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 - T09CM00182
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/26/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | |
| 01/27/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/28/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/03/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNT SHALL BE BASED ON A LOAD OF 300 OCCUPANTS, WHILE FIRE ISSUES AND EXITING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE BASED ON A LOAD OF 2813 OCCUPANTS. 2. SHEET G002; PLUMBING FIXTURE MATRIX: REVISE NOTE FROM 2009 TO 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. 3. SHEET A201; SOUTH ELEVATION: CLARIFY "REVEALS" BETWEEN GRIDS -2 AND -3. 4. SHEET A401; SECTION A: INDICATE TOP OF STEEL ELEVATION AT WALL. 5. GENERAL; PROVIDE COPY OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT USED PER SHEET S000 NOTES. 6. CALCULATIONS SHEET 26 OF 46 (SECTION 5); SHEET S100: IT APPEARS THAT THE BASE PLATE DENOTED ON THIS CALCULATION SHEET (FOR COLUMN K-2) IS 14" SQUARE AND THE FOOTING IS 5'-6" SQUARE, WHILE SHEET S100 INDICATES A BASE PLATE OF 22" SQUARE AND A FOOTING THAT IS 7'-6" SQUARE. VERIFY. 7. CALCULATIONS SHEET 27 OF 46 (SECTION 5); SHEET S100: SEE NOTE 6 FOR BASE PLATE AND FOOTING DESCREPANCY. 8. CALCULATIONS SHEET 38 OF 46 (SECTION 5); SHEET S100: IT APPEARS THAT THE FOOTING DENOTED ON THIS CALCULATION SHEET (FOR COLUMNS K-2 AND K.3-2) IS 5'-6" SQUARE, WHILE SHEET S100 INDICATES A FOOTING THAT IS 7'-6" SQUARE. VERIFY. |
| 02/11/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: T09CM00182 8755 S Rita Rd. Arizona Canning Co. The electrical plans have been denied for the following items: 1. Provide existing load calculations plus new loads for service summary. 2.Interior Light Application shows only 210 type M fixtures, the actual count on the plan shows 240 fixtures. Will the type F fixtures come on only in emergency status ? 3.Provide calculations showing compliance per The City Of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Ord #10135 for exterior fixtures. 4. Provide a groung detail for the 30 KVA transformer. 5. Provide a disconnect, conductor size and conduit size for RTU units. Ray T Majuta DSD City of Tucson Electrical Plan Check 2/12/09 |
| 02/12/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the termination of the primary rainwater leader so that it doesn't cross over the sidewalk. Reference: Section 4.4 F, City of Tucson Development Standard No. 3-01.0. 2. Correct the termination design and notes for the rain leaders and the overflow rain leaders on sheet P101; they are reversed. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Clarify the sizes of the new roof leaders shown on sheet P102. A new 12" leader is being connected to an existing 12" roof leader at column line 1 but the segments of the rain leaders immediately east of the connection are called out as being 10". Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 4. Clarify how the roof drains and overflow roof drains along column line Q on sheet P103 are accommodating different roof areas. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 02/12/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/13/2009 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Approval conditioned upon Engineering approval of D09-0001. |
| 02/13/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Condensate drains may not terminate over a roof drain or gutter unless the roof drain or gutter terminates at or above grade in an area capable or absorbing the condensate flow without surface drainage. Reference: Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 02/18/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 02/18/2009 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 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 site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/05/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/05/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |