Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Number: T04CM02932
Parcel: 13104398A

Address:
4701 E 29TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T04CM02932
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/18/2004 Robert Sherry MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
08/19/2004 Robert Sherry PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not addressed. Provide a riser diagram for the water piping to show how the new piping relates to the existing piping. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
2. Revise the plumbing schedule to include all of the fixtures being fed by the same meter (e.g. water closets, ice machine, and hose bibb). Include the fixture units for the drinking fountain and the water supply to the coffee machine. The size and discharge rating of the floor sink shall be based on the fixtures and appliances discharging into it. Reference Sections 610.1, 702.0, and the footnote to Table 7-3, UPC 1994.
3. Section 610.4, UPC 1994, requires water supply systems with less than 50 fixture units or less than 200 feet of developed length to be sized in accordance with the values shown in Table 6-4, UPC 1994. Revise the water supply pipe sizing as required.
4. A double check valve is not acceptable for protecting the water supply to a carbonator. Reference Section 603.3.12, UPC 1994.
5. Ice makers that are capable of producing back-pressure may require reduced pressure principle backflow preventers. Please submit equipment sheets for determination. Reference Section 603.0, UPC 1994.
6. Revise the waste and vent diagram to coordinate with the plumbing floor plan.
08/31/2004 Loren Makus ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: 4701 E. 29th Street
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 31 August 2004
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T04CM02932

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the revised hydrologic and hydraulic report. Approval is not recommended at this time. The following comments must be addressed:
1. The report does not adequately demonstrate that the structure is not affected by regulatory flow (100-year storm). Item 2 in "Results and Conclusions" states that the existing structure's floor elevation is "about 2570.2 feet", yet I-87-33 "As Built" profiles contained in the report depict a finished floor elevation of 69.03 - with the finished floor depicted below the top of curb. This apparent discrepancy must be addressed in a revised report.
2. The report states that the 100-year flow will be 0.62 feet deep as it approaches the existing catch basin - indicating overtopping of the curb. A revised report should contain an exhibit depicting the100-year Floodplain limits affecting the site, with a minimum of one water surface elevation provided at the upstream end of the existing structure. Supporting hydraulic calculations must be contained in the report. Accurate elevation information, with provision/discussion of a basis of elevation must be included.
3. If determined that the structure is affected by regulatory flow, information specifying whether the structure is to be substantially improved, as defined by floodplain regulations, must be provided (see comments below).
4. Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. If the value of the improvement exceeds 50% of the value of the existing structure, then substantial improvement requirements must be met, including full conformance to floodplain development requirements (floodway fringe development, floodproofing requirements, etc.), as defined in City Floodplain Regulations (Tucson Code, Sec. 26-2).
5. If the improvements to the existing structure amount to a substantial improvement, conformance to Section 26-4.1 - Nonconforming development - will be required. Subsection (a) "Improvements to, or Reconstruction of, Existing Nonconforming Development", states that "any structure which is substantially improved at a cost equal to or exceeding fifty (50) percent of the full cash value of the structure as shown on the latest assessment rolls of the county assessor either (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred, shall conform to these regulations". This information must be determined by submittal of the necessary documents (see comment # 10). A recent appraisal, specifying the value of the structure itself may be necessary and/or preferred, should a "substantial improvement" apply under this permit application.
6. The floodplain permit application must include a licensed contractor's estimate, itemizing the proposed improvements to the EXISTING STRUCTURE, to be performed under this permit. Materials, labor, and overhead must be included in the estimate.
For additional City Code information, go to: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/clerks/ or hard copies of the ordinance may be purchased on the 3rd Floor (City Engineer/Floodplain Office) in the Pima County/City of Tucson Public Works Building - 201 N. Stone Ave.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us.

Doug Williams
Sr. Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
09/09/2004 Peter McLaughlin ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: Mirek Edward
4229 E. Seneca Street
Tucson, AZ 85712


FROM: Peter McLaughlin
Senior Planner

FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner

PROJECT:
T04CM02932
Tenant Improvement with new parking
4701 E. 29th St.

TRANSMITTAL: September 9, 2004

COMMENTS: 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 last approved plan shows that area in front of the westernmost overhead door (since removed) was to have a sidewalk in front of it as required between a building and PAAL. Revise plan to show sidewalk in this area.
DS 2-08.4.1.B

2. The bicycle parking must be located outside of vehicle use area. Revise location on the plan and show a minimum 5-foot maneuverability area on the bicycle parking detail. DS 2-09.4.3

3. Add the maximum slope of the handicap access aisle and ramps to the plan. ANS/IBC


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608.
09/13/2004 RAUL PALMA BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/14/2004 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/14/2004 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed