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 - D08-0035
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/29/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/06/2008 | 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. |
| 08/07/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/07/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/11/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 11, 2008 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0035 PROJECT NAME: Academy of Tucson PROJECT ADDRESS: 9209 E Wrightstown Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. TDOT-Traffic accepts the submitted Traffic Statement but does not accept the existing access drive on the development plan due to the following items. - The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) - Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 states that the maximum driveway width for adjoining properties is 30' (residential/business district) - The COT Transportation Access Management Guidelines 5.4 requires a minimum driveway separation of 80' along any major-street and route such as Wrightstown Rd. A meeting is warranted to re-evaluate this access drive and discuss potential alternatives to the existing drive. 2. 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/12/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC development plan case number (D08-0035) along with any other related case numbers to the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan and native plant preservation plan. 2. Landscaping requirements apply to expansion of existing development as follows: On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B. Due to the greater than 25% expansion of building area this is a full LUC compliance review. 3. All vehicular use areas, existing and proposed, must meet LUC code for required number of canopy trees. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a 4. Dimension the minimum width and label the square footage measured from the inside of tree planters in the vehicle use area. An unpaved area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e 5. Per LUC 3.7.2.4.B.3, where motor vehicle parking spaces or parking area access lanes (PAALs) are located next to the property line or where the interior landscape border conflicts with a utility easement, an interior landscape border is not required if: a. An equivalent number of trees are planted elsewhere on the site between the building(s) and the property line. When the use on the site does not include buildings, the required canopy trees must be located between the principal use and the property line; b. The trees are evenly distributed over the site; and c. The minimum planting area required in Sec. 3.7.2.3.A.1.c is provided for each canopy tree. Detail required interior landscape border or equivalent number of required trees between the buildings and the residentially zoned property to the west of the existing development. 6. The project is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Resource Overlay Zone (ERZ), LUC 2.8.6. An overlay zone application is required for this project. In order to review the site plan, all existing and proposed structures and vehicle use area must be shown on the plan, along with required calculations, building setbacks, heights, dimensions, etc. Applications for projects within the ERZ shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlen, Zoning Manager for application information. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.6. Upon approval of the overlay zone application, add the ERZ case number, date of approval and conditions imposed as a general note on the site plan, and add the case number in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the site, grading, landscape and NPPO plans. LUC 2.8.6.2.C DS 2-02 7. Submittal material will include an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) as established in Development Standard 9-06.0 and in conformance with Development Standard 2-15.3.5. This Report presents a study of the resource corridor and documents locations of the resource corridor and critical riparian habitat. If preservation of the critical riparian habitat cannot be accomplished as provided in these regulations, the submittal will include a mitigation plan as required in Sec. 2.8.6.5.D. Permits for grubbing, grading, construction, or any other improvements will not be issued until all applicable requirements of Sec. 2.8.6.5 and Sec. 2.8.6.6 are met. DS 2-05.2.4.Y 8. Detail required screening on the landscape plan. Label the location, height, and materials on the plan drawing. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 9. Revise plans to demonstrate compliance with Section 2, Paragraph 4 of Annexation Ordinance #6089 as amended by Mayor & Council in Oridinance 7269 regarding minimum building setbacks of 100 feet and maximum building heights allowed of 18 feet. DS 2-05.2.4.U 10. Demonstrate compliance with Section 2, Condition 4.H., 4.L, 4.M, 4.O and 4.P of Ordinance #6090 (Annexation Ordinance #5962) regarding pedestrian and equestrian easement dedication along the Tanque Verde Creek, floodway easement dedication along the Tanque Verde Creek, floodway use restrictions, notification of homeowner's association regarding review of the development plan/proposal, and the requirement for a 5-foot masonry wall between the project site and adjacent residential uses. DS 2-05.2.4.U |
| 08/12/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 08/13/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D08-0035 Academy of Tucson Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/13/2008 DUE DATE: 08/26/08 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 07/28/09. 2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 List the existing use, in general note #2, as "Elementary and Secondary Schools "28", subject to: Sec. 3.5.3.7 and Sec. 3.5.13.5 " 3. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Case number D08-0035 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.6 The last approved development plan included a board of adjustment variance case number C10-97-59. Provide on the plan the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and conditions of approval. 5. The proposed building expansion for this site is greater than 25% of the existing building area. Per LUC 3.3.3.12.B If an expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if a series of expansions cumulatively results in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site. This will include compliance with the LUC and Development Standards for the entire site. Per LUC Sec. 3.5.3.7.D Outdoor Activity. All outdoor activity shall be held more than fifty (50) feet away from the property line where adjacent to R-3 or more restrictive zoning. The indicated track is within the 50' requirement along the west (R-2) and north (SR) property line. The track will be required to be relocated to comply or an application through the special exception process will be required to be completed and approved to allow outdoor activity in this area. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 For clarity purposes remove the existing parking lot layout from the plans. It appears the layer for the original plan was not turned off before printing. Provide the width of all PAALs including the existing portion of the site, near the area at the drop off zone, also indicate width of access aisle for drop off zone. The dimensioned width of the PAALs at the north parking spaces does not line up with the end of the parking spaces. Clarify. The back up spur indicated at the parking spaces located at the northwest potion of the property is required to have a minimum 3' radius with a clear 3' area located behind the backup spur. Provide dimensioned detail of the backup spur. Clearly indicate all curbing along the PAALs for the existing portion of the site. Required to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. Clearly indicate curbing or barrier at the north end of the loading zones. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.G Provide recordation information (docket and page) for the proposed water easement indicated on the plan and in keynote #41. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.K Please dimension all sidewalks within site. Minimum width for sidewalks is four (4) feet and meets all requirements per Development Standard 2-08.5.1. DS 2-08.5.1. Per DS 2-08.3.1 Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. There appears to be openings in the proposed multipurpose building along the west and north sides of the building.. A pedestrian circulation path (sidewalk) must connect to these openings. Provide a pedestrian circulation path to the trash enclosure. The drop off area located near the southwest corner of the proposed building (keynote #8) is required to have an access aisle or, per a determination by the zoning administrator, a 6' wide side walk adjacent to the parking spaces can be used as the access aisle. Clearly dimension the access aisle or the sidewalk for this area. 9. DS 2-05.2.4..N Provide the dimensions of the foot print of all proposed structures as well as the height of the proposed structures on the site plan. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.O Provide in the general site information portion of sheet 1 of 5 the number of required and provided loading zones. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.P Clarify the dimensions of the parking spaces located south of the proposed building. 16.5' parking spaces facing each other, how wide is the area between? These are standard parking spaces, how do these match the standard parking space detail? In the general site information portion of sheet 1 of 5 the number of passenger drop-off spaces required is 8 as indicated. Revise note to also indicate the number of provided drop-off spaces (13). 12. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Per LUC 3.3.4 the number of required bicycle parking spaces is based on the total number of students and employees. Calculations have been provided based on students only. Revise. On the detail for the class two bicycle parking spaces clearly indicate the required 5' access aisle. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not 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 (DS2-09.3.2). 13. DS 2-05.2.4.V Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. 14. DS 2-05.2.4.W If applicable, indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0035dp.doc |
| 08/13/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 13 AUGUST 2008 D08-035/ACADEMY OF TUCSON, MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET 1 of 5 A. NOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY. B. IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND ALL FACILITIES AS 20066 IBC, SECTION 1104 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 402. II. SHEET 2 of 5: A. DETAIL 2: SHOW 2' AND 4' DIMENSIONAL WIDTHS FOR DETECTABLE WARNING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTE B. DETAIL 14: 1. SHOW 4' DIMENSIONAL WIDTHS FOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT TOP OF RAMP 2. ALL RAMP FLARED SIDES TO BE MIN 1:10 SLOPE, REFERENCE ICC 117.1, FIGURE 406.3. III. SHEET 3 of 5: A. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO BUILDING ENTRANCE AND EXIT AND ALL FACILITIES AS PER 2066 IBC, SECTION 1104 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 402. 1. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 403.3 BY INDICATION SLOPES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. B. KEYED NOTES: 1. NOTE 8: PROVIDE A 5' X 20' MIN UNLOADING AISLE AS PER 1CC 117.1, SECTION 503.3 2. NOTE 33: REFERENCED DETAIL IS A GENERIC DETAIL. PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF ACTUAL LAYOUT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET WITH ALL REQUIRED DIMENSIONS, SLOPES, RAMPS, SIGNS AND AISLES. C. OF THE FOUR RAMPS SHOWN, ONLY ONE IS DETAILED AS PER DETAIL 9/2. PROVIDE EXACT LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF THE OTHER THREE SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1010 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406. D. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF ALL TYPES OF GROUPED PARKING SHOWING ACCESS TO ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, ALL SLOPES REQUIRED, RAMPS AND DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS REQUIRED AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 502. E. PASSENGER LOADING SPACES NEED A SIDE AISLE AS PER 1CC 117.1, SECTION 503.3. F. TWO MARKED CROSSINGS ARE NOT SHOWN. PROVIDE MARKED CROSSINGS AS REQUIRED. G. PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF ACCESSIBLE RAMP TO MAIN ENTRANCE OF NEW BUILDING IV. SHEET 4 of 5: A. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO BUILDING ENTRANCE AND EXIT AND ALL FACILITIES AS PER 2066 IBC, SECTION 1104 AND ICC 117.1, SECTION 402. 1. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 403.3 BY INDICATING SLOPES THROUGHOUT ENTIRE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/14/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 13, 2008 To: KENT A. DELPH GRENIER ENGINEERING, INC. 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 TUCSON - WRIGHTSTOWN Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-035 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 Ina Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Tanque Verde Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 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: Add a General Note that states: ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED). 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: Add a General Note that states: THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 3: Show existing public manhole 8679-15 with rim and invert elevations and connect to this manhole which is located just outside the property line instead of 6924-02. 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. |
| 08/21/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/21/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Academy of Tucson D08-0035, T14S, R15E, SECTION 03 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan on July 29, 2008 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows all proposed drainage information, including dimensions and construction information. The exhibit shall provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage and surface flow arrows, inlets and outlets, maintenance access ramps, sidewalk scuppers, Tanque Verde Creek HEC RAS cross section locations and water surface elevations to verify the proposed finished floor elevation, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. This information shall be used for providing the proposed drainage scheme on the Development Plan and Grading Plan. 2. Provide the selected number of sidewalk scuppers in the scupper calculation section. 3. Address water harvesting requirements in the report and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 4. Drainage Report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. Provide erosion control pads wherever required and provide the design calculations in the Drainage Report. 5. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-08.4.1.E. and D.S. 2-08.5.1.E. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage on the drainage exhibits. 6. It is not clear if the Tanque Verde Creek 100-year Floodplain limits reflect the exact the limits shown on the FIRM or modified limits after the proposed building encroachment. Explain. 7. Show the Tanque Verde top of bank from where the erosion hazard set back was drawn. 8. A floodplain use permit is required for the encroachment on the Tanque Verde 100-year floodplain. Submit a floodplain use permit application with the grading plan or prior to construction of the proposed building. Development Plan: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. It appears that Key Note #18 should be referencing Detail 3/2 instead of Detail 7/2. Revise as necessary. 3. The proposed 15' water easement dedication shall be processed and the recordation information shall be provided on the Development Plan (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). 4. Provide the tie between one of the parcel corners to the basis of bearing (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A). 5. Provide clearly the existing ground elevations as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. 6. It is not clear if the Tanque Verde Creek 100-year Floodplain limits reflect the exact the limits shown on the FIRM or modified limits after the proposed building encroachment (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I. and D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6.). Explain. 7. Provide water harvesting areas and demonstrate how the drainage will be conveyed from the building roof and paved areas to the proposed water harvesting areas to maximize water harvesting (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 8. Show all proposed drainage structures including the number of proposed sidewalk scuppers, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). 9. Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points to provide reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.4). 10. Provide the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of 100 cfs or more (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6). 11. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 12. Show the Tanque Verde top of bank from where the erosion hazard set back was drawn (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.). 13. Show all applicable sight visibility triangles (D.S. 2-05.2.4.R.). 14. According to D.S. 2-08.4.1.E. and D.S. 2-08.5.1.E.. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage proposed sidewalk scuppers where applicable. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Show the roof drainage direction and revise the Development Plan accordingly. 15. The project is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Resource Overlay Zone (ERZ), LUC 2.8.6. Submittal of an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) is required (D.S. 9-06.0. and D.S. 2-15.3.5.). 16. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 17. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 18. Additional information and details might be required with the Grading Plan and the PIA plans Landscape Plan: 1. Demonstrate compliance with water harvesting requirements. 2. Show the sight visibility triangle and demonstrate that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the sight visibility triangles. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 08/22/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#200678 August 22, 2008 Dear Mr. Delph : SUBJECT: The Academy of Tucson D08-0035 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 1, 2008. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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 Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc:N. DiMaria |
| 08/25/2008 | CDRC1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D08-0035, Academy of Tucson: Development Plan COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 1,401 PM Peak: 96 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 08/26/2008 | 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 D08-0035 Academy of Tucson ( ) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Ord. #6089, adopted 9/10/84 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Wrightstown Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/26/08 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 (ü) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (ü) No Resubmittal Required ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 8/21/08 |
| 08/27/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0035 ACADEMY OF TUCSON/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 8/26/08 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: Label buildings for project number numerically starting with “Bldg 8” for a total of 9 buildings. (sheets 1, 3, 4 & 5). Delete all parcel numbers from all applicable sheets. Change Tanque Verde Creek to Tanque Verde Wash on all applicable sheets. Label project number on all sheets. Delete Hidden Hills Wash from Location Map. Shade and label surrounding subdivision information (Bk, Pg and name) on all applicable sheets. Shade in lot numbers for surrounding subdivisions on all applicable sheets. es |
| 08/28/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 28, 2008 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D08-0035 The Academy of Tucson: Development Plan(7-29-08) Staff has no comments. |
| 08/28/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 09/03/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 2, Enclosure detail - Key note 5, move 8" bollard to face of CMU wall to serve as gate post and position post and gates so provide a minimum 12 ft gate opening. 2. Enclosure width dimensions are not accurate. Correct as follows: 14 ft to 13 ft 4 in.; 7 ft to 6 ft 8 in.; 12 ft 8 in to 12 ft 3. Sheet 3 DP - Provide a 3 ft minimum clear area on one side or 1.5 ft on eaither side of collection vehicle/turning radius so not in conflict with vertical curb, parking stalls, or any other structure. 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 |
| 09/08/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 8, 2008 Kent A. Delph, P.E. Grenier Engineering, Inc. 5517 East 5th Street Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D08-0035 The Academy of Tucson Development Plan Dear Kent: Your submittal of July 29, 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 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Traffic, Landscape, ADA, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, Addressing, ESD, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, 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: 326-7508 dp-resubmittal |