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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D04-0024
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/16/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/18/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Development Plan is denied June 18, 2004. The following corrections are required. 1. A minimum 20 foot wide, paved, fire apparatus access roadway must be provided and extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all buildings. An approved fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided for dead-end access roadways. 2. Add a General Note stating:" Additional fire hydrants shall be provided, by the developer, in accordance with the Tucson Fire Code.". |
| 06/18/2004 | 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: PIMA COUNTY SUBDIVISION COORDINATOR FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D04-0024 SAN MIGUEL HIGH SCHOOL / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: June 18, 2004 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: 1: Spell out the suffix for all street names on all sheets. 2: Complete the street name “San Fernando Road” on sheet C203. 3: Label “Medina Road” on sheet C206. 4: Correct Building letters to Building numbers on all sheets. |
| 06/24/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | As shown the second enclosure to the west cannot be serviced. When you approach and back away from the 14' x 40' clear area the parking lot planter is in conflict. Note: The first enclosure has a reverse problem if its angle is changed. Enclosures are to comply with the DS and have 10' clear between the bollards. |
| 06/25/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D04-0024 Mc CARTY ENGINEERING, INC. SAN MIGUEL HIGH SCHOOL |
| 06/25/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org D04-0024 San Miguel High School 6/17/2004 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Valencia (12th Ave to 6th Ave) No 0 37,200 63,000 6 63,000 40,685 6 684 Route 29, 30 Minutes, 0.25 Miles Programmed Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 06/29/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) REVISE NOTES RELATED TO THE LANDSCAPE BORDER REQUIREMENT ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE ON SHEETS L.1 AND L.3. SE-03-08 REQUIRES LANDSCAPING IN EXCESS OF THE TYPICAL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE BORDER. INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE S.E. AND B.O.A. CASES IN THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. 2) REVISE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO IDENTIFY THE DEPTH OF PROPOSED RETENTION BASINS AND WATER HARVESTING AREAS. IDENTIFY THE SLOPE RATIOS FOR THESE AREAS ALSO. BASINS WITH DEPTHS THREE FEET AND GREATER ARE TO BE NO STEEPER THAN 4:1. DS 10-01.4.3.1 3) PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TREES AND OTHER PLANT MATERIALS TO MEET THE LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES OF DS 10-01.4.3.2 FOR THE RETENTION AREAS BEHIND THE CALLLE LERDO LANDSCAPE BORDER. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 07/09/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: SAN MIGUEL HIGH SCHOOL D04-0024 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plans dated June 14, 2004. TEP is unable to approve the plans at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plans, the facilities and easement recording information must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map and the development plan showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact me at (520) 917-8479 if you have any questions. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Cell Phone/Pager: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 07/09/2004 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: San Miguel High School REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 9 July 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D04-0024 Resubmittals Required: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report with Geotechnical Report/recommendations. SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report. Approvals are not recommended at this time. Please provide a response letter to the comments provided below and address all comments on revised plans. DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Please include the telephone number of the organization/owner responsible for the operation, maintenance and liability of the onsite drainage improvements (section 10, page 12), per the Pima County/City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM), Section 2.3.1.2 E (Development Standard - DS 10-02.0). 2. Each significant concentration point, along with its 100-year peak discharge and contributing drainage area, shall be labeled on the (Development) plan (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.4 C 4). 3. Include dimensions and elevations of critical portions of all inflow and outflow structures to be employed on a detailed site plan, or preferably, on the Development Plan (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.6 A 4 (a) (DS - 10-02.0). 4. Clearly depict the location and size of access and maintenance access ramps/roadways for each basin (DS 2.3.1.6 A 4 (b). 5. Include certification the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State and Federal Floodplain Regulations (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.7 B). 6. Please include a copy of the geotechnical/soils report and recommendations with the resubmittal. The report must address at a minimum, soil classifications, erodibility, permeability and infiltration rates, slope stability and groundwater elevation. The report must also discuss minimum building setbacks, potential hydro-collapsibility of soils, and contain 30-foot boring log results (SMDDFM, Section 14.2.6). DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1. Clearly identify all sidewalk scuppers, with opening heights and dimensions noted. 2. Provide a note on the plan stating (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for the operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and retention/detention facilities at least once a year, and that these report 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 maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner(s) agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining said facilities, should the City find the owner(s) deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities, in accordance with the Pima County/City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) Section. 14.3.3 (DS 10-02.0). 3. Include the lines depicted on the plan indicating what appear to be onsite flow lines, grade breaks, and floodplain limits in the legend (DS 2-05.2.1 J). 4. Ensure recordation information for all easement and/or roadway abandonments, dedications or vacations are provided on the plan, and provide copies of legal descriptions with exhibits for such (DS 2-05.2.3 B& 2-05.2.4 E). 5. Ensure all dimensions from street monument lines to curb, sidewalk, and all utility locations are provided, fully labeled (DS 2-05.2.4 D 2). 6. Provide calculations, setbacks, etc. to show that each proposed phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity (DS 2-05.2.4 C - see also DS 2-05.2.4 D 4). 7. Please ensure all easements are clearly depicted, dimensioned and labeled, with recording information provided on the plan - see additional requirements outlined for these Development Standards (DS 2-05.2.3 B & D, 2-05.2.4 G). 8. Clearly depict and label all 100-year ponding limits, indicate proposed ground elevations at different points onsite to provide reference for future grading and site drainage, and depict locations and types of on-site runoff discharge points (DS 2-05.2.4 H 1, 4 &7 - see drainage report comment # 2, above). 9. Depict, label and dimension all loading zones (DS 2-05.2.4 O). 10. Provide a detail for all onsite refuse provisions. The plan must include enclosure details, and depict vehicular accessibility/maneuverability for each dumpster location at a minimum, in accordance with Development Standard 6-01.0 (DS 2-05.2.4 T). 11. The proposed westerly dumpster location (west of building H) does not meet vehicular accessibility requirements per Development Standard 6-01.0 (14' by 40' clear approach, specifically). Revise as necessary. 12. Address sidewalk scuppers for conveyance of the 10-year rainfall event at a minimum, under all sidewalk areas onsite and in the right of way, in addition to all applicable roof downspout locations (DS 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F). 13. Keynotes 7 and 11 on sheet 3, reference detail 3 on the same sheet, yet this detail does not appear to be provided. Please revise the plan as necessary, and check all keynotes for similar omissions/inaccuracies. 14. Depict and label a curb access ramp at the northeastern corner of the site at the sidewalk terminus with the 12' alley (sheet 4). 15. Identify and label what appear to be rock pathway delineations, south of the existing rectory building on sheet 6. Indicate if existing and to be demolished, where applicable, if so. 16. Provide details/notes for roof drainage tie-ins to the proposed trench drains at all locations. 17. Identify and label the proposed wall along the northern property boundary. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Submit a revised landscape plan reflecting all Landscape Review Section comments and applicable Development Plan revisions made in response to all review comments provided for this submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS: *Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. *A right of way permit will be required for any work in the public right of way. Contact Tucson Department of Transportation - Permits and Codes Section at 791-5100 for questions/inquiries. *A grading permit will be required for this development. A grading permit application submittal with a copy of the stamped/approved Development Plan and three sets of Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans will be required prior to any building permit issuance. Resubmittal shall require revised Development and Landscape Plans, a revised Drainage Report, and a geotechnical report/recommendations with percolation test results. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us. Doug Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 07/12/2004 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 12, 2004 TO: Mark McCarty, McCarty Engineering THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: San Miguel High School - Submittal D04-0024 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Santa Cruz Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D04-0024, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET C201. Include the number of proposed fixture units in the General Notes. SHEET C201. Include the following General Note SHEET C201. Include the following permitting note SHEET C204. Show the manhole number, rim elevation and invert elevation at the point where the new private sewer connects to the existing manhole. SHEET C206. This sheet shows existing sewer which is not connecting anywhere. Please revise and show where it connects to. If any existing sewers on this or any other sheets are to be abandoned, please show it on the layout. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER ) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 07/12/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D04-0024 San Miguel High School 07/09/04 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: SE-03-28 & C10-04-18 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: 12th Avenue-Valencia Rd Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: July 13, 2004 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 () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: July 9, 2004 Urban Planning and Design Comments D04-0024 San Miguel High School July 9, 2004 Page2. The following are comments from Urban Planning and Design: 1. Please provide a letter from the Tucson Airport Authority (TIA), for compliance with Special Exception (SE) SE-03-28 condition # 2. Please provide an elevation of the seven foot tall tubular steel fence to be located along the eastern perimeter. Please provide a letter to comply with Special Exception condition # 10, which requires documentation of an agreement regarding the design of the fence along the eastern edge, between the residential neighbors and the owners/developer of the school. The agreement shall be dated no earlier than 30 days prior to the submittal of the development plan to the City of Tucson. Please provide, to scale, color renderings of all building elevations for compliance with Special Exception condition # 12, which requires all buildings to be earth tone in color and requires for all buildings to be a maximum height of 20 feet, except for the multi-purpose/gymnasium building. The multi-purpose/gymnasium building is allowed to be a maximum of 30 feet in height. 5. Please correct development plan, sheet C204, development keynotes. # 46 (repeated). |
| 07/12/2004 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 12, 2004 TO: Mark McCarty, McCarty Engineering THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: San Miguel High School - Submittal D04-0024 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Santa Cruz Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D04-0024, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET C201. Include the number of proposed fixture units in the General Notes. SHEET C201. Include the following General Note ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORGINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED). SHEET C201. Include the following permitting note A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. SHEET C204. Show the manhole number, rim elevation and invert elevation at the point where the new private sewer connects to the existing manhole. SHEET C206. This sheet shows existing sewer which is not connecting anywhere. Please revise and show where it connects to. If any existing sewers on this or any other sheets are to be abandoned, please show it on the layout. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER ) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 07/14/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 07/15/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 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 June 15, 2005. 2. List the name, address, and telephone number of the developer of the project. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1) 3. This project has been assigned development plan case number D04-0024. Place the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2) 4. Provide a copy of the Board of Adjustment Variance decision letter along with a copy of the site plan submitted to the board. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.6) 5. Add the following general note: "This project is designed to meet the Airports Environs Zone (AEZ) criteria." (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10) 6. As a general note provide the mean sea level elevation of the subject property. In addition, add the following information to that note: a) mean sea level elevation at the NW end of runway 11L at Tucson International Airport is EL 2575 feet M.S.L. b) Per AHD 140' maximum height in feet above elevation at end of runway. (LUC 2.8.5.7) 7. All proposed easements and those, which are proposed for abandonment, must be recorded and the docket and page noted on the plan prior to final approval of the development plan. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G) 8. Per Pima County Assessors Records and general note six (6), the site is comprised of four (4) lots, which must be combined by providing a copy of the recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant and a copy of the approved Pima County Assessors Tax Combination form. You may obtain a copy of the covenant online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Lot_Combo_Declaration.pdf or you may contact me at the number below. The Pima County Assessors Tax Combination Form may be obtained at the Assessors office. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.A) Revise general note six (6) as required. 9. To verify pedestrian circulation requirements please hatch (concrete paving symbol/s) all concrete sidewalks on-site. This will help differentiate the concrete sidewalk area from any open areas or vehicular use areas. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K) (D.S. 2-08) 10. The GFA listed under general note four (4) 74,234 SF. does not match the GFA listed under site plan calculation four (4) and the total GFA listed under the building areas block on sheet C201 70,414 SF. Please explain the difference or revise all applicable notes and calculations as required. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.M) 11. Under site plan notes and calculations #2, correct the proposed F.A.R. percentage. Based on GFA 70,414, it should be .197. 12. Under site plan notes and calculations #3, correct the proposed lot coverage percentage. Based on G.F.A. 70,414, it should be .414. 13. Developing area setback criteria applies to all street perimeter yards. You may not use both established and developing; the site is either one or the other developing or established. Revise the west side street perimeter yard setback noted under site plan notes and calculations #5. 14. On the plan, show the location of all overhangs and canopies, patio/porch covers, including size and height. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.N) 15. Under the bicycle parking calculation, 400 students and 50 employees are listed while special exception condition #6 states a maximum of 300 students. Revise calculation as required and add a general note which states the proposed number of students. 16. Dimension back-up spur located in C-8 area of sheet C205. Refer to D.S. 3-05.2.2.D for design criteria. 17. Revise the fine on the handicap parking sign to $518 dollars. 18. The required number of drop off parking spaces may not be verified for compliance until the proposed number of students has been noted. The plan currently provides for five (5) drop off parking spaces. (LUC 3.5.3.7.G) 19. A minimum of one (1) drop off parking space must be handicap accessible. Accessible passenger loading zones shall comply with ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998 Section 503. 20. Keynote six (6) in the vicinity of area D6 on sheet C203 is incorrectly pointing to the bus drop off area. 21. Provide height of the existing screen wall as described by keynote 45. 22. If existing rectory building is a single-family residence only, it may have a gravel driveway as described by keynote 37 sheet C206. If the rectory is used for more than one dwelling or any other use the driveway must be paved. Indicate by note the use/number of dwelling/s of the rectory building on the plan. 23. Provide a fully dimensioned detail of proposed freestanding lighting to verify compliance with special exception condition #8. 24. Provide a response letter, which details how each special exception condition has been addressed. If applicable, provide necessary documentation, details, or drawings to demonstrate compliance. 25. Correct typo "TH" in special exception condition numbers nine (9) and "TO" under condition number 10. 26. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 07/16/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 16, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D04-0024 San Miguel High School: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/19/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/19/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |