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: T12CM06487
Parcel: 10707003F

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI

Permit Number - T12CM06487
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/19/2012 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Two hour wall needs to continue around east end of patio.
Two hour walls require 90 minute rated doors. Please revise.
Please break down occupant load per "building". Show exiting to verify corridors do not need to be 1 hour rated.
10/23/2012 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET A0; CODE REVIEW CHECKLIST: PROVIDE THE PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS (WATER CLOSETS, LAVATORIES, DRINKING FOUNTAINS, SERVICE SINKS) FOR THE NEW OCCUPANT LOAD. INDICATE FIXTURES REQUIRED AND PROVIDED.
2. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: KEYNOTE 2 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. PROVIDE (IS THIS THE SAME AS KEYNOTE 12?).
3. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES: KEYNOTES 2 AND 12 INDICATE "BOTTLED WATER COOLER", WHILE THE PLUMBING PLAN (SHEET M3.2) INDICATES FIXTURE P-5A IS A "BOTTLESS WATER COOLER". COORDINATE.
4. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: KEYNOTE 14 (REFRIGERATOR) IS INDICATED IN CORRIDOR 138. REVISE.
5. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: KEYNOTE 15 (COUNTERTOP) IS INDICATED IN THE TRAINING ROOM 117. REVISE (SHOULD THIS BE KEYNOTE 16?).
6. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES: KEYNOTE 21 INDICATES A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED DOOR ASSEMBLY. ONE OF THESE DOORS IS IN A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED WALL, AND THE OTHER DOOR IS IN A TWO HOUR FIRE RATED WALL. REVISE THE REQUIRED FIRE RATING OF THE DOORS PER THE 2006 IBC TABLE 715.4.
7. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: NEW CORRIDOR WALLS (CORRIDORS 116, 126, AND 129) MUST MEET THE FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF THE 2006 IBC SECTION 1017. VERIFY AND PROVIDE.
8. SHEET A1 (FLOOR PLAN); WALL TYPES: PARAPET WALL TYPE 4 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THIS PLAN. VERIFY (REFERENCE SHEET A5).
9. SHEET A2; SOUTH ELEVATION: A SECTION CUT F/A2 IS INDICATED ON THIS ELEVATION. REVISE THE SECTION REFERENCE (NO F ON SHEET A2).
10. SHEET A2; KEYNOTES: KEYNOTE 1 (DEMO) WAS NOT LOCATED ON THIS SHEET. VERIFY.
11. SHEET A2; DETAIL 1: THE TWO DETAIL REFERENCES (1/1 AND 2/1) ARE NOT CORRECT. REVISE.
12. SHEET A2; DETAIL 1: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE.
13. SHEET A2; DETAIL 1: AT THE UPPER AND LOWER EYE BOLTS, THE DETAIL INDICATES 7/8" EYE BOLT, WHILE THE ENLARGED DETAILS INDICATE 1/2" EYE BOLTS. COORDINATE.
14. SHEET A2; DETAIL 1: THE AWNING INDICATES 2'-0" TO 4'-0" FOR THE AWNING WIDTH. CLARIFY ON THE ELEVATIONS WHERE THESE TWO WIDTHS OCCUR.
15. SHEET A2; DETAIL 1: ALL NOTES HAVE TWO LEADER LINES. REVISE.
16. SHEET A2; DETAIL 1: THERE IS A 6"X6" PLATE INDICATED AT THE TOP EYE BOLT THAT DOES NOT SHOW UP ON THE ENLARGED DETAIL. REVISE AND CALL OUT THE PLATE THICKNESS.
17. SHEET A3; DETAIL 4: A NOTE ON THE DETAIL INDICATES A 5/A1.2 REFERENCE FOR THE INTERIOR PARTITION CONNECTION. REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
18. SHEET A3; DETAIL 5: PROVIDE THE CONNECTION OF THE BRACES TO THE TOP OF THE PARTITION WALL, AND THE BRACE SIZE.
19. SHEET A5; DETAIL 3: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE.
20. SHEET S2 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 7): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE LEDGER 1 CONNECTION OF 3/4" DIAMETER ANCHOR BOLTS AT 16" O.C., WHILE THE LEDGER SCHEDULE ON S2 INDICATES 2-3/4" DIAMETER EXPANSION BOLTS AT 48" O.C. CLARIFY.
21. SHEET S2; FOUNDATION PLAN: KEYNOTE 4 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. PROVIDE.
22. SHEET S2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: PLAN NOTE K INDICATES NEW CMU ABOVE THE EXISTING CMU WALL PER DETAIL 405. REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
23. GENERAL: PROVIDE TWO SETS OF STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR REVIEW.
24. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: CHECK THE DEAD END CORRIDORS 115 AND 116 TO ENSURE THEY MEET THE 2006 IBC SECTION 1017.3.
25. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
10/30/2012 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide supporting documentation for the projection factor used for the windows. Reference: Section 502.3.2, IECC 2006.
2. Revise the mechanical design as required to avoid using the corridor as a return air duct. Reference: Section 601.2, IMC 2006.
3. Provide approved combination fire/smoke dampers for protection of ducts and penetrations of fire resistive walls at the egress corridor (corridors 115 and 116). Reference: Section 607.5.4, IMC 2006, Section 1017.1, IFC 2006 and Section 1017.1, IBC 2006.
10/30/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Show how the new water piping relates to the existing water supply system and show that the additional connections do not cause the existing piping to be overloaded. Reference: Sections 102.4 and 106.3.1, IPC 2006.
2. The mixing valve used to provide tempered water for the lavatories is required to conform to ASSE 1070. Reference: Section 416.5, IPC 2006.
3. Provide the slope and sizing information for the new gutter and the size of the new downspout. Reference: Sections 1106 and 1107, IPC 2006.
10/30/2012 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to show the size and route of the building water supply along with the location and size of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006.
10/31/2012 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
10/31/2012 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: October 31, 2012
SUBJECT: W.E. O'Neil Construction- Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED: Attn: Lisa Bower
LOCATION: 2601 N Fairview Ave; T13S R13E Sec35; Ward 3
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T12CM06487


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed building application and supporting documentation. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the building plan at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01 for site plan review. The following items need to be addressed:


DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

1) TC Chapter 26: Provide a Drainage Report for the property to ensure conformance with Chapter 26 Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Setback Ordinance. The property is located adjacent to the Kreuger Wash. The Drainage Report needs to show conformance with floodplain fringe development. A Drainage Report is not required if the following 2 items can be verified or addressed;

a) Provide an Elevation Certificate for the existing structure to show that it is in conformance with the rules and regulations of floodplain fringe development, then the new structure will be permitted with a set finished floor elevation and required Elevation Certificates, or
b) Provide documentation to show that the proposed project meets the substantial improvement requirements as stated below under DS Sec.2-01.N.


SITE PLAN: It is recommended that Development Standard 2-01 "Development Package" be reviewed prior to resubmittal. DS Sec.2-02 and 2-05 no longer exists and all reviews fall under DS Sec.2-01 for Development Package. The standard has changes that must be incorporated into the plan sheets for review and approval.

2) DS Sec.2-01.2.5: Revise the development plan document to include the CDRC approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp

3) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The relevant Development Plan Package number (DP12-0___) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

4) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Provide the following note on the development plan document stating; "All retaining walls, proposed fencing and other walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Planning Development Services Departments."

5) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.1.a: Revise the development plan document to include a Drainage Note per the referenced standard specifically; "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall."

6) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.2.a: Revise the site plan to provide a note that states; "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations; subject property is located within a City of Tucson Flood Hazard Area."

7) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.3.a: Revise the site plan to provide a note that states; "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan."

8) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.D: Revise the site plan to provide a note that states; "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public."

9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the plan document to dimension the near and far side sight visibility for the PAAL to Fairview Avenue per DS Sec.3-01.5.3.

10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to show design of the vehicular use area as required by Zoning per LUC 3.3.6.

11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5: Revise the development plan document to clearly dimension all PAAL widths to verify minimum requirements.

12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N: The subject property is located within a City of Tucson Flood Hazard Area of the Krueger Wash. Any improvements to the existing structure are considered a substantial improvement to an existing floodprone structure if the value of the new improvement is 50% or more than the assessed/appraised value of the existing structure. Please note that as per the Substantial Improvement & Substantial Damage Rule: A Guideline for Permitting, dated October 2003 only one 3-foot wide doorway may be provided between the common wall of the existing structure and the new improvement. If more than one 3-foot wide linking doorway is proposed for the new improvement, and/or the improvements are determined to be substantial, then the entire existing structure and improved portions of the structure must be brought into compliance by elevation of the floors 1-foot above the regulatory flood elevation. In order to help you permit the addition we will need the following information from you.

a) Provide a Floodplain Use Permit for the proposed development located within the COT Flood Hazard Area. Per City Code Section 26-11.1 the city engineer shall review all of the following applications for development within a regulatory floodplain and erosion hazard areas for compliance with these regulations.

b) Provide a cost estimate, prepared by a licensed contractor or professional construction estimator, for the tenant improvement and addition showing fair market value of the material and labor. Please refer to the relative portions of the Handbook for Arizona Communities on Floodplain Management and the National Flood Insurance Program;
http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/SurfaceWater/FloodManagement/documents/HandbookOct2000.pdf.

c) Provide an assessed or appraised value of the existing structure. The assessed or appraised value is for the structure only (excluding land value). The assessed value can be provided by the latest assessment rolls of the county assessor prior to the improvements being started or from a licensed appraiser.

d) If the cost estimate provided exceeds the 50% threshold then a hydraulic analyses performed by an Arizona Registered Civil Engineer is required to calculate water surface elevations, 1% chance floodplain limits and flow velocities during the 100-year flood event.

13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Revise the development plan document to verify that pedestrian circulation connects all buildings to all other areas of development, pedestrian circulation within the right-of-way, and to the proposed refuse enclosures per DS Sec.2-08.3.1.

14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Verify or provide approval through Environmental Services for refuse pickup. Per DS Sec.6-01 onsite refuse collection is required and the development plan package should reflect the location and access to the required refuse container. If Environmental Service is not requiring onsite collection then PDSD Engineering will approve this comment based on their written approval for refuse collection.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a Development Plan Document application, cost estimate and the assessed or appraised value of the structure, or a Drainage Report showing conformance with Chapter 26 that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the site plan. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
11/06/2012 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T12CM06487
2601 N. Fairview Av.
Building Plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11-8-12

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. This building plan cannot be approved until a Development Package has been submitted and approved. The Development Package must meet the requirements of Development Standard 2-01 for content and form.

2. The following comments are based on the plan submitted sheet AO.

3. DS 2-01.2.5 Revise the development plan document to include the correct CDRC approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp

4. DS 2-01.3.2 The title block shall include the following information.
B. A brief legal description.
E. Page number and number of pages.

5. DS 2-01.3.3 Provide the development Package case number near the lower right corner of all sheets.

6. DS 2-01.3.4 The project-location map shall cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information.
B. Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property.
C. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

7. DS 2-01.3.7.A.2 List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage.

8. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. This project would be: "Administrative and Professional Office "34"

9. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Provide documentation that the indicated "Utility Structure has been permitted. If not it must be included as a new structure and a permit must be obtained.

10. DS 2-01,3,7,A.9.b Provide the allowed and proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. See LUC Sec. 3.2.11.

11. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.c The indicated expansion calculations are incorrect. The base square footage is 5570. Any expansions, including the utility structure, are to be included in the expansion calculations. It appears that with the new addition and the utility structure the expansion will be 21%.

12. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 The last approved site plan indicates the vehicle use area as 2 shot chip seal with indicated area limits. The addition of the utility structure may require the vehicle use area to be expanded. Clearly indicate the surfacing material and limits of the vehicle use area. See LUC Sec. 3.3.6.9.

The addition of vehicle use area will require compliance with LUC Sec. 3.3.6.8 in regards to barriers being require to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site.

13. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The parking calculations provide must include the square footage of the utility structure as well. Revise calculations.

The parking calculations indicate that 2 handicap parking spaces are being provided. Clearly indicate the location of all handicap parking spaces, access aisles, handicap ramps, signage, etc. Provide a dimensioned detail.

Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 for Commercial Services Use Group the number of required parking spaces is based on a ratio of 1:300 sq. ft. of GFA. Revise calculations.

14. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Per LUC Sec. 3.3.8.2 a minimum of 2 short term and 2 long term bicycle parking spaces are required. Provide location and details of both bicycle parking spaces including, surfacing materials, dimensions, type of racks and enclosures, access aisles, etc.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961

C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T12CM06487.doc
11/13/2012 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/12/2012 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/12/2012 FERNE RODRIGUEZ REJECT SHELF Completed