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 - T08CM02920
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/29/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 1/8" LETTERING REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED FOR 3/32" LETTERING BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 2. SHEET A0-1; BUILDING DATA NOTES: VERIFY NOTE CONCERNING EXCEPTION TO FIRE RATING OF CORRIDORS. EXCEPTION 1 STATES THAT EACH ROOM USED FOR INSTRUCTION HAS AT LEAST ONE DOOR DIRECTLY TO THE EXTERIOR. THERE ARE TWO INTERIOR "EDUCATION CLASSROOMS" THAT DO NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA. 3. SHEET A0-1; BUILDING DATA NOTES: INCLUDE PLUMBING FIXTURES REQUIRED/PROVIDED PER IBC CHAPTER 29. 4. SHEET A6-3; ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE: PROVIDE WALLS IN RESTROOMS #110, #112, AND #120 PER IBC SECTION 1210.2. 5. SHEET S-5; SECTION 13: COMPLETE THE SECTION FOR REINFORCEMENT IN THE OUTER CMU WALL. 6. SHEET S-5; SECTIONS 1/2/3/5/13: REVISE NOTE FOR CMU BELOW GRADE SO THEY ARE ALL CONSISTENT. 7. SHEET S-5; SECTION 11: CUT SECTION ON THE PLAN THROUGH THE WALL FOOTING, NOT THE COLUMN FOOTING. 8. SHEET S-3; SECTION 3/S-7: SECTION SHOWS I-JOISTS PARALLEL TO WALL. SECTION CUT INDICATES I-JOIST CONNECTIION @ WALL (PERPENDICULAR TO WALL). CLARIFY. 9. SHEET S-7; SECTION 1: PLEASE REVISIT THIS SECTION. QUESTION ARISES AS TO HOW A 1/2" AIRSPACE CAN BE MAINTAINED AROUND THE BEAM WITH THE BEAM POCKET GROUTED SOLID. 10. SHEET S-3: UNABLE TO FIND NOTE CONCERNING ROOF DIAPHRAGM REQUIRED TO BE BLOCKED PER CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY. 11. SHEET S-1: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS ARE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVAL MUST ACCOMPANY DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 12. CALCULATIONS: DID NOT LOCATE F5 FOOTING CALCULATION. VERIFY. |
| 09/02/2008 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT project |
| 09/02/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please include the following design criteria to the plans. 1. Flow data (static pressure, residual pressure, GPM) Available from the Fire Department (520) 791-3234 2. The standard to be used in development of sprinkler system. (NFPA 13, NFPA 13R, or NFPA 13D) 3. The hazard classification of the building, including any special hazards. 4. The density required of the water supply. For this information to not be required on these plans, the fire protection drawings would have to be "sealed." In discussions with Foothills Fire Protection, they do not intend to seal their drawings. Therefore, this information is required on these plans. |
| 09/02/2008 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | Impact Fee's Do Apply; West District; 18,252 Square Foot Day Care Facility; $88,480.94 |
| 09/03/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/08/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). (A 3/32" font may be allowed with an appeal to the building official.) Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. Amtrol Well-x-trol expansion tanks are not listed for use as thermal expansion tanks and are not sized the same way. Refer to the manufacturer's literature for thermal expansion tanks and provide the correct sizing calculations for the thermal expansion tank serving the two main water heaters (WH-1). Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Provide upper terminal cleanouts on horizontal drainage pipes exceeding 5 feet in length. Reference: Section 707.4, UPC 2006. 4. Provide a direct waste connection for the wash and rinse sections of the 3-compartment sink, with an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartment. Reference: Sections 304.0 and 801.2.3, UPC 2006. 5. Provide indirect waste piping for the prep sink (DS). Reference: Section 801.2, UPC 2006. |
| 09/08/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). (A 3/32" font may be allowed with an appeal to the building official.) Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. The ventilation requirements shown in Table 403.3, IMC 2006 are independent from the State licensing requirements and from the occupancy rates in the IBC. Provide calculations based on Table 403.3 and Section 403.3.2, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. Clarify the size for the kitchen exhaust duct (14"x14" on FS-3.0, 10"x10" on FS-5.0, and 10"x11" on M-2). Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 4. Clarify the number of clothes dryers being installed (one on detail 1/A4-1 and two on detail 9/M-2). Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 5. Clarify the airflow rate for EF-2 (275 CFM on 1/M-1, 320 CFM on 9/M-2, and 175 CFM on the exhaust Fan Schedule, M-2). Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. |
| 09/08/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | 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 required reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 09/09/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: New Day Care at Shops at Midvale Park T08CM02920 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 9, 2008 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the stamped approved tentative plat/development plan. Please submit two copies of the stamped approved tentative plat/development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. Zoning may not be able to approve the building plan until the final plat has been approved. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. 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 C:\planning\grading\t08cm02920 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 09/18/2008 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project:Tudor Time 1801 W Valencia Rd T08CM02920 These plans have been denied for the following: 1.Provide compliance information with City of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code Ord. 10135, for all outdoor lighting. 2. One line diagram of service shows WH a and b are being fed from ses distribution panel, they are shown on the power plan going to panel E. 3.All receptacles in kitchen to be GFCI protected, per NEC 2005-210.8.B-2. 4. Circuit 42 shown on sheet E-3 as control circuit for hood and ex fan is not shown on Panel E. 5.Sheet E-3 in kitchen area circuit 15 is shown as a micro wave feed, but is shown as an irrigation circuit. 6. Circuit 32 for water softner, cannot locate on plan. Ray T Majuta Electrical Plan Check DSD City of Tucson 520-837/4988 9/20/08 |
| 09/19/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 19, 2008 SUBJECT: 1801 W Valencia Road Building Plan- Engineering Review TO: WLB Group LOCATION: T15S R13E Sec15 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08CM02920 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the building plan (T08CM02920) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the building plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: BUILDING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Engineering could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the stamped approved tentative plat/development plan. Please submit two copies of the stamped approved tentative plat/development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. Engineering may not be able to approve the building plan until the final plat has been approved. 2) Engineering will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised building plan that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the building plan review. If you have any questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 09/25/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | NEED TO PERMIT ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER- NEED DEQ REVIEW & APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER- MIKE REDMOND 740-3340- NEED COPY OF PRIVATE SEWER FOR BASE MAP UPDATE NEED PCRWRD REVIEW & APPROVAL TO TAP MANHOLE FOR PRIVATE SEWER- ROY MONTOYA-740-6480- (1801 W VALENCIA RD IS ADMIN ADDRESS) BUILDING PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN DOES NOT MATCH ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER PLAN PER S08-043 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/06/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/06/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |