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 - DP13-0016
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/29/2013 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | Per RWRD form |
| 01/30/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/31/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Saint Augustine Catholic High School Proposed Expansion Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0016 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 8, 2013 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed. 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is January 27, 2014. 2. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site due to a cumulative expansion of building gross floor area (GFA) greater than 25%. See T09CM00578. The following comments are based on Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0: 1. A.M. 2-06.4.9.E There appears to be some type of lot split/reconfiguration proposed for the northwest area of this site, between parcels 136-01-001B & 136-06-002C. Based on Pima County Assessor's Record Map the existing property line runs along the existing section line and you are proposing to move the property line west. A lot line reconfiguration will need to be processed through the PDSD prior to approval of the development package. 2. A.M. 2-06.4.9.G It appears that phasing of the project is proposed but only one phase is shown. Show all additional phases on the plan. If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. 3. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.2 Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 4. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.2 There are future SVT's shown on sheet 6 that are not shown correctly review, see TSM 10-01.5.0. 5. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Provide a width dimension for the existing access lane shown along the east property line. As this is full code compliance demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 are met for this access lane. 6. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Sheet 8 demonstrate on the plan how the requirement of UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 are met for the entire length of the propose access lane. 7. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 2 detail 1 the parking bumper dimension is not correct. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3 this dimension is 2'-6". 8. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 2 detail 1 provide a Parking Angle and Space Depth dimension for the proposed angled parking. 9. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Sheet 2 detail 2 the over hang is not shown correctly. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3 this overhang is 2'-6" and the remaining parking space should be 15'-6" not 15'. 10. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Provide a Passenger Drop-Off Area calculation on the plan, see UDC Section 4.9.3.E.7, and show the drop-off areas on the plan. 11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c The loading space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Section 7.5.5, Civic Use Group, Education Use, 0 required. 12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d As this is full code provide a detail for both the Short & Long term bicycle parking and clearing indicated on the plan the locations for both Short & Long term bicycle parking. 13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.L If applicable all proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 14. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R As this is full code demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of TSM 7-01.3.3 are met. 15. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Provide width dimension for all proposed and existing sidewalks on site. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP13-0016 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 01/31/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | The development's location lies outside of any ADOT facilities and its acceptance is recommended. Thank you. ________________________________ 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. . |
| 02/04/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#259127 February 4, 2013 Baker & Associates Engineering 3561 E. Sunrise Dr. Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Baker Engineering: SUBJECT: St. Augustine Catholic High School DP13-0016 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted January 31, 2013. There are no existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. 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 (OH-204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Charles Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Joann Hayes Administrative 1 Design/Build jh Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) C. Leon, Tucson Electric Power M. Burke, Tucson Electric Power |
| 02/05/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See Letter in SIRE |
| 02/08/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | This project is not approved by Environmental Services. I cannot find notes on cover sheet for waste management or recycle or anything on the plan view drawings. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
| 02/11/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Here are my comments - DATE: 2/11/2013 CASE: DP13-0016 ST AUGUSTINE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL COMMENT: No objections or adverse comments Daily PM Peak Vehicle Trip Generation: 5,655 282 Thanks, -Eric Additional notes: Detailed traffic impact analysis has been conducted See SIRE for additional documents |
| 02/13/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 02/19/2013 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 02/21/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 2 1. For all accessible routes crossing an auto entrance, provide a complete marked crossing with ramps, markings, and detectable warnings required by ICC A117.1, Sections 406.1 and 406.12, 13 and 14. a. Provide a large scale detail of all the different types of ramps including marking, slopes, dimensions, and detectable warnings as required. 2. At detail 2: a. Delete the generic accessible parking details and provide details of the actual accessible parking layout/s showing all accessible requirements as dimensions, slopes, markings, signage, access to accessible route, ramps as required, and aisles. b. Insure 1 of every six accessible spaces is a "Van Accessible" space. Please such identify on the site plan. SHEET 3 3. Ditto, review comment 1. 4. Provide a marked crossing at the drive entrance between the two groups of accessible parking. 5. Please provide an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ICC A117.1, Section 503.3. 6. Please provide an accessible route to all new athletic facilities and buildings as per the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 Edition ICC A117.1. 7. Please provide accessible seating for both bleachers as per the 2012 IBC, Section 1108.2 and ICC A 117.1, Section 802. SHEET 4 8. Ditto Review Comments 6 and 7 for all new sports facilities, building and seating. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/25/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. The location and size of sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. b. Any existing or proposed utility easements c. The first floor elevation for the proposed buildings d. If an on-site sewage disposal system is located on site, show the location of all individual components for the disposal system, including any reserve areas and indicate the required separation distances. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. |
| 02/25/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | From Zelin Canchola TDOT Traffic Engineering Date: February 26, 2013 RE: DP13-0016 St Augustine Development Package New Public Roadways will be required to be built through the DOT Private Improvements Agreement Process. Continue to work with TDOT Traffic Engineering and Permits and Codes for traffic signal, and roadway improvements. |
| 02/26/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, grading limits, and landscape and screening improvements, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. A.M. 2-06.4.9.G Ensure that the landscape/NPP drawings coordinate with the site plan improvements. The review cannot commence until the scope of the project is established. |
| 02/26/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | January 31, 2013 Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc. 3561 E. Sunrise Dr., # 225 Tucson, AZ 85718 Attn: William H Baker Jr., P.E. SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: St. Augustine Catholic High School, APN: 13606002C, Case #: N/A, T-14, R-15, SEC-22, Lots: 9999, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 37ac Zoning: Rx-1 WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water will provide water service to this project based on the subject zoning of the above parcels. Tucson Water has an assured water supply (AWS) designation from the State of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). An AWS designation means Tucson Water has met the criteria established by ADWR for demonstration of a 100-year water supply - it does not mean that water service is currently available to the subject project. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the current availability of water service at the time an application is received. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying, but not limited to: 1) Water Use; 2) Fire Flow Requirements; 3) Offsite/Onsite Water Facilities; 4) Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System; and 5) Easements/Common Areas. Any specific area plan fees, protected main/facility fees and/or other needed facilities' cost, are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be financially responsible for modifying or enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void two years from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Scott Schladweiler, P.E. Engineering Manager Tucson Water Department SS:bjp CC:File |
| 02/27/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and revisions are required. Two rolled sets of the plan, a disk with all plans and documents included in the submittal package and all other items requested by review staff must be included with the next submittal of these plans. |
| 02/27/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 02/27/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | A previous drainage report was prepared for St. Augustine High School. Discuss the previous report and explain any differences in conclusions. Show areas of existing pavement to be removed and show where existing driveways will be removed. Clarify how the phasing is proposed. The improvements proposed for phase 1 don't seem to be coincident with the improvements for the future phases. The improvements shown on NPPP-1 can be approved, but future improvements will be subject to full review. Present a plan that clearly shows just these improvemenst. |
| 02/27/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA BY M. NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP13-0016/ ST. AUGUSTINE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL DATE: MARCH 27, 2013 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 02/27/2013 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Passed | |
| 02/27/2013 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 02/27/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 02/27/2013 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/27/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 02/27/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 02/28/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approv-Cond | New building additions shall be subject to the 2012 IFC for fire flow and hydrant locations. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/28/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |