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 - DP14-0014
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/03/2014 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/03/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/06/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DATE: February 6, 2014 SUBJECT: Salpointe Catholic High School Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Richard Macias, PE LOCATION: 1545 E Copper St; T13S R14E Sec31 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0014 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Grenier Engineering, Inc., 23JAN14). Engineering Division recommends conditional approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. The following item need to be addressed prior to stamped approval: SITE PLAN: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0014) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets where indicated by "DP14-XXXX." GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comment provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 02/07/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP14-0014 1545 e Copper Street - Salpointe High School Development Package - Site Review for Outside Patio Area TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 7, 2014 DUE DATE: March 3, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC). The zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Link to the Digital Development Package Plan Stamp for all development package applications. http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/CDRC/acad-cot_stamp_model_1.pdf 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 . A.M. Section 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section A.M. Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL A.M. Section 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL A.M. Section 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. A.M. Section 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. A.M. Section 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: A.M. Section 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; A.M. Section 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; A.M. Section 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the development package documents; A.M. Section 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, A.M. Section 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. A.M. Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). A.M. Section 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 01. COMMENT: This project has been assigned the Development Package case number DP14-0014. List the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 02. COMMENT: Label the adjacent zoning classifications on the site plan sheets. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.G - 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. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 03. COMMENT: Label the square footage of the new patio structure and provide the dimensions. 04. COMMENT: The zoning comments are minor and can be reviewed over the counter prior to the CDRC manager's signature. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 02/10/2014 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/19/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Rezoning case; Subdivision case; Board of Adjustment case; Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 02/26/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/27/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/11/2014 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2014 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/12/2014 | AROMERO4 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |