Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T04CM04415
Parcel: 14011007A

Address:
2627 E BENSON HY

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T04CM04415
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/08/2006 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied new spectic or using exsisting system? need original records provided. no records on file. Pima Co DEQ
03/23/2006 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: March 23, 2006
SUBJECT: Site Plan, Drainage Report and Grading Plan Engineering Review for Construction Service
LOCATION: 2627 E Benson Hy, T15S R14E Sec05, Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green and Elizabeth Eberbach, P.E.
ACTIVITY: T04CM04415 & T06BU 00512

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Subject items. Approvals are not recommended at this time. All items under the first review were not addressed on the second submittal.

SITE PLAN:
1. Depict and label sight visibility triangles for Treat Ave. and Benson Highway. Include future sight triangles for Benson Hwy., based on the future curb location, per the City's Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan (DS 2-02.2.1 A 10 & DS 3-01.5.B).
2. Provide a dimension for the Treat Ave. ingress/egress width (DS 2-02.2.1 A 11). The driveway exist at Treat Ave. must be 20' in width with a 18" radii headers at Treat Ave exit to comply with emergency vehicle access (DS 3-05.2.1 C).
3. Label each detention basin's 100-year water surface elevation and limits of ponding (DS 2-02.2.1 A 15). The Drainage Report and Site Plan show conflicting information on the number of basins and the location of the basins. Verify that the 6" water harvest area is large enough to accommodate the generated onsite runoff, and clarify with a statement in the Drainage Report.
4. Depict drainage patterns and finished grades (see Grading comments below for grading information).
5. Assure all easements are graphically shown on the plan with recording information provided (DS 2-02.2.1 A 20).
6. Depict and label 25' radii concrete headers per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the Benson Highway driveway entrance, and 18' radii headers at the Treat Ave. entrance. The headers should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the plan (DS 2-02.2.1 A 21, 3-01.3.2 C & 3-05.2.1 C 3 a).
8. The curb and 6' sidewalk must be shown and labeled on the Site Plan along the right of way of Benson Hwy.
9. Depict scuppers where any site drainage may be concentrated, for conveyance of 10-year flows (min.) under sidewalk areas, if applicable (DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F). Show the low points were storm water runoff enters the water harvest area.
10. Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities" (DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2).


GRADING PLAN:
Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf

1. Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).
2. Provide existing and proposed elevations, a basis of elevation with benchmark based on, and referencing City Field Book and Page (DS 2-02.2.1 A 16 & 23).
3. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned.
4. Depict basin and associated inlet/outlet weir details, and any associated erosion protection, fully labeled and dimensioned.

Please provide 3 copies of the revised grading plan, 2 copies of the revised site plan, 1 copy of the revised drainage report, and 4 copies of the Storm Water Prevention Plan (SWPP).

The revised site plan, the revised grading plan, and the revised Drainage Report must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail where necessary, responses to all of the comments. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1189.

Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
03/24/2006 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not addressed. City of Tucson Ordinance 1802 requires a reduced pressure backflow preventer to be located immediately after the water meter. Please show the RPBP on the drawings and include the pressure drop on the water calculations. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
03/24/2006 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not addressed. Remove all references to the International Residential Code, it is not the relevant code for this project.
2. Comment not addressed. Demonstrate energy code compliance using calculations based on the current code for commercial buildings. Reference Section 101.3, International Energy Conservation Code 2000.
3. Comment not addressed. Provide heating and cooling load calculations that justify the capacities of the heating and cooling equipment specified for the project. Reference Section 803.2.1, IECC 2000.
4. Comment not addressed. Specify the minimum resistance (R-value) of the duct insulation to be used on this project. Reference Section 803.2.8, IECC 2000.
5. Comment not addressed. Provide construction documents drawn to scale and with sufficient detail and clarity to demonstrate that the work complies with the applicable codes. Reference Section 302.3, Uniform Administrative Code, 1997.
6. Comment not addressed. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 10 points. Reference Section 302.3, Uniform Administrative Code, 1997.
7. Comment not addressed. Revise the Mechanical Notes, General Notes, and the Mechanical Equipment descriptions to accurately reflect this project. Reference Section 302.3, Uniform Administrative Code, 1997.
8. Comment not addressed. Provide the installed weight of the rooftop equipment. Provide the manufacturer and the listed model of the mechanical equipment (i.e. the heat pump and evaporative cooler) used as the basis for design. Reference Section 106.3.1, IMC 2000.
9. Comment not addressed. Provide structural calculations to verify that the existing roof is capable of supporting the additional dead load due to the installation of the roof top unit. Reference Section 302.1, IMC 2000.
10. Comment not addressed. Show the design for the return air ductwork. Reference Section 106.3.1, IMC 2000.
11. Comment not addressed. Specify the listed air filters to be provided with this project and show on the drawing where they are to be located. Reference Section 605, IMC 2000.
12. Comment not addressed. Show the size, routing, and termination of the condensate drain for the heat pump. Reference Section 307.2, IMC 2000 and Section 807.2, UPC 1994.
13. Comment not addressed. Provide calculations demonstrating adequate ventilation. Reference Section 401, IMC 2000.
14. Comment not addressed. Ventilation for restrooms in public spaces requires a minimum of 75 CFM of mechanical exhaust per water closet or urinal or the amount of air supplied to the restroom, whichever is greater. Reference Section 403.2.1 and Table 403.3, IMC 2000.
15. Comment not addressed. Provide information on the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust to show that recirculation of the air from the restroom will not occur. Reference Section 403.2.1, IMC 2000.
03/24/2006 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not addressed. Provide plumbing plans to a known scale. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
2. Comment not addressed. Revise the Plumbing Notes to accurately reflect this project. Reference Section 302.3, Uniform Administrative Code, 1997.
3. Comment not addressed. Provide fixture descriptions for all plumbing fixtures. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
4. Comment not addressed. Provide water, waste and vent isometrics. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
5. Comment not addressed. Provide a site drawing showing the size and route of the building water supply along with the location and size of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
6. Comment not addressed. Provide equipment data for the water heater. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 1994.
7. Comment not addressed. Provide water pressure and water pipe sizing calculations. Reference Section 610.4, UPC 1994.
8. Comment not addressed. Provide vent piping of sufficient size to comply with Section 904.1, UPC 1994.
9. Comment not addressed. Provide a shut off valve for the water supply at the entrance to the building. Reference Section 605.3, UPC 1994.
03/27/2006 CHRISTY FOREMAN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Review could not be completed without structural calculations and soils report. Re-submit a full package of documents.



CITY OF TUCSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STRUCTURAL REVIEW COMMENTS

DATE: 3/27/06
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM04415
PROJECT NAME: New Office / Storage
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2627 E. Benson Highyway
ARCHITECT / ENGINEER: Talavera Design & Construction
PROJECT REVIEWER: Christy Foreman



TRANSMIT ORIGINAL DRAWINGS WITH NEXT SUBMITTAL.

PLEASE CALL AT 791-5550 X1108 OR EMAIL AT CFOREMA1@CI.TUCSON.AZ.US IF YOU CARE TO DISCUSS.

1) Provide restroom facilities per ANSI A117.1 2003 per Chapt. 11 Accessibility requirements.
2) Per City of Tucson Amendments section 1805.2 depth of footings equals minimum of 18 inches for values of table 1804.2 Justify detail 2 & 3 sht. 2.
3) Landing @ back door 1008.1.5.
4) Clarify thresholds per section 1008.1.6.
5) Roof covering classification - drainage and slope.
6) No soil report see code section 1615.1.1 site class D shall be used. Clarify / Justify calculations therefore table 1616.3(1) .50g less than or equal S DS
7) Clarify formula 16-18 section 1605.3.2 used per 2003 IBC (equation 16-18) .9D + E/1.4
8) Clarify calculations used per IBC sec 1617.4 see section 9.5.5 of ASCE 7 shall be used clarify use of this equation from this reference.
9) Clarify code section for equation for checking masonry wall wind w/e = ? Answer not readable / ledgable.
10) Provide complete section cut for each type of lintel to be used. Justify with calculations W10 x 22 or 2 - #4 rebar. Clarify welding of rebar.
11) Bearing length-missing detail 5, sht. 2 specifies length per schedule.
12) On building section callout for ledger connection detail is inaccurate.
13) Provide calculation justifying 5 x 3 x ½ angle reinforcing.
14) Clarify furr-out framing bottom & top plate connections also frequency of framing members.
15) All notes sht. 3 refer to IRC 2000 the City of Tucson has adopted the IBC 2003 for commercial buildings.
16) All text on documents shall be a minimum of 10 pt. Approximately 1/8" in height.
17) Clarify justification of sizing of footing.
18) Clarify justify numbers used for shear panel design.
19) Clarify / justify parapet per code section 704.11.1.
20) Cross Screen bending and provide calculations for 2x ledger at roof diaphragm.
21) Specify interior finishes for restroom.
22) Clarify / justify design per 1604.8.2 concrete & masonry walls.
23) Clarify / justify existing wall is adequate to be used as a building wall.
03/27/2006 LINDA BUCZYNSKI ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied UNRESPONSIVE. SEE COMMENTS DATED 3/14/06. NO REVISED ELECTRICAL SHEETS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
04/27/2006 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING REVIEW Denied 1. Building plans may not be approved by Zoning Review prior to obtaining site plan approval.

2. Site plan notes a maximum propsoed building height of 14. Elevation drawing on sheet 4 indicates a height of 14 feet, eight inches. Revise plans to be consistent with one another. In addition, provide the building height measured from design grade.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/28/2006 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/28/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed