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 - T11CM02899
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/09/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/09/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | NEED PC ADDRESSING- 740-6480 NEED PCRWRD CAPACITY REVIEW-KURTSTEMM-740-6607 NEED PCRWRD REVIEW OF LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER- CHAD AMATEAU - 740-6547 NEED IWC REVIEW & APPROVAL OF GREASE & OIL INTERCEPTORS- TOM TOMCHAK- 443-6200- 5025 W INA RD NEED COPY OF ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER FOR WAL-MART FOR BASE MAP UPDATE |
| 09/13/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the approved development plan. While the building plans are in substantial compliance zoning cannot approve the plans at this time. 1. On sheet SP-1 the bollards do not appear to be consistently placed at five feet on center. Revise the bollards dimensions and revise the drawings to depict all bollards that are used as a physical separation between the PAAL and the pedestrian sidewalk system. 2. Label the width of the sidewalk along the west side of the building. The width is labeled on the DP as five (5) feet and on the SP-1 sheet it is labeled as 4'-4". The 4'-4" width is a major problem if the parking spaces adjacent to this sidewalk are not fitted with wheel stops to prevent vehicles from overhanging onto a sidewalk that is less than 6.5 feet wide. Revise as required. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plans on the next submittal an approve them if possible. |
| 09/15/2011 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T11CM02899 3434 S Kino Parkway Walmart 1. Sheet E4, provide equipment specifications sheets for electrical sections EDC1, EDC2, EDC3, and EDC4. Are these sections listed and approved as per 2005 NEC 110 ? Need futher information on these sections in order to complete review. 2.Sheet E2.4, stockroom power plan does not clearly show clearances in front of electrical equipment as per 2005 NEC 110.26. There appears to be doors on both sides. Are these doors enclosing the the room to electrical equipment ? Are the conduit risers on the plan and the Alarm Board providing proper clearance in front ofequipment ? If the room is enclosed, will the doors have panic hardware or equivalent as required by 2005 NEC 110.26(C) 2 ? If required indicate on this sheet. 4. Sheet E1.3, our Submittal Requirements request 2006 IECC Lighting Budget Calculations, could not locate them in the plans provided. 5. Sheet E1.2 shows the circuit numbers for site lighting-- no panel assignments. Also the fixture types should be located on this sheet in order to identify the types be connected to the circuits.Could not verify how these will be turned on and off. Provide a detail of the poles to be used for site lighting. 6. Sheet E5, indicate on this sheet the hazardous locations according to 2005 NEC 511 and how the wiring is to comply with the classified sections of NEC for lighting and power. 7. Sheet E2.4, indicate on this sheet that the installation of the Fire Pump is to comply with NFPA 20, and 2005 NEC 695. Provide specification sheets on fire pump, controller and jockey pump controller. Show how Fire Pump installation will comply with NEC 2005 695.3(A) for locked rotor requirements and the overcurrent protection required and type.This information is required since the installation will take place under this permit Ray Majuta, Elect Plan Review, PDSD, City of Tucson, 9/19/11 520/837/4988 Ray.majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/15/2011 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide structural calculations for the following: a. Suspended water heater bracket/s b. Flag pole foundation c. 10' high masonry fencing and 8' high wrought iron fencing. 2. At detail numbers 1/SP2 and 2A/SP1 the bollard spacing is not as per approved site development plan i.e: 5'-0" o.c. maximum. Please redesign the bollard spacing and resubmit. 3. Please indicate the roof slope on all roof plans. (A4 and A4.3) T11CM02899 WALMART (BRIDGES) STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW 4. SHEET S1; FOUNDATION PLAN: A NOTE 9 AT GRIDS L AND 2 REFERENCES CIVIL FOR A LIGHT POLE, IF REQUIRED. IS A LIGHT POLE REQUIRED? IF SO, PROVIDE CALCULATIONS AND A DETAIL, OR REFERENCE A DETAIL IF ALREADY INCLUDED IN ANOTHER REVIEW. 5. SHEETS S1 AND S3: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS. 6. SHEET S2; DETAIL 10: PROVIDE A NOTE FOR THE LOCATION OF TWO ROWS OF HSA'S ON THE MC12X10.6. 7. SHEETS S2 AND S2.2: SEVERAL DETAILS INDICATE TO REFERENCE THE CMU WALL REINFORCEMENT DIAGRAM. PROVIDE THE SPECIFIC SHEET REFERENCE (3/S4 FOR THE REINFORCEMENT DIAGRAM, 6/S4 FOR THE REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE). 8. SHEET S3; FRAMING PLAN: AT SEVERAL LOCATIONS, MECHANICAL UNITS AND THEIR SIZES (10 TON, 30 TON, ETC.) ARE LOCATED ON THE PLAN. FOR STRUCTURAL PURPOSES, LIST THE ACTUAL OPERATING WEIGHTS OF THE UNITS ON THE PLAN, OR REFERENCE THE NOTE THAT APPLIES TO THIS (3/S4.1). 9. SHEET S3; FRAMING PLAN: PROVIDE A NOTE ALONG GRID K FOR THE 56 KIP COMPRESSIVE FORCE (SIMILAR TO THE BOXED NOTE ON GRID C). 10. SHEET S3; FRAMING PLAN: PROVIDE A NOTE ALONG GRID J FOR THE 33 KIP COMPRESSIVE FORCE (SIMILAR TO THE BOXED NOTE ON GRID C). 11. SHEET S3; FRAMING PLAN: A BOXED NOTE BETWEEN GRIDS 6 AND 7 AND BETWEEN GRIDS F AND G REFERENCES DETAIL 9-4. REVISE. 12. SHEET S3; SHEET NOTES (#11): THE NOTE INDICATES A 200 POUND CONCENTRATED LOAD FOR THE EXHAUST HOOD, BUT SHEET GM1 INDICATES HOOD WEIGHTS OF 568 AND 517 POUNDS. VERIFY THE NOTE ON THE PLAN IS CORRECT. 13. SHEET S3.1 (DETAIL 3); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: THE W8X58 CANOPY BEAM INDICATED IN THE DETAIL WAS NOT LOCATED IN THE CALCULATIONS. VERIFY. 14. SHEET S4 (ROOF DIAPHRAGM SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: NO CALCULATIONS WERE LOCATED FOR THE ZONE 2 SIDE LAP CONNECTOR SIZE AND SPACING SHOWN IN THE DRAWING SCHEDULE. VERIFY. 15. SHEETS S5 AND S5.1: SEVERAL DETAILS INDICATE TO REFERENCE THE EMBED SCHEDULE, DIAPHRAGM DIAGRAM AND SCHEDULE, AND THE CMU WALL REINFORCEMENT DIAGRAM. PROVIDE THE SPECIFIC SHEET REFERENCE FOR THESE ON THE DETAILS. 16. SHEETS S6 AND S6.1 (VESTIBULE FRAMING PLANS); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 109): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W24X55 FRONT BEAM AT THE VESTIBULE. WHERE IS THAT BEAM ON THE FRAMING PLANS? CLARIFY. 17. SHEET S6.1; VESTIBULE ROOF FRAMING PLAN: A DETAIL CUT 3A/S6.2 SHOULD NOT BE CUT AT THE HIGH ROOF (NO HIGH ROOF FRAMING IS INDICATED ON THE DETAIL). VERIFY. 18. SHEETS S6.2 AND S6.3: SEVERAL DETAILS INDICATE TO REFERENCE THE EMBED SCHEDULE, DIAPHRAGM DIAGRAM AND SCHEDULE, AND THE CMU WALL REINFORCEMENT DIAGRAM. PROVIDE THE SPECIFIC SHEET REFERENCE FOR THESE ON THE DETAILS. 19. SHEET S7; AUTO CENTER FOUNDATION PLAN: PROVIDE A NOTE FOR THE CENTERLINE OF THE INTERIOR COLUMN AND FOOTING (H.1 AND 10?) SIMILAR TO THE COLUMN AT GRID J. 20. SHEET S7.1: SEVERAL DETAILS INDICATE TO REFERENCE THE EMBED SCHEDULE AND DIAPHRAGM DIAGRAM AND SCHEDULE. PROVIDE THE SPECIFIC SHEET REFERENCE FOR THESE ON THE DETAILS. 21. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGES 58 THROUGH 62: IS THIS THE EXTENT OF THE BEAM, JOIST, AND GIRDER DESIGNS? PROVIDE A KEY PLAN IN THE CALCULATIONS TO LOCATE THE ROOF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. 22. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/16/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/16/2011 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | |
| 09/19/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Slope the restroom floors toward the floor drains. Reference: Section 411.2, UPC 2006. 2. Provide a vacuum relief for storage-type water heaters located above any fixture outlets. Reference: Section 608.7, UPC 2006. 3. Provide water pressure and water pipe sizing calculations. Reference: Section 610.1, UPC 2006. 4. Provide the basis for sizing the drainage system for the evaporative condensers and show that the size of the indirect waste receptor (SS1) is adequate to accommodate the expected flow without splashing, flooding, or overloading the drain from the indirect waste receptor. Reference: Sections 702.0 and 703.0, UPC 2006. 5. An approved 2-way cleanout fitting is a single fitting, not a field-assembled group of individual fittings as shown in detail 4/GP-1. Reference: Sections 707.4 and 707.6, UPC 2006. 6. The rim elevation (2475.90') of the next upstream sanitary manhole for the building sewer exiting on the east wall of the building is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2476.50'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 7. Provide direct waste connections for the wash and rinse sections of the 3-compartment sinks, with an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartments only. Reference: Sections 304.0, 704.3, and 801.2.3, UPC 2006. 8. Each vent for a combination waste and vent system shall be at least one-half of the cross-sectional area of the pipe being vented. Reference: Section 910.3, UPC 2006. 9. A vent connection for a combination waste and vent system shall be located downstream of the uppermost fixture. Reference: Section 910.3, UPC 2006. 10. Provide an accessible cleanout in each vent of a combination waste and vent system. Reference: Section 910.6, UPC 2006. 11. Siphonic roof drainage is an engineered system that requires the submission of an Appeal to the Building Official under Section 301.2, UPC 2006, Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Equivalency. Submit the calculations, upon which the design is based, for review by the Building Official. Include in the calculations the structural requirements for the effect of the roof ponding. 12. Provide a cleanout at the base of each roof drain leader prior to its connection with the horizontal storm drain. Reference: Section 1101.12.2, UPC 2006. 13. Clarify the use of the RD-1 roof drains as overflow roof drains instead of overflow roof drains, RD-2, (sheet P1). 14. Coordinate the gas pipe riser and the gas piping calculations on sheet P6 to show the same loads, eliminate duplicate units (e.g. two RTU-3 units on the riser) and units that do not have gas service (e.g. RTU-20). State the delivery pressure from the gas meter. |
| 09/20/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for 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. Detail 8/M2 shows the connection for a gas-fired radiant heater; where does this occur? Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 3. Provide structural details to show how the Type I hoods are to be supported from the building structure in accordance with Section 507.6, IMC 2006 (includes the weight of one person working on each hood). Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 4. Revise the size of the condensate drains in accordance with Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Show all the pipe sizes on the drawing. Note that the minimum pipe size for a condensate drain is ¾" or the size of the drain pan connection, whichever is larger. 5. Revise the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fan EF-3 so that all of the air supplied to the restroom will be exhausted (i.e. exhaust the supply air even when the light is off). Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2006. 6. 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. If the occupancy rates are to be based on statistical data per the exception to Section 403.3, IMC 2006, submit the statistical data for review. |
| 09/20/2011 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 20, 2011 SUBJECT: Tucson Marketplace Wal-Mart Building Plan Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: T11CM02899 LOCATION: FEMA 1636K X-Unshaded SUMMARY: Engineering has received and reviewed the Bridges Wal-Mart building plans. Separate grading permit is required prior to issuance of these building plans. Engineering approval for the building plan set for the new Wal-Mart is not recommended until the following comments are addressed. COMMENTS: 1) IBC 2006 106.2: This permit T11CM02899 is for the building permit only. T11BU00616 is the rough grading permit which has been issued for the Phase 2 Tucson Marketplace. A separate grading permit application, for the finished grading plans for Wal-Mart, shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permit. The City is anticipating this submittal from Kimley-Horn. Do not resubmit building set without the grading permit application submittal for Wal-Mart. 2) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.B.5: On sheets SP1 & SP2 the bollards are labeled at 5-ft OC and 6-ft OC. In response letter, explain how physical separation is achieved between vehicular area and the pedestrian access areas, or revise plans. 3) DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C: Revise sidewalk width along the northwest side of the building, or show wheel stops at adjacent parking spaces that provide the minimum 4-ft clear for vehicular overhang conditions. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.29: Please add Development Plan D11-0001 and permit number T11CM02899 to cover sheet. For any questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/12/2011 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/12/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |