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: T09CM01666
Parcel: 13005303G

Address:
1915 E 36TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T09CM01666
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/02/2009 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY
07/06/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Denied A fire hydrant or fire sprinklers will be required. Please indicate on plans which option owner chooses to use. Refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code (section 508) for spacing and location requirements of fire hydrants.

T09OT00640 was rejected.
1.) Current plans are for a "B" occupancy and plans do not match the buildings foot print. The occupancy is being changed to an "E" occupany. Need to submit new plans reflecting the change and they must be drawn by an architect.
2.) "E" occupancies require sprinklers or a door the exits directly from the classroom directly to the exterior of the building and to a public way or a minimum distance of 50 ft. from the building.
3.) Buildings having a minimum of 20 sprinkler heads require a fire alarm system to monitor a water flow and tamper alarm.
4.) Main and rear exit signs needs repair.
5.) Remove the thumb-turn lock from the front and rear exit doors. Only one locking device is allowed.
6.) Emergency back-up lighting for the front and the rear exits is required.
7.) Portable extinguishers need annual inspection. They need to be mounted, labled and readily accessable or they can be removed.
8.) Cover all open wiring.
9.) Replace cover plates.
10.) Need panic hardware on rear exits.
11.) Roof sheeting for the ramada outside needs replacing.
07/07/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Ace Charter High School
T09CM01666
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 7, 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.

2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The "21.00 SETBACK" shown for both streets is show incorrectly. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B & Table 3.2.6-I the perimeter yard setback for 36th Street is measured from the back of future curb and the perimeter yard setback for Kramer Avenue is measured from the back of existing curb not the property line as shown.

3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a dimension for the proposed sidewalk shown along the east side of the existing "BLDG 1". Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B & D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk is required within a five (5) pedestrian refuge.

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable show any existing and/or proposed site lighting on the plan.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Provide the zoning for the parcels located south of 36th Street.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Based on an email from Craig Gross dated 05/06/09 the existing use should be shown as "MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION".

7. Based on a discussion with Craig Gross in regards to the existing building located within the R-2 zoned portion of this site, provide a note on the plan stating "EXISTING MODULAR STRUCTURE LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 NOT TO BE USED BY THE PROPOSED EDUCATIONAL USE".

8. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may 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\t09cm01666

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
07/08/2009 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide an accessible route to the existing Ramada.
2. The extent of the guard rail is not discernable, too small a scale. Please show a larger scale showing exacty where the gardrail is to be placed around the building.
3. Please provide a guard rail elevation showing compliance with 2006 IBC, Section 1013.
4. The accessible parking space has two aisles.
a. Please define your "Van Accessible" space as per Section 502.2.
b. Please calrify if the accessible route is flush with the vehicle paving area or define how access is achieved from both aisles to the concrete accessible route.

END OF REVIEW
07/20/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: July 20, 2009
SUBJECT: 1915 E 36th Street Site Plan- Engineering Review
TO: Philip Carhuff
LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec20 Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM01666 (Site Plan) and T09BU00956 (Grading Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T09CM01666), grading plan (T09BU00956) and Drainage Statement (DCC, 24JUN09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS: This project consists of a greater than 25% expansion per the Zoning Section review. The greater than 25% expansion requires that the entire site is reviewed and brought up to current full code requirements of the Development Standards and Land Use Code (this includes that all details and dimensions be shown on the proposed plan).

1) Due to the full code expansion requirement per the Zoning Section this comment letter does not reflect all of the comments or quality control comments that must be addressed prior to resubmittal of the site plan. Make sure that all dimensions, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project meet the minimum requirements within DS Sec.2-02, 3-01, 3-05 and 6-01 and are reflected on the site plan sheets.

2) Revise the site plan keynotes to provide a label or reference to any proposed details. Examples include but are not limited to, keynote #6 should reference Detail 1/C2.0, keynote #9 should reference Detail 4/C2.0, etc.

3) Revise site plan keynote #20 to meet the minimum requirements within the Drainage Report for all proposed scuppers at down spout locations. Per the Drainage Report 2-Type 1 scuppers are required at all scupper locations, revise.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide all dimensions for the proposed back up spur as shown at the north end of the proposed parking area. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D for minimum requirements, specifically the required 3-foot radius.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 25-feet radii and concrete curbs per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5 at the driveway entrance located on 36th Street. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 18-feet radii and concrete curbs per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5 at the driveway entrance located on Kramer Ave. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of 36th Street. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. If a 4-foot sidewalk exists along the frontage of the roadway provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow the existing sidewalk, if less than the minimum 6-foot, to remain.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required 5-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Kramer Ave per DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A. All new development requires a new 5-foot sidewalk to be constructed within the public right-of-way.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required pedestrian circulation path from the existing building to the required sidewalk located along the frontage of Kramer Ave. The pedestrian circulation must meet the requirements within DS Sec.2-08. The site plan needs to clearly dimension the pedestrian circulation path and it connecting to the required 5-foot sidewalk along Kramer Ave.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show that all existing and proposed offsite handicap access ramps within the public right-of-way meet the design requirements per the public standard detail #207, if applicable. Provide details and minimum slope requirements at all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that apply to this project.

12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Clarify on the site plan and grading plan the drainage patterns for the offsite watershed that drains onto the subject parcel from the adjacent property to the south. Verify that the 10 year offsite flow event that drains across the proposed pedestrian circulation path is contained under the sidewalk.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label Kramer Ave as either public or private.

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label the (½)-25-foot right-of-way for Kramer Avenue as existing.

15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: If dedication or pedestrian improvements are not required through TDOT at this time correctly label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area (11-feet for a future 100-foot r-o-w), curbing, etc for 36th Ave.

16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.25: Revise the site plan to label the existing light pole directly east of the proposed PAAL access point on 36th Street. Verify that the access point meets the minimum setback dimensions from both the existing light pole and power pole per Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code.

17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.27: Provide a General Note stating that all fences or walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments.

18) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications:

a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html /

b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php

c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w.

19) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan due to the full code requirement status.


GRADING PLAN:

20) Provide a copy of the stamped approved site plan (T09CM01666). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved site plan. Verify all information associated with the site plan is shown on the grading plan which will be used as the construction document.

21) Revise the grading plan sheet to clearly label the proposed gradable area for this project. Provide the grading limits in plan view on Sheet C1.2.

22) Revise the grading plan to clarify the proposed "drainage weirs" for vehicular drainage. Weirs are basin structures and do not satisfy drainage requirements for vehicular use areas. Clarify if these areas are to be curb cuts and provide a separate detail on the grading plan showing how these areas are to be constructed.

23) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to dimension in plan view and within the details the required 2-foot setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, top of fill slopes, and proposed fencing (the grading plan is required to label this clearly at all property line cross sections). Specifically the fencing and sidewalk area adjacent to the parallel parking spaces.

24) Revise grading plan sheet to meet the minimum requirements within the Drainage Report for all proposed scuppers. Per the Drainage Report 2-Type 1 scuppers are required at all scupper locations. Provide a reference to the Standard Detail or provide a separate detail in plan view showing how the scuppers are to be constructed.

25) Provide a copy of the referenced Geotechnical Report (grading note # 5) with the next submittal.

26) Provide a Grading Note to state the following: "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at:
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html

27) DS Sec.11-01: Revise grading note #1 specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).

28) Provide a general grading note stating that "All proposed fencing and walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments."


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan and grading that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan and grading plan review.

For questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
07/20/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
07/21/2009 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the landscape plans to coordinate with any revisions made to the site/grading plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A

2) Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3

3) Revise the landscape plan such that plants do not obstruct the required lines of sight. It appear that several trees and shrubs and accents could pose conflicts. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle. LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06

4) Revise the grading plan to account for the water harvesting requirements. The work will require excavation and grading to create what may appear to be depressions. A cross section water harvesting areas proposed in the landscape borders is also appropriate. LUC 3.7.4.3.B, DS 2-07.2.2.B

5) Extend the irrigation lateral to the trees required for the parking lot. DS 2-07.2.2.C

6) The drainage statement indicates that the area north of the parking lot paving will be partially landscaped and will benefit from the stormwater conveyance. Delineate any proposed water harvesting basin associated with the proposed landscaping. It appears that the lone tree is offset from the drainage opening.

7) Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. LUC 3.8.4.2

9) If buffelgrass is present on the site populations are to be mapped and included as part of the Native Plant Preservation Plan. Continued buffelgrass eradication and monitoring is required. LUC 3.8.4.1 (Ordinance 10632, adopted Feb. 3, 2009)
Provide mapping and add notes for the required removal and monitoring.
07/21/2009 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied See comments under Landscape.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/22/2009 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed