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 - T09CM01698
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/09/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY |
| 07/13/2009 | RICK MYERS | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Hub drains are not approved indirect waste receptors. a. they are not listed. Reference 301.1.1 2006 UPC: all plumbing fixtures require a listing. b. They do not have a strainer. Reference 404.1 2006 UPC: Plumbing fixtures shall be equipped with a strainer. 2. See sheet P4.2 detail 10- wet venting. Reference 908.0 2006 UPC: Each wet vented section shall be a minimum of one pipe size larger than the required minimum waste size of the upper fixture... 3. Each water supplied device shall have backflow protection. Reference 601.1 2006 UPC: Each plumbing fixture is to have an adequete supply of water, free from backflow or cross contamination. 4. Provide petition of appeal for the use of water-less urinals. 5. Water heaters set above the fixture supplies shall be provided with a vacuum relief valve. Reference 608.7 2006 UPC. |
| 07/13/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET A0.0; SHEET INDEX: IT IS DENOTED ON SHEET S4.1 THAT THE DUMPSTER PLAN AND SECTIONS ARE PROVIDED. THESE ARE NOT ON THAT SHEET. CLARIFY. 2. SHEET A1.1; DETAIL E5: 7'-0" IS REQUIRED FOR THE DISTANCE FROM GRADE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN PER CITY OF TUCSON REQUIREMENTS. 3. SHEET A2.1; NOTE 12: PROVIDE DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED FOR THE WATER HEATER SUPPORT. 4. SHEET A3.1; KEYED NOTES 18: DOES THIS PROJECT HAVE GUTTERS? VERIFY. 5. SHEET A7.1; KEYED NOTES 12: NOTE REFERS TO DETAIL F5/A7.2. THAT DETAIL IS NOT IN THE DRAWINGS. VERIFY. 6. SHEET S2.2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE STEEL JOIST REFERENCES OVERLAP (2 JOIST SIZES INDICATED ON THE SAME JOIST). CLARIFY. 7. SHEET S2.3; LOWER FRAMING PLAN: THE COLUMNS AT THE MOMENT FRAME DENOTED ON PLAN AS '2', BUT DENOTED AS '3' IN THE KEYNOTES. CLARIFY. 8. FUEL CANOPY: PROVIDE FULL SIZE DRAWINGS OF THE CANOPY ROOF FRAMING PLAN, THE FOUNDATION PLAN, GENERAL NOTES, AND ALL DETAILS PERTINENT TO THIS PROJECT. 9. GENERAL: SHEETS S1.1 AND S1.2 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REVIEW SET. PROVIDE. 10. GENERAL: THE SOIL REPORT REFERENCED IN THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND ON THE DRAWINGS IS NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS REVIEW SET. PROVIDE. 11. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, ERNIE DUARTE. 12. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS REVIEW. |
| 07/13/2009 | RMYERS1 | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | 1. Provide a site utility plan which icludes, but not limited to; a. site sewer b. site yardwater |
| 07/13/2009 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | IMPACT FEES APPLY; SOUTHEAST DISTRICT 4487 SQ FEET OF RETAIL $24,768.87 |
| 07/15/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS. |
| 07/15/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/15/2009, The Site Plan can not be approved until the development package has been approved. |
| 07/15/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Complete recirculation of ventilation air from toilet rooms is prohibited; switching the exhaust fan off with the restroom lights causes recirculation of the supply air. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (3), IMC 2006. 2. Revise detail 1/M3.2 to comply with the requirements of Section 506.5.3, IMC 2006. 3. Show how the installation of both a balance damper and a barometric damper in the grease duct (detail 1/M3.2) will prevent the accumulation of grease within the duct. Reference: Section 506.3.7, IMC 2006. 4. The location of the termination of exhaust fan EF-3 is within five feet of the roof screen. If the exception to Section 506.5.5 is to be used to allow this proximity, the discharge height of the fan shall be modified to be at least as high as the roof screen. Reference: Section 506.3.12, IMC 2006. |
| 07/16/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/20/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project:Valero Convienence Store,Gas Station 10335 E Drexel Rd. T09CM01698 The Electrical Plans have been denied for the following: 1. The Electrical Contractor will be required to install the service entrance conductors from the CT enclosure to the utility point,list the size of conductors, type, conduit size and number of. 2. Assuming the parallel conductors from the utility point to the CT enclosure may be a total of 1100 kcmil to 1750 kcmil or over, the Grounding Electrode Conductor may be required to be 3/0 copper ? 3.Sheet E2.1 note #23 lists 3 parallel sets of 4#8's,1#6 iso grd,1# , 1# eqmt grd, 2005 NEC 310.4 list requirements for parallel conductors, and the min size allowed is 1/0 AWG. This installation does not appear to fall under the exceptions, comply with this section or explain ? 4. Sheet E2.1 also note #25 shows parallel feeders as note #23 which are #2's AWG, as per 2005 NEC 310.4 min size allowed is 1/0 AWG. 5. Sheet E2.1 shows two # 25 notes ,one to be #26. 6. Sheetr E1.5 Roof, does not show disconnect means for equipment, how will this be installed ? Panel to be diconnecting means or individual disconnects ? 7. Sheet E1.2 outdoor fixtures D shown at ends of building are not shown under awing , however are under in sheet A2.2, I assume they will be under since they are recessed type, please show them under. Ray T Majuta, Elect Plans Ex PDS City of Tucson, 520-837-498 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/24/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Permits cannot be issued until the development plan is approved and stamped by CDRC. If there is a 30 day waiting period required after the final approval of the development plan the permits should not be issued until the 30 period is over. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/28/2009 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 07/28/2009 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/28/2009 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |