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: T09CM00062
Parcel: 13414011A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T09CM00062
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/12/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
01/12/2009 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed NOT A COT PROJECT
01/12/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: OTT Family YMCA - GYMNASIUM ADDITION
T09CM00062
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 15, 2009

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

1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the effected areas.

2. It is my understanding that there have been discussions with Walter Tellez and Craig Gross in regards to this project. Please provide a copy of any documents that may affect this project with the next submittal.

3. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan with your next submittal.

4. As the Paving, Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet 2 of 3, provided by DCC and the Architectural Site Plan, sheet AS-102, provided by KLIMATIC do not match and neither plan provides all the requirements of D.S. 2-02 all Zonings site review comments will be based on sheet AS-102.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 All existing and proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use. Provide overall dimensions for the proposed buildings along with the height on the site plan.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide setback dimensions from the proposed "GYM ADDTION" to the east and south property line.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a typical handicapped and standard angled parking space detail that includes; A - Parking angle, B - Space width, C - Space depth, E Curb length.

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 On detail B2/AS-501 include materials for lighting, paving, and security; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. Also on A2/AS-103 there are "26 BICYLE SPACES" called out, where are the remaining 10 bicycle spaces as noted under the bicycle parking calculation.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Show all sight visibility triangles, existing and future if applicable, on the site plan.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a width dimension for the entrance parking area access lane (PAAL) off of Prudence Road.

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a dimension for the PAAL located on the south side of the proposed gym addition.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a dimension for the one-way PAAL located at the west end of the proposed angled parking.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Until the angel dimension is provided for the proposed angled parking, see comment 7, the required PAAL width cannot be verified for the one-way PAAL shown north of the proposed angled parking.

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 The proposed stripped area shown between the proposed angled parking and the existing parking to the south is required to be a sidewalk meeting the requirements of D.S. 2-08.5.1.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B and D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge area and four (4) foot wide sidewalk is required between the proposed gym addition and the PAAL to the south.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable show the location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 Show the two (2) required 12x35 loading spaces on the plan.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Prudence Road as an "MS&R" on the plan.

19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 It does not appear the curb shown on the plan meets the MS&R future location. Show the location of future curb on the plan.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record on the site plan.

21. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 Zoning acknowledges the site lighting shown on the site plan. Provide height dimension from the bottom of light fixture to pavement of the PAAL so that the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.1.4.a can be verified.

22. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Show the existing and proposed zoning of parcel and adjacent parcels, including those across streets and alleys on the site plan.

23. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.32 Show the location of the refuse contain on the plan.

24. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.1 It does not appear that the site area is correct. Parcel # 134-14-011A is owned by YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSN OF TUCSON and parcel # 134-14-010A is owned by the City of Tucson, provide documentation that allows the two parcels to be used as one for all site plan calculations.

25. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 The floor area ratio and lot coverage calculation cannot be verified until comment 24 has been addressed. If both the park and YMCA parcels are to be used in this calculation then all structures on both parcels are to be included in the calculation. List out all structures along with the square foot when providing the calculation.

26. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Provide a copy of the Cooperative agreement between Metropolitan YMCA of Tucson and the City of Tucson so that the parking calculation can be verified.

27. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 Provide a loading space calculation that includes the number of required and provided loading spaces.

28. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a vehicle use area expansion calculation on the plan as new pavement is proposed.

29. There is a paved vehicle use area located to the east of the propose gym addition, shown the vehicle use area on the plan.

30. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments my be forth coming.

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

C:\planning\site\t09cm00062

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
01/12/2009 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Sheet 1 of 3: Site Plan does not match Architectural site Plan.
2. Sheet 2 of 3: Civil Plan includiong ramps and grades doe not match the Architectural Plans.
3. Sheet AS-102: Addition of ramps, walks and rails as shown on Civil SDite Plan is not apparent on this plan? Please clarify
4. Sheet AS-103:
a. Details A1 and A2: The ramp raise is too great without a 5' lnog landing; sections 405.6 and 405.7.3 and the handrails need to extend 12" beyond the slope of the landing, top and bottom; section 505.10.1.
b. Detail A2:
1. Need Detaectable warnings at both ends of the two marked crossings.
2. Need to extend accessible route 4' wide from the detectable warning at the most Westerly marked crossing on the west end at detail reference "B-1"
3. Accessible route between parking spaces is required by Zoning to be concrete.
4. B-1 ramp reference does not work at ramp on most easterly end of marked crossing. Provide a curb ramp as per section 406.
5. Fix handrails at steps to match those shown on landscape plan.
5. Sheet AS-501:
a. At Detail B-1, verify width of landing as to Archuitectural plan.
b. At Detail D5: Clarify height of retaining wall. Anything over 4' from bottom of footing requires structural calculations and details.
01/21/2009 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of 12 point (0.12") or greater in size. Revise all text which does not meet this minimum standard.
DS 2-05.2.1.C

2. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation.

3. Provide a copy of the last approved landscape plan with the next submittal.

4. Any changes made to the site plan must also be reflected on the landscape plan.
01/22/2009 PETER MCLAUGHLIN NPPO REVIEW Approved
02/05/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to include the location of the connection to the public sanitary sewer Reference City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0 2.3 and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
02/10/2009 MATT FLICK ENGINEERING REVIEW Approv-Cond Correct plan inconsistencies.

Provide additional grades to indicate a cross-slope of less than 4% on the curve in the exit drive.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/12/2009 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
02/12/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed