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: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Permit Number - T10CM02835
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/17/2010 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/18/2010 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS 1. A list of Special Inspections has been included in the Conditions section of this permit application. Please have the engineer of record review this list for accuracy as required by the 2006 IBC, Sections 106 and 1704. If any inspections are deemed unnecessary, please provide a letter or an email from the engineer of record stating so. Please provide the proper Special Inspection Certifications completed for review and approval. A. A BUILDING PERMIT CAN NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THESE CERTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 2. Please provide a large scale plan of the employees' toilet plus interior elevations. A. REFERENCE ZONING H/C COMMENT 4 3. OK 4. OK 5. OK 6. Please provide large scale details of the patio stairs and the building exit ramp. Insure all accessible dimensions and requirements are shown in compliance with Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI 117.1). The handrail shown on the stairs is non compliant. 7. At sheet A6.0, the stair section reference is not correct. A. STILL NOT CORRECT 8. OK 9. At detail 14/A7.5, the handrails are not code compliant. A. HANDRAILS ARE OK BUT THE 10' TREADS DO NOT COMPLY WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1009.3. 10. OK 11. OK SHEET S-1 12. There is a Plus or minus 2'-0" grade retainage along the south wall. Reference grading plan and details 12 and 13 A7.4. Please provide details showing retainage. A. PLEASE PROVIDE A FOUNDATION SECTION DETAIL AT CENTER LINE 3 BETWEEN G AND E. 13. Please provide structural details of the ramp. A. MAKE IT PLURAL "RAMPS", BOTH SOUTH AND WEST. B. BOTH RAMPS REQUIRED HANDRAILS BOTH SIDE OF RAMP AS PER ICC (ANSI 117.1), SECTIONS 405.8 AND 505. C. BOTH RAMPS REQUIRE A BOTTOM LANDING NOT IN THE PAAL WITH DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS. D. THE WEST RAMP, BOTTOM LANDING SHOULD EXIT WEST. PROVIDE A HANDRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LANDING 14. Please provide structural details of the steps. A. 10" TREADS ARE NON-COMPLIANT CALCULATIONS AND ROOF FRAMING SHEET S-3 15. OK 16. OK 17. OK 18. OK 19. OK END OF REVIEW |
| 11/19/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 1. AGREED TO A. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE VERY ACCOMODATING TO THE PHYSICALLY CHALENGED COMMUNITY TO RELOCATE TWO OF THE UPPER PARKING LOT ACCESSIBLE SPACES TO THE SOUTH END OF YOUR BUILDING, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, SO THEY MAY A SAFE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO YOUR FACILITY WITHOUT HAVING TO CROSS A VEHICLE HAZARDOUS ROADWAY. 2. OK 3. OK 4. Please provide a large scale detail of the employee's toilet and interior elevations showing compliance with ICC (ANSI 117.1) accessibility requirements. A. TOILET ROOM IS NON-COMPLIANT AS PER ICC (ANSI117.1), SECTION 604.3.2; NO OTHER FIXTURES MAY ENCROACH THE WATER CLOSET CLEARANCE. 5. OK END OF REVIEW |
| 11/22/2010 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering Review Division cannot approve the building plan until base plan concerns have been addressed per discussion at meeting held with staff and consultant 5NOV10. |
| 11/22/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Bravo Brio @ Tucson Mall T10CM02835 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 22, 2010 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. It appears that changes are proposed to the site area located to the south of the building, i.e. 12 x 35 loading space removed, refuse area removed. A revision to the development plan is required prior to approval of the building plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t10cm02835.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 11/22/2010 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 8, 2010 TO: Josh Potter, P.E. SUBJECT: Tucson Mall BRIO Restaurant Engineering site plan re-review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: T10CM02835 LOCATION: FEMA 1636K X-Unshaded SUMMARY: Engineering has received and reviewed the Brio Tuscan Grille site plan from WLB for review. A copy of the Geotechnical Report was provided in the 2nd building plan set. A separate grading permit may be required. Engineering does not recommend approval of the building plans at this time. The following comments are provided for preliminary, revised development plan review, based on discussion with the Civil engineering consultant. See the following comments to address. SITE / GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) The site plan sheet labeled CS-P need to address the remaining grading / development plan / site related comments on this sheet, or other sheets as needed: a. Show and label existing or proposed marked cross walk for accessible route, if required, per Ron Brown's review comments for accessibility located to the northeast of the proposed building. 2) Provide the following in resubmittal: a. DS Sec.11-01.2.2.I: A grading permit application may be required with the next submittal. (A grading permit provides inspections for the project and is typically required for projects where drainage must be inspected.) b. Response letter. c. A DSMR shall be submitted directly to PDSD CDRC along with the revised development plan for the width sidewalk located on the south portion of the restaurant. Refer to DS Sec.2-08.5.1.A (sidewalk width: 4ft) For any questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 11/24/2010 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: T10CM02835, 150 W Wetmore, Brio Tuscan Restaurant, The electrical plans have been denied for the following: 1. Provide a description of the fuses to be used at the Main Service Disconnect outside of building. 2. Provide an information sheet on the MSD Board, is this listed and approved equipment, and does the built in transformer have over-current protection ? 3. Sheet E-3, the Switch Board Notes describe a 120/208v 3 phase system (1200 A), the voltage supplied is 277/480 v 3 phase system, (600 A) ? 4. Print out fault current calculations on Sheet E-3, not to be seperate. 5. Sheet E-1, the KEF's 1-4, are 480v 3 phase, the appear in SW board combined with all other 120/208 V equipment ? 6. The drawings on Sheet 5 and 6 are required to be the same in showing the MSB equipment, the configurations show differently. 7.Please show the Mechanical Equipment Schedule on Sheet E-2, to be on Sheet E-7. Ray Majuta, Elect Pln Ck, PDSD,City of Tucson, 11/28/10, Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/24/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved; "accessible to Tucson Water" generally does not mean that the reduced pressure backflow prevention assembly can be located inside of the building. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water. Reference: COT Backflow Prevention Ordinance, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/docs/backflow-ord.pdf 2. Comment will be resolved after the architect's engineer determines the meter location. Based on the calculated water demand of 105 GPM, a 3" water meter is required. Provide the size of the proposed water meter and the calculated water demand that the meter will serve. (Meters must also be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water.) Reference: Sections 610.1 and 610.2, UPC 2006. |
| 11/29/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved; is the T&P relief pipe terminating over the floor or over the funnel of the floor drain? Clarify the termination point of the T&P drain pipe from the water heater. Reference: Section 608.5, UPC 2006. 2. Clarify the submitted water pressure calculations: where is the pump referenced in the calculations? Reference: Section 610.1, UPC 2006. 3. Revise the cleanout note added to sheet P-5 to include providing upper terminal cleanouts on horizontal drainage pipes exceeding 5 feet in length (horizontal drain lines serving sinks and urinals require cleanouts regardless of length). Reference: Section 707.4, UPC 2006. 4. Comment not resolved; see next comment. Sinks which cannot be vented because they are located in a bar may use indirect waste connections provided that the indirect waste receptor is properly vented and the developed length from the fixture outlet to the receptor does not exceed five feet. Reference: Section 801.3, UPC 2006. 5. Comment not resolved. Provide a vent for each fixture trap. Reference: Sections 901.0 and 910.1, UPC 2006. 6. If the natural gas piping was not sized per Section 1217.1, UPC 2006, provide calculations demonstrating conformance to Section 1217.3, UPC 2006. Otherwise, revise the size of the section of natural gas pipe between branch to kitchen riser "A" and the branch that serves RTU-1 (2817 CFH at 200 feet requires a 4" pipe). |
| 11/29/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved. Revise the energy code analysis, coordinating the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing (e.g. there are several wall and roof types shown on the plans but only one type of each on the calculations, the "main roof" is shown with R-14 insulation, not R-30 insulation, and it is not a standing seam roof.). 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 components. Reference: Section 502, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Comment not resolved. Provide the listing material for the pizza oven, the exhaust duct ("flue"), and exhaust fan, EF-3. Clarify the construction of the grease exhaust duct for the pizza oven; the "wood-fired pizza oven venting notes" on sheet H-1 offer several duct construction choices. The minimum thickness for a stainless steel Type I grease duct is 0.044-inch (18-gage) per Section 506.3.1, IMC 2006. 3. Comment not resolved. Note #5 of the Rooftop Unit Schedule on sheet H-1 calls for smoke detectors in the return air duct, but the unit specifications and control notes for the same schedule call only for smoke detectors in the supply duct. If a duct smoke detector is desired in the supply duct, it shall be in addition to the required duct smoke detector in the return duct. (Note also that the unit specifications call for the condensate drains to discharge to a splash block which conflicts with the condensate drain design on sheet P-4. Reference: Section 606.1, IMC 2006. |
| 12/01/2010 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need to get capacity evaluated and/or location/method of connection approved -PCRWRD DEV LIAISON UNIT-3rd fl PWB- 740-6534 need WW credits evaluated - WW Maps & Records- 5th fl PWB- 740-6606 back water valve may be required if finished floor elevation is not 12" above flood rim of closet upstream manhole |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/13/2010 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/13/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |