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.2

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0324-00107
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/18/2024 Commercial Plumbing APPROVED
07/16/2024 NPPO APPROVED
07/16/2024 Site Landscape APPROVED
08/14/2024 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
07/03/2024 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.
07/02/2024 External Reviewers - COT Environmental Services REQUIRES RESUBMIT ES Comments as follows:

1. Include all dimensions of the trash/recycle storage room area, door openings, and travel path for rolling containers to and from the collection/service area. Call out the width of the corridor if applicable. Include 2cy container dimensions.
2. Recommend storage room be large enough to support a minimum of four 2cy containers.
3. You’ll need to identify the area where the containers will be placed out for service vehicle access.
4. Include turning radii’s (36 ft inside 50ft outside)to demonstrate adequate service vehicle maneuvering space from Speedway onto alley into service pick up area and from pick-up area back onto alley exiting onto 1st St. The 9.5 ft. multi use travel lane appears to be too restrictive.

Please feel free to contact me regarding review comments.

Andy Vera
(520) 837-3798
Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov
07/16/2024 Historic REQUIRES RESUBMIT Project still in Historic review process.
08/14/2024 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1) Page 7 of the Drainage Report, DSSDR 4.13.1 Underground Storage Requirements Item 2 states that one dry well will be installed to remove the stormwater within 12 hours as specified in Section 4.5. Please provide infiltration rates and drawdown calculations to show that the 100-year volume will drain within 12 hours.
2) Page 7 of the Drainage Report, DSSDR 4.13.1 Underground Storage Requirements Item 6 states that the underground storage outlets to a dry well through a 12” PVC pipe. This is not an overflow outlet. Please include an overflow outlet that would allow excess water to safely exit the system before backing up and flooding the sidewalk. The geotechnical report does state that a suitable outlet for a subsurface drainage system would be a sump and pump system.
3) The underground detention system is now proposed adjacent to the building rather than under the foundation. The geotechnical report recommends adding a polyethylene moisture barrier sealed to the building foundation walls and extending at least to the edge of the backfill zone for subsurface drainage systems. Please include this detail on the plan set.
4) Approval of underground detention and dry-wells is per City of Tucson Floodplain administration and is unlikely. Please contact Elizabeth Leibold at elizabeth.leibold@tucsonaz.gov to discuss this possibility and the possibility of storm drain infrastructure improvement to allow discharge into storm drain rather than the dry-well.
Joshua Garcia
joshua.garcia@tucsonaz.gov
07/22/2024 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 (2nd Review)
TD-DEV-0324-00107

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 22, 2024
DUE DATE: July 15, 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 June 11, 2025.

1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6.A.5 – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD but until the Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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).

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.6.A.6 – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. Update General Note #20 to include the Special Districts case number, SD-0624-0006. 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.

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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. Update the Special Districts Application case number in the bottom right corner of each sheet – SD-0624-0006.

4. COCOMMENT: 2-06.4.8.A –The Horizontal Control Plan shows the Future Right of Way is 100’ in width however, the Major Streets and Routes Map demonstrates Euclid future width is 120’. Clarify with the Department of Transportation.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.E – Provide documentation that a lot combination is in process for the following parcels - APN 11504503A, 11504504A, 11504505A, 11504506A, 11504507A, 11504508A, 11504508B

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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).

7. 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 18’ which was accurately demonstrated on the site plan. Check dimensions of an ADA parking space.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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.

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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.

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.c – This comment was not fully addressed, the MGD requires an off-street loading area to be a minimum of 12’ by 24’. 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’.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – Zoning will place a hold on the Certificate of Occupancy for TC-COM-0624-01172 that will be released once the recordation information for the portion of the alley being dedicated has been provided.

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – Zoning will place a hold on the Certificate of Occupancy for TC-COM-0624-01172 that will be released once the recordation information if right of way dedication along Euclid has been provided.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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).

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q - Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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.

It appears the standard in the MGD C-27 Height and Mass Transition is not being met. C-17.c. Along Euclid Avenue and Speedway Boulevard, the height and mass transition must occur through the stair-stepping method along at least 75% of the length of the street façade above 2 stories or 26’ (whichever is lower), by which the building mas above 2 stories or 26’ shall be set back a minimum of 12’ from the building façade at finished grade. Per MGD C-17.d in addition, along Euclid Avenue and Speedway Boulevard, if buildings exceeds 56’ in height there shall be a second additional bulk-reduction setback, along at least 50% of the length of the street façade above 56’, of at least 20’ from the building façade at finished grade; provided, however, that the 50% and/or ’0' minimum requirements may be reduced upon finding by the City Design Professional that the proposed alternative is consistent with urban design best practices. Refer to Figure 6 – BULK REDUCTION. Demonstrate compliance with these standards.


15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – Zoning acknowledges that the project is seeking to utilize the MGD overlay but until Special Districts Application is approved, Zoning cannot approve. 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.
06/13/2024 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED