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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - CORE REVIEW
Permit Number - D09-0018
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - CORE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/30/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/10/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 6, 2009 To: PHILIP A CARHUFF KREBS CARHUFF Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: DESERT CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL (7525 E SPEEDWAY BLVD) Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D09-018 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 1: If no sewer is proposed then include the following general note: THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED. Sheet 1: If no sewer is proposed then eliminate General Notes #3 and #4. 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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. |
| 11/17/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D09-0018 DESERT CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/17/09 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: Spell out all street suffixes on Final 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. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 11/23/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please note on drwaings the following: a. The governing code for accessibility within the property boundaries is the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI) 117.1. b. The governing code for accessibility in the public right of way is COT DOT design standards of which all Details 207 are for ramps in the right of way only. c. That being said, on sheet 2, remove all reference to detail 207 for sidewalk and curb ramps within the property boundaries and reference ICC (ANSI) 117.1, Sections 405 and 406. Redesign all curb and sidewalk ramps as per this standard. d. Please provide large scale datails on all different types of curb and sidewalk ramps showing sizes, dimensions, slopes, detectable warnings and all code compliance requirements. 2. On sheets 2 and 3: At the south end of the marked crossing connecting buildings 6 and 7, the detectable warning strip needs to be located where noted on sheet 3, on the side walk just prior to entering the accessible parking aisle. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/25/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Desert Christian High School Development Plan (2nd Review) D09-0018 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 25, 2009 DUE DATE: December 02, 2009 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 May 07, 2010. 2. A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) must be approved prior to approval of the development plan. If the DSMR is approved provide the following information on the plan; DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What Was Approved, Conditions of Approval. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall, screen, or other obstruction, provided pedestrian activity is directed to another location. This said, the PAAL located directly adjacent to the north property is required to meet the 2'-0" setback to the property line. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I After a discussion with Staff it had been determined that the ADT for Prudence Road is over 140 but less that 1000. That said per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B The required street perimeter yard setback from the west face of Building #6 to Prudence Road is 21' or the height of the proposed exterior building wall measured, whichever is greatest, from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. If the setback does not meet the minimum 21' once the dimension is revised a Board of Adjustment for Variance must be approved prior to approval of the development plan. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide a setback dimension from Building #6 to the north property line. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Width Matrix, Perimeter Yard Indicator "CC" the required perimeter yard setback from Building #6 to the north property line is 20'-0', proposed setback is 18'-0". A Design Development Option (DDO) must be approved prior to approval of the development plan. 5. A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) must be approved prior to approval of the development plan. If the DSMR is approved provide the following information on the plan; DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What Was Approved, Conditions of Approval. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL and per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. This said, a five (5) pedestrian refuge and sidewalk are required between building #5 and the PAAL located to the north. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Based on the last approved plan there is a pedestrian circulation shown running north from Speedway Blvd to the existing buildings. Base on recent aerial photos this pedestrian circulation was not constructed per the approved plan or as shown on this development plan. 7. 7. This comment was not fully addressed. There are numerous structures, additions, etc not shown on the last approved plan that may require permits. Identify any structures that require permits. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N On the drawing, show the locations and footprints of all structures. Label the heights and dimensions. This said there are numerous structures, sheds, roll off, etc., not shown on the plan. All structures will be shown on the plan. Also provided copies of the plans that approved the location of these structures as it appears that some may not meet the required perimeter yard setbacks. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N There is a covered walkway on the north side of the existing gym not shown on the plan. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Detail 4 Sheet 5 does not show the proper location of the wheel stop. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 and 3-05.0 Figure 5 for correct configuration and revise the detail. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Detail 4 Sheet 5 provide a typical parking space depth dimension or provide dimensions on the site plan for the parking spaces. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P When the side(s) of a parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport, the required width for the space is ten (10) feet. That said provide width dimension for all parking spaces adjacent to the bollards along the north/south pedestrian circulation and the structure shown adjacent to the southern most parking space located west of Building #7. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Detail 6 Sheet 5 shows a dimension of 2'-6" from center of rack to center of rack. Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.A the 30" dimension is from outer spaces of the post, see 2-09.0 Figure 9 and revise the detail. 13. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D09-0016 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/02/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/02/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager SUBJECT: Desert Christian High School Development Plan Engineering Review ADDRESS: 7525 E. Speedway Blvd REVIEWERS: Elizabeth Leibold, Paul Machado DATE: December 2, 2009 LOCATION: T14S, R15E, Section 05 CASE NUMBER: D09-0018 SUMMARY: The revised development plan sheets were submitted for project closure review. Engineering Division recommends conditional approval pending City of Tucson PDSD Engineering Inspection. If you have questions, Paul can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov or Elizabeth can be reached by calling 837-4934. Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 12/08/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Sheet 5 detail 1 1. Fully dimension entire enclosure. 2. Additonal enclosure must provide a minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear container service area between the post barricades (bollards). DS 6-01.4.1.A 3. Dimension side wall bollard at 3 ft from front gates/CMU wall. Rear outside bollards at 2 ft from side wall and equally spaced to center bollard (4ft). 4. Bollards should be dimensioned at 1 ft from the inside face of the bollard to the inside face of the wall. 5. Move gate support to the face of the CMU wall. 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 |
| 12/09/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 9, 2009 Philip Carhuff Krebs Carhuff Architects 3149 E. Prince Road #151 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: D09-0018 Desert Christian High School Development Plan 3rd Submittal Dear Philip: Your submittal of May 7, 2009 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 set of 5 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, HC Site, Zoning, Env Svcs, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 577-4599 |