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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE

Permit Number - T03OT01130
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/30/2003 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Denied 1.Fire hydrants required. Submit approved COT Water Plan.
10/20/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approv-Cond See landscape comments.
10/20/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond 1) Identify the symbols used on Sheet S2.

2) Revise the plant mitigation quantities table on sheet S1 to include replacement plantings per LUC Table 3.8.6-I. Mitigation ratios are 2:1 for plants removed from the site, except saguaros. There is also a mitigation requirement for plants transplanted on site (1:1). Refer to DS 2-15.0 Exhibit for the mitigation worksheet.

3) Revise the landscape plan to include the plant mitigation quantities table. DS 2-15.3.4.B
Revise the landscape plans to include all plants required in the calculations. List quantities in the landscape schedule for clarity.

4) Revise landscape plans to provide groundcover for the retention basins and oasis area calculations as indicated in the previous sumittal. DS 10-01.0, LUC 3.7.4.3.B

5) Revise sht. L1 to indicate a 6' masonry wall along the east property boundary. LUC Table 3.7.2-I.
10/22/2003 Doug Williams ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Tucson Student Housing-Site/Drainage Review
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 22 October 2003
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03OT01130
T14 S, R13 E, Sec. 9

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Site, Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPS) and Drainage Report received September 21, 2003. Approvals are not recommended at this time - 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. The following comments must be addressed:

DRAINAGE REPORT:

1. 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). Please note that discussion with Mr. Eduardo Gonzales (Rick Engineering - Tucson office) on 22 October, addressed the need for revising the proposed discharge location in order to match existing drainage patterns as closely as possible along the northern and eastern property lines. Please contact me for clarification or if there are any questions about this issue.
2. Due to the need for revisions relating to comment #1 above, provide revised detention/retention basin routing, basin details and appurtenant structures (weirs, spillways, etc.), cross sections and details, fully labeled and dimensioned with basin tops, bottoms, adjacent grades, inlet and outlet elevations and 100-year water surface elevations noted in the report (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.6 A 4, DS 10-02.0);
3. The proposed diversion and concentration of discharge from drainage areas 3, 4, 5 and a portion of 2 will result in a change from existing conditions drainage patterns exiting the site, resulting in a concentration and increase in flow to the east at the proposed north basin outlet, and complete diversion of flows currently exiting to the north in sheet flow pattern. Such a concentration and diversion presents a significant change from existing patterns throughout the majority of the site, and may not be approved as such. The report must be revised as necessary, in order to best replicate existing patterns, while ensuring developed conditions flow rates do not exceed existing conditions flow rates;
4. Stormwater storage volume calculations indicate the minimum retention volume required (.53 AF) will not be provided in the two basins. Please ensure the 5-year threshold retention volume is provided onsite (Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, Sections 1.4 and 2.2 - Development Standard 10-01.0);
5. Percolation test results contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report indicate testing was performed at elevations ranging from approximately 0.5' - 2.5' above the proposed basin bottom locations, upon examination of the Site plan. Testing should be performed at or below the proposed basin bottom elevations
6. The Geotechnical report recommends that the crest of any basin not be within 5' of any perimeter wall. Please address the wall proposed within this setback recommendation;
7. The proposed 6" storm drain, associate erosion protection and the land on which these items are proposed, beyond property limits, requires a recorded drainage easement. Recording information with exhibits, legal description, and maintenance responsibility requirements must be provided and included with the drainage report and on the site plan.
8. The report appears to propose low flow pipe "bleed-offs" for the north (and possibly south) retention/detentions basins. The use of such bleed-offs may not be approved where flows discharge directly to the right of way (south basin), and may not exceed 1 cfs in a balanced basin if percolation rates exceed the maximum time allowed for disposal. Please ensure basin bottom grades slope drain to any low-flow outlet that may meet approval in such instances. Please see comment # 5 above, regarding percolation testing locations. (Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, Sections 1.4 and 3.5.1 - Development Standard 10-01.0);

SITE PLAN :

1. The south basin "B" weir detail elevations still appear to contain elevation conflicts. Please revise as necessary and ensure the elevations and the weir location conforms to the drainage report and grading plan;
2. All changes resulting from the drainage report comments must be reflected on the site plan, where required to be depicted on the site plan.

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
10/24/2003 DAVID RIVERA HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Approved
10/24/2003 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: 2nd Review October 24, 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. It is still unclear as to the actual use proposed for this complex. Per your response comments to the previous zoning comment one (1) the use is for Group Dwelling under the Residential Use group section 6.3.8 utilizing the development designator "17". The group dwelling category is not considered multi-family. Multi-family development falls under the development designator "O" in this zone. Revise Site Information note 4 to state that this is a Group Dwelling Use - Dormitory or Student Housing.

(Previous comment: 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. A "hold" on the issuance of building permits will be placed in permits plus on until the required documents for the lot combo have been processed and recorded and copies of the documents have been provided to the Zoning review Section for review and approval. The Site plan and building plans may be approved but permits will not be iisued until the hold has been lifted by the Zoning review Section.

(Previous Comment: 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. Under the vehicle and bicycle parking section for the Residential Use Groups, the Group Dwelling category and the Dormitory, Fraternity, or Sorority are parked differently. The parking calculations as listed on the plan have been based on both uses. The vehicle-parking ratio for the dormitory has been used to calculate the amount of vehicle parking spaces required and the Group Dwelling bicycle-parking ratio has been used to calculate the number of bicycle parking spaces required. This use is intended as a Group Dwelling but the required number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces must be calculated utilizing the dormitory ratio and should be parked accordingly. Please revise the parking calculations with the correct ratios.

(Previous Comment: 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. See comment 3 related to bicycle parking. Based on the proposed dormitory use on this site the number of bicycle parking spaces will be based on one space per resident. Based on the total number of 552 bedrooms and assuming that only one resident will be allowed per bedroom, 552 bicycle parking spaces are required. Of the 552 bicycle parking spaces 75 percent must be class one facilities and 25 percent must be class two. Please revise the calculations as required and draw on the plan the additional bicycle-parking facilities.

(Previous Comment: 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. The total gross floor area of the complex determines the number of loading spaces. The gross floor area, which includes the office area, has not been listed on the site plan therefore the actual number of loading spaces cannot be verified.

(Previous Comment: 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)

6. The requested information per the previous comment must be listed on the site plan. Please add the information as requested.

(Previous Comment: 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.)

7. The previous comment has not been fully addressed.
(Previous Comment: 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

8. 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.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and landscape plan and requested documents.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/04/2003 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed