Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0038
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 01/06/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> Douglas Kratina <DKratina@azdot.gov> 01/05/2010 2:29 PM >>> Regional Traffic. No objections or adverse comments from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The development will not affect any ADOT facilities, and recommends approval from the City. 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. 2009 |
| 01/07/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 7, 2010 Erin Loudermilk Star Consulting 5405 E. Placita Hayuco Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: D09-0038 Mission Rose Academy Development Plan Dear Erin: Your submittal of November 25, 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 9 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Engineering, Addressing, HC Site, Landscape, Zoning, Parks & Rec, Env Svcs, PDSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, 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) 529-1240 |
| 11/25/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/25/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 11/30/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned/operated property |
| 11/30/2009 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/09/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#219091 December 4, 2009 Star Consulting Attn: Erin Loudermilk 5405 E Placita Hayuco Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Erin : SUBJECT: Mission Roase Academy D09-0038 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November 30, 2009. 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. Any 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Mr. ricahrd Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 12/09/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | December 4, 2009 To: ERIN LOUDERMILK STAR CONSULTING, INC. 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: MISSION ROSE ACADEMY Dev. Plan – 1st Submittal D09-038 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. 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 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 symbols in the Legend for proposed and existing sewer and distinguish between private and public. Sheet 2: Show the public sewer easement over the existing public sewer running along the NE property line. Sheet 2: Call out the IMS # with rim and invert elevations for the manhole downstream of MH# 4221-01. Sheet 2: Dedicate the entire PAAL area to PCRWRD for access and maintenance of the existing public sewer on site. Remove the proposed vertical curb shown across the PAAL southwest of the school so that the maintenance trucks will be able to circle the entire school. Also show an access easement on the private driveway connecting the site to Irvington Rd. Sheet 2: Indicate the construction plan # for the existing public sewer on site. Sheet 2: The proposed wall can not be constructed inside the public sewer easement running along the northeast side of the property. 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. |
| 12/09/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/09/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Mission Rose Academy D09-0038, T15S, R13E, SECTION 03 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on July 16, 2009 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. State in the text that the parcel is located within a balanced basin. 2. Runoff detention is required within a balanced basin; however, in order to eliminate detention ponding within the parking lot and near the proposed building, investigate the possibility of waiving the detention basin based on Criteria #1, described in Section 2.3 of the Detention/Retention Manual. Site runoff can be discharged in a sheet flow pattern that does not encroach on the 50' study area. 3. Since the main purpose of retention is water recharge, and due to the proximity of this project to the West Branch Santa Cruz Wash, it seems that runoff retention can be better accomplished in the sandy bottom of the West Branch Santa Cruz Wash. Investigate the possibility of fulfilling the runoff retention requirement in the West Branch without encroaching on the 50' study area. 4. Demonstrate how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development, for surface runoff and roof drainage. Ensure that waterharvesting basins are not located near the proposed building and they are set back in accordance with the Geotechnical Report recommendation. 5. The Apostolic Church appears to be east of the subject project. Revise "Project Location" paragraph accordingly. 6. The offsite watersheds impact the along the southern and western property boundary. Revise the second paragraph of Section 4.0 accordingly. 7. It seems that the description of the offsite watersheds (O1, O2 and O3) in the second paragraph of Section 4.0 is not accurate when compared to the information shown on Exhibit 2. Revise as necessary. 8. Q100 for O1 is shown to be 2 cfs on Exhibit 2, but it is shown to be 1 cfs in Table 1. Revise as necessary. 9. Provide, on Drainage Exhibit 3, the width of all P.A.A.L's. Additionally, provide hydraulic rating for the P.A.A.L's. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 10. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 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. 11. Show roof drainage arrows on drainage exhibit. 12. Show on Exhibit 3 the West Branch Santa Cruz 100-year water surface elevation just upstream of the proposed building. 13. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance checklist for the proposed drainage structures should be included in the Report. 14. Show on the Drainage Exhibit all drainage structure dimensions (i.e. the erosion control pads, number and size of all scuppers, etc.), drainage structure elevations (i.e. flow line and pipe invert elevations, etc.). The drainage information shown on the Development Plan shall match the information shown on the drainage exhibits. 15. Show on Drainage Exhibit all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, high and low points, water ponding and slope setback lines, , waterharvesting basins, , cross section locations and details, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. The drainage information shown on the development plan and grading plan will be based on the information provided in the drainage report text and drainage exhibits. Development Plan: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. If detention/retention is waived for this project, the detention/retention notes need to be removed or revised. 3. Show, on the plan, the basis of bearing and the tie between one of the parcel corners to the basis of bearing (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A). 4. Verify that all existing onsite easements are shown to ensure that there will be no conflict with the proposed development (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B). 5. Some of the text, on the plan, overlaps the proposed improvements. Relocate the overlapping text to facilitate the review. 6. Provide Irvington Road right of way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C). 7. Show all proposed easements as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.G. if applicable. 8. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow (including roof drainage) and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 9. Provide the locations and types of drainage structures, as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. 10. Indicate all proposed ground elevations on the site as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.4. 11. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site discharge points D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7. 12. Keynote #13 is used on Sheet 2 of 3, but the description is not included. 13. The descriptions of Keynotes #4 and #8 are included on Sheet 2 of 3, but the locations are not shown. 14. Keynotes #2 and #12 are included on Sheet 3 of 3, but their descriptions are not provided. Ensure that the keynote descriptions and the locations match on all sheets. 15. Provide the radii for all curb curves. 16. Provide locations and sizes of all sidewalk scuppers including the ones associated with roof drainage (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). 17. Show all waterharvesting areas. 18. Slope treatment and stabilization shall be based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report with the required recommendations. 19. Revise the Development Plan in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: Revise the Landscape Plan in accordance with the drainage report revisions. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 12/10/2009 | 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: D09-0038 MISSION ROSE ACADEMY/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 12/10/09 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Delete adjacent tax codes 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. |
| 12/11/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Insure a marked crossing and all required ramps and detectable warnings are in place for the accessible route to Irvington Road that traverses across the drive entrance to the Circle K. 2. At the most Southerly marked crossing: a. At the South end ramp, delete the shown truncated domes and make all the darken area a flush concrete landing. Start the ramp up at the South end of this darken area. Provide a 2' deep detectable warning at the base of this new ramp. b. At the Northerly end of the marked crossing; delete the flared concrete sides of the ramp and provide a turned back curb to the accessible route on both sides of the ramp. 3. At the accessible parking area: a. Repete comment 2b above for the ramp. b. Delete the detectable warning at the ramp. The parking aisle is a safe zone not a hazardous vehicle area. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/16/2009 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMENTS - CDRC Land Use Plan Compliance D09-0038, Mission Rose Academy: DP and LP Submittal # 1 Items Reviewed: " Development Plan & Landscape Plan " Annexation Ord. #5843 Comments: This development proposal is not part of an active rezoning case, and it is consistent with the annexation conditions. The plans are approved, and a re-submittal is not required. Please note that on sheet 1/3 of the Development Plan, the annexation conditions are specified in Ordinance #5843 (not 5834). Reviewed by: J. Hershenhorn, 12/15/09 837-6965 Joanne.Hershenhorn@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/18/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B Revise the development plan to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval, if applicable. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7. The WASH Ordinance applies to this site. Identify the WASH Study Area on the Development Plan. DS 9-06.2.4.Y Submit an Overlay Zone application or demonstrate that the project will not impact the WASH regulatory area. DP 3 has a call-out that indicates matching grade at the northern corner. Grading in this area would be a regulated activity. Revise the landscape plan to show any trail easements. DS 2-05.2.4.E, G |
| 12/18/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | |
| 12/23/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Include provisions for one double wide solid waste enclosure or two single to accomodate for both refuse and recycle waste types. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Tony Teran at (520) 837-3706 or e-mail:Tony.Teran@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/23/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D09-0038 Mission Rose Academy Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 12/23/2009 DUE DATE: 12/28/09 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 11/29/10. 2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Case number D09-0038 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. Place the subdivision case number S08-136 in the lower right corner of all sheets. 3. DS 2-05.2.4.B Provide the adjacent zoning classification for the property to the north. 4. DS 2-05.2.4.D Provide on the plans the entire vehicular use area extending to the right of way from this project. Clearly indicate what improvements are existing and what improvements are proposed. Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.3 a minimum distance of two (2) feet is required between a PAAL and a wall or other obstruction. Provide dimension for the "shy" area along the north east property line. Clearly indicate the direction of travel for the one-way PAAL along the north east side of this project. 20' PAAL provided minimum 24' required for a two-way PAAL. 5. DS 2-05.2.4.G The indicated access easement near the southwest corner of this project does not extend far enough to provide a complete easement for vehicular use. Extend easement or provide a perpetual access easement agreement. A review of the convenience store development plan does not indicate a pedestrian circulation easement for use of the sidewalk as part of the required pedestrian circulation path connecting to the right of way for this project. Nor does this plan indicate an easement for this purpose. Relocate the pedestrian circulation path, provide an easement, or provide a cross access agreement with the convenience store property. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide the widths of all proposed sidewalks. (dimension) Per determination of the zoning administrator the required width of the sidewalk adjacent of the drop off zone vehicular use area is a minimum of six (6) feet in width. Provide dimension. Per the same determination signage is required that designates these parking spaces as "Passenger Drop Off Only". 7. DS 2-05.2.4.O In the loading zone calculations revise to show one (1) loading zone required. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space, a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks and a minimum of three (3) feet from any building or wall. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. Provide a detail of the proposed class two bicycle rack. 9. 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. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.W 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D09-0038dp.doc |
| 12/29/2009 | JWILLIA4 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 12/29/2009 | JWILLIA4 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/29/2009 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 12/29/2009 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed |