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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D04-0024
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 01/04/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/09/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 01/09/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D04-0024 San Miguel High School Revision Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 9, 2007 DUE DATE: January 24, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is December 25, 2007. 2. Please provide the site boundary information, including bearings in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis of bearing noted, together with distances. DS 2-05.2.3.A 3. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G 4. Please dimension all new sidewalks and pedestrian areas on the DP. Minimum required width is four (4) feet. DS 2-08.5.1.A 5. New handicap ramps shall provide detectable warnings (truncated domes). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including access aisles of handicapped motor vehicle parking spaces. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 6. Please provide on the building footprint the dimensions of each structure. DS 2-05.2.4.N 7. New bicycle parking provided on the DP must meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (DS 2-09.5.1.A). Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. DS 2-09.0 8. Please add the required number of van accessible parking spaces. For six (6) handicap spaces one (1) must be van accessible. ANSI 1106 9. Per SE condition 12 the maximum height of all structures except the multi-purpose gym shall be twenty (20) feet. The height indicated for the shade structure for the basket ball court is thirty (30) feet. This must be reduced to meet the required height per SE -03-28 SE Condition 12 10. Please provide dimensions from the east property line to the corners of the basketball court and prayer grotto. Per LUC 3.5.3.7.D all outside activities must be kept a minimum of fifty (50) feet away from R-3 or more restrictive zoning. If these outdoor activities are closer than they must be moved back to meet the setback requirement. LUC 3.5.3.7.D If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D04-0024dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 01/09/2007 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * Previously approved 1-09-04 |
| 01/23/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 22, 2007 To: Mark P. McCarty, P.E. McCarty Engineering , Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) Subject: San Miguel Catholic School, Phase III Building ‘C’ & ‘D’ Development Plan – 1st Submittal, D04-0024 The drawings for the proposed Development Plan for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D04-0024 to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger and bolder than any cross-reference numbers. ALL SHEETS. Show the name of the project in larger bold letters. Provide a letter from PCWMD Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that the treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf SHEET 1. Revise the General Note no. 20 so that it reads: THIS PROJECT HAS --------- PROPOSED AND--------- EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.040(F)(1) in PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20 5. SHEET 1. Add a Permitting Note that reads: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 6. SHEET 2. In the Legend, show symbols for proposed and existing private sewers. Also, show a symbol for the existing public sewers. Use distinctively different line types for these sewers. These line types and the symbols should clearly match those used on Sheets 3 thru 6 for depicting these types of sewer lines. 7. SHEET 3. Where you are showing Ex. MH #5, change the call out to EXISTING PUBLIC MANHOLE NO. 5870-05. 8. SHEET 3. Call out the sewer lines in Lerado Road and San Fernando Road as EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER I-72-66. 9. SHEET 3. Wherever you have shown an invert elevation in manholes, the invert elevations should be shown for all the pipes in the manhole, like south invert, north invert, etc. 10. The following comments are general and apply to all private sewers shown on drawings 3 thru 6: a. Show the existing and proposed sewers using distinctively different line types. Labeling them as proposed or private as well will help. b. Show the size, slope, length and pipe material of the proposed sewers. c. Provide cleanouts where the BCS changes direction and show the rim and invert elevations of these COs. 11. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $250.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and the response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 |
| 01/23/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D04-0024 SAN MIGUEL HIGH SCHOOL/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: JANUARY 23, 2007 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: The building numbers do not match what has been permitted. Please make an appointment to review and clarify. The Sanctuary and Rectory are addressed separate from the school buildings. Correct the Sanctuary to Bldg. 1 and the Rectory to Bldg. 2. jg |
| 01/26/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D04-0024 San Miguel High School - Revision 01/25/07 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: Special Exception SE-03-28 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South 12th Avenue /Valencia Road Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 1/24/07 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment (x) Proposal Complies with DSMR 05-21 () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments REVIEWER: MSP 791-4505 DATE: 1/24/07 |
| 02/16/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 16, 2007 SUBJECT: San Miguel High School 3rd Phase- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 212 W Medina Rd, T15S R13E Section 13, Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D04-0024 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the proposed development plan, landscape plan, drainage report and Drainage Letter Statement. Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. Revise the development plan to address the following: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Revise the development plan to provide the site boundary information, including bearing and degrees. Label all boundary data on sheet DP202 as recorded, measured or calculated. 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Revise the development plan so all existing and proposed easements (access, telephone or other utility easements, etc.) are dimensioned, labeled and the recordation information is provided. 3) DS 2-08.5.1.A: Revise the development plan to dimension all new sidewalks and pedestrian circulation areas. Minimum required width for pedestrian circulation is 4-feet except where a sidewalk is adjacent to a PAAL then the minimum distance is 5-feet. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the development plan to reflect handicap access ramps with truncated domes (see ANSI 705.5. for design criteria) at all existing and proposed handicap ramp location. Please refer to this standard and the figures provided for additional curb access ramps requirements. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide a revised development plan that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the development plan. For any questions, or to schedule a meeting call me at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 02/26/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#175531 February 23, 2007 McCarty Engineering Inc. Attn: Mark P. McCarty 320 W Alturas Street Tucson, Arizona 85705 Dear Mr. McCarty : SUBJECT: San Miguel High Scholl Rev. D04-0024 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 26, 2006. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. TEP will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. ~There are OH facilities located at the south end of the project that appear to be a conflict. Please be aware that there is an UG facility that is not indicated on the plan. It is located at the far east edge of the property. It tuns along the west side of 6620,6610,6602 S. Eighth Ave. (See facility map). It appears to be just outside of your project but should be noted. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer Todd Stocksdale at (520) 917-8715, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 02/27/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 27, 2007 Mark P. McCarty McCarty Engineering, Inc 320 W. Alturas Street Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: D04-0024 San Miguel High School Revised Development Plan Dear Mark: Your submittal of December 26, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (TIA, Zoning, Wastewater, Addressing, Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 579-3686 dp-resubmittal |
| 12/22/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed |