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: T11CM00439
Parcel: 140418320

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T11CM00439
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/11/2011 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Per 2006 IFC table 2306.2, building access is required. Per section 2306.6.1.1, a minimum of 1 access door shall be provided in each 100' lineal feet of the exterior walls.

NFPA 13 (2002) has different density design requirements for ESFR protection, based on building height, storage height, etc. Please locate the appropiate table for ESFRs, and include those requirements on sheet P 2.0.
02/17/2011 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
02/22/2011 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
02/24/2011 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEETS A2.1 AND A2.2; FLOOR PLAN: A REFERENCE NOTE TO THE FINISH FLOOR INDICATES THE ELEVATION VARIES FROM 24.40' TO 26.00'. IS THE REFERENCE ELEVATION OF 100'-0" FOR THE 24.4' OR THE 26.0'? CLARIFY AND REVISE NOTE.
2. SHEETS A2.1 AND A2.2; (FLOOR PLAN); SHEET A2.7 (DOOR TYPE ELEVATIONS): THE PLANS INDICATE DOOR TYPES A, A1, B, AND C, BUT THE ELEVATIONS DON'T DISTINGUISH TYPES B AND C. CLARIFY.
3. SHEETS A2.1 AND A2.2; LEGEND: CHANGE THE REFERENCE FOR THE HARDWARE SETS FROM SHEET A2.7 TO A2.8. VERIFY.
4. SHEET A2.3; SOUTH ELEVATION (GRIDS 1-5): THE DETAIL REFERENCE 3/A2.6 AT THE CONDUCTOR HEAD AND DOWNSPOUT IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
5. SHEET A2.3; SOUTH ELEVATION (GRIDS 5-9): THE DETAIL REFERENCE 1/A2.6 AT THE BUILDING ADDRESS IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
6. SHEET A2.4; BUILDING SECTION A: THE REFERENCE 4/A2.5 AT THE EXTERIOR WALL IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
7. SHEET A2.5; WALL SECTION 1: THE REFERENCE TO 121 ON THE STRUCTURAL SHEETS AT THE METAL STUD SOFFIT IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
8. SHEET A2.6; ROOF PLAN: THE DETAIL REFERENCE 1/A2.8 AT THE SHADE CANOPY IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
9. SHEET A2.8; ELEVATION 1: THE DETAIL REFERENCE 4/A2.8 AT THE PLATE IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
10. SHEET A2.8; ELEVATION 1: THE DETAIL REFERENCE 3/A2.8 AT THE CLEVIS IS INCORRECT. REVISE.
11. SHEETS S2.2 AND S2.3 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: NO CALCULATIONS WERE FOUND FOR THE B2 BEAM AT THE ROOF. CLARIFY.
12. SHEET S3.0; DETAIL 104: NOTE 12 REFERENCES AN "H" DIMENSION ON THE DETAIL, BUT DOES NOT INDICATE WHAT "H" IS. PROVIDE ON DETAIL.
13. SHEET S4.0; DETAIL P10: IS THE TOP EMBED PLATE A BENT PLATE PER DETAIL P1? CLARIFY.
14. SHEET S5.0: REVISE THE DETAIL NUMBER FOR THE LAST DETAIL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHEET.
15. SHEET S5.0; DETAILS 202 AND 206: DETAIL 202 INDICATES AN EMBED PLATE THAT THE LEDGER ANGLE IS WELDED TO, WHILE THE DETAIL 206 INDICATES THE LEDGER ANGLE IS BOLTED TO THE WALL PANEL. CLARIFY.
16. SHEET S5.0; DETAIL 202: IS THE CONNECTION PLATE AN EMBED PLATE (AS INDICATED IN THE NOTES) OR A PLATE ON THE FACE OF THE WALL (AS INDICATED ON THE DETAIL)? CLARIFY.
17. SHEET S5.0; DETAIL 209: REFERENCE THE ARCHITECT FOR DIMENSIONS AT THE CANOPY FRAMING.
18. SHEET S5.1; DETAIL 210: INDICATE NOTE 6 UNDER 'NOTES'.
19. SHEET S5.1; DETAIL 212: REFERENCE THE ARCHITECT FOR DIMENSIONS AT THE SOFFIT FRAMING.
20. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: ON THE ROOF FRAMING KEY PLAN, LOCATE THE LINTELS LT1, LT2, LT3, LT4, LT5, AND LT6.
21. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: ON THE ROOF FRAMING KEY PLAN, LOCATE THE JAMBS J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, AND J6.
22. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
02/24/2011 BETH GRANT COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Passed
03/03/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Clarify the size of the water meter for the building. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006.
2. Clarify the width of the scuppers; detail 2/A2.6 appears to show both a 12" width and an 18" width. Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 1106.1, IPC 2006.
3. Provide secondary (emergency) roof drainage for the building. Reference: Sections 1107.1, 1107.2 and 1107.3, IPC 2006.
03/03/2011 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Building 2 - The General Services Administration - Shell Building
T11CM00439
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 3, 2011


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 has reviewed the building plan and it appears that the building plan matches the last approved site plan but zoning cannot approve the building plan until the most current site plan sheets are provided with the building set. Most current site plans show phasing approved in March of 2009.

3. The site plan done under T07CM01386 has expired due to a 5090 FIRE SPRINKLER FINAL not approved. This permit expiration must be corrected prior to approve of the building plan.

4. 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\t11cm00439.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED:
03/03/2011 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed
03/03/2011 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Denied Sheet P1.0 calls for reusing the existing 2" water meter but the water pressure calculations on sheet P2.0 indicate a demand of 92 GPM and the installation of a 3" water meter. Note that Tucson Water limits a 2" meter to a maximum demand of 80 GPM. Provide a letter from Tucson Water confirming that the use of a 2" water meter will be allowed for this project. Reference: Sections 610.2 and 610.12, UPC 2006.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/08/2011 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/08/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed