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: T09CM01465
Parcel: 12706012A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL NEW

Permit Number - T09CM01465
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/10/2009 JOHN WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Completed Impact Fee's Do Apply; 3,143 Square Feet Restaurant; $17,364.80
06/11/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Canyon Rose Academy High School.
T09CM01465
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 11, 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 site plan.. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site 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 site 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\t09cm01465.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED:
06/11/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please include the following fire sprinkler design criteria to the plans.
1. Flow data (static pressure, residual pressure, GPM)
Available from the Fire Department (520) 791-3234
2. The standard to be used in development of sprinkler system. (NFPA 13, NFPA 13R, or NFPA 13D)
3. The hazard classification of the building, including any special hazards.
4. The density required of the water supply.


Please indicate existing fire hydrant location(s), with dimensions to buildings and/or property lines. Refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code (section 508) for spacing and location requirements.
06/12/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET A-2.0; ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN: EXIT EGRESS SHALL NOT PASS THROUGH KITCHENS OR STORAGE ROOMS PER IBC SECTION 1014.2(2) FOR AN A-2 OCCUPANCY. MODIFY PLAN AS REQUIRED.
2. SHEET A-2.0; DETAIL 2: EXTEND DETAIL TO STRUCTURE ABOVE TO INDICATE HOW BRACE ATTACHES TO ROOF STRUCTURE. SHOW HOW (2) #8 SCREWS ATTACH THE BRACE TO THE TOP OF THE STUD WALL.
3. SHEET A-2.0; ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN: ALL ELEVATION REFERENCES ON PLAN SHOULD BE TO SHEET A2.2. VERIFY.
4. SHEET A-2.1; DETAIL 9: SEE NOTE 2.
5. SHEET A-2.3; DOOR SCHEDULE: FINISH THIS SCHEDULE WHERE "?" OCCURS.
6. SHEET F1.0; FURNITURE PLAN: IBC SECTION 1108.2.8.1 REQUIRES AT LEAST 5% (MINIMUM 1) OF THE SEATING/STANDING SPACES BE ACCESSIBLE. CLARIFY THIS ON THE DRAWINGS.
7. CALCULATIONS: SHEET 1 INDICATES THE ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PER A SOILS REPORT. PROVIDE THAT REPORT FOR REVIEW.
8. SHEET S1.4 (DETAIL T28); SHEET S1.5 (JOIST SCHEDULE): SCHEDULE NOTE 2 INDICATES AN ADDITIONAL 300# CONCENTRATED LOAD AT ANY PANEL POINT, WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES AN ADDITIONAL 100# CONCENTRATED LOAD. CLARIFY.
9. CALCULATIONS PAGE 3: LOCATE BEAM B4 ON THE KEY PLAN IN THE CALCULATIONS.
10. CALCULATIONS PAGE 3: LOCATE BEAM B5 ON THE KEY PLAN IN THE CALCULATIONS.
11. SHEET S5.2; DETAIL 223: IS THE SIZE OF THE TYPICAL STEEL ANGLE INDICATED? VERIFY.
12. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, ERNIE DUARTE.
13. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS POSTED HERE.
06/15/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS.
06/23/2009 BIANCA RAMIREZ ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Bianca Ramirez, CFM
Engineering Associate

PROJECT: Canyon Rose Academy High School.
T09CM01465
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 23, 2009

1. The building plan has been reviewed by Engineering Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments and/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 plan with the next building plan submittal. Once Zoning signs off on the building plan, then the Engineering department will be able to sign off.

3. Engineering will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan.

4. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Bianca.Ramirez@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4928

C:\planning\grading\t09cm01465.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED:
06/26/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide site drawing showing the size and route of the building water supply along with the location and size of both the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
2. Provide site drawing showing the size, route, and slope of the building sewer. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
3. A double check valve is not acceptable for protecting the water supply to a carbonator. Reference: Section 603.3.12, UPC 1994 with AZ State amendments.
4. Revise the slope of the horizontal drainage piping to comply with the requirements of Section 708.0, UPC 2006.
5. The scupper width is less than the minimum required by the plumbing code. Revise the scupper design or provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load. Reference: Sections 1101.11.1 and 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006, and Section 1611.1, IBC 2006.
6. The specified downspouts are undersized; see footnote 3, Table 11-1, UPC 2006. Reference: Section 1106.1, UPC 2006.
7. Provide overflow roof drains. Reference: Section 1101.11.2, UPC 2006.
8. Revise the termination of the primary rainwater leaders so that they don't cross over the sidewalk. Reference: Section 4.4 F, City of Tucson Development Standard No. 3-01.0.
06/26/2009 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Coordinate the weights of the rooftop equipment with the structural drawings. The submitted shop drawings show that the two hoods and the makeup air unit are significantly heavier than shown on the mechanical sheets and the structural sheets. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006.
2. Clarify keynote 8 (two locations) on sheet P-1.0. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006.
3. Revise the ventilation calculations for HP-1; the main space served by HP-1 is "cafeteria/fast food dining", not a "restaurant dining room". If ASHRAE 62.1-2004 is being used for determining the ventilation for a multiple-zone area, the calculations noted in Section 6.2.5, ASHRAE 62.1-2004 shall be used to determine the outdoor intake flow. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.
4. Revise the envelope energy calculations to reflect the submitted plans and construction and use the correct location (i.e. Pima County < 4,000 feet, not the town of Pima, Arizona). Reference: Section 302.2, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.
5. Provide the mechanical energy code calculations. Reference: Section 101.4, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.
6. Provide exhaust for the clothes dryer in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Reference: Section 504.1, IMC 2006.
7. Clarify the wall construction (solid grouted or filled block) and specify the SHGC for the glazing of the building. Reference: Section 101.4, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.
06/26/2009 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
06/26/2009 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
06/29/2009 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/01/2009 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/01/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed