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 - T09CM02029
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2009 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/26/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/31/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET G-2; CODE CALCULATIONS: PROVIDE ANALYSIS ON THE DRAWINGS FOR THE ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING PLUMBING SYSTEMS (WATER CLOSETS, LAVATORIES, DRINKING FOUNTAINS, SERVICE SINK) FOR THE NEW OCCUPANCY LOAD. REVISE CODE ANALYSIS TABLE. 2. SHEET A-1; KEYNOTE 2: REVISE T.O.W. 3. SHEET A-1; KEYNOTE 18: REVISE METAL STUD REFERENCE (2X12). 4. SHEET A-3: ENLARGE KEYNOTE REFERENCE. 5. SHEETS A-9 THROUGH A-12; WALL SECTIONS: WALL SECTIONS ARE NOT CUT ON THE FLOOR PLAN. REVISE. ARCHITECTURAL WALL SECTIONS WILL BE REVIEWED ON THE SECOND SUBMITTAL. 6. SHEET S1-1; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PROVIDE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AS LISTED IN THE DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS. 7. SHEET S1-5 (LINTEL SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 17): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE LT4 IS 2-4X3 1/2X 1/4 STEEL ANGLES WHILE THE SCHEDULE INDICATES 3-3 1/2X3 1/2X 1/4 STEEL ANGLES. CLARIFY. 8. SHEET S3-1; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: BEAM B4 ON THE DRAWINGS IS NOT INDICATED IN THE CALCULATIONS. PROVIDE. 9. SHEET S3-1; NE ADDITION: ON GRID 5, GOING EAST FROM GRID D, THERE IS A SMALL PORTION OF ROOF THAT SUPPORTS THE J1 JOISTS. IS A LEDGER L3 REQUIRED HERE? VERIFY. 10. SHEET S3-1: SECTION CUT 201 ON GRID LINE C IS INCORRECT. REVISE TO 202? VERIFY. 11. SHEET S5-2; DETAIL 202: THIS DETAIL IS MISNUMBERED. REVISE. 12. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY LEERAY HANLY DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS. 13. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 08/31/2009 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Passed | |
| 09/02/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 1. EWC alcove does not appear to have sufficient space as required by ADAAG 4.15. Please provide a large scale detail showing all criticial dimensions including actual Elkay centerline requirements. 2. Please provide an exterior accessible route to the West entrance patio from the North entrance patio. 3. Please provide the accessible route to the Tots and Teen room addition patio and rear entrance from the main entrance patio. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/03/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/03/2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans but cannot approve them at this time. While it appears that the building plans floor plan is similar to the site plan layout it cannot be verified that the building dimensions match the building plan dimensions. Ensure that the building dimensions and heights are labeled on the site plan. 2. An approved and stamped site plan is required prior to final approval of the building plans. 3. Zoning will re-review and if possible approve the building plans on the next submittal provided the information requested is on the site plan and the site plan is approved and stamped by all reviewing agencies. 4. As of this review date the Site Plan T09CM02029 under DSD site plan review process has not been approved. |
| 09/03/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations (using 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 and the SHGC for the fenestration. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. 2. Section 403.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson allows the use of the ASHRAE 62-1-2004 ventilation calculation procedure provided that the default occupant densities and combined outdoor air rates are used. 3. Clarify how the return air is collected from the multi-purpose room (120), i.e. ceiling return? Revise the ASHRAE ventilation calculations to show the air distribution effectiveness value of used for the calculations. Reference: Section 6.2.2.2, ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004. 4. F-3, which serves the kitchen, is rebalanced to provide 300 CFM of outside air. The drawings don't indicate the presence of a make-up air source other than F-3. Show that the kitchen is still provided with adequate outside air. Reference: Sections 403.3 and 508.0, IMC 2006. |
| 09/03/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The applicable code for all commercial plumbing projects is the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code with Local Amendments, not the 1994 UPC as shown on sheet G-2. 2. Clarify how detail 109/M-3 is applicable for use as a relief hood. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 507.0, UPC 2006. 3. Provide additional design information to show that the five furnaces connected to a common vent (Section C-C/M-2) comply with the requirements of Section 510.10, UPC 2006. 4. Clarify the height of the lowest outlet point for a flue serving one of the new furnaces above the draft hood for the furnace and above the roof. Reference: Section 511.0, UPC 2006. 5. Provide roof drainage calculations and plans. All roof areas shall be drained by roof drains, scuppers, or gutters. Reference: Section 1101.11.1, UPC 2006. 6. Revise the size of the scuppers to comply with the requirements of Sections 1101.11.2.1 and 1106.4, UPC 2006. 7. Provide calculations to show that the size of the overflow in the roof drain collector box has a drainage capacity equal to that of the scupper. Reference: Section 1101.11.2.2.1, UPC 2006. |
| 09/04/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/08/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: 5085 S Cherry, AA and Renovation T09CM02029 The Electrical Plans have been denied for the following: 1. Sheet E-7 under Load Summary , the loads for H1 and M2 are figured under 480 volt 3 phase,while the loasd under L1,L2,A and B should be figured under 208 volt 3 phase. Please re-figure and list. 2. On light Fixture Schedule, fixture C-2 is showing 208 volt connection, the panel shows 120 volt. Ray T Majuta PSDS City of Tuc Elect Pln Ck 9/09/09 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/10/2009 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/14/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/14/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |