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: T11CM03197
Parcel: 12703001A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T11CM03197
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/06/2011 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved Fire notes: Separate permits are required for tanks and alarms.
10/14/2011 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. GENERAL: SHEET 2 OF 12 IN THE CIVIL SECTION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SET. VERIFY.
2. GENERAL: SHEETS 7 OF 12 THROUGH 12 OF 12 IN THE CIVIL SECTION WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SET. VERIFY.
3. SHEET G1.0; PROJECT DATA: UNDER CODES USED, ADD THE ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 FOR ACCESSIBILITY.
4. SHEET A1.2; FLOOR PLAN: PER THE IBC SECTIONS 708 AND 1017.1 AND TABLE 1017.1, THE CORRIDOR MUST HAVE A FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF 1 HOUR, AND DOORS MUST MEET TABLE 715.4 REQUIREMENTS. VERIFY AND REVISE DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED.
5. SHEETS A1.2 AND A1.3; GENERAL NOTE 5: THE NOTE INDICATES TO SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR WALL BRACING. THE DETAIL DOES OCCUR ON A9.1 AND NOT ON STRUCTURAL. REVISE THE NOTE.
6. SHEET A1.2; FLOOR PLAN: IN THE PREP AREA, NOTE 38 INDICATES TO SEE DETAIL 4/A9.3 FOR THE STORAGE LOFT. REVISE THE NOTE.
7. SHEET A1.2; KEY NOTES: NOTE 20 INDICATES TO SEE DETAIL 4/A1.7 FOR THE ROOF DRAIN/OVERFLOW DRAIN. REVISE THE NOTE.
8. SHEET A1.6; KEY NOTES: NOTE 16 INDICATES TO SEE DETAIL 3/A9.5 FOR THE DRAFT FIRE STOP. REVISE THE NOTE.
9. SHEET A1.7; ROOF PLAN: A DETAIL REFERENCE AT THE WEST END OF THE BUILDING CALLS OUT 5/A7.1. REVISE (NO SHEET A7.1).
10. SHEET A1.7; ROOF PLAN: A DETAIL REFERENCE AT THE ROOF HATCH CALLS OUT 2/A7.1. REVISE (NO SHEET A7.1).
11. SHEET A3.1; GENERAL NOTES: NOTE 3 REFERENCES ADAAG SECTIONS. THIS PROJECT ACCESSIBILITY CODE IS THE ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. REVISE NOTE.
12. SHEET A3.3; GENERAL NOTES: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE.
13. SHEET A3.3; DETAIL 2: LOCATE THE VERTICAL GRAB BAR FROM THE BACK WALL.
14. SHEET A5.2; KEY NOTES: NOTE 20 INDICATES TO SEE DETAILS 9/A9.2 AND 10/A9.2 FOR GRID CEILING. REVISE THE NOTE.
15. SHEET A8.2; DETAIL 12: AN EXPANSION ANCHOR IS INDICATED FOR THE CONNECTION TO THE WALL. VERIFY THIS CONNECTION FOR STUD WALL CONSTRUCTION. ADD INTERMEDIATE WALL FRAMING AS REQUIRED AT THE ANCHORS.
16. SHEET A9.1; DETAIL 3: INDICATE THE CONNECTION OF THE METAL STUDS AT 4' O.C. TO THE ROOF TRUSSES.
17. SHEET A9.4; DETAIL 3: PROVIDE THE SIZE, QUANTITY/SPACING, AND CONNECTION OF THE MEMBER BETWEEN ROOF TRUSSES THAT SUPPORTS THE ROD.
18. SHEET A9.4; DETAIL 3: CALL OUT THE FLOOR JOISTS FOR THE LOFT (NOTE INDICATES 2X4 BLOCKING AT 24" O.C.), AND HOW THE JOISTS CONNECT TO THEIR SUPPORTS.
19. SHEET A9.4; DETAIL 3: A NOTE INDICATES 2X4 ANCHORED INTO WALL FRAMING. PROVIDE THE CONNECTION.
20. SHEET S1.3; DETAIL 15: THIS DETAIL IS FOR METAL STUD WALLS. IS IT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT? REMOVE IF NOT REQUIRED.
21. SHEET S3.1; FRAMING PLAN: INDICATE ON THE PLAN THE LOADS AND THEIR LOCATIONS ON THE ROOF TRUSSES OF THE STORAGE LOFT SUPPORTS.
22. SHEET S3.1; FRAMING PLAN: A DETAIL REFERENCE AT A MECHANICAL UNIT PLATFORM CALLS OUT 221/S5.2. REVISE (NO DETAIL 221/S5.2).
23. SHEET S3.1; FRAMING PLAN: AT THE ENTRY AREA, PLAN NOTES INDICATE A SHADED AREA FOR PARAPET BRACING. PROVIDE THE DISTANCE THIS BRACING EXTENDS ON THE ROOF.
24. SHEET S3.1; BOXED NOTE: THE THIRD NOTE REFERENCES DETAIL 15/S1.3 FOR FOUNTAIN WALL FRAMING. REVISE THE NOTE.
25. SHEET S4.1 (DETAIL 108); SHEET P1.3 (DETAIL 1): DIFFERENT DETAILS ARE INDICATED FOR THE WATER HEATER SUPPORT. COORDINATE AS REQUIRED.
26. SHEET S4.1; VARIOUS DETAILS: HOW WIDE IS THE STEM WALL? PROVIDE.
27. SHEET S4.1 (DETAIL 106); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET M5): THE FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS DO NOT MATCH THE CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY.
28. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY RON BOOSE (BUILDING OFFICIAL) BEFORE THOSE SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED. RON.BOOSE@TUCSONAZ.GOV.
29. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
10/20/2011 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
10/21/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Sheet G1.0 indicates that this building was designed using both the 2006 International Plumbing Code and the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code; the Plumbing Specifications on sheet P1.3 call for the Arizona State Plumbing Code. These codes are not compatible with each other and only one of the codes should be used. This review has been made using the 2006 UPC.
2. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 3/32-inch high. Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006.
3. Clarify the proposed design for the mounting shelf for the water heater. The design shown in detail 1/A9.4 is completely different from that shown in detail 1/P1.3. Provide structural calculations to show that the water heater is safely supported. Reference: Sections 310.0 and 314.5, UPC 2006.
4. Specify the type of backflow prevention device required for the water connection to each appliance (note #1, sheet P1.2). Reference: Sections 602.3, 603.0, and Table 6-2, UPC 2006.
5. Air chambers are not required by the 2006 UPC but pressure-absorbing devices (i.e. water hammer arrestors) are required for the water connections to appliances equipped with quick-acting or solenoid valves. Reference: Section 609.10, UPC 2006.
6. Show the size of the under-floor portion of the vents for the floor sinks located in the equipment room and in the sales floor area. The size of that portion of the vent shall comply with the cleanout size requirements of Table 7-6, UPC 2006. Reference: Section 707.11, UPC 2006.
7. Revise detail 4/P1.3; an approved 2-way cleanout fitting is a single fitting, not a field-assembled group of individual fittings. Reference: Sections 707.4 and 707.6, UPC 2006.
8. Provide an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartment of the 3-compartment sink, with a direct waste connection for the wash and rinse sections only. Reference: Sections 304.0, 704.3, and 801.2.3, UPC 2006.
9. Provide a downstream cleanout for the hydromechanical grease interceptor. Reference: Section 707.8, UPC 2006.
10. Each fixture that is connected to a hydromechanical grease interceptor requires a flow control device unless the grease interceptor is equipped with an integral flow control device. Reference: Section 1014.2.1, UPC 2006.
11. The flow control device for the hydromechanical grease interceptor shall be located in a readily accessible and visible location. Reference: Section 1014.2.1, UPC 2006.
12. No system vent shall be located between a flow control device and a hydromechanical grease interceptor. Reference: Section 1014.2.1, UPC 2006.
10/24/2011 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
10/24/2011 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied NEED TOIDENTIFY ALL WW PLUMBING FIXTURES REMOVED FOR CREDIT - NEED WW 5TH FL CREDIT EVALUATION - 740-6602 OR 740-6606
NEED PCRWRD 3RD FL CAPACITY REVIEW- KURT STEMM 740-6607
NEED WW/IWC REVIEW OF GREASE INTERCEPTOR - TOM TOMCHAK - 5025 W INA RD - 442-6200
NEED WW REVIEWOF LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER - CHAD AMATEAU 740-6547
10/27/2011 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied T11CM03197
5502 E Speedway
New Circle K

As per City of Tucson Commercial Submittal Requirements,
minimum text size is 3/32", see Sheets E1.2, E5.1, and E7.0.

Ray T Majuta
Electrical Plan Review
PDSD, CoT
10/29/11
Ray.majuta@tucsonaz.gov
10/28/2011 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied 10/28/2011

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

Comments:

1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal.

3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming.
11/01/2011 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/02/2011 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
11/02/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed