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 - T12CM00390
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/27/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET SD-4 (ROOF CANOPY SECTION 3); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (CTS INC.): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THE EDGE BEAM IS A 10" X 2" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, WHILE THE SECTION INDICATES A 8" X 2" ALUMINUM TUBE. CLARIFY. 2. SHEET SD-4 (ROOF CANOPY SECTION 3); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (CTS INC.): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THE SUPPORT BEAM IS A 8 3/4" X 2" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, WHILE THE SECTION INDICATES A 8" X 2" X 3/16" ALUMINUM TUBE. CLARIFY. 3. SHEET SD-4 (ROOF CANOPY SECTION 3); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (CTS INC.): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THE SUPPORT ROD IS A 1 1/4" DIAMETER ROD, WHILE THE SECTION INDICATES A 1" DIAMETER ROD. CLARIFY. 4. SHEET SD-4; SECTIONS 3 AND 4: BOTH SECTIONS INDICATE AN ALUMINUM CHANNEL PER ARCHITECTURAL. WHERE IS THIS LOCATED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS? VERIFY. 5. SHEET SD-4; SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 5: THESE SECTIONS ARE TITLED TO SHEETS S3.1 AND S3.3. REVISE. 6. SHEET CV; DESIGN LOADS: THE SOIL BEARING CAPACITY IS LISTED AS 1500 PSF (ASSUMED), WHILE THE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROVIDED INDICATES 2000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING. REVISE SHEET CV NOTE. 7. SHEET A1.0: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISIONS. 8. SHEET A1.0; GENERAL NOTES: FINISH OR REMOVE THE FIRST NOTE. 9. SHEET A1.1; PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN: DETAIL 10/A4.1, LOCATED AT GRIDS E AND 1, DOES NOT SHOW THE STEEL COLUMN. VERIFY. 10. SHEET A1.2: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISIONS. 11. SHEET A1.2; REFLECTED CEILING PLAN: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE. 12. SHEET A1.2; DETAIL 8: SPECIFICALLY DENOTE THE SIZE OF THE 2X FRAMING OR REFERENCE STRUCTURAL (IF IT IS SHOWN THERE). 13. SHEET A1.3; ROOF PLAN: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE. 14. SHEET A1.3; KEY NOTES: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE. 15. SHEET A1.3; ROOFING NOTES: NOTE 2 REFERENCES DETAIL 2/A1.3. REVISE (NO DETAIL 2 ON SHEET A1.3). 16. SHEET A5.0; TRELLIS SYSTEM: THE BEGINNING STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE TRELLIS INFORMATION SHOWN IS FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY. THERE ARE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (BY CTS INC.) AND DESIGN DRAWINGS (SHEET SD-4) FOR THE TRELLIS. CLARIFY. 17. SHEET A5.3: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISIONS. 18. SHEET S1.0: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISION. 19. SHEET S1.0; NOTES: ADD A NOTE TO REFERENCE SHEET S4.0 FOR THE SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE. 20. SHEET S1.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: SHEET S1.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: ON THE PLAN, INDICATE THE RECESSED SLAB AND FLOATING SLAB THICKNESSES AND REINFORCING. 21. SHEET S2.0: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISIONS. 22. SHEET S3.1: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISIONS. 23. SHEET S3.1; DETAIL 4: THE STEEL TUBE INDICATES THREADED STUDS AT 32" O.C. TOP AND BOTTOM. CLARIFY. 24. SHEET S3.2: REMOVE THE CLOUDED REVISION. 25. SHEET S3.2; DETAIL 1: THE STEEL TUBE INDICATES THREADED STUDS AT 32" O.C. TOP AND BOTTOM. CLARIFY. 26. SHEET S4.0; GENERAL NOTES (FOUNDATION): NOTE 1 INDICATES AN ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING CAPACITY OF 1500 PSF (ASSUMED). THE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROVIDED INDICATES 2000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING. REVISE THE NOTE. 27. SHEET S4.0; GENERAL NOTES (SPECIAL INSPECTIONS): DO WE HAVE MASONRY ON THIS PROJECT? VERIFY. 28. SHEET S4.0; SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE. 29. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PROVIDE ROOF FRAMING AND FOUNDATION KEY PLANS IN THE CALCULATIONS. 30. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGE 1: THE FOUNDATION DESIGN INDICATES AN ASSUMED BEARING CAPACITY OF 1500 PSF, WHILE THE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROVIDED INDICATES 2000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING. REVISE THE NOTE AND CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED. 31. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGE 3: A ROOF SNOW LOAD IS NOT REQUIRED. THIS LOAD MAY BE REMOVED. VERIFY. 32. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 03/05/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The kitchen exhaust hood detail on sheet M3.1 indicates a clearance of 5.25" from combustible construction to the grease duct with a 1" thick high temperature insulation blanket located between the grease duct and the combustible construction. This method of construction is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 506.3.10, IMC 2006. Revise the design to comply with the requirements of Section 506.3.10, IMC 2006 or submit an Appeal to the Building Official per Section 105.2, IMC 2006 for permission to install the grease duct using the proposed design. 2. 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. 3. Explain how an air distribution effectiveness value for a ceiling supply, ceiling return system with a warm air supply temperature greater than 15 degrees Fahrenheit above the space temperature can have a value of 0.8 in some instances and a value of 1.0 in other instances. Reference: Section 6.2.2.2, ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004. |
| 03/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the plumbing code to be used for this activity. The plumbing design (e.g. sheets P3.3 and P3.4) appears to have been done per the 2006 UPC but the Code analysis on sheet CVR refers to the 2006 IPC. This review has been made using the 2006 UPC. 2. Show that the floor of the restroom slopes toward the floor drain. Reference: Section 411.2, UPC 2006. 3. Each piece of equipment requiring backflow protection shall be independently protected. Reference: Sections 602.2 and 603.0, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 4. A double check valve is not acceptable for protecting the water supply to a carbonator. Reference: Section 603.4.12, UPC 2006. 5. Provide a shut off valve for the building entrance of the water service. Reference: Section 605.2, UPC 2006. 6. Include the static lift from the water meter to the highest water outlet (e.g. the hydrant on the roof) when performing the water pressure calculations. Reference: Section 610.1, UPC 2006. (Note that according to Tucson Water, the water pressure range for 7090 E 22nd St is 57 to 64 PSI.) 7. Revise the water pressure calculations to include the pressure drop due to the reduced pressure backflow preventer located after the water meter. Reference: Section 610.2, UPC 2006. 8. Provide 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. 9. Coordinate the waste floor plan with the waste and vent isometric; the two drawings show different fixtures, additional floor cleanouts, and different fixture connections to the grease waste and sanitary waste piping. 10. Provide a direct waste connection for the wash and rinse sections of the 3-compartment sink, with an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartment only. Reference: Sections 304.0, 704.3, and 801.2.3, UPC 2006. 11. Provide sufficient information to show that the installation of the proposed gravity grease interceptor complies with the requirements of Sections 1009.01014.1, and 1014.3, UPC 2006. (A note of sheet UT01, Utility Plan, refers to the plumbing sheets for this information.) |
| 03/12/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | Appr. per Dan Santa Cruz 3/13/12 |
| 03/15/2012 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | -NEED WASTEWATER 3RD FLOOR REVIEW OF LOCATION / METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER CHAD AMATEAU 740-6547 -NEED WASTEWATER 3RD FLOOR CAPACITY REVIEW DURT STEMM 740-6534 -NEED WATEATER IWC REVIEW & APPROVAL OF GREASE INTERCEPTOR TOM TOMCHAK 724-6200 3035 W EL CAMINO DEL CERRO |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/03/2012 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |