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: T13CM05881
Parcel: 13335027B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T13CM05881
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/01/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please clarify F-1 occupancy statement. Usually an occupancy classification is not assigned to shell buildings. Be advised, section 903.2.4.1 of the 2012 International Fire Code and International Building Code states that a F-1 occupancy in excess of 2,500 square feet that contain woodworking operations require fire sprinkler systems.
10/01/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: A-Family Discount Storage - 8950 E. Speedway Blvd.
T13CM05881, T13CM05883, T13CM05884, T13CM05886, & T13CM05886
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 2, 2013

1. The building plans have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. Sheet SG-1, Drawing Index does not match the sheets provided, see redline.

3. Sheet SG-2 references the Land Use Code (LUC). As the LUC is not longer applicable and the development package was reviewed under the Unified Development Code (UDC) remove all references to the LUC from this sheet or remove the sheet.

4. Sheet A-1.1 is not listed on the drawing index but appears to be related to Building #16. The east elevation shows three (3) roll-up doors not shown on the approved development package. The First Floor Plan shows pedestrian circulation and vehicular access that does not match what is shown on the approved development package. Clarify the differences.

5. Sheet A-2.1 is not listed on the drawing index but appears to be related to Building #17. The west elevation shows four (4) roll-up doors not shown on the approved development package. The First Floor Plan shows pedestrian circulation and vehicular access that does not match what is shown on the approved development package. Clarify the differences.

6. Sheet A-3.1 is not listed on the drawing index but appears to be related to Building #16. The north & south elevation show three (3) roll-up doors not shown on the approved development package. The west elevation shows one (1) roll-up door not shown on the approved development package that would require access through vehicle parking space. The First Floor Plan shows pedestrian circulation and vehicular access that does not match what is shown on the approved development package. Clarify the differences. The overall dimension shown do not match what is shown on the approved development package, 60' x 40', this floor plan calls out 100' x 40'.

7. Sheet S-4, Foundation Plan (Building 18), overall dimensions do not match the approved development package.

8. Sheet A4.1 is not listed on the drawing index but appears to be related to Building #19. The north, south and east elevations show roll-up doors not shown on the approved development package. The First Floor Plan shows pedestrian circulation and vehicular access that does not match what is shown on the approved development package. Clarify the differences. The overall dimension shown do not match what is shown on the approved development package, 100' x 40', this floor plan calls out 60' x 40'

9. Sheet S-5, Foundation Plan (Building 19), overall dimensions do not match the approved development package.

10. Sheet A5.1 is not listed on the drawing index but appears to be related to Building #20. The north and south elevations show roll-up doors not shown on the approved development package. The First Floor Plan shows pedestrian circulation and vehicular access that does not match what is shown on the approved development package. Clarify the differences.

11. Upon review of the approved development plan provided with this submittal, Zoning noticed that phase lines were added to the development package. As these phase lines were not shown on the preliminary development package (PDP) submitted to the Re-zoning section a change to rezoning conditions may be required. If the phase lines are to remain the development package will need to be revised to clearly show how the phasing will work, what will be constructed in each phase, etc. The building plans cannot be approved until the phasing comments have been addressed.

12. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956
10/01/2013 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied SHEET SG-1
1. Sheet Index is incorrect, missing architectural floor plan sheets after A1.1.
2. Location plan incorrect.
SHEET SG-2
3. Correct occupancy load reference to SG-1 not SG-2.
4. Correct "OCCUPANY" spelling to "OCCUPANCY".
5. The use has been defined as Hobby Workshops. Recalculate the occupancy load by using area for Industrial use at 1/100 gross and warehouse area at 1/500 gross.
6. Vicinity Map is wrong.
SHEET SG-3
7. Complete the Occupancy Load on each data sheet.
SHEETS A1.1, A2.1, A3.1, A4.1 and A5.1
8. All F-1 occupancy use buildings with wood working operations and larger than 2,500 s.f. must have sprinkler systems, reference 2012 IBC, Section 903.2.4.1.
9. Please identify the building number in the floor plan title.
10. Provide detectable warning strips at all marked crossings as required by 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14.
SHEET S-1
11. Provide complete foundation details showing dimensions and reinforcing as required by the structural calculations.
12. At detail 7/S-1, reference is made to having 2% slope at all accessible units. All units are to be accessible.
SHEETS S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5 and S-6.
13. Reference all foundation details
14. Provide all foundation details calculated in the the structural calculations including anchor and hair pinning details.
END OF REVIEW
10/01/2013 RONALD BROWN COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Passed
10/15/2013 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed
10/15/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The 2012 International Plumbing Code has been adopted by the City of Tucson. The use of the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code is allowed provided an appeal to the building official is filed. There is no charge for this appeal. Unless the use of the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code is selected, remove all references to the UPC from the drawings.
2. The water supply to the building, as shown on the plumbing plan on sheet P1.1, is a ¾" service but the water pressure calculations on the same sheet call for a 1" water meter and a 1" water service to the building. Development plan sheet 2 of 19 indicates a single 1" water meter serving buildings 16, 17, 18, and 19. Coordinate the site drawing, the water calculations, and the plumbing plan. Show the size and location of the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly (detail 1/P1.2 appears to indicate that the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly may be located within the building). Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012 and Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf
3. Provide water distribution isometrics for the building. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
4. Coordinate the waste and vent riser diagram with the plumbing plan for both geometry and pipe sizes. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
5. Show how the specified wall-mounted water closets are to be installed correctly in a manner consistent with the Code and the manufacturer's instructions. Reference: Section 303.2, IPC 2012.
6. Show how the exposed water pipes and the water pipes in the un-heated building are to be protected from freezing. Reference: Section 305.4, IPC 2012.
7. Show how the temperature of the hot water supply to the public lavatories is to be controlled. Reference: Sections 416.5 and 607.1, IPC 2012 and Section C404.3, IECC 2012.
8. Revise the water supply piping calculations to coordinate with the plumbing design for the building. Note that the specified water closet has a flush valve. Reference: Sections 604.1 and 604.3, IPC 2012.
9. The ¾" pipe size called out for the flush valves will result in a water velocity greater than that recommended by the pipe manufacturer (e.g. less than 8 FPS for copper). Reference: Table 604.3, IPC 2012.
10. Polybutylene is not approved for use in a water distribution system. Reference: Section 605.4, IPC 2012.
11. The development plan indicates that the site will connected to the public sewer system. Delete all references to connections to a septic system. Reference: Section 701.2, IPC 2012.
12. An approved development plan is not a substitute for a building permit to install site utilities. Provide cleanouts for building sewer; the cleanouts shall not be located greater than 100-feet apart, measured from the upstream entrance of the cleanout. Reference: Sections 104.2 and 107.1, IBC 2012 and Section 708.3.1, IPC 2012.
13. Backwater valves are required to be installed in the building drains serving fixtures located on floors that are less than 12" above the rim of the next upstream manhole. Specify the backwater valve to be used and show how access is to be provided to the backwater valve. Reference: Sections 715.1 and 715.5, IPC 2012.
10/15/2013 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Denied Development plan sheet 2 of 19 indicates a single 1" water meter serving buildings 8, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Based on the plumbing fixtures specified for the buildings, the expected demand will exceed the 37.5 GPM limit that Tucson Water sets for a 1" water meter. Calculate the total demand for these buildings (including the demand from hose bibbs) and select a water meter size that is acceptable to Tucson Water.
10/16/2013 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/22/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed