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: T11CM02478
Parcel: 10408093B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T11CM02478
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/19/2011 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Design criteria (sheet P2.1) contains incorrect information. C.O.T. Fire Department is on the 2002 NFPA 13 standard. Also, the way the criteria is written, it appears the entire building must be protected for an ordinary hazard occupancy. Some areas would be acceptable as light hazard. Clarify. Provide density requirements.
08/22/2011 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied need 5th floor credit evaluation for buildings being demolished - 7406602
need to permit private sewer relocation- need DEQ review & approval if over 3000 gal/day- need copy of on-site private sewer for base map update
08/26/2011 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET G1.02; DETAILS AT TOILET ROOMS: REVISE THE DIMENSION LINE TO THE VERTICAL GRAB BAR.
2. SHEET G1.02; GENERAL NOTES: NOTE 2 INDICATES THE 2009 EDITION OF THE ICC/ANSI CODE. THE CITY OF TUCSON FOLLOWS THE 2003 EDITION. REVISE.
3. SHEET G1.03; BUILDING CODE REVIEW: THE SERVICE DRIVE CANOPY IS LISTED AS AN S-1 OCCUPANCY TYPE. REVISE TO U.
4. SHEET G1.03; BUILDING CODE REVIEW (OCCUPANT LOAD SUMMARY): INCLUDED IN THE OCCUPANCY LOAD TABLE IS THE 3798 SF (3865 SF SHOWN ELSEWHERE) FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS USE CANOPY. REMOVE THE OCCUPANTS FOR THIS AREA.
5. SHEET G1.03; BUILDING CODE REVIEW (PLUMBING FIXTURES): REVISE THE PLUMBING FIXTURE TABLE FOR THE REVISED OCCUPANT LOAD.
6. SHEET G1.03; DEFERRED PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTALS:
ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY RON BOOSE (BUILDING OFFICIAL) BEFORE THOSE SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED.
7. SHEET G1.03; BUILDING CODES: A NOTE INDICATES THE 2009 EDITION OF THE ICC/ANSI CODE. THE CITY OF TUCSON FOLLOWS THE 2003 EDITION. REVISE.
8. SHEET A1.01; SITE PLAN: THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THE NEW CAR DELIVERY BUILDING AND THE PARTS ADDITION BUILDING ARE UNDER SEPARATE SUBMITTAL, BUT WITHIN THE SQUARE FOOTAGES TABLE, THESE TWO BUILDINGS ARE LISTED UNDER THIS PROJECT. REVISE.
9. SHEET A1.01; NOTE 13: THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LISTED FOR THIS PROJECT (16,294 SF) INCLUDES THE PARTS ADDITION BUILDING AND THE NEW DELIVERY BUILDING. REMOVE THOSE FROM THIS PROJECT.
10. SHEET A2.01; FLOOR PLAN: A NOTE AT THE NW CORNER OF THE LOBBY INDICATES TO SEE M1/A4.01. THERE IS NO M1 ON SHEET A4.01. REVISE.
11. SHEET A2.01; FLOOR PLAN: PROVIDE A REFERENCE ON THE PLAN FOR THE ENLARGED TOILET AREA.
12. SHEET A2.11; A5, A9, A13, E9, J5, J9, AND N1: THE TITLES OF THESE INDICATE THE 2009 EDITION OF THE ICC/ANSI CODE. THE CITY OF TUCSON FOLLOWS THE 2003 EDITION. REVISE.
13. SHEET A4.01; ELEVATION J10: A NOTE INDICATES TO SEE E3/A4.02. THERE IS NO ELEVATION E3 ON SHEET A4.02. REVISE.
14. SHEET A4.21; BUILDING SECTION M1: FINISH THE SECTION CUT AT THE CANOPY.
15. SHEET A6.01; CEILING PLAN NOTES: CORRECT THE TITLE SPELLING OF 'REFLECTED'.
16. SHEET A9.01; DOOR SCHEDULE LEGEND: PROVIDE A REFERENCE ON THE DRAWING TO THE HARDWARE SCHEDULE ON SHEET G1.04.
17. SHEET A9.02; FGW NOTES (A AND B): THESE NOTES INDICATE THE FEATURE GLASS WALL IS TO BE STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED AND SUBMITTED. IS THIS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL? IT IS NOT LISTED ON SHEET G1.03, AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REVIEW CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY.
18. SHEET S1.1; SPECIAL INSPECTION TABLE: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE.
19. SHEET S1.1; GENERAL NOTES (FOUNDATIONS): A SOIL REPORT IS REFERENCED TO "THE ABOVE REPORT". NO REPORT IS LISTED, AND NO REPORT WAS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW. SUBMIT.
20. SHEET S1.1; GENERAL NOTES: IS MASONRY USED IN THIS PROJECT? REMOVE NOTES/INSPECTIONS IF NOT USED.
21. SHEET S1.2; DETAIL 17: ARE THERE NEW LIGHT POLES INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT? IF SO, PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS.
22. SHEET S1.2; DETAIL 18: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR WALLS GREATER THAN 6' ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE. PROVIDE.
23. SHEET S2.1 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET S2): IN THE CALCULATIONS, THE FOOTING AT V2 IS DESIGNED AS 24" DEEP, BUT SHOWN AS 12" DEEP ON THE PLAN. VERIFY.
24. SHEET S3.1 (FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET R9): IN THE CALCULATIONS, BEAM B8 IS DESIGNED AS A W14X22, BUT SHOWN AS A W14X72 ON THE PLAN. CLARIFY.
25. SHEET S3.1 (FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET R21): IN THE CALCULATIONS, BEAM B19 IS DESIGNED AS A W12X19, BUT SHOWN AS A 18" STEEL JOIST ON THE PLAN. CLARIFY.
26. SHEET S3.1 (FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET R21): IN THE CALCULATIONS, BEAM B21 IS DESIGNED AS A W12X26, BUT SHOWN AS A W14X22 ON THE PLAN. CLARIFY.
27. SHEET S3.1; FRAMING PLAN: ON GRID 07, DETAIL 233 IS CUT AT A COLUMN BRACE. SHOULD THIS BE "SIMILAR" SINCE THE DETAIL SHOWS A BEAM RATHER THAN A DOUBLE ANGLE? VERIFY.
28. SHEET S4.1; DETAIL 104: NOTE 1 INDICATES A WOOD STUD WALL. REVISE.
29. SHEET S4.1; DETAIL 113: IS THE 10" MIN. DIMENSION TO THE PLATE WASHER IN THE FOOTING CORRECT? VERIFY AND COORDINATE WITH OTHER DETAILS.
30. SHEETS S5.1, S5.2, S5.3, AND S6.1; VARIOUS DETAILS: SEVERAL DETAILS INDICATE "FOR SIZE, TYPE, AND NUMBER OF BOLTS, SEE TYPICAL BOLT SCHEDULE". WHERE IS THIS SCHEDULE LOCATED?
31. SHEET S5.2; DETAIL 229: AT THE SECTION X, REVISE THE NOTE CALL-OUTS 7 AND 8 (REVERSE).
32. SHEET S5.2; DETAIL 237: PROVIDE AN ARROW FROM NOTE 3 TO THE ANGLE BRACE.
33. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; BASIS FOR DESIGN: THIS SHEET INDICATES A 1500 PSF SOIL BEARING CAPACITY. SUBMIT SOIL REPORT FOR REVIEW.
34. SHEET P2.1; WATER HEATER SCHEMATIC: VERIFY A 3/16" FILET WELD OF THE ANGLE TO THE METAL STUD.
35. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
08/26/2011 BETH GRANT COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Approved
08/29/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Indicate the materials to be used in the proposed plumbing systems for this activity. Reference: Sections 103.2.3, 301.1, 604.0, 701.0, 903.0, and 1102.0, UPC 2006.
2. Revise the depiction of the drain for P-4 where it connects to the building drain on the waste and vent diagram to show the fitting installed correctly. Reference: Section 311.7, UPC 2006.
3. Show how the water pressure after the water meter will be limited to less than 80 PSI; revise the water pressure calculations as required. Reference: Section 608.2, UPC 2006.
4. Clarify the size of the cleanout serving P-6; is it 2" as implied by the fixture schedule or 4" to accommodate the size of the drain pipe noted in detail 2/P1.1? Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 707.11, UPC 2006.
5. Clarify how fixtures P-5 and P-6 are to be vented. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 901.0, UPC 2006.
6. Revise the specified size of the water hammer arrestor serving the three flush-valve water closets in the women's restroom to comply with the appropriate PDI rating for the fixture units. Reference: Sections 310.4 and 609.10, UPC 2006.
7. The size of a wet vent (e.g. between the water closets and the urinals) shall be a minimum of one pipe size greater than that required for the drain of the upper fixture. Reference: Section 908.2, UPC 2006.
8. Coordinate the required slope of the rainwater and overflow leaders. The architectural note on detail N1/A3.01 calls for a slope of 1/8" per foot but the plumbing design is specified at a 2% slope (approximately ΒΌ" per foot). Reference: sections 103.2.3 and 1106.2, UPC 2006.
9. Revise the termination of the primary rainwater leaders so that they don't cross over any sidewalks. Reference: Section 4.4 F, City of Tucson Development Standard No. 3-01.0.
08/29/2011 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Show the locations for the smoke detectors in the return air ducts of heat pumps HP-3 and HP-4, upstream of any outside air connections. Reference: Section 606.1, IMC 2006.
2. Show the location of the visible and audible signals for the duct smoke detectors. Reference: Section 606.4.1 exception (2), IMC 2006.
3. 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. The building appears to have doors and three different wall types that are not included in the calculations, the roof is not shown as having any cavity-insulation, and the three window types that are included in the calculations are not identified on the drawings. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.
4. Sign and seal the Compliance Statement for the energy conservation code calculations for the building envelope. Reference: Arizona Revised Statutes 32-125, Board of Technical Registration Rules R4-30-304.
08/29/2011 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Denied A demand flow of 142 GPM through a 2" water meter and through a 2" reduced pressure zone backflow assembly results in excessive pressure drops and velocities greater than the maximum 8 FPS allowed for either plastic or copper piping. In addition, Tucson Water limits the 2" meter to a maximum demand of 80 GPM. Reference: Sections 610.2 and 610.12, UPC 2006.
09/06/2011 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Infiniti of Tucson - Expansion
T11CM02478
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 8, 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 can not approve the building plan until the site plan has been approved.

3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved 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\bldg\t11cm02478.doc
09/12/2011 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied T11CM02478
625 W Auto Mall

Provide 2006 IECC Lighting Budget Calculations.

Ray Majuta
Elect Pln CK,PDSD
City of Tuc,
9/13/11
Ray.majuta@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/16/2011 SUE REEVES OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/16/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed