Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0038
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/21/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Due Date Case Number Project Address August 06, 2010 D09-0038 MISSION ROSE ACADEMY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: The proposed Development Plan for the Mission Rose Academy Case No. D09-0038 Located at 1690 W. Irvington Road, meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste Disposal Standard 6-01.0 and therefore, is here Approved. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/26/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 23, 2010 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), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: MISSION ROSE ACADEMY Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D09-038 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Sheet 2: A 20’ public sewer easement will need to be created along the north property line over the existing 24” public sewer line. 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. This comment letter has been reviewed and accepted for substantial conformance to Pima County Code Title 13 by: ___________________________ Chad Amateau, P.E., Civil Engineer PCRWRD, Planning Services Section, Development Liaison Unit cc: Chad Amateau, PE Kristin Borer, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 07/27/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/27/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 27, 2010 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 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. |
| 07/29/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/29/2010, 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 09, 2010 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. The previous comment that was made concerning the proximity of the proposed detention basin to the proposed building applies to the proposed waterharvesting basins. The basins appear to be too close to the proposed building. The geotechnical report shall recommend the proper building setback from the ponding water in the waterharvesting basins. Revise the drainage statement accordingly. 2. Some of the proposed type I scuppers appear to be too long. They might cause maintenance difficulties. Investigate the possibility of reducing the length of those scuppers by allowing some surface runoff and installing the scuppers underneath the sidewalks only, or providing cleanout stations. Development Plan: 1. Check the text at the entrance, south east of the building. It overlaps the proposed improvements, and it is not easy to read. There are also number that can not be read because they overlap proposed improvements, such as the invert number at runoff discharge point riprap pad. Relocate all overlapping text and numbers to facilitate the review. 2. 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). 3. Provide roof drainage arrows (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 4. Please be advised that the Apostolic Church development encountered soil piping problems during construction. It is very likely that this project may encounter the same problem. The geotechnical report shall address this issue with the grading plan submittal. 5. Revise the Development Plan in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan is acceptable for Engineering and Floodplain Review purposes. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan and Drainage Report |
| 08/04/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D09-0038 Mission Rose Academy Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/04/2010 DUE DATE: 12/28/09 COMMENTS: 1. The Zoning Review Section approves the development plan for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 2. DS 2-05.2.4.K Per determination of the zoning administrator the required width of the sidewalk adjacent of the passenger drop off zone vehicular use area is a minimum of six (6) feet in width. Plan indicates a 5' sidewalk. Revise. 3. 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 three (3) feet from any building or wall to the bicycle rack(s). Provide dimension. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D09-0038dpca.doc |
| 08/06/2010 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 08/06/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/06/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 6, 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 4 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Engineering, Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $39.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. 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 |