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 - T09CM00841
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/17/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | There is a stove shown on the floor plans but no Type 1 hood, elect, or gas. Please clarify. |
| 04/17/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | |
| 04/21/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET A0.3; DETAIL 13: 7'-0" MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE FINISH GRADE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE HANDICAP PARKING SIGN PER THE DOT ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. 2. SHEET A0.3; DETAIL 11 (TRASH ENCLOSURE): WALLS EXCEEDING 6' IN HEIGHT REQUIRE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE WALL AND FOUNDATION DESIGN. 3. SHEET A1.2; PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN: REFERENCE TO THE ENLARGED PLAN 3/A7.2 SHOULD BE 1/A7.3. VERIFY. 4. SHEET A7.2; ELEVATION 3/A: REMOVE THE LEAD ARROW THAT HAS NO KEYNOTE REFERENCE. 5. SHEET A7.2; ELEVATION 4: CHANGE THE TITLE REFERENCE TO 'WOMENS'. VERIFY. 6. SHEET A7.2; ELEVATIONS 3E AND 4H: TEXT AT THE TOP OF THE WALLS IS PARTIALLY OBSCURED. CLARIFY. 7. SHEET A7.2 (ENLARGED PLAN 2); ELEVATION 4E: THE DRINKING FOUNTAINS ARE LOCATED INCORRECTLY ON PLAN 2 (SHOULD BE ON ENLARGED PLAN 1). CLARIFY. 8. SHEET A7.2; ELEVATIONS M AND N: AT LEAST ONE SHOWER MUST BE ACCESSIBLE PER IBC 1109.12 AND 1109.14. 9. SHEET A7.3; ENLARGED PLAN 1: IN THE REFEREE'S ROOM, THE SHOWER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCESSIBLE (AS REQUIRED BY IBC 1109.12 AND 1109.14). VERIFY. CLARIFY BENCH IN FRONT OF SHOWER. 10. GENERAL: 3/32" MINIMUM HEIGHT LETTERING (ALL CAPITALS) 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. REFERENCE IS TO THE SLAB NOTE ON SHEET S2.0. 11. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. 12. CALCULATIONS SHEETS 20 AND 28; DRAWING SHEET S1.3 (CMU WALL REINFORCING SCHEDULE): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE WALL DW1 IS 8" CMU WITH #5 VERTICALS AT 16" OC, WHILE THE SCHEDULE INDICATES #5 VERTICALS AT 32" OC. CLARIFY. 13. CALCULATIONS SHEET 9; DRAWINGS SHEETS S1.3 AND S3.0: LINTEL LT4 IS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS, BUT NO CALCULATIONS WERE PROVIDED. CLARIFY. 14. DRAWINGS SHEETS S1.3 AND S3.0: THE LEDGERS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS HAVE NO CALCULATIONS PROVIDED. CLARIFY. 15. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S4.0 (DETAIL 115): THE DETAIL INDICATES A SOLID CONCRETE CORE BETWEEN 8" CMU WALLS, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES ALL MASONRY. CLARIFY. 16. GENERAL: FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW, PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS. |
| 04/22/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS. |
| 04/28/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need to show location/method of connection to public sewer |
| 04/30/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/30/2009 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 site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, 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 plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 05/01/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 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. The building appears to have multiple wall and roof types that are not reflected on the energy calculations. Reference: Section 104.2, IECC 2006. 2. Clarify how the occupant load used to calculate the required ventilation for the building was determined. The occupant load used for calculating the minimum required ventilation is to be based on Table 403.3, IMC 2003 or an approved engineering analysis of the specific occupancy type. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2006. 3. The ventilation calculations appear to assume that the gymnasium does not include any spectators in the "Bleacher Area". Revise the calculations to include that population. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2006. 4. Show that the operation of the air conditioning system is capable of supplying the ventilation required by Section 403.3, IMC 2006 (i.e. full occupancy) rather than the reduced ventilation rate scheduled. Reference: Section 403.3.4, IMC 2006. 5. Provide a Type I hood over the range located in the concession area (domestic cooking appliance used for commercial purposes). Reference: Section 507.2.3, IMC 2006. |
| 05/01/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Provide the civil site drawings referenced on sheets P1.1 and P3.1. If the water source is Tucson Water, provide the size of the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 05/04/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide the civil site drawings referenced on sheets P1.1 and P3.1 to show the source of the domestic and fire protection water and the building sewer form the building to the connection with the public sewer. 2. Show that the termination for the flue for the water heater complies with Sections 510.6.2 and 510.6.2.6, UPC 2006. 3. Clarify the water pressure calculations with regard to the water pressure available to the building and how the piping inside the building has been sized. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 610.0, UPC 2006. 4. The branch piping 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. 5. Provide for sterilization of the domestic water piping per Section 609.9, UPC 2006. 6. Revise the calculations for the size of the roof drains to include the effect of side walls draining onto the roof. Reference: Section 1106.4, UPC 2006. 7. Clarify the basis for the size of the branch gas piping that will serve the future use of 1050 CFH, i.e. the developed length. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 05/05/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/11/2009 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/11/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |