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: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Permit Number - T10CM03355
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2011 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide last approved site plan. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS a. NO LAST APPROVED SITE PLAN INCLUDED WITH RESUBMITTAL 2. As per City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department construction document requirements, the minimum lettering font (upper and lower case) is 3/32". Several sheets in this submittal are non-compliant. Please revise those sheets and resubmit. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS a. THE MINIMUM 3/32" FONT HEIGHT APPLIES TO SIZE OF ALL LETTERING TYPES, INCLUDING LOWER CASE TYPE. SHEET SP1.0 IN NON-COMPLIANT. b. SHEET S2.2, THE STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES ARE NON-COMPLIANT 3. The basement plan appears to be left out of the building code analysis i.e. square footage, use exiting and etc. Please define the use of the entire basement to the restaurant and provide new square footage calculations with code compliant exiting from the basement and new occupant load summaries along with toilet fixture calculation requirements. Please confirm sprinklers in the basement. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS a. THE BUILDING DESCRIPTION, TENANT SPACE AND THE CODE ANALYSIS DATA SHEET DO NOT INCLUDE THE BASEMENT. SHEET A1.0a 4. OK SHEET S2.0 5. OK GENERAL 6. OK 7. Please show me the trellis calculated in the structural calculations. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS a. IF THE TRELLIS IS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL, PLEASE SUBMIT A LETTER OF DEFERRED SUBMITTALS DESCRIBING THIS FACT TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR ADDITIONAL FEE ASSESSMENT. 8. OK, APPEAL IS IN PROCESS 9. DITTO FOR ALL FUTURE RESUBMITTALS 10. Additional Comment: Please provide Special Inspection certifications for review and approval as per required special inspections summarized on sheet S2.2, Structural General Notes. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/11/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/13/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T10CM03355 6061 E Broadway Boulevard Jason's Deli - Restaurant (Full Service) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 13, 2011 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. The information requested by the previous reviewer was not submitted or included on the plans. Zoning will not be able to approve the T.I. application at this time. 2. In order to assess the number of parking spaces required for this development a survey of the existing uses must be provided. This development appears to have been parked at a ratio of one space per 200 sq ft of GFA back in 1982. This parking calculation was used under the assumption that everything was either retail or office use at the time. Per current code and the parking calculation ratios, shopping centers are classified in two ways. A ratio of one space per 175 sq ft of total GFA for shopping centers under 50,000 sq ft and one space per 200 GFA for shopping centers of 50,000 sq ft. or greater. Definition of Shopping Center. A mixed use development composed of an integrated group of establishments (stores), planned, constructed, and managed as a unit, utilizing common or shared facilities, such as buildings, parking, and vehicular and pedestrian access, where at least fifty (50) percent of the use is retail. The individual establishments may be owned by a single entity or by separate entities. (Ord. No. 9293, §1, 9/27/99) Based on the information available in the PDSD microfilm it appears that a total of 40,402.41 sq ft was listed and approved on a site plan documents dated 5-26-82. This document did not include the Coco's restaurant. The parking calculation indicates that a total of 202 parking spaces were required and that 265 spaces were provided. Once the Coco's restaurant was constructed an additional 63 spaces were required. The excess number of parking provided on the initial site plan covered the number of required spaces for the Coco's restaurant. There were just enough parking spaces to cover the parking ratios for all the uses on the site. The only way short of a parking variance or a parking survey is to list the existing uses and parking ratios for each use on the plan in order to verify whether or not this development qualifies as a shopping center as defined by the Land Use Code. Based on the information I was able to find in microfilm it appears that this development is under 50,000 sq ft. In order to qualify as a shopping center under 50,000 sq ft, 50% of the overall GFA must be retail (per the LUC definition). Per the 1982 approved plan there was 40,402.41 sq ft of building area and per a 1993 Alta survey which depicted the Coco's restaurant with approximately 6,000 to 6,300 sq ft increased the total GFA of 40,402.41 to 46,702.41. Assuming and being conservative because there is no real information to verify the overall building square footage the number of parking spaces required at one space per 175 sq ft ratio is 267 spaces. According to the 1983 site plan 265 spaces were provided. The site would be short two spaces and a variance for two parking spaces will be required. If the overall GFA is 46,402 or less 265 spaces would be sufficient and the T.I and C of O application can be approved by zoning. I have included a the copies of the site plan and Alta survey I used for this review. If you feel that this is too much information please feel free to call me and we can discuss the requirements I have tried to explain. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T10CM03355.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised plan with the requested information listed on the plans. |
| 01/14/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved. The wall types shown on sheets A1.1 and A1.1a indicate that the wall construction located behind the two Type I hoods complies with Section 507.9, IMC 2006 except the wall type contains combustible supporting structure (2"x6" blocking) and does not extend 18" beyond the hoods in all directions. [Show that the hood installation complies with Section 507.9, IMC 2006 with regard to extension of the required wall construction 18" beyond the hood in all directions and non-combustible structures (i.e. 2"x 6" blocking) within the wall.] |
| 01/14/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/18/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved. The hub drain shown in detail 6/P0.1 does not comply with the requirements of Section 411.1, UPC 2006; provide an approved indirect waste receptor. [Provide information to show that the hub drain complies with Sections 411.1 and 804.1, UPC 2006.] 2. A reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly is required for protecting the water supply to a carbonator. Reference: Section 603.4.12, UPC 2006. [Appliances (e.g. ovens, ice makers, etc) to be directly connected to the water supply system that do not have listed, integral backflow preventers or integral air gaps conforming to Table 6-3, UPC 2006 require backflow prevention. Specify the type of backflow prevention device required for each water connection. Reference: Sections 602.3, 603.0, and Table 6-2, UPC 2006.] 3. Comment not resolved. The water connection schedule on sheet P2.0 does show a 1" branch serving the urinal but the plumbing fixture schedule on sheet P0.2 shows a minimum branch size of ¾" for the urinal. [The branch piping size called out for the urinal flush valve will result in water velocities greater than 8 FPS. Limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for the copper piping. Reference: Sections 610.12 and A 6.1, UPC 2006 and IS 3-2003, Section 2.6.] 4. Comment not resolved. The waste and vent riser diagram on sheet P3.0 appears to show three trap arms combining at the location of the 3-compartment sink (apparently the wash and rinse compartments and another sink located near the dishwasher). Reference: Sections 1001.1 and 1001.2, UPC 2006. [Provide a direct waste connection for the wash and rinse sections of the 3-compartment sink, with an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartment only. Reference: Sections 304.0, 704.3, and 801.2.3, UPC 2006.] |
| 01/19/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | NEED REVIEW/APPROVAL FOR CAPACITY EVALUATION AND/OR POINT/METHOD OF CONNECTION - PCRWRD- 3RD FL PWB - 740-6534 |
| 01/21/2011 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | DID NOT ADDRESS PREVIOUS COMMENT - RTM 1/21/11 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/07/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/07/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |