Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T11CM00338
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/12/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/18/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/18/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The site plan must be approved before the building plan can be approved. |
| 04/26/2011 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMMENT #10 1. The dimensions are not shown. Both toilet rooms are non-compliant. The architectural drawings show a toilet room width of 5'-5" from center line of partition to center line of partition. A 5'-0" wide w.c. clearance block is dashed in around the toilet. When one half of the partitions are subtracted from the 5'-5" width, a clear width of 4'-10 5/16" is available. This is without ceramic tile finish consideration. Please redesign these toilets to meet ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 604.3. a. Also, please show how these toilets are in compliance with Section 603.2.3. PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMMENT #11 2. The water dispenser plan and elevation details are not the same. a. The width dimensions (including the overall width) are not shown as requested. b. The detail does not comply with Section 602.2 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMMENT #12 3. The height dimensions of details 1 and 2/1.1.5 are inconsistent and incorrect. Please reconcile. PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMMENT #15 4. At the exterior elevations, please show how the guardrail meets the code requirement Section 1013.3. PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL COMMENT #5 5. The door on the West side of the elevator has been determined to be a Means of Egress as a minimum for deliveries but also for occupants of the building up or down the ramp to or from the alley way. Being a means of egress, handrails at the ramp to the alley are required. Please reference my comments on the last site development plan review. The electrical drawings, correctly so, provides a exit light for emergency egress directly above this door. It is not a directional exit light. Please coordinate the architectural drawings to reflect the electrical drawings. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 5. At the roof and floor key plans, please show the calculations and sizes for all the perimeter steel beams. SHEET 5.2 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); 6. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 42): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE BEAM 10 7. (BETWEEN GRIDS 1 AND 2 ON GRIDS A AND E) IS A W12X26, WHILE THE DRAWING INDICATES A W12X14. VERIFY. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/02/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/03/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved. Cut sheets labeled "for reference only" and an outline of the proposed Type I hood on a kitchen equipment layout does not constitute a design. Provide sealed plans containing sufficient information to show that the installation of the hood will satisfy all of the requirements of Sections 506 and 507, IMC 2006. [Provide a design for the proposed Type I grease hood, including performance and construction data for the hood. Provide structural calculations and details to show that the Type I [Type II] hood is supported from the building structure in accordance with Section 507.6, IMC 2006. Reference: Sections 302.1, 507, and 508, IMC 2006.] |
| 05/03/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Show the gravity grease interceptor installed per the manufacturer's instructions. Reference: Section 310.4, UPC 2006. |
| 05/05/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: University of Arizona Hillel Student Center Expansion T11CM00338 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 5, 2011 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1) This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC). This project has been reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site due to a building expansion greater than 25%. 2) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The following comments are in regards to building setbacks. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required for the following issues: a) Front Street Perimeter Yard Setback - Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.A Within established areas, the front street perimeter yard is twenty (20) feet or one and one-half (1 1/2) the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of ninety (90) feet: i) The required front street perimeter yard setback to the south property line is based on a wall height of 20.0' x 1.5 = 30.0', proposed front street perimeter yard setback is 25.0'. b) Interior Perimeter Yard Setback - Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4 using Development Designator "18", Perimeter Yard Indicator "CC", the required perimeter yard is based on 10.0' or ¾ (Height of the proposed exterior building wall): i) The required perimeter yard setback from the proposed building to the north property line is based on a wall height of 32.5' x 0.75 = 24.375', proposed perimeter yard setback is 13.7' ii) The required perimeter yard setback from the proposed building to the west property line is based on a wall height of 32.5' x 0.75 = 24.375', proposed perimeter yard setback is 7.5' iii) The required perimeter yard setback from the balcony and stairs to the north property line is based on a wall height of 16.6' x 0.75 = 12.45', proposed perimeter yard setback is 0.83' 3) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Per LUC Section 3.3.7.2 the minimum width of a two-way Parking Area Access Land (PAAL) is 24.0'. That said the proposed PAAL of 20.0' does not meet this requirement. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. 4) D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A & Development Designator "18" the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.50, proposed FAR is 0.772. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 5) D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A & Development Designator "18" the allowed Lot Coverage is 70%, proposed Lot Coverage is 96.7%. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 6) D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Per LUC Section 3.3.4, CIVIC USE GROUP, Religious Use, Motor Vehicle: SB. One (1) space per five (5) fixed seats or one (1) space per fifty (50) sq. ft. of floor area of all combined areas of assembly where religious services are held. Based on an assembly area of 6,130 Sq. Ft / 50 = 123 vehicle parking spaces required, 18 vehicle parking spaces provided. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 7) If a Board of Adjustment for Variance is applied for and approved provide the following information on the plan; Board of Adjustment for Variance Number, Date Approved, What was approved, and Conditions of Approval. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\2011\t11cm00338 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |