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 - T08CM04020
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 7 JANUARY 2009 T08CM04020/MARRIOTT TOWN PLACE SUITES REVIEWED BY RON BROWN CODE REVIEW 2006IBC/ICC ANSI 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A CODE COMPLIANCE REVIEW AS PER CITY OF TUCSON CURRENT ADOPTED BUILDING CODE 2006 IBC WAS CONDUCTED FOR THIS PROJECT AND THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND ACTION. A. CODE COMPLIANCE REVIEW SHEET A0.1: 1. AS PER CODE DATA LISTED, THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNED AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2006 IBC. a. MOST ALL CODE REFERENCES SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE TO THE 2003 IBC. 2. PLEASE PROVIDE A COMPLETE NEW CODE ANALYSIS USING THE 2006 IBC. PROVIDE ALL CODE SECTION REFERENCES AND ALL CALCULATIONS FOR HEIGHT AND AREA INCREASES, FIRE PROTECTION FEATURES AND ANY OTHER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO SHOW HOW COMPLIANCE WAS OBTAINED. 3. SHOW CODE ALLOWABLES AND ACTUAL CALCULATIONS TOTALS. 4. ALSO INCLUDE, AS PART OF THE DRAWING DATA SHEET, THE CITY OF TUCSON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, CODE ANALYSIS DATA SHEET WITH ALL DATA COMPLETED. REFERENCE THE DSD WEB SITE FOR THE FORM PDF FORMAT. a. INSURE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TOTAL OCCUPANCY LOADS ARE CALCULATED AND SUMMARIZED. 5. AS PER CHAPTER 11 OF THE 2006 IBC, ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE AS PER ICC (ANSI) 117.1. THE LATEST EDITION BEING 2003. a. IF AN "ADAAG" REVIEW IS REQUIRED BY THE ARCHITECT OR THE OWNER, PLEASE SUBMIT AN APPEAL TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE APPEAL FORM IS PROVIDED IN THE COT, DSD WEB SITE. PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA BUFORD (520) 837-4904 FOR SUBMISSION, PROCEDURES AND FEES. b. IF AN "ADAAG" REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED, PLEASE CHANGE ALL ACCESSIBLE REFERENCES TO 2006 IBC, ICC (ANSI) 117.1, 2003 EDITION. 6. 3/32" MINIMUM LETTERING IS REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 7. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. 8. SHEET ADA-1; TOILET STALLS: VERTICAL GRAB BAR IS REQUIRED PER ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, FIGURE 604.5.1. 9. SHEET ADA-1; SECTION 4.6.4 SIGNAGE: DIMENSION TO BOTTOM OF SIGN REQUIRED TO BE 84" PER DOT REGULATIONS. 10. SHEET ADA-1; SECTION 4.15 DRINKING FOUNTAINS: PROVIDE DRINKING FOUNTAINS PER 2006 IBC SECTION 1109.5 AND ANSI SECTION 602. 11. SHEET A0.1; CODE SUMMARY BUILDING DATA: COMPLETE #4 (ALLOWABLE AREA) PER IBC TABLE 503 AND SECTION 506.3. 12. SHEET A4.0; PUBLIC RESTROOMS: CHANGE ENLARGED PLAN REFERENCE TO 13/A5.2. 13. SHEET A5.2; ELEVATIONS 2 & 6: FIXTURE 20 SHOULD BE ADDED TO ELEVATION 6 AND REMOVED FROM ELEVATION 2. 14. SHEET A4.0; 3 ENLARGED REFERENCES TO A8.0: NOTE LOBBY FIREPLACE IS 15/A8.0. DID NOT LOCATE OTHER TWO DETAILS. VERIFY. 15. SHEET A4.5; PLAN 4: ADD CLEAR SPACE NOTE FOR STRETCHER. 16. SHEET A7.0; ENLARGED DETAILS: ALL DETAILS AND SECTIONS REFERENCE A7.1, BUT SHOWN ON A7.2. NO SHEET A7.1. CLARIFY. 17. SHEET A10.2; BUILDING SECTION: INTERIOR WALL AT VESTIBULE MUST BE BRACED AND SUPPORTED TO RESIST LATERAL LOADS PER IBC SECTION 1607.13. PROVIDE DETAILS FOR THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE WALL, INCLUDING BRACING MEMBER SIZES AND SPACING, ALONG WITH CONNECTION QUANTITY, SIZE, AND SPACING. 18. SHEET A1.1; NOTE 7: DO ALL STUD WALLS MEET THIS CRITERIA? SEE NOTE 17 ABOVE. 19. SHEET S1.1; FOUNDATION PLAN: FOOTING NOTE INDICATED ON GRID M AND GRID Q SHOULD BE MOVED TO A WALL FOOTING LOCATION. CLARIFY. 20. SHEET S1.1; FOUNDATION PLAN: THERE ARE SEVERAL INTERIOR WALL FOOTINGS (GRIDS B/E/H/K/O) THAT DO NOT GIVE SIZE OR REINFORCING. PLEASE NOTE ON DRAWINGS IF 2'-0" IS TYPICAL. 21. SHEET S1.4A; SECTION 17/S3.2: SECTION INDICATES DECK IS SAME ELEVATION FROM ROOF TO FLOOR, WHILE PLAN INDICATES DIFFERENT ELEVATION. VERIFY. 22. SHEET S1.4A; PLAN NOTES: ON ROOF PORTION OF PLAN, SHEATHING REFERENCE TO NOTE 3 INDICATES FLOOR SHEATHING WITH GLUED/NAILED CONNECTION. THIS VARIES FROM SHEATHING CONNECTION AT ROOF ON SHEET S1.5. CLARIFY. 23. SHEET S2.1; SECTION 14: SECTION REFERS TO PLAN FOR PIT DEPTH. PROVIDE. 24. SHEET S2.1 (SECTION 14); SHEET S1.1: PLAN INDICATES 1 1/2" DIFFERENCE IN PIT WALL AND ADJACENT SLAB HEIGHT. THIS IS NOT SHOWN IN THE SECTION. VERIFY. 25. SHEET S2.1 (SECTION 14); SHEET S1.1: FOOTING AT THE PIT IS DIFFERENT ELEVATION THAN THE ADJACENT WALL FOOTINGS. INDICATE STEP FOOTING. 26. SHEET S2.1; SECTION 13: IS THE TOP OF THE FOOTING THE TOP OF THE SLAB? NO TOP OF FOOTING INDICATED ON PLAN. VERIFY. 27. SHEET S2.1; SECTIONS 17 & 19: NO TOP OF FOOTING INDICATED ON PLAN. VERIFY. 28. SHEET S3.2; SECTION 9: REVISE NOTE REFERENCE TO SHEET S4.2. 29. SHEET S1.4A: INDICATE THIS IS THE FOURTH FLOOR/ROOF FRAMING PLAN. 30. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE A DESIGN REFERENCE PLAN IN THE CALCULATIONS FOR FOOTINGS, JOISTS, BEAMS, COLUMNS AND SHEAR WALL LOCATIONS. THIS WILL ASSIST THE PLAN CHECKER TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW IN A TIMELY MANNER. 31. SHEET A0.3: PROVIDE STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILS FOR THE MONUMENT SIGN FOUNDATION INDICATED ON 16/A0.3. 32. SHEET A0.3: IS A SCHEDULE PROVIDED FOR THE LIGHT POLE HEIGHT AS INDICATED? IF POLE IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET IN HEIGHT, STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE FOUNDATION ARE REQUIRED. 33. SHEET A0.4; SECTION 3: WALL AND FOOTING TO BE STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED AND DETAILED. REFERENCE TO STRUCTURAL IS NOT PROVIDED AS INDICATED ON SECTION. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/07/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS. |
| 01/07/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | Impact Fee's Do Apply; East District; 63,714 Square Foot 124 Room Hotel Permit Pulled Today Through 1.15.09 = $153,066.00 Permit Pulled on 1.16.09 and after = $231,243.09 |
| 01/12/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide a site drawing showing the size and route of the building water supply along with the location of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. Provide a site drawing showing the size; slope, and route of the building sewer. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole and the first floor elevation. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 4. Coordinate the riser diagrams shown on sheets P4.0 and P4.1 with the plumbing floor plans. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 5. Coordinate the water and waste load calculations with the plumbing plans. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 6. Coordinate the gas piping riser diagram (sheet P4.2) with the gas piping plan (2/P3.1) and correct the size of the gas piping to the water heaters as shown on detail 1/P5.1. Reference: Section 1211.17, UPC 2006. 7. Clarify how the termination of the direct vents for the water heaters conforms to the manufacturer's recommendations for clearances from both the operable doors and between the exhaust vents and the intake vents. Reference: Sections 510.8.3 and 512.0, UPC 2006. 8. Clarify the type of water closet used for the public restrooms on the first floor; flush valve per the fixture schedule or flush tank per the plumbing floor plan and the calculations. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 9. The maximum flow rates for the public lavatory faucets shall be consistent with ARS Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 12. (See text at: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp). 10. Show how the temperature of the hot water supply to the public lavatories is controlled (maximum temperature of 110 degrees Fahrenheit). Reference: Section 413.1, UPC 2006 and Section 504.3, IECC 2006. 11. Appliances to be directly connected to the water supply system that do not have listed, integral backflow preventers or integral air gaps will require backflow preventers. Specify the type of backflow prevention device required for each water connection. Reference: Section 603.0, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 12. Indirect waste receptors (e.g. detail 1/M5.2) shall be installed in readily accessible locations. Reference: Section 804.1, UPC 2006. 13. Provide a vent for the lint interceptor. Reference: Section 1009.4, UPC 2006. 14. Correct Detail 15/A9.1 to coordinate with the scheduled and specified roof drains and overflow drains and to comply with Section 1105.2, UPC 2006. |
| 01/12/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the energy code analysis, using the correct climate zone for Pima County < 4,000 feet (Pima, Arizona is a small town northwest of Safford, Arizona). Reference: Section 302.2, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation (drawings A10.0 and A10.1 are incomplete and do not provide the R-value for the roof insulation). Reference: Section 104.2, IECC 2006. 3. Provide calculations demonstrating adequate ventilation. Reference: Section 401.2, IMC 2006. 4. Revise the design for the exhaust of the Type I hood located in the room 173 (EF-8) to comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, and 508, IMC 2006. 5. Room 180 appears to have a return air plenum. Materials exposed in plenums shall conform to Section 602.2.1, IMC 2006. 6. Show that the auxiliary drain pans or secondary drain systems for fan coil units are terminated in a conspicuous location. Reference: Section 307.2.3 IMC 2006. 7. Clarify how adequate maintenance access is being provided for FC-1, FC-2, FC-3, and FC-4. Reference: section 306.2, UPC 2006. |
| 01/12/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Provide a site drawing showing the location of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 01/14/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: 384 S Williams Blvd New Hotel--TownePlace Suites T08CM04020 The electrical plans for this project have been denied for the following items: 1.The City of Tucson Development Services Department requires all new work to comply with The City Of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting ord # 10135, a calculation must be submitted to show compliance . The ordinance can be obtained through the city's web page by going to departments,Development Services , to Building Codes. 2.Have reviewed short current calculations and find different high values at individual panels, since all overcurrent devices appear to be circuit breakers,how will compliance be met in accordence to NEC 2005, 110-9,11,22 and 240-86. 3.Sheet E-5.3 on load analysis for service and panels shows reference to NEC 2005 220-32, should be table 220-84. 4.Sheet E4.3 , provide information on lighting inverter, a specification sheet indicating ,current,voltage etc. 5.Sheet E4.3A a row of fixtures in rooms 168,170,172,and 182 not circuited. The circuit to room 170 is listed as L-37 ? 5.Panel LP Sheet E5.4 is for pool equipment, cannot locate an information on plans. Ray T Majuta DSD City of Tucson,AZ Elect Plan CK 1/20/09 520-837-4988 |
| 01/23/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need to show location/method of connection to public sewer |
| 01/23/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 23, 2009 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08CM04020 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the building plan (T08CM04020) 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 Development Plan. Please submit two copies of the stamped approved Development Plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 2) Engineering will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped Development Plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide the building plan with a copy of the last approved Development Plan. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the building plan review. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 12/31/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 384 S. Williams Blvd. T08CM04020 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 31, 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 approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped development 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\t08cm04020.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 12/31/2008 | 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 hazard classification of the building, including any special hazards. 3. The density required and area of operation. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/02/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/02/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |