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: T03OT01130
Parcel: 11611005H

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T03OT01130
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/24/2003 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Denied Fire hydrants required. Submit APPROVED City of Tucson Water Plan.
07/14/2003 Doug Williams SANITATION REVIEW Denied See solid waste provision comment under Engineering folder comments.
07/14/2003 Doug Williams ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Tucson Student Housing-Site/Drainage Review
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 17 July 2003
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03OT01130
T14 S, R13 E, Sec. 9

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Site Plan and Drainage Report received on 23 June 2003. Site Plan and Drainage report approvals are not recommended at this time, and resubmittal of each is required. Please ensure that all revisions to the drainage report are reflected and/or revised on the Site Plan, as pertinent. All hydraulic structures depicted on the Site Plan must be addressed in the Drainage Report. Due to the number of items in need of clarification or revision, additional comments may be forthcoming that are not contained herein, upon resubmittal. Approval of the site plan may not occur without approval of the drainage report. The following comments are offered:

DRAINAGE REPORT:
1. Revise the existing conditions basin factors and recurrence interval ratios on the hydrologic data sheet calculations to reflect existing (natural/rural and disbursed flow conditions, respectively), in accordance with the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM), Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3. All subsequent calculations must be revised accordingly. Development Standard (DS) 10-02.0;
2. Specify the name, address, and telephone number of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of the drainage improvements, drainageways, detention/retention basin, common areas, etc., described in the drainage report, (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.2 E);
3. The report must include developed conditions hydrologic data sheets (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.3 B);
4. Describe and present hydraulic calculations with details for the conveyance systems to be employed onsite that are not addressed in the report, including but not necessarily limited to: storm drains, curb openings/channels, parking area access lanes (paal's) and spillways (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.5 C);
5. Describe and present hydraulic calculation sheets for each of the hydraulic systems used to return flows to either natural or existing locations and magnitudes along downstream property line(s) (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.5 F);
6. Provide detention/retention basin and appurtenant structure (weirs, spillways, etc.) cross sections and details, fully labeled and dimensioned with basin tops, bottoms, adjacent grades, proposed bleed-off pipes with pipe size, inlet and outlet elevations and 100-year water surface elevations noted. Include the proposed storm drain, with details, elevations, hydraulic calculations (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.6 A 4, DS 10-02.0);
7. Please provide a summary of the reservoir routing calculation results for each basin, for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year design floods. Include a working table for each basin and a routing table for each design event (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.6 B 1 & Pima County/City of Tucson (PC/COT) Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual, Section 3.3.2 - DS 10-01.0);
8. Submit plotted inflow and outflow hydrographs (preferably superimposed), with any lag-time calculations included (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.6 B 3 & DS 10-01.0);
9. Include a detailed basin maintenance checklist and schedule, including the items listed in Sections 2.3.1.6 C 1 & 2 and 14.3.3 of the SMDDFM (DS10-02.0);
10. Provide certification that the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations (SMDDFM 2.3.1.7 B);
11. Provide a soils report containing the items listed in the SMDDFM, Section 14.2.6 a-c, including 30' boring log and percolation test results. Percolation test procedures shall be performed in accordance with the recommended procedure of the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District. Refer to section 3.5.1 of the PC/COT Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual for maximum disposal times allowed (DS 10-01.0);
12. Provide a note stating (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for the operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and retention/detention facilities at least once a year, and that these report will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner(s) agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining said facilities, should the City find the owner(s) deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities (SMDDFM, sec. 14.3.3)
13. The threshold retention requirement calculations section must address the entire site - there appears to be approximately 3.1 acres unaccounted for in the calculations
14. The Site Plan depicts the south basin weir in the maintenance access ramp. Please clarify in the drainage report whether this is the intended design/location, and include details and elevations;
15. It appears that drainage area # 5 flows are proposed to be diverted to the northern watershed (existing drainage areas 3 and 4), and drainage area 2 flows are proposed to be diverted to a discharge location upstream from the existing location, presenting increases in flows at historic discharge locations. Additionally, the proposed concentration of flows from each basin presents a significant change from existing sheet flow patterns throughout the majority of the site. These diversions and concentrations may not be approved as such under balanced basin development requirements. Please revise the report as necessary, demonstrating there will be no increases or concentrations of flows exiting the site, in accordance with balanced basin development requirements.

SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
1. Provide a detail for the refuse containers and depict access to and from each container on the site plan, fully labeled and dimensioned (DS 2-02.2.1.32 and 6-01.0);
2. Demonstrate water harvesting to the maximum extent reasonably possible, in accordance with the City of Tucson Land Use Code, section 3.7.4.3 B;
3. Include reference to Pima County/City of Tucson Standard Detail 209, under keynote # 7;
4. Provide reference to basin and outlet weir details on Sheet 1 callouts, and clarify the two "TW" elevations provided in the callout note for the north basin weir. All basin and weir details, elevations and locations should match the Drainage Report and be provided on the Site Plan;
5. Please correct south basin "B" weir detail elevations - there appear to be several elevation conflicts in these details - and ensure these elevations and the weir location conforms to the drainage report;
6. It appears that the western portion of the site runoff may exit directly south without entering the south detention basin. (the drainage report does not address the grated inlet structure depicted);
7. Depict a grated inlet and storm drain detail and basin inlet spillway details, fully labeled and dimensioned;
8. Provide a typical curb opening detail (ref. keynote 10);
9. Include in the retaining wall callouts, or provide a keynote that a separate (wall) permit will be required;
10. Provide roof drainage direction and provide and depict sidewalk scuppers if flows are to be conveyed across pedestrian circulation areas (DS 2-08.4.1 E);

GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. A grading permit will be required for this development. Please submit a completed grading permit application with two sets of Grading Plans and a completed grading permit application. The final submittal must include 3 sets for stormwater pollution prevention plan requirements (see item #2 below);
2. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements must be met for this site development, including but not limited to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) addressing the minimum required controls, copy of signed notice(s) of intent sent to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), et. al. (see enclosure);
Please address all of the above comments. Resubmittal shall include a revised Site Plan and Drainage Report. A completed grading permit application with accompanying AZPDES documents may be included with the resubmittal.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us.

Douglas Williams
Sr. Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
07/18/2003 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner

FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner

PROJECT: T03OT01130
Tucson Student Housing
N.E. Corner of Broadway Blvd. And Shannon Rd.
Site Plan Review

Transmittal date: 1st Review July 18, 2003

COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. The Zoning Review Section has reviewed this project as a Multifamily Apartment complex as noted in the Site Information note 4. (The title block information states "Tucson Student Housing") If this project is to be strictly for students and renting of the buildings will be based on rental by the bedroom the number of required vehicle parking spaces will increase. Please make sure that the title block is revised to accurately state the intent and in the response comments clearly specify the use. Additional comments may forthcoming on subsequent reviews.

2. This site is comprised of several parcels. A lot combo and a recorded lot combo covenant are required prior to approval of the site plan. The lot combo is processed through the Pima County Assessor's Office. The lot combo requires that the Pima County Parcel Tax Codes be combined into one Parcel Tax Code. The Lot Combo Covenant is a covenant required by the City of Tucson Attorney's Office. A copy of the lot combo covenant has been attached with these comments for your convenience. The lot combo covenant can be downloaded from the DSD web site. Please feel free to call me if you require additional information regarding either process. Once the P.C. lot combo and lot combo covenant have been completed the new legal description of the property must be added to the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2

3. Please provide a fully dimensioned detail drawing each for the standard, handicapped, and carport parking spaces. The minimum dimensions of a standard parking space are 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long. A fully dimensioned detail drawing of the proposed carport must be added for review of placement of the support posts. The post may a maximum of three and one-half feet from the front of the parking spaces. This is to insure that the post does not interfere with the opening and closing of the driver or passenger front doors.

Revise the parking calculations as follows. The calculations must reflect the total number of vehicle parking spaces required and the actual number provided. Per the parking calculations it is not clear if the total number provided includes the 192 spaces under the carports or if they are in addition to the standard spaces. The number of handicapped parking spaces required and provided must be reflected. Two of the 12 handicapped spaces must be van accessible and must be indicated in the calculations. The number of spaces under carports as indicated under the parking calculation states that 192 spaces have been provided. It appears that 201 spaces under carports have been provided. The number of parking spaces required for the one bedroom units is 37.5 spaces. The total number of spaces required is 415. Please review and address the calculations as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8

4. The bicycle parking calculation used for this project must be revised. The ratio required for a multi-family apartment complex is based on 8 percent of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided of which 50 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces must be class one and 50 percent must be class two facilities. Revise as required. In addition both class one and two facilities must be shown on the plan. Only the class two facilities have been graphically shown and the locations can be verified on the plan. Provide a specification sheet for the class one facilities. The class one facility must have a roof which protects against direct sunlight, provides the security and prevents theft of the entire bicycle and of its components and accessories by the use of: The specification sheet must show how the facility is secured to the ground. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue on subsequent reviews. Several of the class two facilities are not visible from the street frontage. Directional signage that will direct cyclists to the facilities must be provided. Show and label directional signage as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9

5. Please insure that the width of all PAAL areas is labeled with the width dimension. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. The one (1) foot setback is conditioned upon the pedestrian way(s) being designed at a location other than between the open structure and the PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang, per the DS 3-05.2.2.B.2

6. Future and sight visibility triangle s must be shown. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10

7. Although the pedestrian circulation appears to have been provided through out it seems that a more direct pedestrian connection should be made from northern area of unit nine (9) to unit eight. Add the min. slope 1:12 to general note nine (9) and add a detail drawing of the typical access ramps. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12

8. Loading spaces are not required for a multifamily apartment complex but will be required if this project is designed to be for student housing as noted in the title block and if the leasing is done by the bedroom. Additional comments will be forthcoming on the subsequent site plan submittal packet. DS 2-02.2.1.A.24

9. Add the zoning classification adjacent to the east property line. The height of the freestanding carports must be listed to insure that the building setbacks along the north, northwest corner, and east property lines have been met. Depict and label the building setback for the carports along the north, northwest corner, and east property boundaries. DS 2-02.2.1.A.28


10. Revise general note four (4) as follows. Proposed use: Family Dwelling, Development Designator "O", Multi-family Apartments. (If this development is for student housing where leasing will be by the bedroom the use becomes a Group Dwelling developed under the criteria development designator 17.) DS 2-02.2.1.A.31

11. Please add a separate Zoning Data / calculation text block which includes required and provided number of vehicle and bicycle- (class 1 and class 2) parking spaces, allowed and proposed density, lot coverage, and building heights. The square footage of each building must be listed i.e. Building-1 = 5000 sq. ft. Building-2 = 6500 sq. ft. etc. The actual square footage of the leasing office must be listed.

12. In reviewing this site plan several inconsistencies regarding the use have been noted. The title block indicates student housing which typically is a development, which will rent or lease by the bedroom. The use as listed in general notes 4 and 7 indicate the use as apartments and the designator as "O" which per the use classification is a family dwelling usually multi-family apartments. Vehicle parking has been calculated on the individual family dwelling unit and the number of bedrooms per that unit i.e. a one-bedroom unit = one and one-half parking spaces each, a two-bedroom unit = two parking spaces each etc. The bicycle parking has been calculated on the ratio of half a space per resident, which is used for a group dwelling. It is important to clarify these inconsistencies to avoid future problems with the proposed use and therefore creating additional problems with vehicle and bicycle parking, loading zones and other LUC issues.

In addition the total number of units proposed is unclear. Under the vehicle parking calculations text block the total number units equals 189 yet under the "Calculations" text block the total number of units is listed as 192 which means that required parking for the additional 3 three units have not been addressed. The density calculation and bicycle parking will also change. Please review and revise as required. DS 2-02.2.2.A.1 - .6

13. Additional comments will be forthcoming based on the revisions to the calculations, use, and response to zoning comments.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.
07/22/2003 DAVID RIVERA HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning comments
07/24/2003 Joseph Linville LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) If the Plant Inventory Methodology is selected, a Native Plant Inventory per Development Standard 2-15.3.1, an Analysis per Development Standard 2-15.3.3, and a Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan per Development Standard 2-15.3.4 shall be submitted. Revise the documents as necessary to meet the following standards.
A) An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1" = 60' showing the site's boundaries, the locations of all Protected Native Plants within those boundaries, and the plants' identification numbers keyed to the inventory list in Sec. 2-15.3.1.A.2.
Submit an aerial photo with the required information.
B) Based upon the analysis, a site plan, subdivision plat, or development plan shall be prepared to maximize achievement of the following prioritized objectives:
1. A site design which avoids disturbance of communities of Protected Native Plants and promotes the preservation-in-place of individual Protected Native Plants.
2. Transplanting on-site of salvaged Protected Native Plants into common areas and landscaped areas as required by the Landscaping and Screening Regulations (including into the future right-of-way areas identified by the City Engineer or designee that will not be utilized for future right-of-way improvements and with the City Engineer or designee's approval); Revise the landscape plan to accommodate required protected native plants. DS 2-15.3.3
C) The Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan on an aerial photograph, at a minimum scale of 1" = 60' is required showing the locations of the following.
1. Limits of all areas to be graded.
2. Location of proposed roads and utility easements.
3. Existing topographic contours at two-foot maximum contour intervals.
4. Disposition of all Protected Native Plants keyed to the inventory list and showing
the following designations:
a. Plants to be preserved-in-place.
b. Plants to be salvaged and transplanted on-site. To the extent possible, plants
should be transplanted directly to their permanent location on-site.
c. Plants to be salvaged and removed from the site.
d. Plants to be destroyed.
5. The location of a temporary holding nursery to be used for salvaged plants.
DS 2-15.3.4

2) The plans must be revised to verify compliance with LUC 3.8.6.2.A Minimum Protected Native Plant Preservation Requirements. The minimum standards for the preservation of Protected Native Plants in the Plant Inventory Methodology shall be satisfied as follows.
A) Endangered Species and "Crested" Saguaros. One hundred (100) percent of Federal Endangered Species and "Crested" Saguaros shall be preserved-in-place or salvaged and transplanted on-site.
B) Saguaros and Ironwoods. At least fifty (50) percent of all Viable Saguaros and Ironwood trees shall be preserved-in-place or salvaged and transplanted on-site.
C) Other Protected Native Plants. At least thirty (30) percent of each genus and species of other Viable Protected Native Plant shall be preserved-in-place or salvaged and transplanted on-site.



3) A Salvage and Mitigation Report is required prior to plan approval. It must include:
A) A summary by genus and species that details the total numbers of all Protected Native Plants inventoried.
B) The calculations used to determine, by genus and species, the numbers of replacement plants, if any, to be provided as mitigation for Protected Native Plants transplanted on-site, removed from the site, or destroyed. For assistance in determining these calculations, see Exhibit I, Native Plant Preservation Worksheet. Any required landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. DS 2-15.3.4.B

4) On-Site Monitoring. On-site monitoring of all aspects of site clearing, grading, plant protection, preservation, salvage, and mitigation shall be provided during project construction at the expense of the developer. The monitor shall provide periodic progress reports to the developer outlining the status of work accomplished and any problems encountered. A copy of these reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Department (DSD) for the project file. LUC 3.8.6.7.D

5) Submittal Compliance. The monitor shall be responsible for an assessment of the condition of the site's plants one (1) year after the final inspection has been performed on the site. The monitor shall visit the site and prepare a report on plant status, including general plant condition, the identification of plants under stress and the appropriate method to relieve the stress, and recommendations for replacement of plants that are dead or dying. Dead or dying plants shall be replaced with the same size plant at a one-to-one
(1:1) ratio of like genus and species. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the site
owner/developer and to the Development Services Department (DSD). The owner shall respond to the plant needs as outlined in the status report within six (6) months of report submittal or within a shorter period if required to improve the health of stressed plants and prevent plant loss. LUC 3.8.6.7.E

REQUIRED NOTES WHICH MUST BE ADDED TO THE PLAN IN THE CURRENT FORM OR IN SUMMARY(Notes which are applicable in other jurisdictions should be removed):

Once a Native Plant Preservation Plan has been approved, a salvage-only permit can be issued. The salvage-only permit can be issued upon completion of one of the following conditions: For site plans, an official submittal to the Development Services Department (DSD) with all site plan review fees paid in full. LUC 3.8.4.2

The salvage-only permit does not allow site grubbing, grading, or construction of any kind, other than the salvaging of those materials as indicated on the approved Native Plant Preservation Plan. No protected native plants, even as indicated on the approved Native Plant Preservation Plan, may be destroyed or removed from the site until a grading permit has been issued for the project. LUC 3.8.4.2

Plant Non-disturbance Area. All plants designated by the approved Native Plant Preservation Plan to be preserved-in-place shall be retained at their existing grade during and after construction for a distance as outlined in Development Standard 2-15.6.0.

Protected Native Plants that do not survive the salvage process shall be replaced
on a one-to-one basis (same size and species). DS 2-15.4.D

All Viable Protected Native Plants shall be tagged with an embossed metal,
or approved equal, inventory number. DS 2-15.3.1.A.1

The Plan shall affirm, by a statement on the Plan, conformance with the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Arizona Native Plant Law. LUC 3.8.4.5

A Native Plant Preservation Pre-Permit Inspection is required. Call 791-5640 Ext. 1140 to schedule.

6) Revise the site and Landscape Plan to clarify that a six-foot high masonry wall will be located on the north and east property lines. LUC Table 3.7.2-I
07/25/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied See comments under Landscape Review.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/28/2003 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/28/2003 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed