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: T07CM03201
Parcel: 13707036A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T07CM03201
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/13/2007 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Denied Apartments require automatic fire sprinklers.
Please add the following automatic sprinkler criteria to the plans:

1. The hazard classification of the occupancy including any special hazards.
2. The design standard to be used.
3. The availability and adequacy of the water supply.
4. The design density and the area of operation.

Please add the following notes to the plan.

1. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the developer as required by the fire code in accordance with C.O.T. Standards.

2. "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" signs shall be provided as needed to provide 20' clear unobstructed width along all fire apparatus access roadways in accordance with the fire code.
08/22/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied Please see zoning review comments.
08/22/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: T07CM03201, 417 W. Utah Street
New Apartment Complex, Commercial Site Plan, 1st Review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 22, 2007

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

1. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI), and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). Specifically, this plan was reviewed for compliance with DS 2-02.

2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.2, regarding legal description:
A) Please revise the legal description shown in the title block on all sheets to match the correct legal description provided on the site plan sheet just below the scale notation.
B) per the Pima County Assessor's records, this site was the subject of a lot split in 1999 to create the current configuration. The city requires all lot splits to be reviewed and approved by zoning, engineering, plumbing/mechanical and building codes. Provide a copy of any city approvals for the lot split. Be advised, further comments on this issue may be forthcoming.

3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.4, on location map,
A) please enlarge the type size of the smaller street names you provided or remove them and keep Irvington, 12th, Nebraska, Liberty, Utah. The type size needs to be 12 point for microfilming.
B) Please add Drexel Road
C) Please add the adjacent Township Range and Section numbers (see my notes on plan)

4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, regarding buildings:
A) please dimension building footprints for records, inspections and issuance of permits
B) clarify roof style - flat, parapet, ridge?
C) Declare how building height is measured - from grade to top of flat roof, parapet or from grade to midpoint of ridge?
D) Show any roof overhangs with a dashed line - the same for any porches
E) Keynote garage or carports
F) Provide distance from each garage or carport to the asphalt of the parking area access lane
G) Provide distance between units

5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, regarding building setbacks:
A) please revise the setback note on sheet 1 to state the street front setback from Utah is "the greater of 20' or 1.5 times the height of the exterior building wall from street front property line to the structure" (the site is in an established neighborhood, per LUC 3.2.6.5.A criteria)
B) I see the building setback chart provided on sheet 1, thank you, and acknowledge there is no zoning setback issue. Please note the building setbacks at the east property line graphically on the site plan sheet for records.
C) Clarify the location of the property line along Utah
D) List the building setback proposed from the property line of Utah to the building wall

6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, regarding parking:
A) I see the detail for the disabled access parking that is provided on sheet 4 - and that detail meets code. The site plan appears to conflict with the width of the disabled access aisle - the access aisle appears to be less than 8' wide. Please dimension the access aisle on the site plan.
B) Add wheel stops to the disabled access parking spaces on the site plan, matching the detail provided
C) Keynote that the parking detail drawing is on sheet SD.1

7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, regarding bicycle parking:
A) Bicycle parking is required, per LUC 3.3.4. The amount required is 8% of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. As the site has less than 50 parking spaces, all class 2 (post type) bicycle parking is allowed.
B) Provide a bicycle parking calculation per the above comment - on sheet 1
C) Provide a detail drawing of class 2 bicycle parking rack - see DS 2-09 updated on the internet for acceptable rack styles www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd under codes
D) DS 2-09.4.0 - the bicycle parking should be 50' within the main entrance of a building - in this case, staff asks that you centralize their location within the complex and ensure they are easily accessed from the PAAL and a sign is installed near the street entrance directing the location of the bike parking.

8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, regarding Parking Area Access Lanes (PAALs)
A) provide a dimension for the PAAL width where the parallel parking is located - to ensure the PAAL is 24' wide minimum to allow 2 way traffic.
B) provide width of PAAL at the entrance of the complex
C) remove reference to a "private street" from all plans - not a street, this is a PAAL

9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, regarding pedestrian/disabled access
A) Add truncated domes to the east side of the pedestrian circulation crossing, on the concrete ramp abutting the crosswalk
B) Provide a width notation for the sidewalks to ensure they meet DS 2-08 (5' pedestrian refuge area inclusive of a 4' wide sidewalk along the PAAL, 4' perpendicular to parking
C) It appears there is a wedge curb provided along the sidewalk throughout the development. Where not accessing a driveway area, the sidewalk must be physically separated from the PAAL, per DS 2-08.4.1 - see for physical barrier info.
D) Provide a sidewalk to the entry of each unit, per DS 2-08.3.1

10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, please clarify if there are any free-standing signs, billboards and or lighting existing/proposed for this development, with height and vertical clearance information - pole base width as well.

11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please clarify if there are any easements on the site by depicting them graphically, dimensioned, with their type and recordation information.

12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.28, please list the adjacent zoning of the site to the east as R-2.

13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.32, please clarify if there is to be a refuse container on site, and see engineering comments for further advisement.

14. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.3, detail in the lot coverage calculation the square footages of the building footprints and the vehicle use area square footage together, divided by the lot size in square footage.

15. Please note that further comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. I may be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951.



HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM03201 417 w utah.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
08/27/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes in most instances are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet; 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. Revise sheet D-1 to show compliance.
DS 10-01.4

2. Add a statement to landscape general note 17 that the decomposed granite shall also be placed in the adjacent right of way between the property line and the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the curb location, as required.

3. Detail required screening for the three proposed parking spaces along the east property line. Vehicle use areas must be screened from the adjacent R-2 zoned property and from Utah Street. A 5-foot high continuous screen along street frontages for parking areas must be provided and a 5-foot high wall must screen the parking from the adjacent residentially zoned properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

4. A 10-foot landscape buffer is required along the south property line adjacent to the R-2 zoned religious facility. Revise landscape plan accordingly. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

5. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof, and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a
08/28/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN NPPO REVIEW Denied Indicate the limits of grading and location of required protective fencing clearly on the Native Plant Preservation Plan.
09/05/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system with a daily flow in excess of 3,000 gallons per day or one that includes manholes. Reference Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code.
2. The rim elevations of the upstream sanitary manholes appear to be less than 12" below many of the first floor elevations. Provide backwater valves per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.
10/23/2007 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied October 25, 2007
T07CM03201 and T07BU01631
Site and Grading Plan Review
Reviewed by Loren Makus, EIT

The site plan and grading plan and associated documents were review. The following comments must be addressed. Include a response letter that explains in detail how each comment has been addressed.

Site and Grading comments:

1. Remove the note indicating that new streets are being created. (Notes 21 and 22 on S-1) Creation of streets requires a plat.
2. Indicate on the site plan and the grading plan the wall openings called for in the drainage report.
3. Show existing contours on adjacent properties on both the site plan and the grading plan to substantiate the offsite effects of this project.
4. Use the correct legal description for this property. Provide the correct area of the project. The area listed on the cover sheet doesn't agree with the county assessor's record.
5. Continue the curb line for Utah Street to the west so that the SVT is shown terminating at the curb line.
6. Revise the curb in front of units 9 and 10 or show curb cuts to allow access to the garages/carports for these units.
7. Where wedge curb is used the sidewalk must be separated from the curb by at least 2 feet.
8. Provide access ramps to the sidewalk where crosswalks or other pedestrian routes intersect the sidewalk. This include the curb return area at the entrance.
9. Show the basis of bearings in a graphical manner or clearly describe two found monuments to establish the bearings. Utah Street curves in front of this project so the centerline is not definitive for the basis of bearing.
10. Clarify the boundary information for the property line along Utah Street. The curve numbers are partially obliterated by other lines. Clearly indicate the endpoints of each curve.
11. Check the drawing to make sure that the curb lines are continuous along the PAAL.
12. Clearly identify the endpoints of the extruded curb. Extruded curb is not allowed in the right of way.
13. Revise the parallel parking area to provide additional space between the parking spaces and the perimeter wall. The parking space must be at least two feet from the wall and the wall must be inside the property line. Show the wall on the detail.
14. Since the inlet invert is lower than the water surface elevation in the basin, show the ponding limits within the street. Provide details for showing how the stormwater will be directed to the basin.
15. Revise the street sections to show the curb as described in the plan view.
16. Explain how solid waste will be collected from the site. Development Standard 6-01.2.2 requires all new multifamily developments to have centralized collection. Provide a solid waste container location and enclosure with access.
17. Since the drainage report is incomplete, the drainage features of this site and grading plan have not been completely reviewed. Additional comments will be forthcoming.
18. Review the City of Tucson development standards and ensure that all of the applicable requirements are met for this project.

Drainage Report Comments:

19. Change the description of the openings in the wall to be "wall openings" or "drainage openings" instead of "weep holes" on page 3 of the drainage report. Indicate that drainage openings will also be used along the east boundary adjacent to the existing development.
20. The drainage report indicates that sediment in the basin when 3 inches have accumulated. Provide a means for measuring the depth of sediment in the basin.
21. Since this project is being developed as apartments, remove the note on page 5 that indicates that the basin will be maintained by the homeowners association.
22. The drainage report is not consistent. Page 3 states that only the drainage from the front yards and paved areas will be directed to the basin. Page 6 states that all for the developed conditions, all of the runoff will be captured in the basin.
23. Revise the drainage report the clearly show how off-site discharges affect the site. Provide a separate exhibit that delineates the drainage areas that impact this project site and provide hydrological calculations to establish the quantities of off-site drainage. Revise the on-site drainage to address any required changes.
24. The existing and proposed hydrologic data sheets don't account for the whole site. Provide data sheets for both existing conditions and proposed conditions that address total site and modify the proposed drainage scheme as necessary to account for the change.
25. Provide retention volume calculations and basin volume calculations in the drainage report.
26. Provide a complete drainage report as described in section 2.3 of the Drainage Manual including all of the required information from section 5 of the Retention/Detention Manual. Until a complete drainage report is approved, additonal comments may be forthcoming on the site and grading plans.

SWPPP Comments:

27. Provide clear identification of the operator with operational control over plans and specifications.
28. Provide clear indentification of the operator with operational control of day-to-day operations.
29. The concrete washout must be at least 50 feet from the retention/detention basin. Include this and all additional requirements for the concrete washout area as listed in the Aquifer Protection Program general permit. (Arizona Administrative Code R18-9-B301)
30. Provide downslope sediment controls at all locations where stormwater is discharged from the site.
31. The plan must be sealed by a registered PE or Landscape Architect. This applies to the report/narrative as well as the site map.
32. Revise the SWPPP as necessary to describe this project. For example section 5.0 doen't match the proposed project.
33. Include a copy of the checklist provided by ADEQ on the internet. Fill out the checklist listing where each required element can be found in the SWPPP.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/30/2007 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/30/2007 DELMA ROBEY REJECT SHELF Completed