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: T13CM05884
Parcel: 13335027B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T13CM05884
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.
10/02/2013 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
10/03/2013 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied REFERENCE COMMENTS T13CM05881
10/03/2013 RONALD BROWN COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Completed
10/15/2013 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed
10/15/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Development plan sheet 2 of 19 indicates a 1" water service is being supplied to building 18 but no plumbing drawings have been submitted. Clarify the intent regarding water service to building 18. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 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