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

Permit Number: DP15-0017
Parcel: 122151510

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP15-0017
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/27/2015 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/28/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
09/08/2015 BVIESTE1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
1. Show the waste stream calculations in the added general note 8 that specifies anticipated method of collection.
2. The added general note 8 states waste and recycling materials will be collected and removed from the site once a week, yet it appears all the enclosures have been removed from the plans except for a single one in the north parking lot. Per TSM 8-01.4.0.D, the waste stream calculation exceeds 190 gallons per week and requires metal container service for both refuse and recycling. Provide an additional enclosure for recycling.
3. Revise the title of Detail 8 on Sheet 6 to state the enclosure shall be per Figure 3B instead of Figure 3A.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
09/11/2015 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: September 14, 2015

DUE DATE: September 22, 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.

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 ____."

1. This comment was not addressed. 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.8 - For development package documents provide.

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.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.

2. This comment was not fully addressed. The provided calculation provides the number required but not the number provided. 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.

3. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.C2.d. Where buildings have more than one public entrance or a site has more than one building, short-term bicycle parking must be distributed so that at least one short-term bicycle parking space is within 50 feet of each public entrance. That said the proposed location of the short term bicycle parking does not meet this requirement.

4. COMMENT: This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a detail that shows how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D are met. Show the required long term bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail that shows how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D are met.

5. Zoning acknowledges you response to this comment but the comment was not addressed. Provide a note on either the plan or detail stating how the requirements of 7.4.9.B.1.e are met. 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.

6. Until the dedication is approved by COT Real Estate the development package cannot be approved. 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.)

7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Show and dimension the future curb and sidewalk on the plan.

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.

8. This comment was not addressed. 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.

9. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide the required outdoor lighting plan with your next submittal, see rezoning condition 11.

Additional comments:

COMMENT: There is a Construction Keynote 13 shown in the Bray Road right-of-way. It does not appear that a concrete header is proposed in this area.

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
09/14/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA 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
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0017

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 14, 2015

DUE DATE: September 22, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1. Based on the dimensions shown on sheet 3 and detail 5 sheet 5 it does not appear that the van accessible vehicle parking space requirements can be met.

2. Detail 1 sheet 5 provide a dimension from the bottom of the "VAN ACCESSIBLE" sign to finish grade. This dimension should be 7'-0".

3. The wheel stop location dimension shown on detail 5 sheet 5 is not shown correctly. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 this dimension is from the face of curb.

4. Clearly demonstrate on the plan or detail 5 sheet 5 that the proposed accessible signs do not reduce the proposed sidewalk to less than 4'-0" clear.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov
09/14/2015 DAN SANTA CRUZ ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed The current submittal did not provide adequate information in order to verify compliance with the outdoor lighting code and for the even distribution of illumination. Therefore, the review for compliance with the outdoor lighting code and the even distribution of illumination will be conducted during the review of the construction documents.
09/17/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change Sept 17, 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. Delete the "No through Traffic" sign for public alley. This sign is not applicable. Existing no outlet shall remain. Rezoning condition #23 states as approved by TDOT.

2. Eliminate crosswalk markings within the public right of way. Rezoning condition states to have access to parcel to the north, not to mark a crosswalk. TDOT does not place crosswalk markings or maintains them in public alleyways.

3. Driveway apron along Country Club is acceptable.
09/21/2015 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.

Add rezoning condition notes 14 & 15 to the landscape plan and indicate how the conditions where met.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
09/22/2015 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 or a TSMR must be obtained.
2. Indicate all landscape areas will be depressed a minimum of 6 inches. Provide curb openings to allow for run-off to enter these areas.
3. Show drainage patterns for all areas of the site. Show how drainage will be directed to landscape water harvesting areas to the maximum extent practicable.
4. Show base flood elevation contours through the site on the site plan. Ensure that proposed buildings are elevated to at least one foot above the base flood.
5. Show existing and future site visibility triangles for all driveway entrances and all street intersections.
09/23/2015 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 these plans

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/20/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed