
21. A private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.
22. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice.
23. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information.
24. A floodplain use permit is required.
25. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting".
26. A Stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required during Grading plan submittal. Contact Paul P. Machado at 837-4932 for more information.
27. "A grading permit will required for this project. The grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans".

Drainage Report:
1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR.
2. Provide a drainage report that shows that the minimum standards for development outlined in the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, with discussion on the 5-year threshold retention requirements, have been met. Provide 100-year floodplain limits, calculated 100-year water surface elevation (WSEL) for each lot affected by the 100-year floodplain, proposed drainage plan for offsite flow from Sentinel Peak Road, percolation test from a Geotechnical Engineer showing infiltration rates for the required retention basin per D.S. 2-03.9.3.G.
3. New developments are required to practice stormwater harvesting to the maximum extent reasonably possible. The volume of runoff collected for water harvesting may be utilized to offset the volume required for threshold retention. Demonstrate on planview how water harvesting will be incorporated in landscape areas. Demonstrate positive drainage towards all landscape areas in effort to promote water harvesting, provide curb openings/depressed curb per LUC 3.7.4.3.B, DS Sec.10-02.14.2
4. Provide cross sections, around property boundaries every 100' to explain how the proposed design grades will match exist. grades at boundarys.
5. Per a recent site visit it appears that some drainage enters the site at the NW corner and must be accounted for. Address or revise as required.
6. It appears that there may be a need for an EHS at the SW corner of the property. The ponding limits don't seem to reach that far south in the area by duplex no. 11. Revise as required.
7. The Sentinel Peak Wash is a W.A.S.H. designated wash as well as a Xeroraparian Intermediate Habitat sensitive area. The 50' resource area is measured from the top of the bank, if the top of the bank is not well defined, then the 50' resource area is measured from the limits of the 10-year event. Revise as required.
8. It seems that the stormwater traveling down the south portion of the loop road will not stop at the curve and would inundate the duplex at the end. Sufficient information has not submitted to prove otherwise.
9. The drainage channel between 9 and 11, which will be handling most of the concentrated drainage flow needs an energy dissipater or different design to avoid any scouring onto the adjacent detention basing.
10. Provide all weather access for the parking space between lots 9 and 11or provide a WSEL under 1foot.
11. Interceptor drainage swales are required near the west property lines per D.S. 11-01.10.5. Revise as required.
12. Show the 50' resource setback on all drainage exhibits.
13. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the SP.
14. Show the project address or administration address on the cover sheet of the DR.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov
Paul P. Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
City of Tucson/Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 837-4932 office
(520) 879-8010 fax
C:/215 S. Sentinel Peak Rd. Site

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/04/2007 BETH GRANT OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/04/2007 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed