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: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T13CM05886
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 | Passed | |
| 10/15/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 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 |