Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP15-0086
Parcel: 119181080

Address:
3693 S 16TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0086
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/03/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Relevant case number for reviews or modifications such as zoning determinations that affect the site

Grading Information:

Show the methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit the planting areas on the site.


UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

7.6.5. SCREENING STANDARDS

Continuous screens along street frontages for vehicle use area must be as determined by Table 7.6.4-I.

Note: Exceptions to Screening Standards

1. The required screen along a street frontage for vehicular use and outdoor display areas may be lowered to 30 inches if the site is located:

On a street that is not designated as an MS&R; and across the street from nonresidential uses or unimproved, non-residentially zoned parcels.
Screen along 16th Ave can be lowered from 5' to 30"

Location

Whether or not required by this section, screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street. Move screening to the back of street landscape border.

Barriers

Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas.

Sight Visibility

Sight visibility at points of ingress into, egress from, or within the vehicular use area must be provided in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual on the landscape plan.


7.7. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION

Submit NPP plan or Application for Exception.

Exceptions

The provisions of this section do not apply to the following:

3. Projects on a site that does not contain any plant on the Protected Native Plant List as demonstrated by the applicant and subject to approval through procedures established at the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). This application can be submitted prior to an applicable review process and approved for an exception on the site. The approved exception is valid for up to one year from the date of the approval; or,

4. Projects on a site or parcel that contains Protected Native Plants that will not be substantially impacted by development on the site as demonstrated by the applicant per this section and subject to approval through procedures established at the PDSD, provided that construction occurs per the approved plan.


Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
06/03/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change 7.7. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION

Submit NPP plan or Application for Exception.

Exceptions
The provisions of this section do not apply to the following:

3. Projects on a site that does not contain any plant on the Protected Native Plant List as demonstrated by the applicant and subject to approval through procedures established at the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). This application can be submitted prior to an applicable review process and approved for an exception on the site. The approved exception is valid for up to one year from the date of the approval; or,

4. Projects on a site or parcel that contains Protected Native Plants that will not be substantially impacted by development on the site as demonstrated by the applicant per this section and subject to approval through procedures established at the PDSD, provided that construction occurs per the approved plan.
06/10/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change .DATE: June 10, 2015
DUE DATE: June 19, 2015
SUBJECT: Fitness Center Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 3693 S 16th Ave; T14S R13E Sec26
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0086

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 26MAY15), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Cypress Civil Development, 26MAY15), and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Consultants, Inc., 18MAY15). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.3.10: Revise the development plan package to provide the symbol used for the 100-year floodplain limits within the Legend on the first sheet. The legend should also include the symbol that will be used for the required 100-year water surface elevation per the recorded final plat.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.B: Revise the development plan package and Title Block to correctly label the Sequence Number for the recorded subdivision plat. Per the Records Office the plat has a SEQ#

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP15-0086) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.E: Revise the development plan package to remove all proposed improvements (electric transformer, underground electric lines, parking spaces, sidewalks, etc) from the existing 15-foot Public Water Easement or provide approval from all parties having a vested interest in the easement for the proposed improvements.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to label all existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site with the Improvement Plan Number in plan view. Specifically the existing culverts at the driveway entrances. Revise Keynote #9 to provide the culvert sizing, type and improvement plan number.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.I.1: Revise the development plan package to label to 100-year floodplain limits in a surveyable manner as per the recorded subdivision plat. Also provide the water surface elevations as shown on the recorded final plat in plan view and include the symbol identical to that used to represent the water surface contour intervals within the legend on Sheet 1.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Clarify Keynote #10 in plan in plan view that is within the middle of 16th Ave that appears to be pointing to a brass cap and not an existing light pole. If there is a light pole in the middle of the street provide verification from TDOT if it is to remain and does not have to be relocated.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to correctly label the Near Side dimension of the SVT for the driveway and the Local Street, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. It is acknowledged that the 265-feet as shown is larger than the required 185-feet; however this may affect the future location of any proposed signage.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a Revise the development plan package to provide a standard vehicle parking space detail. Verify on the detail the required 2.5 foot overhang for spaces adjacent to sidewalks, landscape areas, wall, handicap parking signage, etc. Refer to UDC Figure 7.4.6-C for the 2.5 foot overhang dimension.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label the minimum dimensions for the required back-up spurs at the end of the PAALs per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4. . Specifically the spur must be a minimum of 3-feet in depth and have three foot radii for both spurs.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Per TSM Sec.4-04.14.3.2: Provide a note on the development plan package to state that, "(a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all detention/retention basins, drainage infrastructure, drainage channels and water harvesting areas; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 12-months, and that these regular inspection reports 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 scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the detention/retention basins and drainage structures should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the maneuverability for the refuse vehicle onsite to ensure that the turning radii in plan view is large enough to accommodate the inside 36' and outside 50' radii around the vehicular use area per TSM Sec.8-01.5.3.E and Figure 7.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

14) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.4.C.1: Revise the Drainage Statement (technically should be a Drainage Report due to the 100-year floodplain limits and the detention requirements) and the existing condition section to include a discussion on the regulatory watercourse adjacent to the site. The section describes this as a drainage swale; however per the Final Plat and the Drainage Statement that accompanied it the flow is greater than 100 cfs and has a regulatory floodplain limits with associated water surface elevations. The existing condition section needs to provide a reference to the Final Plat and the existing conditions.

15) TSM Sec.4-03.2.1: Revise the Drainage Statement to provide a discussion on pre and post imperviousness of the site, there appears to be a seventeen percent increase in the post imperviousness). The discussion should state that the property is located within a balanced basin per the "Balanced and Critical Basin Map for Study Session of January 27, 1987." Balanced Basin requirements shall be incorporated into all new development to ensure that at a minimum the post development 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak discharges from the site will not exceed the pre-development conditions. Revise the Drainage Statement to include a discussion with calculation to verify that both Detention and Retention requirements have been addressed.

SWPPP:

16) The proposed SWPPP meets the minimum requirements of the AzPDES 2013 Construction General Permit (CGP). However the SWPPP and Exhibits cannot be stamped approved until approval of the development plan package. Provide both copies with resubmittal for stamp approval.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
06/11/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Fitness Center @ Ajo & 16th
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0086

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 15, 2015

DUE DATE: June 19, 2015

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.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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, 2016.

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

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and,

1) COMMENT: Identify I-19 on the location map.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2) COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0086, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

3) COMMENT: General Note 3, remove the reference to "C-2 4.9.13.P" as it is not applicable.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

4) COMMENT: The radius shown on all back-up spurs is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.b.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

5) COMMENT: Provide the space depth dimension for the double row of vehicle parking shown west of the proposed building.

6) COMMENT: Provide the space width & depth dimensions for the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces.

7) COMMENT: Clearly demonstrate that the proposed accessible sign shown for the northern most accessible space, within the double row of vehicle parking shown west of the proposed building, does not encroach into the 18' space depth.

8) COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, Commercial Recreation, the required ratio is 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA. Also see UDC Article 7.4.3.A.2.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

9) COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per TABLE 7.4.8-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, Commercial Recreation, the required number is two (2). Also see UDC Article 7.4.3.A.2.

10) COMMENT: Keynote 25, short term bicycle parking location points to nothing. It appears that the bicycle racks are located north of the keynote.

11) COMMENT: There appears to be long term bicycle parking shown near the southeast corner of the building but it is not called out.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

12) COMMENT: The provided east perimeter yard setback shown, 79.7', does not appear to be correct. Based
on the dimensions provided on the plan the setback is only about 60.0'

13) COMMENT: The required west/street perimeter yard setback shown is not correct. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1.a Within established areas, the minimum required front street perimeter yard is 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 90 feet.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

14) COMMENT: Clarify what the rectangles are that are shown with in the sidewalk area along the west side of the building.

15) COMMENT: Provide a dimension from what appears to be long term bicycle parking, shown near the southeast corner of the building, to the proposed vehicle overhang line. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A minimum width is 4'.

16) COMMENT: Provide a dimension between the southernmost rectangles shown within the sidewalk area along the west side of the building, to the accessible sign located within the sidewalk area. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A minimum width is 4'.

17) COMMENT: Provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown near the southeast corner of the proposed building. It appears that the accessible sign may reduce the width. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A minimum width is 4'.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
06/15/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit.
2. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2432.25') is higher than the first floor elevation (2432.00'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve as part of the building construction. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
06/17/2015 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please indicate existing and/or proposed fire hydrant location(s), with dimensions to buildings and/or property lines. Refer to the 2012 International Fire Code Section 507 for requirements.

Please watch the dead end requirements IFC 503.2.5 on the east side of the building/parking lot.
06/23/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
06/23/2015 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Fitness Center @ Ajo & 16th
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0086

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 23, 2015

DUE DATE: June 19, 2015

Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Accessibility comments were addressed.

1) Remove the detectable warnings from the on-site ramps as they are only required at passenger transit platforms and curb ramps in the public right-of-way per IBC Section 1109.10.

2) Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route from the proposed building entrance to the sidewalk located in the right-of-way per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1

3) Relocated the two (2) accessible vehicle parking spaces, shown on the west side of the PAAL, to be adjacent to the other accessible vehicle parking space along the front of the building, IBC 1106.6.

4) Provide details for all proposed accessible ramps, IBC 107.2.1. so that the requirements of IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1-2009 can be verified.

5) Revise the sign detail to reference a $590.00 fine.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/02/2015 AROMERO4 APPROVAL SHELF Completed