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 - D08-0006
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/19/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 15, 2008 To: Steve Corrales Steve Corrales Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: Academy of Math and Science Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-006 The proposed sewer collection lines 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facilty via the South Central Interceptor. Per written guidance provided by the PCWMD Development Services Section, sufficient conveyance and treatment capacity exists in the downstream public sewerage system for this small project, and a formal capacity response letter from the PCWMD will not be required for this small project. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, D08-006, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #8 to read as follows: Add a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. Sheet 1: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different line types in the legend on Sheet 1. Also distinguish between existing and proposed sewer line in the Legend and on Sheet 2. Sheet 2: Show the public sewer line running along the west side of the property and the corresponding public sewer easement with recordation information. Also show the public sewer easement on the east side of property w/recordation information. Sheet 2: Show the IMS#’s with rim and invert elevations for all of the existing public manholes shown on plan. Also show the construction plan# with pipe size for the existing public sewer lines on plan. Sheet 2: For the proposed private sewer include the following: length and slope of pipe/rim and invert elevations for cleanouts. This office 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 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 $100.00 (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 have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 02/25/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 02/26/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/27/2008 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | To Whom it May Concern: The attached PDF contains the estimated trip generation information for the project D08-0006 Summary: CASE: D08-0006 COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 139 PM Peak: 23 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Sandy Sandra C. Holland Senior Statistical/ Research Analyst Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405 Tucson AZ 85701 Tel: 520 792 1093 X462 Fax: 520 620 6981 |
| 03/04/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#194090 March 3, 2008 Krebs Carhuff Architect Attn: Phil Carhuff 3149 E Prince Rd #151 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Dear Phil Carhuff: SUBJECT: Academy of Math and Science D08-0006 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted February 21, 2008. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. **Identify all existing TEP facilities within the mapped area of the development including but not limited to overhead and underground electric lines, utility poles, and pad mounted equipment. Specify there are underground lines from poles #24 & #221 which are not identified. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Steve Garcia at 917-8739 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: City of Tucson, Email S. Garcia, Tucson Electric Power |
| 03/05/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/10/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D08-0006 ACADEMY OF MATH AND SCIENCE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 3/07/08 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: Approved with the following condition: 1.) Label Lerdo Road on Sheet 1 of approved Development Plan. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. es |
| 03/11/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC Development Plan case number (D08-006) along with the rezoning case number (C9-72-57) and any other related case numbers to all sheets of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Site/Grading Plan. 2. Indicate with the use of the legend symbol and/or a note the treatment of adjacent right-of-way (within the area surrounding the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the curb) with appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite as required by LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 and DS 2-06.5.2.C 3. A 10-foot wide interior landscape border is required as a buffer and visual transition along the east property line where the site abuts residentially zoned property per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. In addition, because the use falls under the classification of "All other uses" (Educational Use Group) a 10-foot wide interior landscape border and 5-foot high screen is required along the west and north property lines adjacent to commercially zoned properties. Revise plan to meet code requirement. 4. Because the keynote list is not provided on sheet L-1, revise keynote 15 to specifically call out (with a label) the required screen wall along the east property line. LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 5. Because the proposed educational use falls under the classification of "All other uses" in LUC Table 3.7.2-I, it requires a 5-foot high screen on the development side of the street landscape border along the local public street (Lerdo Road) as well as along the property line abutting the adjacent commercially zoned property to the north and west. |
| 03/12/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: March 12, 2008 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Acad. of Math and Science, 435 W. Valencia Rd. Development Plan D08-0006 (First Review) T15S, R13E, Section 13 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. Wheel chair ramps are required at both ends of the striped sidewalk crossing the P.A.A.L. 3. Discuss how the storm water be retained once the future building has been constructed and ret./det. basin is has been built over. The 5-year retention will still need to be accounted for and any increase the additional impervious area the building creates. 4. Add additional spot elevations for the sidewalk areas, it is difficult to ascertain whether the sidewalks are flush with the pavement or not. Especially by the loading zone. 5. Call out the sidewalk scupper near the loading zone, if applicable. 6. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 7. Fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. Straighten out the refuse enclosure so that the service vehicle can approach and reverse in a strait line. The angled approach to and reverse from the refuse enclosure only creates an undesirable blind spot for the driver. It also appears that there is sufficient space to achieve the new location. 8. Explain why the refuse enclosure is clouded on the adjacent property to the north. 9. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 10. All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page per D.S. 2-02.2.1.20. A pedestrian easement will be required for any portion of the sidewalk that encroaches onto the property. 11. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DP. 12. Include a detail and x-seciton of the ret./det. basin with dimensions on the DP. 13. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 14. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. List contour interval underneath the scale by the north arrow. 15. Because of the amount of the traffic in a peak period (opening and closing of school), curb returns with a min. 18' radius will be required at both the entrance and exit. 16. Show Development plan number (D08-0006) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 17. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Call out the Development Standard detail no. on the detail on sht. 3. 18. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 19. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 20. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 21. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information. 22. "A grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 2 sets of the grading plan and SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Developement plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. This review was performed for Development plan purposes only. 3. Discuss how the storm water be retained once the future building has been constructed and ret./det. basin is has been built over. The 5-year retention will still need to be accounted for and any increase the additional impervious area the building creates. 4. Include a detail and x-secitons of the ret./det. basin with dimensions in the DR. 5. Add the basin(s) maintenance checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C to the DR. 6. Addendums to any Drainage Reports and Hydrology Reports etc. are not accecpted. The new imformation or revisions must be incorporated into the approved Drainage Report. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/435 W. Valencia Rd CDRC |
| 03/14/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC – Community Design Review Committee CASE NUMBER: D08-0006 CASE NAME: Academy of Math and Science, DP Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 3/17/08 COMMENTS SENT: 3/13/08 Items reviewed: Development Plan Landscape Plan Related: annexation - N/A rezoning - C9-72-57 CDRC – N/A Adopted land use plan(s) – 12th Avenue/Valencia Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: APPROVED – No Resubmittal Required. No comments. Reviewed By: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 3/13/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0006_Acadamy_Math_Science.doc |
| 03/14/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 2 DP, Collection vehicle requires a minimum turning radii of 36 ft inside and 50 ft outside for maneuevring safely onto, within, and from the development. Currently not provided as shown. DS 6-01.0 Figure 1. DS 6-01.3.1.A Identify collection vehicle circulation. 2. Require a minimum 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach in front of refuse/recycle enclosure area to allow the collection vehicle the ability to position itself perpendicular to enclosure. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 3. Sheet 3, enclosure detail must include ability to secure gates in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Show and annotate within detail. Recommend: "Positive locking and (Bayonet) anchors, Qty-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation. 4. Recommend gates be designed to open 180 degrees. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/14/2008 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 03/14/2008 12:36 PM >>> No comment |
| 03/17/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: Academy of Math & Science, 435 W. Valencia Road New Secondary School Development Plan, 1st Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 14, 2008 DUE DATE: March 17, 2008 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 February 14, 2009. 2. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI), Tucson City Code 20-222 and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). Specifically, this project was reviewed for development plan content outlined in DS 2-05. 3. Per DS 2-05.2.1.K, please provide the rezoning case number, listed in the lower right corner - C9-72-57. 4. Per DS 2-05.2.2.A.1, provide the names, addresses and phone numbers of the developer and owner. 5. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.2., list the (remaining applicable) conditions of rezoning case C9-72-57 on the plan. 6. The legal description for the parcel and the Pima County Assessor's website indicates this parcel is the result of a lot split. Please provide documentation that the city approved the lot split and configuration. In addition, the plan shows an "old property line" and a "new property line at the north side of the site. Neither matches the Assessor's information. If you are proposing a lot line reconfiguration, you must present information to staff at the zoning review and engineering review counter to determine what method will be required for the actual split/reconfiguration of lot lines. Staff reviewed the plan with the idea that the "new lot line" position at the north will be the actual lot line in the final outcome and that the calculations provided reflect that. If the lot split/reconfiguration is done before the plan is approved, the "old lot line" and all items north of that line should be removed. 7. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, please show any easements graphically on the plan, with recordation information noted. 8. Per DS 2-05.2.4.C, it appears that there are future building and parking "areas" shown on the plan -but without details. Either show the development that is proposed fully on the plan, with calculations dimensions etc. and identify it as phased, OR please altogether remove the reference to prevent confusion. 9. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D, regarding traffic circulation: A) Per LUC 3.3.4 and LUC 3.5.3.7.G, two lanes are needed for the passenger drop off. One lane - the "inside" lane, is designed strictly as parallel parking spaces, the "outside" lane is to have striping and labeled as "drop off only" for pedestrian drop off. Both lanes are to be 8' wide. On the plan, only the inside parking lane is provided. Please re-design. In addition please add handicapped ramps and truncated domes in at least two spots for the children to safely access the sidewalk from the passenger drop off lane. 10. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I, regarding building setbacks: A) on sheet 1, please LIST the minimum required building setbacks to all adjacent zones B) on sheet 2, please dimension the building setback provided from the street front lot line 11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I, regarding pedestrian circulation: A) provide a ramp and truncated domes on both the east and west side of the parking lot, where transitioning from the sidewalk to the crosswalk heading north to the building. B) provide the dimension of the sidewalks around the loading zone C) clarify what the diagonally striped area is on the plan between the sidewalk and the building walls - a large concrete patio? A roofed porch? D) Per DS 2-08, provide a minimum 4' clear sidewalk area on the west side of the building - between the bike parking spaces and the building. E) The bike parking appears to be blocking the sidewalk area. Per DS 2-09.3.2, the bike parking must be separate from the required walkway. F) per DS 2-08.3.1, a pedestrian route is required to the dumpster. Provide a pedestrian gate to the side of the dumpster enclosure - at 4'width. 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, please ensure the building height is measured from GRADE to either flat roof with a noted parapet height, or from grade to midpoint of pitch of ridge, and top of ridge. Provide as note. 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, regarding parking: A) correct the provided parking calculation to reflect the number of required parking as 23 spaces B) correct the provided parking calculation to reflect the total number of provided parking spaces as 31 (the handicapped parking and spaces on the east end were forgotten) C) Per DS 3-05.2.2.D, please dimension the back up spurs on both sides of the parking lot, and provide a 3' separation between the end of the back up spur and the property line. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, and 2-09.4.1, class 2 bike parking must be provided within 50' of the main entry to the building. Please call out the entry and relocate the bike parking as applicable. 15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.R, please provide sight visibility triangles. 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.U, please list applicable conditions of rezoning case C9-72-57 on sheet 1. Note that staff understands the following conditions are applicable on the report: Conditions: A, C, D4, E, F. In addition to listing the actual conditions, please provide a response letter (separate from the regular response to zoning review comments) indicating how the conditions of rezoning have been met. 17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V, please indicate type of postal service and location. 18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, please identify any free standing signage - and lighting - with heights and base widths. 19. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. I may be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0006 Math & Science.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan. |
| 03/17/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/18/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 03/18/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 18, 2008 Phil Carhuff Krebs Carhuff Architect 3149 East Prince Road, #151 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: D08-0006 Academy of Math and Science Development Plan Dear Phil: Your submittal of February 15, 2008 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 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, TEP, Landscape, Engineering, ESD, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies City of Tucson Approved Lot Split Documents (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 577-4599 dp-resubmittal |
| 03/18/2008 | 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 D08-0006 Academy of Math and Science () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-72-57 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: 12th/Valencia Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: March 17, 2008 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: (*) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (*) Development Plan (*) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: March 10, 2008 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments D08-0006, Academy of Math and Science: Development Plan March 10, 2008 Staff offers the following comments: 1. The site is not effected by current area plan policies. A portion of the site is effected by rezoning case C9-72-57. The applicant has not included the approved rezoning conditions of case C9-72-57. Therefore the applicant is required to include all rezoning conditions of C9-72-57, verbitem as approved by Mayor and Council, as a new general note. (*) DUPD staff does not require a follow up review, unless the proposed site design is in conflict with approved rezoning conditions and requires site design revisions. |