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 - T09CM00308
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/10/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/11/2009 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. CODE REVIEW A. ITEMS 3 AND 5 IDENTIFY ALL OF BUILDING AS OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION F2 WHEREAS ITEM 5D QUOTES A MIXED OCCUPANCY AREA STATEMENT. PLEASE CLARIFY CONFLICT AND IDENTIFY MIXED USES AND SEPARATION AS REQUIRED AND PROVIDE SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARIES. B. PLEASE CALRIFY NOTE 1 STATEMENT ABOUT EXITS BEING AT 72' MAX INTERVALS. 2. AT DETAIL 1/A1.1, CHANGE PARTITION TYPE LEGEND REFERENCE TO 6.3. 3. A LETTER OF INTENT SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS. 4. ALL THE FIRST LEVEL PERIMETER ANCILLARY SPACES HAVE A DECK SUITABLE FOR STORAGE. IS THIS THE INTENT? IF SO, PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR LOADING CAPACITY AND PROVIDE SIGNAGE ON THE OFFICE DECK STATING MAXIUM LOADING CAPACITIES ALLOWED. IF NO LOADING IS INTENDED THEN PROVIDE SIGNAGE AS TO THAT EFFECT. 5. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR FOUNDATIONS OF ANY LIGHTING STANDARDS 20' OR HIGHER, NEW AND/OR RELOCATED. STRUCTURAL REVIEW COMMENTS 6. SHEET SB5.1 (SECTION 13); CALCULATIONS SHEET 45: WALL HORIZONTAL REINFORCING FROM THE CALCULATIONS (#5 @ 12" O.C.) DIFFERS FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS (#4 @ 12" O.C.). CLARIFY. 7. SHEET SB5.2 (SECTION 6); CALCULATIONS SHEET 39: JIB CRANE FOOTING REINFORCEMENT FROM THE CALCULATIONS (#7 @ 8" O.C. EACH WAY TOP AND BOTTOM) DIFFERS FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS (#5 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY TOP & #6 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY BOTTOM). CLARIFY. 8. SHEET SB5.2 (SECTION 1): SEE COMMENT 1. 9. SHEET SB5.2 (SECTION 2); CALCULATIONS SHEET 49: WALL VERTICAL REINFORCING FROM THE CALCULATIONS (#5 @ 6" O.C.) DIFFERS FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS (#5 @ 12" O.C.). CLARIFY. 10. CALCULATIONS SHEETS 49 AND 51: PLEASE CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE 6'-6" CONCRETE PIT WALL AND THE 6'-6" CONCRETE WALL AT THE TURNTABLE. SECTION 2/SB5.2 IS USED AT BOTH LOCATIONS, BUT THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT REINFORCEMENT. 11. CALCULATIONS (SHEET 54): PROVIDE A RISA MODEL PAGE WITH THE MEMBER REFERENCES (M1-M88) TO ASSIST IN DRAWING REVIEW. 12. CALCULATIONS (SHEET 71): PROVIDE A RISA MODEL PAGE WITH THE MEMBER REFERENCES (M5-M45) TO ASSIST IN DRAWING REVIEW. 13. CALCULATIONS (SHEET 92): PROVIDE A RISA MODEL PAGE WITH THE MEMBER REFERENCES TO ASSIST IN DRAWING REVIEW. |
| 02/11/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. PROVIDE DUAL LEVEL WATER COOLER AS PER ANMSI 117.1, SECTION 602.4 2. PROVIDE REDUCED VERTICAL CLEARANCE AT ALL STAIRS AS PER ANSI 117.1, SECTION 307.4 3. DETECTABLE WARNINGS AT ACCESSIBLE PARKING AISLES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY ANSI 117.1 UNLESS AISLE IS PART OF AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE MARKED CROSSING. 4.1. All private projects are to comply with 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI 117.1 accessible code requirements unless so desired by Owner and/or his representative to be reviewed under the ADAAG standards. This requires an approved appeal from the Building Offical. If ADAAG is not desired, please change all accessible code references to 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI 117.1. |
| 02/12/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Needs Review | The City of Tucson will need a Letter from Pima County Department of Transportation stating that impact fee's have been resolved per pima county impact fee's regulations. Contact for Pima County Dept of Transportation is Nicole Burdette at (520) 740-6867 |
| 02/20/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/27/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Water-free urinals are not Code-compliant fixtures per the UPC. Submit an appeal to the Building Official requesting approval to utilize a water-free urinal based on the International Plumbing Code. Reference: Sections 211.0 (insanitary), 301.2, 405.2, 409.0, 601.1, and 1005.0, UPC 2006. 2. The specified drinking fountain (Elkay LZS8) does not meet the accessibility requirements as shown in Section 1109.5, IBC 2006. 3. Revise the water and waste isometrics to be legible. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 4. Provide a detail of the water heater installation, including the excess pressure relief, expansion tank, and valves. Reference: Sections 103.2.3, 605.5, 608.3, and 608.7 UPC 2006. 5. Provide information to show that the drainage from the air compressor and the compressed air dryer will not contain sufficient oil to damage the drainage system. Reference: Section 306.1, UPC 2006. 6. The trap primer specified for use under the lavatory (detail 10/P5.1) requires an operating range of 35 PSIG. Considering that the water pressure calculations provide for a residual pressure of only 30 PSIG, how will installation of the device comply with its listing? Reference: Section 310.4, UPC 2006. 7. Show how the temperature of the hot water supply to the public lavatories is controlled. Reference: Section 413.1, UPC 2006 and Section 504.3, IECC 2006. 8. The fixture connection sizes (1") called out for the water closet 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. 9. Provide a vent for each fixture trap. Reference: Sections 901.0 and 910.1, UPC 2006. 10. The T&P relief pipe is not a waste pipe (detail 4/P9.1). 11. Size natural gas pipe per Section 1217.1, UPC 2006 or provide calculations demonstrating conformance to Section 1217.3, UPC 2006. (Note that natural gas demand and the gas supply details do not agree.) |
| 03/03/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The minimum size of a condensate drain is ¾". Reference: Section 307.2.2, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Show that the proposed natural gas-fired generator meets the requirements of Chapters 5 and 9, NFPA 37. Reference: Section 915.2, IMC 2006. 3. Note that the Energy calculations were made for Pima County for elevations greater than 4,000 feet, a more stringent condition. |
| 03/06/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: 1151 E Hermans Rd T09CM00308 New Bldg Low Frequency Chamber The electrical plans have been denied for the following items, respond to these individually and note how correction has been made. 1. Provide fault calculations beginning at B2SES on through the individual panels. 2.Sheet 4.3 shows circuits AIL 19 and 21 for generator block heater and battery charger. Cannot find this panel or these circuits in other panels. 3. Sheet 4.3 shows circuits AIL 21,23 together not found. 4. Sheet EP4.1 shows CU # 1 to Pnl A2L circuit 3, should be on circuit A2L-5. Circuit 3 is part of FC-2. 5. CU -2 circuit B2H 4,6,8, are spares in the panel. 6. No circuit listed for FC-1 on power panel. 7. Sheet EP1.1, the home run for Monorail listed as going to LFSES, should be to B2SES. 8. Sheet EP1.1, same for water heater circuit, should go to B2SES not LFSES. 9. In one set of plans there are two sets of sheet EP1.1. Ray T Majuta DSD Elect Plan Check City of Tucson, 3-09-09 |
| 03/11/2009 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Jacob Lauderdale SUBJECT: Raytheon Grading Plan Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold DATE: March 11, 2009 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T09BU00198, T09CM00308 SUMMARY: The plans, SWPPP, and Drainage Report were received and reviewed. Engineering does not recommend approval until the following items are addressed. SITE/GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) For the drainage report on page 1, revise the statement regarding critical basin status. The City of Tucson watershed management indicates the site partially in a balanced basin area and the proposed improvements within a non-designated basin management area. 2) Provide copy of Geotechnical Report. 3) Assure location of grading limits on plans match limits for the SWPPP. 4) The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP to according to these comments: a) SWPPP note indicates that the submittal was for reference only; provide construction copy of SWPPP. b) Provide operator certifications with signatures. c) Provide seal for SWPPP Report. d) On SWPPP sheet CP5.2, clarify slope direction on Above Ground Temp. Vehicle & Equipment Fueling Area with Tank Option 1 detail. e) Provide copy of completely filled-out and signed NOI that has been faxed to ADEQ. f) Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. g) Add a note to the SWPP plan cover sheet stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: i) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 h) For inspection purposes, please fill out the enclosed "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post it or a copy of the NOI, at construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. 5) Provide total square footage of clearance / grading disturbance area for project including areas required to be disturbed for SWPPP. Submit revised Drainage Report, Grading Plan, a copy of the geotechnical report, and response letter. Address all comments in resubmittal. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/13/2009 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/13/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |