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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0040
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/21/2012 | GBONILL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/22/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/22/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/23/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/28/2012 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/02/2012 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Salpointe Catholic High School Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Grenier Engineering; Attn: Jason Morse LOCATION: 1545 E Copper St, T13S R14E S31 Ward 3 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP12-0040 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Master Drainage Study (Grenier Engineering, Inc., 19MAR12), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon, 14FEB12) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Grenier Engineering Inc., 19MAR12). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Site Plan and Grading Plan. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: It is recommended that Development Standard 2-01 "Development Package" be reviewed prior to resubmittal. DS Sec.2-02 and 2-05 no longer exists and all reviews fall under DS Sec.2-01 for Development Package. The standard has changes that must be incorporated into the plan sheets for review and approval. 1) DS Sec.2-01.2.4: Revise the development plan document to include the Title Block in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.2.B: Revise the title block on the development plan document to include a brief legal description of the site. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.2.E: Revise the title block on the development plan document to include the page number and number of pages that are included within the set. 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The relevant Development Plan Package number (DP12-0040) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package that references all special overlay zones that are applicable to this site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to correctly dimension the near and far side sight visibility triangles (SVTs) for the proposed PAAL to the local road, Cherry Ave, per DS Sec.3-01.5.3. Per the table the near side dimension maybe reduced to 20'x185' and the far side dimension should be 20'x110'. The larger SVT dimensions will be accepted, however for future permitting it is advised to correctly label them in plan view. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise Keynote #19 for the standard parking stall detail to correctly reference Sheet C3.6 where the detail is shown. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.I: Provide on the development plan document the recordation information for the required dedication for the proposed new right-of-way for the proposed right turn lane. If the entire future right-of-way along the north property line is not required at this time then the dedication (or at a minimum a public easement) is required for the proposed right turn lane that is shown on private property. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.J: Revise the development plan document to label all dimensions for the MS&R Route, Glenn Street. Since the project site is adjacent to a Major Street & Route clearly label and dimension the future MS&R right-of-way, future sidewalk, curb, and sight visibility triangles. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.1: Per DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1 Revise the development plan document, drainage report and basin design to show that the proposed retaining wall within the basin does not occupy more than 35% of the basin side slope. If more than 35% of the side slope for the basin is constructed out of retaining walls the excess area must provide an alternate design that meets the basin configuration standards. Verify that the basin still meets the retention threshold volume requirements. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.1: Per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4 revise the development plan documents to verify that the ramp meets the minimum width of 15-feet, the proposed plan only dimensions a 12-foot gate at the ramp entrance, revise. Alternate means of access will be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis and must be specifically described in a Note in the General Note Section of the development plan documents. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document and any associated details to label the required minimum filter fabric specifications. The Development Plan Package is to be used as the construction document for site and grading and must accurately label and detail all improvements in plan view and on all associated details for construction purposes. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.Q: Revise the development plan document to clearly label in plan view the proposed guard shack located south of the new gated entrance. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Revise the development plan document to revise the Keynote Label #1 in plan view and all associated details for the proposed handicap access ramps to meet the minimum ANSI requirements. PC/COT Standard Detail #207 is only applicable within the public right-of-way not for onsite private improvements. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Revise the development plan document and provide a detail for the refuse enclosure to provide all aspect for construction purposes. The detail must match DS Sec.6-01 and Figure 3a for the required enclosure walls with gates, minimum compressive strength for the concrete, required bollard locations, dimensions for 10'x10' clear area for both solid waste and recyclable containers, etc. SWPPP: 17) The proposed SWPPP meets the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). However the SWPPP and Exhibits can not be stamped approved until approval of the grading plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 04/12/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEETS C2.1 AND C2.3 1. As per note 7, there are 6-22' long x 10.7' wide parking stalls for drop off. Please provide accessible passenger loaning zones as required by the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 605.3. SHEET C3.1 2. Please verify with Zoning the use of stabilized DG for pedestrian ways. 3. Note 1 reference to DOT DTL 207 is incorrect. All curb ramps within the boundaries of the property lines are to be compliant with ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 405 and/or 406 which ever is most applicable. DTL 207 is for public right of way accessibility requirements only. a. In situations where curb ramps have no pedestrian cross traffic, the flared side may be omitted and return curbs provided. b. Where pedestrian traffic crossing the curb ramp is possible, provide flared sides as per ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 406.3 with a maximum slope of 1:10. 4. Please provide a large scale partial plan of the accessible parking group showing all accessible requirements: dimensions, slopes, ramps, aisles van accessible spaces, signage and markings as required. a. Please reference to this detail form the site plan. 5. At the marked crossing located at the entrance to the most northerly parking lot area, please provide detectable warning strips as per Section 406.12 and 14 at both sides of the marked crossing. 6. Ditto comment 5 for the marked crossing located at the entrance to the most Southerly parking lot area. 7. For the two accessible parking spaces located just to the South of the new dumpster area: a. Please delete the marked crossing. b. Ditto Comment 4. SHEET C3.2 8. Ditto Comment 2. 9. Ditto Comment 4 for all four marked crossing shown in the accessible route to the north parking lot entrance gate. a. As a suggestion only, for efficiency and simplicity (cost savings) sake, would not a better location for the accessible route be in front of the most westerly head-in parking row, paralleling and adjacent to the running track? This would eliminate 4 marked crossings, 8 curb ramps, 8 detectable warning strips and would certainly be a less up and down and safer route for wheel chair bound persons. 10. Ditto comment 4. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/13/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP12-0040 Salpointe Catholic High School North Campus Improvements Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 12, 2012 DUE DATE: April 19, 2012 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 package. If, at the end of that time, the development package 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 March 20, 2013. This project was reviewed by Zoning for compliance with DS 2-01 and the PAD requirements. The proposed design does not include buildings but does some changes to the parking area and is quite different than the PDP submitted for the rezoning. 2. DS 2-01.3.0.E - The title block shall include the Page number and number of pages. i.e. 3 of 46. The sheet index can reflect the sheets as noted but referencing the applicable sheet number. 3. DS 2-01.3.3 - Relevant case numbers associated with this project or site must be listed in adjacent to the title block of all plan sheets. List the rezoning case number, in this case, PAD-17 adjacent to the title block of all plan sheets. 4. DS 2-01.3.6 - If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD District on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. This project is within a PAD, include the required map. The location map is not the reduced map required for compliance with this standard. (Should be added to the cover sheet.) 5. DS 201.3.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. Include in the General Note 2 and 3 on sheet C2.0 the following: "Private Secondary School". 6. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b - List overlay zones that are applicable to the property. List as a general note that this project has been designed to comply with the regulations of LUC Section 2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes. DS 2-01.3.8.C and DS 2-01.3.9.I - Glenn Street is considered a collector on the MS&R Map with a total future width of 64 feet. Label and dimension the following information on plan sheets C2.1 and C2.2, the future right of way, future curb and sidewalk locations. Per plan sheets C2.1 and C2.2 it appears that a right turn lane is proposed. Provide the recordation information of the additional right that is required for the right turn lane. Also clarify if during the rezoning process the additional right of way for Glenn Street was dedicated or is to be dedicated upon any new construction etc. 7. DS 2-01.3.8.C - The following comments are related to the parking lot design and requirements and safety concerns. In comparing the PDP with the site plan sheets in the Development Package DP12-0040 it has been noted that the parking design has changed and does not reflect the PDP. Please clarify the following items. a. Has the overall number of parking spaces changed? If so please clarify if the number is greater or less than what was listed in the PAD Document and PDP. (While the overall number of parking spaces is clearly more than what is required by the PAD regulations, it will not be an issue. The clarification is more for the purposes of keeping track of what is being added and deducted from the site.) b. Relocate the two accessible parking spaces that are next to the Priory as was depicted on the PDP or place the spaces in an area of the parking lot that provides a safe access from the accessible aisle to the sidewalk next to the Priory. The location of the crosswalk as depicted in unsafe and not acceptable. This location as depicted on the PDP was a suitable location as long as there is an accessible sidewalk that provides access from the accessible parking spaces to the Priory. c. Four (4) Bus parking and loading spaces were depicted adjacent to the future football field on the PDP. The current plan does not show any bus parking or loading areas. Where will the bus parking and loading areas be provided? How are they provided now and will this design eliminate existing conditions related to this item? d. The direction of approach to the dumpster has been changed from the direction as depicted on the PDP. If the proposed location of the dumpster is not approved by the Environmental Services Plans Reviewer and requires revisions, ensure that any zoning requirements that are affected by any change are addressed. e. Clarify if the existing parking lot along the north east corner of the site will remain as is or will there be some changes? The existing parking was not depicted on the plan sheets. f. Keynote 19 refers to the detail being located in sheet C3.7. The detail is on sheet C3.6. Revise the keynote 19 wherever applicable. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.M - Ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan are made to the grading plan sheets. Once the site plan can be approved by zoning the grading plan will be approved as well as long as the sheets match. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.R - Address the following items related to pedestrian requirements. a. Widths of the on site sidewalks have not been labeled or are not very legible in some locations. Revise as required for legibility. b. Decomposed Granite is not an acceptable material for sidewalks. The PAD doe not indicate that DG was to be used in lieu of the approved materials in DS 2-08 and therefore this requirement would revert to the material allowed by the development Standards. All onsite side walks must be constructed of concrete or material that is similar in durability, hardness and smoothness. Revise all sidewalks with DG material t6o concrete cement, pavers etc. c. DS 2-08.4.1.C - A sidewalks will be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALS intervene. See Figure two in DS 2-08. This requirement applies where parking spaces are adjacent toe the Priory building. Revise the plans to include the required sidewalks. Proved accessible ramps where required. 10. DS 2-01.2.3.9.W - If applicable to this project, indicate the locations of any proposed freestanding monument signs. Label the height and width of the proposed signs and if they are to be permitted under separate permit indicate as such. 11. See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscaping and screening. 12. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the changes made to the plan and responses to the zoning comments. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\DP12dp0040.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 04/19/2012 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | No comments. |
| 04/19/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans to address fully PAD section 3.11.3 Water Harvesting. Salpointe PAD will meet the goals and objectives set forth in the City of Tucson's Water Harvesting Guidance Manual October 2005 Ordinance #10210. Techniques used to meet the water harvesting goals may include, but are not limited to, the following: A) Recessed Planting Areas - Depress planting areas adjacent to pervious areas such as walks and parking lots to capture and retain rainwater to benefit plantings. B) Microbasins - Intercept and collect stormwater surface flows in localized basins for landscape benefit and ground water recharge. C) Curb cuts or flush curbs - Direct minor sheet flows toward curb openings and/or utilize flush curbs to direct water to planting areas. D) Structural Soils - Provide adequate percolation and minimize compaction of planting areas adjacent to impervious areas by means of loosening the soil and/or utilizing structural soils. 2) An unpaved planting 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 Revise the parking lot planters as necessary. 3) The site is required to include screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. except as refined by the PAD. Revise the plans as necessary to include screening for Glenn Street. 4) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 5) Show and identify existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan in the area north of the Priory. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e, PAD Exhibit C.3.12: Landscape Border. |
| 04/27/2012 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#247930 April 27, 2012 Grinier Engineering Attn: Tim Birk 5524 E 4th Street Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Birk : SUBJECT: Salpoint Catholic High School DP12-0040 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 24, 2012. 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. Richard 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 Jennifer Crawford at (520) 917-8708. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) J. Crawford, Tucson Electric Power |
| 04/27/2012 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 27, 2012 Jason Morse Grenier Engineering 5524 E 4th St. Tucson Arizona 85711 Subject: DP12-0040 SALPOINTE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL Development Package Dear Jason: Your submittal 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 2 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE ROLLED 2 Rolled Copies Revised Development Package (Engineering, Zoning HC, Zoning, Landscape) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via Email: JMORSE@GRENIERENG.COM |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/02/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |
| 04/27/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 04/27/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |