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 - T06CM01695
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/19/2006 | RAUL PALMA | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | City of Tucson, Development Services BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL COMMENTS 4/18/06 1) Regarding the physically handicapped units, provide B units as per section 1004 of the ANSI 2003. Specify on plans and indicate on plans. 2) Correct cross-section 4/A4.0. Some walls and partitions are missing. 3) State on foundation plan and details "footings to extend 18 inches into undisturbed natural soil." 4) Sheet A0.1 for detail 8 cmu wall provide engineering calcs for wall 6' and over. 5) Sheet A5.3 detail 7, specify size of bolts. 6) Same sheet detail 8 illustration shows only one 2x member but note no. 6 specifies 3-2x members. Clarify! 7) Refer to calcs; structural design criteria specify which exposure is being used B or C? 8) Sheet T0.0, revise code review checklist to update info. now changed by providing automatic sprinklers. |
| 04/25/2006 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/25/2006 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Coordinate the ductwork design with the mechanical specifications. The specifications call for galvanized ductwork but the drawing appears to show only flex duct. Reference Section 106.3.1, IMC 2003. 2. Show how the fan coil units are being supported from the building structure. Reference Section 302.1, IMC 2003. 3. Revise the drains from the auxiliary drain pans to terminate in a conspicuous location. Reference Section 307.2.3 IMC 2003. 4. Show how the dryer installation complies with Section 504.5, IMC 2003. |
| 04/25/2006 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the water meter and backflow preventer arrangement shown on sheet A0.0: the note implies 2 meters and 4 backflow preventers. Also, why is a double check valve assembly being utilized? Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 2003. 2. If the specified water heater is not supplied with integral heat traps, provide heat traps on the supply and discharge piping. Reference Section 504.7, IECC 2003. 3. Show that sufficient space is available for the installation and maintenance of the water heater, expansion tank, and the associated piping. Reference Section 506.1, UPC 2003. 4. Provide upper terminal cleanouts on horizontal drainage pipe over 5 feet in length (e.g. lavatory in master bath, first-floor lavatory). Reference Section 707.4, UPC 2003. 5. The 2-way cleanout shown in Detail 5/A0.0 is in violation of Section 707.6, UPC 2003. |
| 04/26/2006 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/02/2006 | BOB SUBA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1.Provide the available fault current at the electric service point of connection to service equipment. 2.Provide the A.I.C. rating of the service equipment. 3.Provide cut sheets on all exterior lighting fixtures. 4.Provide outdoor lighting calculations. 5.Provide the size of all branch circuit conductors at panel schedule. |
| 05/02/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 1, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Grading Plan for Sierra Breeze TO: Guillermo Andrade LOCATION: 407 W Utah, T15S R13E Sec01, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green and Elizabeth Eberbach, P.E. ACTIVITY: T06BU00746 (Grading Plan) and T06CM01695 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Grading Plan, Drainage Report, and the Geotechnical Engineering Report and does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading purposes only. The submitted Grading Plan and Site Plan does not match the submitted Drainage Report site plan provided by Jeffrey A. Stanley Engineering. The Grading Plan and Site Plan must be revised to accurately reflect the requirements included in the Drainage Report or the Drainage Report must be revised to accurately reflect the Grading Plan and Site Plan. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN AND SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Please ensure that 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 2) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 3) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the Grading Plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be indicated on the Grading Plan: 4) show the areas of detention including the 100-year floodplain and ponding limits with water surface elevations; 5) provide, in plan view, the dimensions for the Detention Basin. 6) indicate the proposed method of collecting and containing flow from onsite drainage into the existing detention basin by providing a detail for the PAAL; 7) provide a detail for the location and type of drainage structure, label and dimension scupper that is used for the detention basin inlet at the pedestrian sidewalk. The scupper proposed under the sidewalk must be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised Grading Plan to reflect the dimensions that are called out in the submitted Drainage Report or revise the Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk with the dimensions shown on the Grading Plan; 8) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the protective slopes from all proposed buildings reflects the minimum grade of 5 percent for at least 10 feet as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the minimum horizontal setback distance from the perimeter of any building and the high-water elevation of the nearest storm-water detention basin is 10 feet as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Clarify the areas were the proposed buildings are within the proposed setbacks of the Geotechnical Report. Or provide an addendum to the Geotechnical Report stating that the revised Grading Plan is acceptable. 9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.7: Provide a General Note referencing the Geotechnical Report, provide the name, address, job number, date, and phone numbers of the firms or individuals who prepared the report. State that the grading plan shall comply with recommendations within the report as well as any subsequent geotechnical addenda. 10) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.6: Provide details on the Grading Plan to show that all slopes meet the recommendation of the slope protection as recommended per the Geotechnical Report. Slopes steeper than 3:1 (H: V) need to have riprap with filter fabric protection as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. 11) DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2: 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". 12) DS Sec.203.2.4.K.E: Provide typical lot grading details, show minimum side and rear setbacks, and building setbacks to the detention and retention basins and swales per geotechnical report. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide dimensions for refuse container, show or label gates or doors for trash enclosures. The enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewalls. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. The minimum vertical clearance for a refuse container is 25 feet, free of any overhead obstructions, with a service area of 10 feet by 10 feet. Therefore, relocate container and show maneuverability on plan view. 14) DS Sec.2-03.4.K: Revise Detail 8/A0.0 on Sheet A0.0 to reflect the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report. Specifically, the Geotechnical Report recommends 6" of aggregate base course instead of the 4" shown. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 15) DS Sec. 2-03.2.4.K: The engineering site plan submitted with the Drainage Report does not match the proposed Grading Plan. Provide an accurate site plan showing any variations from the proposed Grading Plan. A revised Grading Plan is required. 16) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Provide details in plan view for the scupper dimensions. Specifically the inlet scupper to the detention basin. Revise the Grading Plan to reflect the required length of opening for the inlet as called out in the Drainage Report. 17) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Drainage Report, Grading Plan, Site Plan and Landscape Plan. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 18) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Revise the Geotechnical Report to show a minimum 30-foot deep soil boring sample, which will be used as the basis for the information and design recommendations if there are hydro-collapsing soils that must be summarized within the soils report. If there are hydro-collapsible soils then the proposed buildings must be in compliance with the soil engineer's recommended minimum building setback from the detention basin. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Grading Plan, a revised Drainage Report, a revised copy of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, and a revised Landscape Plan. The revised Grading Plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above 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 |
| 05/28/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/28/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans but cannot approve them at this time until the plans have been completely approved through the commercial review process. 2. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the CDRC approved tentative plat/development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plan packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The tentative plat/development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. 3. Zoning will re-review and approve the building plans on the next submittal providing the stamped and approved site plans are included with the building plan package and the building structural portions of the plan review have been approved. See comment 2 for additional info regarding the site plan process. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/08/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |