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: SITE
Permit Number - T01CM05889
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/09/2002 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be required for the proposed alley improvements - contact Permits and Codes Section, Engineering Division/Dept. of Transportation for plan submittal requirements. The plan number (I-2002 - __) should be referenced or depicted on the site plan. 2. A new 6' sidewalk (2' from back of curb) is requested on all major streets and routes, for all new developments, changes of use and/or expansions greater than 25%. 3. See comment on SVT's from floodplain folder. 4. Submit a grading permit application for grading/paving plan review. 5. Indicate whether any curbing or similar barrier will encircle the proposed retention basin in the new parking area. If curbing is to be constructed - sufficient curb openings should be indicated (with width noted) to accept/convey drainage to the basin. |
| 01/09/2002 | DOUG WILLIAMS | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | In accordance with the Floodplain Ordinance (Tucson Code, Section 26-11.2 [I]), review of engineering studies, including review of the first resubmittal will be $150.00 - all subsequent resubmittals will be subject to a review fee of $300.00. A resubmittal subsequent to the requested revised drainage report will be subject to a $150.00 review fee. The following comments must be addressed in a revised drainage report: 1. The consultant should refer to The City of Tucson's Standard's Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (Development Standard 10-02.0), section 2.3 (drainage report content and format) - specifically, sections 2.3.1.2 D (see DR # 2548 - Floodplain files), E, and F (Floodplain Use Permit req'd for flows of 100 cfs or more). 2. Address the offsite hydrology in accordance with section 2.3.1.3 A (2, 3 & 6), B (1-3), 2.3.1.4 A-G. 3. Provide 100-year ponding elevations/limits, basin and appurtenant structure(s) details and a basin/cistern maintenance checklist and schedule, in accordance with section 2.3.1.6 A 4 (a & e) and C, and section 14.3. of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management. 4. Address the proposed finished floor elevations as they relate to potential floodwaters affecting the site. The consultant should note the floor elevation and proposed wall/barrier from the last approved site plan/drainage submittal (T00CM00256) at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the new classroom, as compared with the water surface elevation determined. 5. Please include cistern details with the the revised report, or as an addendum to the resubmittal at time of grading permit application/review. It should be noted that the cisterns (above ground storage tanks) may be subject to Land Use Code requirements based on zoning designation allowances (the cisterns are not clearly identified on the site plan and there do not appear to be any review comments about them from the zoning review section). The consultant should be aware that subsequent comments may be forthcoming regarding these. The following should be addressed on the site plan: 1. Correct the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Dev. Std. 3-01.5.0 (see redlines on sheet 2 of 4). 2. Identify the cisterns (above ground storage tanks) on the site plan (see item 5, above). 3. It appears that there may be regulatory floodplain affecting a portion of this site - the consultant should ensure proper coordination with the consulting Civil Engineer in order to accurately map the limits of this flow with corresponding Q100 and contributing drainage area(s). A floodplain use permit will be required if development is to occur within any portion of the floodplain limits, when determined. 4. Provide retention (water harvesting) volumes provided within the 4 cisterns, on the plan. |
| 01/09/2002 | DOUG WILLIAMS | SANITATION | REVIEW | Passed | Please indicate whether any new solid waste provision is being proposed. |
| 01/10/2002 | PHIL SEADER | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 12/06/2001 | HPEARCE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/17/2001 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CITY OF TUCSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ZONING REVIEW SECTION DATE: December 17, 2001 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T01CM05889 PROJECT NAME: St. Michael and All Angels PROJECT ADDRESS: 602 North Wilmot Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gehlen The following items must be revised on or added to the site plan. Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed: 1) The uses on this site (existing and proposed) must be clarified. Please revise general note 3 to include the grades of the school. In addition, if there are additional uses on site, like daycare, please add the uses to general note 3. This review is based on religious and K-8 educational uses only. If there are additional uses on site, additional comments may be made upon resubmittal of these plans (DS 2-02.2.1.A.31), 2) Legal descriptions for all lots and abandoned alleys must be added to the site plan. Please provide copies of the recorded alley abandonment paperwork with the resubmittal of these plans and added the recordation information to the site plan. Since this site is made up of several lots, the attached lot combination paperwork must be processed and recorded as required. The Pima County tax combo form must be processed through Pima County and a copy provided with the resubmittal of these plans. The affirmation must be filed out, notarized, all legal descriptions attached, and the entire package recorded. Provide a copy of the recorded package with the resubmittal of these plans and add the recordation information to the site plan. The tax code number in general note 2 is incorrect. Revise as required (DS 2-02.2.1.A.2), 3) A lot area expansion calculation must be added to the site plan calculations. All calculations (FAR and lot coverage calculation) must be revised to included total lot area of the site including all new property (DS 2-02.2.2.A.1, 3, and 6), 4) The last approved site plan is dated April 2000 and the permit number is T00CM00256. Revise the reference in the parking calculations as required. The last approved site plan indicates that the existing GFA should be 38,518. Please explain the differences shown in the site calculations on sheet 1 of 4 and on the site plan on sheet 2 of 4. The square footage of "building A" must be added to the site plan. In addition, since this is a greater than 25% expansion, the height of all existing buildings must be added to the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.6), 5) The minimum setback to the south lot line is the height of the structure. The site plan may be revised or a Lot Development Option or Board of Adjustment variance may be applied for. For additional information on applying for Lot Development Options or Variances, contact the Planning Department at 791-4541. If setbacks are reduced, the case number, date of approval, variances granted and conditions imposed must be added to the general notes on sheet 1 of 4 (DS 2-02.2.1.A.7, LUC 3.2.6.4), 6) Since this is a greater than 25% expansion, all vehicle use areas, existing and proposed, must be fully dimensioned on the site plan. This includes, but is not limited to, the drop off zones required by LUC 3.5.3.7.G, parking spaces, and PAAL's (DS 2-02.2.1.A.8), 7) Per LUC 3.3.4, a K-8 school requires one (1) vehicle parking spaces for every 10 students and one (1) space for every 250 square feet of office space. The vehicle parking calculations shown on sheet 1 of 4 include separate parking for the parish hall and new multi-purpose building. Please explain the use of these buildings. If the buildings are for use by the school and church only (and not used for religious services), additional parking for these buildings is not required (see comment #1 above). Revise the vehicle parking calculations as required. If the parking calculations do not change, the site plan must be revised to include 163 vehicle parking spaces (DS 2-02.2.2.A.4), 8) The bicycle parking must be shown on the site plan fully dimensioned as detailed in DS 2-09 (DS 2-02.2.1.A.9), 9) Due to the percent expansion, a continuous on-site pedestrian circulation system must be provided on site. It must connect all rights-of-way which abut this site with all structures, outdoor areas, and vehicle use areas. Clearly demonstrate compliance on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.12), 10) If applicable, please detail all existing and proposed free-standing signage and outdoor lighting on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 & 25), 11) Clearly state the GFA used for the school so the number of loading zones required may be verified. Loading zones must be a minimum of 12' by 35'. Revise the site plan and calculations as required (DS 2-02.2.1.A.14, 2-02.2.2.A.5), 12) The abandoned alley must be designated one-way if it is to be used for vehicle travel. If not, vehicle access must be prevented with a fire gate to prevent use of the alley (LUC 3.3.7.2), 13) The 50 foot Tucson Gas and Electric Easement was not shown on the last approved site plan which approved a building in the easement. Please explain. Clearly identify the location and width of the Tucson Electric Easement identified in the church building. The new multi-purpose building is also being proposed over a Tucson Electric easement which is not permitted. The building must be relocated or the easement abandoned prior to approval of the plan. The recordation information for the abandonment must be added to the site plan if applicable and a recorded copy of the abandonment documents must be provided with the resubmittal of these plans (DS 2-02.2.1.A.20), 14) Please revise general note 2. The existing zoning of this site is R-1 and there is no proposed zoning (DS 2-02.2.1.A.28), 15) Under LUC Information, revise the setback information for the east and north lot lines to "the greater of 10' or ¾ (H)". In addition, add the required setback information for the south line which is "the (H) of the structure" (LUC 3.2.6.4), 16) There is an arithmetic error under the building SF calculations. All calculations (FAR, lot coverage, percent expansion etc…) must also be revised (DS 2-02.2.2.A.2 & 3), 17) A copy of the Arizona state license for the school must be provided with the resubmittal of these plans per LUC 3.5.3.7.A, 18) The minimum site area for a K-8 school with 324 student is 10 acres. Prior to site plan approval, a Type V Administrative Procedure must be applied for and approved (LUC 2.3.4.3.D.1). The case number, date of approval, and conditions imposed must be added to the site plan general notes and compliance with all conditions demonstrated prior to site plan approval (LUC 3.5.3.7.B), 19) Add a general note which details the restrictions on hours and days of operation detailed in LUC 3.5.3.7.C, 20) Clearly delineate the outdoor activity areas on the site plan and demonstrate compliance with LUC 3.5.3.7.D. Add a general note about the restrictions on use of loudspeakers, amplifies, or similar types of equipment outside. |
| 12/28/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Approval pending landscape plan approval. |
| 12/28/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Due to the proposed expansion percentage the provisions of LUC Sec. 3.7. apply to the entire site. Revise the plan to clearly demonstrate compliance with the landscape and screening requlations for the entire site. LUC 3.7.1 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/10/2002 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |