Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T15CM08935
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/25/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Remote Solutions Development Package (2nd Review) DP15-0212 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 25, 2016 DUE DATE: March 25, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 1. Once all other comments are addressed Zoning will conditionally approve the development package with a hold on the C of O unit the lot combo has been completed. COMMENT: Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal. 2. Zoning acknowledges that a TSMR has been approved for this site. Provide the required information on the plan. COMMENT: Per UDC Table 7.4.6-1 the minimum width of a PAAL when accessing 90 degree vehicle parking is 24'. That said once comment 7 is addressed it does not appear that the 24' width can be met. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 3. Zoning acknowledges that a DDO has been applied for. Provide the required information on the plan and have the DDO section stamp the development package sheets. COMMENT: Sheet one under "SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE BOARDERS AND SCREENING" note 1 you call out a building height of "(12' AT ROOF LINE)" and on sheet 4 within the building footprint you call out a height of 32'. Perimeter yard setbacks are based on UDC Article 6.4.5.B.1 The width of the perimeter yard is the distance measured horizontally from a specified point to the face of each exterior building wall at the wall's highest point. The specified point is the property line when it is an interior property line. Along a street property line, the specified point is described in Section 6.4.5.C, Street Perimeter Yard. (See Figure 6.4.5-B & -C.) That said perimeter yard setbacks are base on wall height not roof line. Until the wall height, at its highest point measured to grade, along Jackrabbit Ave. is verified the required street perimeter yard cannot be verified. Once the above comments are addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review. Call or Email to schedule an appointment for this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 03/29/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/07/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 04/07/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide the dimensions of the gutters being supplied (see Table 1106.6, IPC 2012). [Initial comment: Provide dimensions for the proposed gutters and downspouts. Reference: Sections 1106.1 and 1106.6, IPC 2012.] 2. Comment not resolved. Beyond the slope, the only note that addresses drainage of the patio and mechanical yard refers to a "drainage cricket". Clarify how the drainage of these areas (which also includes drainage from the east side of the main roof) will be accommodated. [Initial comment: Show how the patio on the east side of the building is to be drained. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] |
| 04/07/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 19; INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAY DISCHARGE: THE INTENT OF THIS COMMENT WAS TO VERIFY INTERIOR EXIT STAIRWAYS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC SECTION 1027.1 (EXCEPTIONS 1 AND 2) FOR EGRESS THROUGH BUILDING AREAS (NOT DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING EXTERIOR). A MAXIMUM OF 50% OF THE NUMBER AND CAPACITY OF REQUIRED EXITS IS ALLOWED. PLEASE VERIFY THIS CRITERIA IS MET. 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT 39; ENLARGED PLAN 1 ON SHEET A4.5.1: KEYNOTE REFERENCES ON PLAN 1 WERE NOT REVISED TO 3/32".. 3. GENERAL: RESPONSES TO STRUCTURAL COMMENTS WERE NOT FOUND IN THIS SUBMITTAL. PLEASE PROVIDE. 4. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 04/13/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |