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

Permit Number: T09CM03317
Parcel: 13629003A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL NEW

Permit Number - T09CM03317
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
12/18/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
12/21/2009 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Denied 1. At accessible details shown on sheet A3.1:
a. Please show all critical waccessible dimensions
b. Please remove vertical grab bar. This is not ADAAG standard.
END OF REVIEW
12/21/2009 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Please provide a letter summary of all deferred submittals to Mr. LeeRay Hanly.
2. Please provide a completed Special Inspection Certificate for DSD review and approval as listed on sheet S0.2

STRUCTURAL REVIEW
ERIC NEWCOMB

3. SHEET S1.2: ADD A NOTE ON THIS SHEET TO REFERENCE SHEET S3.1 FOR MASONRY LINTELS (ML1 IN THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS).
4. SHEET S1.3; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEET R3: THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS LIST RB2 AS A W12X30 ON SHEET R3 (CALCULATION ON SHEET R12 INDICATES W14X22), WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A W14X22. CLARIFY.
5. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEETS L6 THROUGH L11: CLARIFY WHERE THIS STRUCTURAL TUBE IS AND HOW IT FIGURES INTO THE LATERAL ANALYSIS (WHERE IS IT LOCATED ON THE PLAN?).
6. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEETS PBF13 THROUGH PBF28: CLARIFY WHERE THIS STRUCTURAL TUBE IS AND HOW IT FIGURES INTO THE LATERAL ANALYSIS (WHERE IS IT LOCATED ON THE PLAN?).
7. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEETS PBF53 THROUGH PBF56:
CLARIFY WHERE THIS STRUCTURAL TUBE IS AND HOW IT FIGURES INTO THE LATERAL ANALYSIS (WHERE IS IT LOCATED ON THE PLAN?).
8. SHEET S1.4 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
(SHEET PBF34): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE HAIRPINS TO BE #5
WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES #4. CLARIFY.
9. SHEET S1.4 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
(SHEET PBF41): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE HAIRPINS TO BE #5
WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES #4. CLARIFY.
10. GENERAL: DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY LEERAY HANLY BEFORE PLANS CAN BE APPROVED.
11. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
12/22/2009 MATT FLICK ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved The building plans are APPROVED. A resubmittal is required to re-stamp the corrected set of grading plans.

A separate submittal for the Escalante Road construction must be made to TDOT-Engineering Division, Permits & Codes.

The SWPPP is APPROVED.

The drainage report is APPROVED.

The following comments are offered to aid in correcting the grading plans:

Sheet C1.1: Please check the d.g. path elevations, longitudinal grades from the grade break near Sta. 15+00 to the high point about Sta. 18+00.

Sheet C1.1: Please label the elevation and provide nomenclature (HP or PVI) for Sta. 33+00 on roadway.

Sheet C1.1: Is there a HP near Sta. 11+50 on the d.g. path? There's a LP near Sta. 11+00 and the grade is decreasing at Sta. 12+00.

Sheet C1.3: Please label d.g. path adjacent to the PAAL and between the interfield walkways.

C1.4 Please label d.g. path adjacent to the PAAL, between the interfield walkways and leading to other areas of the park.

C5.4 Please check the north coordinates for the 2 northeasterly light poles.

Sheet 7.0 & 7.1: A separate PIA submittal is necessary for the Escalante Road improvements.

Matt Flick, P.E.
Project Manager
Planning & Development Services
City of Tucson

Phone: (520) 837-4931
Fax: (520) 791-4340

Please visit our web site: www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd
12/28/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Lincoln Park Softball Field Complex
T09CM03317
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 29, 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\t09cm03317.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED:
12/28/2009 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Project: 4325 E Pantano Rd
New Softball Field,C/Stand,Maint Bldg.
The electrical plans for this project have been denied for the following:

1. The 17 acres noted for the Outdoor Lighting Calculations, for the entire park or is there other lighting for this area? The lumen count for the actual ballfield lights are not included on the calculation.
2. The pole bases do not show any supplimental grounding, is this to be omitted?
3. Conductors going between the Section Panels in the SW Gear and the L:ighting Contactors, how are these adjusted as required in 2005 NEC,310.15.B.2.a, for deration?
4. Provide cut sheets for light fixtures as requested on Submittal Requirements(City OF Tucson).


Ray T Majuta
Elect Pln CK, City of Tucson
12/28/09
Ray.Maajuta@tucsonax.gov
12/30/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The presence of manholes in the private sewage system for this project mandates a review by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. The design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson (this permit is separate from the building permit). Reference: A.R.S. 49-104 (B) (13).
2. Clarify the branch piping sizes called out for the flush valve fixtures to avoid water velocities greater than 8 FPS. Reference: Section A 6.1, UPC 2006 and IS 3-2003, Section 2.6.
3. Floor sink FS-2 is called out as having a 3" trap (6 fixture units). If this is correct, 12 fixture units are connected to the gravity grease interceptor which will require a 750-gallon unit instead of the specified 500-gallon unit. Clarify the number of fixture units connected to the gravity grease interceptor and, if necessary, resize the proposed grease interceptor per Section 1014.3.6, UPC 2006.
4. Provide protection of the trap seals for all floor drains subject to infrequent use. Reference: Sections 1007.0 and 1007.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.
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. Provide the dimensions for the scuppers draining the Scorer's deck and indicate how they were sized. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006.
12/30/2009 SUE REEVES COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Passed
12/30/2009 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
12/30/2009 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building shown on the plans. 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. Show how the two rest rooms are capable of maintaining a minimum temperature of 68 F on a design heating day (32 F). Reference: Sections 309.1 and 312.1, IMC 2006.
3. Ventilation for restrooms in public spaces requires a minimum of 75 CFM of mechanical exhaust per water closet or urinal. Reference: Table 403.3, IMC 2006.
4. Keynote #18 on sheet A1.1 calls for louvers to be mounted above the doors for the rest rooms (102A and 104A). What are the dimensions and specifications for the louvers? Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 403.3, IMC 2006.
12/31/2009 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied NEED PCRWRD 3RD FLOOR REVIEW & APPROVAL OF MANHOLE TAP PERMIT- ROY MONTOYA - 740-6357
NEED DEQ REVIEW & APPROVAL OF 8" ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER WITH MANHOLES- MIKE REDMOND- 740-3340
NEED COPY OF ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER DRAWING C2.1 FOR WASTEWATER 8TH FLOOR BASE MAP UPDATE

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/04/2010 SUE REEVES OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
01/04/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed