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: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Permit Number - T03CM00019
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/05/2003 | WILDAN | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This project has been reviewed for conformance with the 2000 IBC, 1997 UAC, 2000 IMC, 1998 IECC, 1999 NEC codes with local modifications and the 1994 UPC with State of Arizona amendments. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan. 2. All exterior light fixtures shall comply with the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code. 3. On Sheet A1.1, please correct the Governing Regulations for the Tucson Fire Code. The 2000 IFC was adopted with local amendments. 4. Correct the code reference on Glazing Products in the Project Manual 08810-3, Section 2.01.A.1. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: Sheet A1.1 1. Please show the geo-data for the actual finished floor elevation. What is "78.0" in feet of elevation? Sheets A2 and A13 1. Toilet Room 138 shows a door designator of 138A; however, the Door Schedule on A13 show NO Door 138A. The schedule does show a Door 139A, but the plan on A2 show no such door. Please coordinate and resolve. 2. Two exits, minimum, are required with a total occupant load of 92 (reference IBC Table 1004.2 and Sections 1005.2.1 and 1005.2.2). Therefore, Gate #170B from the west patio shall be operable from the patio side without the use of a key or special effort or knowledge, as required by IBC Section 1003.3.1.8. Please clarify on the plans and door schedule and Project Manuals 08710, Section 2.12. Sheet A5 1. See Comment #2 on Sheets A2 and A13, and resolve. Sheets A6 and A7 1. Please coordinate the arrows on the Keynote symbols. See redline notes on the blueprint. 2. Keynote #18 on the legend is missing from the sections. 3. A roof drain over the Break Room is Keynoted #9, which is obviously wrong. Please correct. Sheet A13 1. See earlier comments regarding Doors 138A, 139A, and 170B, and resolve. 2. The "Finish Legend" is incomplete, and the "Room Finish Schedule Key" refers to this legend. Please resolve. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: 1. The structural plans and calculations have been reviewed (and accepted), subject to the following: a. Coordinate the references on Sheet S0 to the adopted 2000 International Building Code (see redline notes); and, b. On Sheet S1, complete Foundation Keynote #2 by providing the geo-data actual elevation. PLUMBING COMMENTS: 1. The plumbing plans have been reviewed and accepted. MECHANICAL COMMENTS: 1. The mechanical plans have been reviewed and accepted. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: 1. The electrical plans have been reviewed and accepted as noted. ENERGY CODE COMMENTS: 1. Provide Energy Code calculations for the building envelope to show compliance with the 1998 IECC. 2. The mechanical and electrical energy code compliance has been reviewed and accepted. ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS: Sheet A1 1. One of the accessible parking spaces shall be van accessible with an adjacent access aisle that is at least 96" wide in accordance with ANSI A117.1-1998, Section 502.3.1, and ADAAG Manual, Chapter 4.6, Scoping [4.1.2(5)]. The ANSI Standard is adopted by reference by the 2000 IBC. |
| 03/03/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | (See Site Plan comments) SUBJECT: El Rio OB/GYN Associates REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 5 Feb 03 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM00019 and T03BU00024 SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the drainage report, site plan, and grading plan received on January 8, 2003. Approval of the Site Plan and Grading Plan is not recommended at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for grading plan and site plan review only. The following comments are offered: DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: The consultant should refer to drainage report content and format requirements outlined in the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) City of Tucson Development Standard (D.S.) 10-02.0, section 2.3. The drainage report must address the components outlined below. a) Provide the administrative/site address on cover - see SMDDFM, D.S.10-02.2.3.1.1 B. b) Identify and discuss drainage studies for the parcels adjacent to the site that may impact this project, in addition to Irvington Road flow depths, in accordance with (IAW) D.S.10-02.2.3.1.2 D of the SMDDFM. The consultant may wish to contact City of Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT), Stormwater Management Section for verified flow rates and characteristics, if available. If not available, the consultant should examine and verify the offsite watershed characteristics and state the accuracy of such in the report. Include the major technical items discussed in D.S.10-02.2.3.1.4 A-G. c) Specify the name, address, and telephone # of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and liability of the drainage improvements (basin) described in the report (D.S.10-02.2.3.1.2 E). d) Provide legible photo-topographic maps, for accurate depiction/delineation and review of the offsite watershed affecting the parcel, IAW D.S.10-02.2.3.1.3 A 3. e) Clarify the statement in the introduction regarding stormwater detention that will be provided in the "…depressed landscaping area". Will this area be considered a water harvesting area? f) Clarify the statement in the introduction regarding stormwater detention that "…1.5 cfs detain within the detention basin". The plans submitted in conjunction with the report propose a constructed basin for detention, 3' deep, 10' wide and 85' in length, however there is no indication for outlet flows. Provide discussion, outlet flow details, and reservoir routing data in the drainage report for a detention system. The consultant should ensure these items are thoroughly addressed in the resubmittal, IAW the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual D.S.10-01.0. g) The statement in the introduction that retention is not required appears accurate, however, 3' of stormwater retention appears to be proposed. The consultant should provide percolation test results, IAW the recommended procedure of the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District, with the report, demonstrating sufficient infiltration rates (12 hours maximum, for contributing drainage areas of 10 acres or less). See D.S. 10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. h) Detention basin details, dimensions and design should be provided, fully labeled and discussed in the report, IAW D.S. 10-02.2.3.1.6 A 3-5, B, C, and D.S. 10-01. IV, and section V. i) Discuss and include a basin security barrier, IAW D.S. 10-01.03.6.2. j) For flows crossing sidewalk area, provide scupper conveyance calculations for basin outflow, demonstrating compliance with D.S. 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: a) Depict the limits of the 100-year floodplain, if applicable, and detention basin 100-year water surface elevation D.S. 2-02.1.15. b) Depict site drainage patterns and the building finished floor elevation, at a minimum (D.S. 2-02.1.16) c) Provide/label the near and far side Site Visibility Triangle dimensions (existing and future) on the plan (D.S. 2-02.1.10 and 3-01.5.0). d) Depict maneuverability/access to and from the loading zone (D.S. 2-02.1.14). e) Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveway(s) and utility lines (D.S. 2-02.1.21). f) Depict and label any proposed fences, walls or vegetation for screening (D.S. 2-02.1.27). g) Provide van accessible stall dimensions for parking detail 2. h) Depict roof drainage direction and associated scuppers for 10-year flow conveyance under sidewalk areas (D.S. 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F2). i) Depict refuse container access thereto and vehicle maneuverability departing from the site, including minimum 18' radii where all paals intersect another paal (D.S. 2-02.1.32, D.S. 3-01.0 - figure 6, and D.S. 6-01.0). GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The consultant should note that subsequent comments might be forthcoming, should site/drainage design incorporate changes warranting such, upon resubmittal. a) Provide bases of bearing and elevation, with reference to book and page. (COT field book/page required for elevation datum). b) Include general grading/construction notes, IAW Chapter 36, 2000 IBC (excavation and grading). The consultant should direct special attention to the sections pertaining to cuts, fills, grading setbacks, slope treatments and geotechnical report requirements and recommendations. c) Provide a legend, cross-sections fully labeled and dimensioned for the basin and each perimeter, grading limits and slope treatments with specific reference to riprap average diameter and thickness. d) Include scupper, basin inlet and outlet details, fully dimensioned, and labeled. Provide a revised drainage report, site plan and grading plan. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189. Douglas Williams Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 03/17/2003 | EROSE1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 03/17/2003 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 03/17/2003 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 03/17/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/05/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |