Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T09CM00692
Parcel: 13711429H

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL NEW

Permit Number - T09CM00692
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/30/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
03/30/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Hanson's Good to Go
T09CM00692 & T09CM00696
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 30, 2009

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 plan 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\t09cm00692.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED:
03/30/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS, BEFORE THE PROJECT CAN BE PERMITTED.
2. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW CHECKLIST: "GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY" LISTS THE OCCUPANCY GROUP AS TYPE M, WHILE THE "OCCUPANT LOAD AND EXITING" LISTS IT AS TYPE B. CLARIFY, AND ADJUST CHECKLIST ITEMS AS REQUIRED.
3. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW CHECKLIST: TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD LISTED AS 10. PROVIDE ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THAT NUMBER.
4. SHEET A6.1; DETAIL 9: DO WE HAVE THIS CONDITION WHERE THE METAL STUD DOES NOT GO TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF DECK (WALL SCHEDULE ON SHEET A2.0 INDICATES ALL WALLS GO TO THE ROOF DECK)? IF SO, CALL OUT THE BRACE MEMBER SIZE AND SPACING, AND THE CONNECTION OF THE BRACE TO THE TOP OF THE WALL AND TO THE STRUCTURE ABOVE.
5. SHEET A7.0; ELEVATION 2: ADD A VERTICAL GRAB BAR REQUIRED PER FIGURE 604.5.1 OF THE ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 (AND PER YOUR SHEET A7.1 DETAIL 9).
6. SHEET A9.0; ELEVATION 1: SHEET A9.1; ELEVATIONS 5 AND 6: SHEET A9.2; ELEVATIONS 1 AND 2: NOTE CONCERNING GRAPHICS HAS REFERENCE TO PAGE 10. CHANGE REFERENCE TO A9.0. VERIFY.
7. SHEET S1.2 (EQUIPMENT WEIGHTS SCHEDULE); SHEET M2: MECHANICAL SHOULD PROVIDE AC-1 WEIGHT TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE 2 PSF LOAD USED IN THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS IS ADEQUATE FOR THE LISTED JOISTS. PROVIDE AND VERIFY.
8. SHEET S1.2 (BEAM B1 OF BEAM SCHEDULE); CALCULATIONS SHEET 10 (RB3): THE CALCULATIONS LIST A W10X22 STEEL BEAM, WHILE THE BEAM SCHEDULE ON THE DRAWINGS INDICATES A W8X24. CLARIFY.
9. SHEET S2.1/S3.1: PROVIDE REFERENCE TO SHEET S1.2 FOR LEDGERS, BEAMS, JOISTS, LINTELS, FOOTINGS, COLUMNS, AND MASONRY WALLS.
10. SHEET S4.1: DETAIL 106 AS REFERENCED ON SHEET S2.1 IS NOT INCLUDED IN THESE DRAWINGS. PROVIDE.
11. SHEET S5.1; DETAIL 206: IS THE JOIST MANUFACTURER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STEEL ANGLE DESIGN AND CONNECTION? CLARIFY.
12. SHEET S5.2; SECTION 229: SECTION SHOULD INCLUDE ROOF JOIST ON THE COLUMN CENTERLINE.
03/30/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: March 30, 2009
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM00692 (Building Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the building plan (T09CM00692). 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 (D08-044). 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 (D08-044). 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
04/02/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS.
04/07/2009 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied NEED TO SHOW LOCATION & METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER
04/10/2009 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
04/21/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied The applicable code for all commercial plumbing projects is the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code with Local Amendments. Provide an approved appeal to the building official if the plans are to be reviewed to the 2006 IPC.
04/21/2009 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations (Pima County < 4,000 feet). 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. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.
2. Revise the ASHRAE ventilation calculations to include an air distribution effectiveness value of 0.8 (ceiling supply, ceiling return, warm air greater than 15 degrees Fahrenheit above space temperature). Reference: Section 6.2.2.2, ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004.
04/21/2009 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/12/2009 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/12/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed