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 - T08CM03757
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2008 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | Impact Fee's Do Apply; West District; 4,874 Square Feet Retail; $19,926.17 Impact Fee's for Police, Fire, and Public Facilities will be added to current Road Fee's if permit is pulled January 16, 2009 or later. |
| 11/25/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 11/25/2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. . Zoning cannot approve the building plan until approval through Mayor and Council for the final plat has been obtained and the required 30 day waiting period has expired. At that time provide a copy of the approved development plan with the building plans. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 11/25/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/26/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | REFERENCE BUILDING COMMENTS |
| 11/26/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | ACCESSIBILITY REVIEW (RON BROWN) 1. SHEET G1.0: DENOTE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS; COT DOT STANDARDS. 2. WHERE ARE YOUR HORIZONTAL CONTROL DIMENSIONS? 3. SHEET SD1.3; DETAIL 9: BOTTOM OF SIGN TO BE 84" A.F.G. 4. SHEET SD1.3; DETAIL 10: PARKING AND RAMP DESIGN IS NOT THE SAME AS DETAILS 17/SD1.1 AND 17/SD1.2. 5. SHEET SD1.4; DETAILS 10 AND 13: PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR 6'-8" HIGH MASONRY FENCES. 6. SHEET A1.1; NOTES 1 AND 6: CHANGE CODE REFERENCE TO 2006 IBC, CHAPTER 11, AND ICC/ANSI 117.1. 7. SHEET A1.5: PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS FOR THE WATER HEATER SUPPORT SYSTEM. 8. SHEET A3.3; DETAIL 17: SHOW ON ALL TOILET ELEVATIONS WHERE THIS IS TO BE INSTALLED. 9. SHEET A8.1: CLARIFY LATERAL BRACING TO THE STRUCTURE ABOVE FOR ALL INTERIOR WALL SECTIONS. PROVIDE CONNECTION SIZES AND SPACINGS AT TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL TO RESIST LATERAL LOADS PER IBC SECTION 1607.13. BUILDING REVIEW (ERIC NEWCOMB) 1. 1/8" LETTERING IS REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS PER DSD STANDARDS UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL FOR 3/32" LETTERING IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 2. ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. 3. SHEET AB1; PLAN NOTE: NOTE INDICATES 'FOOTING TO BE INSTALLED PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT....'. THIS REPORT DEALS ONLY WITH THE DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION OF 'SHALLOW SPREAD (COLUMN) AND CONTINUOUS (WALL) FOUNDATIONS'. IF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS TO BE USED, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DEEP FOUNDATIONS IS REQUIRED. 4. SHEET S1.1: ADD NOTES FOR REINFORCED MASONRY. 5. SHEET S3.1; SECTION 106: NOTE 6 INDICATES 6'-8" MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT, WHILE NOTE 6 ON THE DRAWING INDICATES 6'-0" MAXIMUM. CLARIFY. IF WALL IS OVER 6' IN HEIGHT, CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED. |
| 12/05/2008 | 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. Confirm the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole; sheet C-4 shows it as 2445.52' but the street level is shown as 2540' on the city topographic maps. If the elevation of the next upstream manhole is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2539.33'), provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. Provide a vacuum relief for storage-type water heaters located above any fixture outlets. Reference: Section 608.7, UPC 2006. 4. Provide structural calculations for the water heater shelf to show that the water heater is safely supported. Reference: Sections 310.0 and 314.5, UPC 2006 5. The fixture connection sizes called out for the flush valves will result in water velocities greater than 8 FPS. Limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for the copper piping. Reference: Section A 6.1, UPC 2006 and IS 3-2003, Section 2.6. 6. Provide a direct waste connection for the wash and rinse sections of the 3-compartment sink, with an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartment only. Reference: Sections 304.0 and 801.2.3, UPC 2006. 7. Clarify the note calling for the installation of a flow control device on the drain from the 3-compartment sink. Is a hydromechanical grease interceptor being installed? Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 12/05/2008 | 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. Provide energy code compliance calculations (envelope and mechanical) using the correct climate zone for Pima County < 4,000 feet. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. 3. Specify the minimum resistance (R-value) of the duct insulation to be used on this project. Reference: Section 503.2.7, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 4. Provide information to show how the condensate drain systems for the rooftop units and for the evaporators in the walk-in coolers and the walk-in freezer have been sized. Reference: Section 307.2.2, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 5. Provide information on the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fans to show that recirculation of the air from the restroom will not occur. Reference: Section 403.2.1, IMC 2006. 6. Provide calculations to show that adequate outside air is being provided to the occupied areas. Reference: Section 403.3 IMC 2006. |
| 12/05/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Tucson Water limits a 1-1/2" meter to a maximum demand of 50 GPM. Provide a letter from Tucson Water confirming that the use of a 1-1/2" water meter will be allowed for this project (60 GPM demand). Reference: Sections 610.2 and 610.12, UPC 2006. |
| 12/08/2008 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | PROJECT; 530 E VALENCIA NEW CIRCLE K ,CONVEINCE/GAS T08CM03757 THIS ELECTRICAL PLAN HAS BEEN DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, REVIEW INDIVIDUALY AND STATE HOW EACH ITEM WAS ADDRESSED. 1. THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES COMPLIANCE TO THE CITY OF TUCSON OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE #10135 FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE ORDINANCE CAN BE DOWNLOADED BY ACCESSING THE CITY WEB PAGE,GO TO DEPARTMENTS, TO BUILDING CODES, TO CITY OF TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR ORD # 10135. PROVIDE COMPLIANCE BY DETERMINATION OF ALLOWABLE LUMENS AS PER THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. SHOW TOTAL LUMEN OUTPUT PER FIXTURE AND SUM AS TO HOW MUCH ALLOWED. 2. PROVIDE A CUT SHEET FOR FIXTURES S1, S2, S3. 3. SHEET E1.0 SHOWS CANOPY LIGHTING SPREAD OVER THREE PHASES, HOWEVER EACH IS USING ONLY ONE PHASE FOR POWER, DESCRIBE HOW OVERCURRENT PROTECTION WILL BE APPLIED FOR THE ONE PHASE CIRCUIT PROVIDING POWER FOR EACH FIXTURE. RAY T MAJUTA DSD CITY OF TUCSON ELECTRICAL PLAN CK 520-837/4988 12-11-08 |
| 12/18/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | FRONTS 10" PUBLIC SEWER-DRAWINGS SHOW CONNECTING TO A MANHOLE WITH 4" HCS NEED PCRWRD 3RD FLOOR REVIEW & APPROVAL- KAREN SANSON 740-6369 |
| 12/19/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 19, 2008 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08CM03757 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the building plan (T08CM03757) 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: Engineering cannot approve the building plan until approval through Mayor and Council for the final plat has been obtained and the required 30 day waiting period has expired. At that time provide a copy of the approved Final Plat and Tentative Plat with the building plans. Engineering will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/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 re-submittal 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/23/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/23/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |