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: TD-DEV-0324-00107
Parcel: 11504505A

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0324-00107
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/15/2024 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing APPROVED Good afternoon,
Pima County Addressing approves STUDENT APARTMENTS WITH WORK FORCE UNITS / TD-DEV-0324-00107.
The project address shall be 812 E Speedway BL.
Nicholas Jordan
Site Review Project Manager – Addressing Official
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-9623
05/15/2024 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) APPROVED May 15, 2024
WO#T111098
City of Tucson
Planning and Development Services
Attn: CDRC Admin Team
Dear CDRC Admin Team
Subject: Capstone Apartments - STUDENT APARTMENTS WITH WORK
FORCE UNITS
TD-DEV-0324-00107
Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development
plan submitted 4/10/2024. There are existing facilities which are depicted upon the plan.
Existing TEP faciliites are in conflict with the new development and the removal of TEP
facilities will be billable.
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.
To apply for electric service, please call the New Construction department at (520) 918-
8300. Please submit a final set of plans including approved site, electric load, paving
off-site improvements and irrigation plans. If available, include a PDF version of the
plans.
If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Should you
have any easement questions, please contact our Land Resources Department,
LandReviews@tep.com.
Should you have any technical questions, please contact the area designer,
Martin Salazar
(520) 305-6713
msalazar@tep.com
Sincerely,
Design Admins
Design Admins
Tucson Electric Power
04/08/2024 OK to Submit - Engineering APPROVED
05/29/2024 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
05/07/2024 Commercial Plumbing REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2527-01, 2421.17’) is higher than the first floor elevation of the two historic buildings (2421.0 +/-). Provide backwater valves for the two buildings. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.
2. Item #24 of the Private Sewer Notes (Sheet 3 of 27) calls for backwater valves for the buildings. Verify that plumbing fixtures located on floor levels 12” or more above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole will not discharge through a backwater valve. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. The utility drawing (sheet 14 of 27) shows two 4” connections to the public sewer but keynote 6 calls for 8” building connections to the sewer. Which is correct?
04/15/2024 Design Review REQUIRES RESUBMIT Applicant is pursuing the MGD as a tool for redevelopment. An MGD Design Package needs to be submitted for review as a subrecord of TD-DEV-0324-00107, demonstrating compliance with applicable MGD and historic preservation standards. Here are the instructions to submit the Design Package and the list of items to include: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/pdsd/documents/submission-documents/special_districts_application_instructions_7.18.23.pdf. If there are any questions, please let me know: maria.gayosso@tucsonaz.gov. Thank you.
05/08/2024 Historic REQUIRES RESUBMIT Project is still in the Historic review process.
05/29/2024 NPPO REQUIRES RESUBMIT Please see Site Landscape comments.

Thank you,
Chad Keller, RLA

chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
05/08/2024 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT Tucson codes and ordinances can be found online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/overview
The Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention manual can be found online at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf
TD-DEV-0324-00107
1. Watershed 5P is not being considered in the first flush calculations. Watershed 5P must be represented in the first flush calculations because underground storage cannot be counted as first flush retention per DSSDR 4.13.2 City of Tucson edit 3. The City encourages the use of green roofs or vegetated planters on the roof in the Main Gate UOD as specified in C-16 number 9 (https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/city-services/planning-development-services/documents/mgd-document-ordinance-12065-12-12-23.pdf). Green roof systems would be permissible as first flush retention.
2. Provide a reference in the drainage report that addresses all 8 requirements for underground storage standards listed in DSSDR Chapter 4.13.1. Be sure to include specification sheets for the proposed underground storage system.
3. Because the underground storage system is proposed under the building, please include a section in the geotechnical report that affirms that the underground storage system will not affect the foundation of the building. Additionally, confirm that the underground storage system will be able to percolate into the surrounding soils if the soils meet the compaction criteria outlined in the geotechnical report.
4. In the drainage report, the offsite peak discharge is attenuated in the proposed condition. Please explain how the attenuation is achieved.
5. Per UDC 7.4.6.K item 2, an alley being used for access to a parcel must be at minimum 20 feet wide. A variance will be required for the use of the alley as primary access.

Lianne Evans
lianne.evans@tucsonaz.gov
05/29/2024 Site Landscape REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA
PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: STUDENT APARTMENTS WITH WORK FORCE UNITS
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0324-00107
ADDRESS/PARCEL: 812 E SPEEDWAY BL/11504505A
ZONING: HR-1 HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL; UOD-1 MAIN GATE; HISTORIC WEST UNIVERSITY AREA

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants, and water harvesting.

Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Landscape/NPPO Review Section comments are addressed.

GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. Ensure that Zoning, Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape section approval.

2. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0324-00107, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.

3. Update all Land Use Code (LUC) references to Unified Development Code (UDC) references throughout the plan set.

4. Site visibility triangles are shown, please label the sight visibility triangles on the planting plan.

5. An NPPO or an NPPO Waiver is required for this project. Please provide one of these two options with your resubmittal.

6. The ROW landscape notes are present on the cover sheet. Is there a ROW dedication in between the west property line and the west curb line? It appears that there are hardscape areas located in the right of way. For any work being done in the ROW, please reach out to DTM David Marhefka, (david.marhefka@tucsonaz.gov) for review prior to permit approval.

7. There is an existing ¾” meter being used. Label the meter as “irrigation only”.

8. It is indicated on the landscape planting schedule that there are 12 street trees. There are 11 trees shown in the plan view. Please update the schedule to reflect the correct number of trees.

9. Should there be a quantity added to the key notes on all sheets that call out cast in place concrete planter? And any other items that need quantified.

10. Patio fence is called out in the key notes on sheet LS-101 and detail number 5 on sheet LS-502 calls out screen wall at patio. Please coordinate the call out for consistency.

UOD MAIN GATE COMMENTS:
11. If the applicant is proposing to use underground storage cisterns as part of the retention/detention requirements, the applicant must show how this retained water is tied to the irrigation system for the landscape.

12. Include % and total of pervious surfacing in all charts related to the hardscape plans as required by Section C-15 (pg. 20 &) of the Main Gate Overlay.

13. Label on the plan set how the applicant meets the requirements of Section C-16 (Environmentally Conscious Design Practices, pg. 21). The applicant must meet 5 of the 16 listed.

14. As proposed by the Site Engineering Group, if a green roof system is being used as part of the first flush retention, a full landscape plan will be required. Construction and structural details would also be required as part of the review.

If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
05/17/2024 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Loran Shamis
PDSD Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: Capstone Apartments
Development Package (1st Review)
TD-DEV-0324-00107

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 16, 2024
DUE DATE: May 8, 2024

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is March 27, 2025.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.10 – On the first sheet, provide a legend that shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing to be provided.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Correct the sheets 23 through 27 to reflect the accurate sheet number. Include the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0324-00107, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.A – In the project-location map, show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – Correct General Note #2 stating the existing zone as the site is not zoned C-1 but the existing zones are HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3. If opting into the MGD overlay, the existing zoning designation will be changed to be prefaced with a ‘U’ (MGD B-1.e). Correct the note stating the proposed zoning to state U-HR-1, U-HR-2, and U-HR-3. General Note #2 states the proposed zoning is UC-1, clarify if the project is seeking a rezoning.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The site’s underlying zoning is HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3 and Residential Use – Group Dwelling is not permitted use in the R-1 and R-2 zones (UDC Table 4.8-2). The site is within the Main Gate District (MGD) overlay which is an optional overlay that can be used to modify some UDC requirements including permitted uses. Opting into the MGD overlay permits Residential Use – Group Dwelling. In General Note #3 include a note stating the existing use of the property is Residential Use – Single Family Residential. Clarify the intended use of the existing single family residential, 1030 and 1024 N Euclid Av.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.5 – Clarify the number of units. General Note #3 states the proposed number of units is 144 units but the Notes and Tabulations #2 demonstrates there are 183 units. If the two existing single family residential units are intended to remain as units, ensure the units are included in the number of total units. Ensure the notes are accurate and consistent.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6.A.5 – Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A the maximum residential density for HR-1, HR-2, and HR-3 is 2 maximum units per 10,000, 15 dwelling units per acre, and 36 dwelling units per acre, respectively. Opting into the MGD overlay would address this comment as the MGD does not have a maximum residential density (MGD C-3).

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6 – Euclid Avenue and Speedway Boulevard are within the Major Streets and Routes overlay (UDC 5.4). Include a note stating, “This project is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria in UDC Article 5.4 Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone (MS&R)”.

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6.A.6 – Correct General Note #20 to include the Special Districts case number, SD-0424-00038. Include the approval date once the Special Districts application has been approved and list the modifications that have been approved through the MGD overlay. Zoning cannot approve the proposed development until the Special Districts application has been approved, and until the Design Review and Historic Review for this application have been approved.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – List additional applications by case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. Include the Special Districts Application, SD-0424-00038, and the plan amendment number, TP-MOD-0723-000021.

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.A – Provide the site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.B – If applicable, demonstrate the location of all existing or proposed easements along with the recordation information, width, and purpose of all easements on the site. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate.

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.E - A lot combination of APN 11504503A, 11504504A, 11504505A, 11504506A, 11504507A, 11504508A, 11504508B, 115045120 and 115045150 processed through Pima County Assessors is required. Access the form here - https://www.asr.pima.gov/Downloads/Forms/ComboRequest.pdf

15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – Label the zoning classifications of the site with zoning boundaries clearly defined on the site plan. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Underlying zoning requires a minimum PAAL width of 24’ for two-way traffic (UDC Table 7.4.6-2). Utilizing the MGD overlay would permit a PAAL width of 20’ in parking structures (MGD, C-5.c).

17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Clarify the intended use of the two existing single family residential units, 1030 N Euclid Avenue and 1024 N Euclid Avenue, on the site and ensure they are included in the parking ratio. If the intention is to remain as residential, the minimum parking requirement for the underlying zoning is 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit (UDC Table 7.4.4-1). The minimum parking requirement for the MGD Overlay is 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit (MGD C-5.1.1).

18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – On Sheet 11 Detail G, demonstrate compliance with UDC 7.4.6.H, barriers, such as wheel stops curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from damaging adjacent walls or buildings. Demonstrate the wheel stop curbing is a minimum of two and one-half feet from the front of the parking space (UDC 7.4.6-C). Refer to UDC Figure 7.4.6-C.

19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Correct Keynote #1 on Sheet 6 that states the width of the standard parking space is 8’ and the accessible parking space is 8.5’. The required width of a standard parking space is 8.5’ and of an accessible space is 8’ which was accurately demonstrated on the site plan.

20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC 7.4.6.K. the alley cannot be used for primary access to the site. Per MGD C-4.a.2 vehicular maneuvering in the alley is permitted. Access to the site would be permitted through the MGD overlay.

21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Underlying zoning requires 10% of the total required parking is required to be EV Ready and 20% is required to be EV Capable (UDC 7.4.11). Per UDC 7.4.11.B.2 requires four percent but no less than one EV charging space must be accessible compliant. These spaces are accessible EV charging spaces, not ADA parking spaces. If opting into the MGD, EV parking is not required per MGD C-5.

22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c – There is no required off-street loading zone required with underlying zoning. If opting into the MGD overlay, each group dwelling must provide one of the following: i.) an on-street loading zone in parallel parking lanes, but only if approved by DTM. Temporary loading zones may be provided in metered parallel parking spaces with approval of and coordination with ParkWise; or, ii.) an off-street loading zone of at least 12’ by 24’ (per MGD C-6.2). Per C-6.a.4. on street or off-street loading zones must be clearly identified and reserved as such. It appears the proposed loading zone does not meet the minimum width requirement of 12’.

23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Include the additional provided short-term bicycle parking spaces provided in the parking calculation notes.

24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – Provide the recordation information for the portion of the alley being dedicated.

25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – If applicable, provide the recordation information if right of way dedication along Euclid is required for this development.

26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.L – Demonstrate all proposed easements and provide dimensions, label their purpose and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

27. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – The minimum setback requirement to the south and east is the greater of 10’ or ¾ the height of the proposed structure wall with underlying zoning. If opting into the MGD overlay, the setback to the south and east is 0’ (MGD C-3).

28. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). The maximum permitted height with underlying zoning is 25’ for R-1 and R-2, and 40’ for R-3. The maximum permitted height if opting into the MGD overlay is 74’ in total building height subject to height restrictions of 24’ and 48’ feet as shown in Figure 8.B of the MGD.

29. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.S - Per MGD C-4.b.4 the minimum width for sidewalks shall be 12’ clear along Speedway, and 10’ clear along Euclid. There should be a minimum of 4’ from the back of curb to the sidewalk which shall remain clear or may be used for intermittent planters. It does not appear that the sidewalk along Speedway is meeting the minimum width requirement- demonstrate compliance with this standard.

30. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – Underlying zoning requires refuse collection areas to comply with Technical Standards Manual 8-01. Opting into the MGD, Section C-6.b on-site refuse collection container requirements governing access, type, and location may be modified if the Department of Environmental Services, Tucson Fire Department, and the Department of Transportation and Mobility determine that no public health or traffic safety issue is created.

***For additional information on the any standard presented in this memo, please refer to the City of Tucson “Unified Development Code” – Administrative Manual Section 2-06 or Technical Standards noted in the comments. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-codes-plans-determinations


If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Loran Shamis by email Loran.Shamis@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and comment response letter. To resubmit visit Tucson Development Center at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home.
Instructions for resubmittal - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/website/Resubmittals.pdf.
04/01/2024 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED Plans have correct parcel number however address on plans is 800 E Speedway instead of 812 E Speedway.
04/10/2024 CDRC Review Coordinator REVIEW COMPLETED Historic review required. Review request email sent per TEP and Addressing. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG.
04/10/2024 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required from the customer at this time.
04/10/2024 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required from the customer at this time.
04/10/2024 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required from the customer at this time.
05/09/2024 Fire New Construction REVIEW COMPLETED
04/09/2024 OK to Submit - Landscape REVIEW COMPLETED
04/08/2024 OK to Submit - Zoning REVIEW COMPLETED
05/03/2024 ROW Engineering Review REVIEW COMPLETED No Comments

David Stiffey

David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov
05/03/2024 Traffic Engineering Review REVIEW COMPLETED DTM Traffic Engineering division reviewed the TIA. We agree with trip generation calculations. Trip distribution assumptions documented are reasonable. The LOS analysis conducted determined that intersection operations at Speedway/Euclid and Speedway/Park will not be degraded with the additional traffic generated by the development and LOS D or better will be maintained for the signalized intersections. As such, DTM Traffic Engineering does not object to the development project being built. Two additional notes: 1. We assume alleyway improvements will be performed with development project to accommodate for safe access, including access by emergency services vehicles. 2. Development team will need to engage in a Private Improvement Agreement (PIA) project in order to construct the necessary right turn lane improvements in the public right-of-way.