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 - DP15-0017
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/09/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/10/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Please revise your total parking provided to include the spaces on the corner of Country Club and Bray roads. 2. For a total of 56 spaces, as per the ADASAD table 208.2, 3 accessible parking spaces are required and 1 of those must be Van Accessible. a. Revise your accessible parking space analysis accordingly b. Revise the ADASAD reference to Table 208.2 END OF REVIEW |
| 02/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO No objections/adverse comments. See attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data reflect the views and opinions of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to create and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 02/17/2015 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/18/2015 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | The map referenced in the letter is in PRO 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#288137 February 18, 2015 The WLB Group, Inc. Attn: Chris Langham 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Langham SUBJECT: Friends of the Pima County Public Library DP15-0017 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted February 10, 2015. 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 Josh Necas at (520) 917-8759. Sincerely, Denise Burr Administrative Assistant Design Enclosures CC: Josh Necas- TEP City of Tucson |
| 02/25/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Friends of the Pima Country Public Library Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0017 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 2, 2015 DUE DATE: March 10, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual 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 & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 August 20, 2015. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 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. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 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: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 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; 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, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2. COMMENT: Provide the Development package case number, DP15-0017, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.1 - List as a general note: "Existing zoning is ____." 3. COMMENT: Revise "ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES" 1 to read "EXISTING ZONING IS R-2 & C-1. PROPOSED ZONING IS C-1" 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. 4. COMMENT: See comment 3 above. 5. COMMENT: List the rezoning conditions on the plan. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 6. COMMENT: The proposed use listed under "ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES" 4 should only be listed as General Merchandise Sales, excluding Large Retail Establishment subject to use specific standards 4.9.9.B.3 and 4.9.13.O. 7. COMMENT: Per UDC Table 4.8-4 wholesaling and commercial storage are not allowed in the C-1 Zone. That said remove all references to wholesaling and storage from the plan. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 8. COMMENT: There appears to be discrepancies with lot dimensions. Per the Assessor's record map; a. the southern lot line of parcel 122-15-156D should be 127.8', the plan shows 142.35'. b. the southern lot line of parcel 122-15-1540 should be 145', the plan shows 157.28'. c. the northern lot line of parcel 122-15-1580 shows 180.06' but scales at about 167'. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 9. COMMENT: A lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form with your next submittal. 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. 10. COMMENT: Provide the zoning classifications for the parcels north of parcel 122-15-146B and west of Country Club Road. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 11. COMMENT: Show the future and existing SVTs on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 12. COMMENT: Provide a PAAL width dimension from the proposed dumpster enclosure, shown along the west side of Building 2, to the existing parking area to the west. 13. COMMENT: The proposed "DECOMPOSED GRANITE" surface for the overflow parking does not meet the requirements of UDC section 7.4.6.I. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 14. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Except for the residence the entire site should be parked as General Merchandise Sales or 1 space per 300 Sq. Ft of Gross floor area. This also should include the storage container shown under keynote 25. 16,288 Sq. Ft./300 = 54 spaces + 2 for the residence = 56 spaces required. Your calculation shown on sheet 1 should include the ratio used. 15. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.K A street or alley can not be used for maneuvering directly into or from any parking space located wholly or partially outside the public right-of-way That said the 4 vehicle parking spaces shown just south of Building 1 may not be counter as provided vehicle parking spaces and need to removed from the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 16. COMMENT: The short & long term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Except for the residence the entire site should be parked as Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA. Short term required 1 space per 5,000 Sq. Ft of Gross floor area or 16,288 Sq. Ft./5000 = 3 spaces required. Long term required 1 space per 12,000 Sq. Ft of Gross floor area, Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. or 16,288 Sq. Ft./12,000 = 2 spaces required. 17. COMMENT: Detail 11 Sheet 6 the distance between the bicycle rack is not correct. This distance should be 4'-0", see UDC section 7.4.9.B.2.f and figure 7.4.9-C. 18. COMMENT: Sheet 3 "PARKING , LOADING & BICYCLE STORAGE CALCULATIONS" remove the reference to "CLASS II" bicycle parking from the plan. 19. COMMENT: Show the required long term bicycle paring on the plan and provide a detail that shows how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D are met. 20. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan/details how the requirements UDC section 7.4.9.B.1.e are met. 2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information. 21. COMMENT: Show the required right-of-way (ROW) dedication on the plan. Contact COT Real Estate department for dedication process and requirements for possible temporary revolkable easement requirements as the existing building will be located within the ROW 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 22. COMMENT: Show and dimension the future curb and sidewalk on the plan. 2-06.4.9.L - 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. 23. COMMENT: Show the proposed ingress-egress easement on the plan along with the recordation information. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 24. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required 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. That said provide a sidewalk along the east side of Building 2. 25. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said provide a sidewalk to Building 4 and the storage container shown under keynote 25. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 26. COMMENT: Provide the required outdoor lighting plan with your next submittal, see rezoning condition 11. 27. COMMENT: Provide a dimension from the dumpster enclosures to the R-2 property to the east, see rezoning condition 16. Additional Comments 28. COMMENT: Sheet 1 under the "PARKING REQUIREMENTS" remove the reference to "LAND USE CODE". 29. COMMENT: Sheet 1 "STREETS AND ROADS" note 1 remove the reference to "DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 3-01.0". If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package . |
| 02/27/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 >>> DSD_CDRC 2/9/2015 8:08 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP15-0017 |
| 03/02/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO March 2, 2015 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for Friends of The Pima County Public Library- CDRC No. DP15-0017 Dear Mr. Egan: Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) has no objection to the development of the above-mentioned project. Existing natural gas facilities are located in adjacent rights-of-way to the area of development and may be affected by construction of this project; specifically, an existing 6" steel main is located within the right-of-way of Country Club road with 2" PE mains branching into the rights of way of Bray road and Edison street and may be impacted by pavement sawcutting and driveway grading into the development. In addition, there are several service lines inside the areas of development. SWG also requests that no trees be planted within close proximity to gas facilities due to root intrusion; therefore, SWG requires all tree placements have a minimum eight-foot clearance from the tree center line to existing or proposed gas facilities. Shrubs and bushes may be planted within the eight-foot clearance zone. All information is provided for reference use only. Please note that it is the responsibility of excavators or those developers planning excavation to verify actual field conditions in advance of construction so that requests for gas service or any potential issues can be addressed in a timely manner, including payment for conflict mitigation if applicable. Blue Stake and potholing are suggested for best accuracy when locating SWG facilities. Please include SWG in all future development plan submittals of this project. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (520) 794-6194 or ben.delosmonteros@swgas.com. Sincerely, Ben De Los Monteros Engineering Technician Southern Arizona Division Enc: SWG Contact Information and Excavators Responsibilities (pdf) |
| 03/05/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 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; and any conditions imposed 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 |
| 03/05/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. The invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. b. The points of connection to existing public sewers, if any, for each building. c. The first floor elevations for the buildings d. If an on-site sewage disposal system is or is to be 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. |
| 03/09/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Clearly label the curb radii at each driveway entrance. The Edison Road entrance must have 25-foot radii. 2. Clearly indicate there will be not curb around the water harvesting basin. 3. Indicate the landscape areas will be depressed a minimum of 6 inches. Provide curb openings to allow for run-off to enter these areas. 4. Show drainage patterns for all areas of the site. Show how drainage will be directed to water harvesting areas to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Show base flood elevation contours through the site. Ensure that proposed buildings are elevated to at least one foot above the base flood. 6. Show existing and future site visibility triangles for all driveway entrances and all street intersections. 7. Provide authorization for the alternate surface in the vehicle use area. Use of alternate surfaces must be approved by the PDSP engineering manager. |
| 03/10/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See documents in PRO |
| 03/10/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/10/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | March 10, 2015 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0017 PROJECT NAME: Friend of PC Library PROJECT ADDRESS: SEC Country Club Rd and Grant PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plant; The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Edison Road - Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. 2. Edison road - Show dimensions of curb return radius. The radius should be 25 feet. 3. Delete the "No through Traffic" sign. This sign is not applicable. Existing no outlet should remain. 4. Delete the speed table and markings. Speed tables must be approved by the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) process. Contact NTMP Traffic engineering at 791-4259 for information and requirements. The speed table can be approved if process is complete, or placed at a later date by process. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/10/2015 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No planned or existing Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this Development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/10/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Per TSM 8-01.4.0B, add the note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from Table 1 for the intended use(s). 2. There is inadequate access provided to the double enclosure. The 40 ft. clear area cannot extend into parking spaces. Show the turning movements of the service vehicle based upon the turning templates in TSM Section 8 demonstrating that the service vehicle can align with the 40 ft. clear area without maneuvering through parking spaces, that the service vehicle can make the turn to enter Bray Road after servicing the enclosures, and that the 3 ft. clear area is provided between the path of the vehicle and any adjacent obstacles as shown in TSM Section 8, Figure 4. 3. The two single enclosures are shown incorrectly per TSM Section 8, Figure 5, for enclosures placed at 45 degrees to the PAAL. Revise the plan to show the correct layout of the enclosures. Also, the 40 ft. clear areas cannot encroach into parking spaces. 4. The enclosure details on Sheet 6 state the enclosures are to be per Development Standard No. 6-01.0. Revise the single enclosure detail #9 to state it shall be per Figure 3B of TSM Section 8. Revise the double enclosure detail #10 to state it shall be per Figure 3A of TSM Section 8. 5. Add to the concrete call outs in the single enclosure detail #9 to include #4 rebar at 12” O.C. both ways in similar fashion to the call outs in Detail #10 for the double enclosure. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net From: DSD_CDRC DSD_CDRC [DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:42 AM To: kperry@perryengineering.net; Howard Dutt; Kellie Anderson; Zelin Canchola Subject: Fwd: DP15-0017/Friends of the Pima County Public Library Comments are passed due. >>> DSD_CDRC 02/09/2015 8:08 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP15-0017 |
| 03/11/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan |
| 03/11/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 03/11/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 03/11/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 03/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 03/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 03/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/01/2015 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |