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 - TI
Permit Number - T13CM01472
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/22/2013 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET A000 1. Revise the ICC A117.1 to 2009 and delete all reference to ADAAG. SHEET A002 2. The applicable accessible code is the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 Edition of ICC A117.1. Delete this ADAAG reference sheet in it's enitirety. SHEETS A003, A115, A120, A130, A140 AND A230 3. As per the 2012 IBC, Section 2902.2, separate facilities (men and women) are to be provided with an occupancy load of 16 or more, not UNISEX. Also reference Sheet 000, Code Compliance Data, Catagory 8, male and female plumbing fixture count. SHEET A010, A011, A012 AND A013 4. The minimum City of Tucson acceptable actual lettering size for all drawings is 3/32" upper and lower case. Please revise all these sheets and resubmit. SHEET A230 5. At detail 5, please provide toilet signage location and elevations as required by ICC A117.1, Section 703. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/29/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T13cm01472 1. Sheet E110 circuit B-6 for receptacle , panel schedule using B-2,4,6 for TVSS. 2.E100 shows the Lighting Relay Panel next to Panel A, Sheet 110 does not show the Relay Panel next to it. Ray T Majuta Elect Plan Review DSD, Tucson 3/29/2013 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/01/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the installation of the drain for the makeup air unit, MAU-1; keynote #13 calls for a trap located below the roof and the plumbing plan shows a direct connection to the sanitary drain system. Show how the proposed installation complies with the requirements of Sections 305.4, 708.3.4, 802.1.5, 1002.4, and 1104.1, IPC 2012. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 2. The specified water heater can deliver 354 GPH (5.9 GPM) with a 70 degrees Fahrenheit rise but the provided fixture unit calculations indicate a hot water demand of approximately 18.5 GPM. Show how the proposed water heater can supply adequate quantities of hot water. Reference: Section 607, IPC 2012. 3. Indirect waste piping (e.g. from each compartment of a 3-compartment sink) shall be run independently to the indirect waste receiver. Reference: Section 801.2, IPC 2012. |
| 04/05/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Show that each rooftop unit has a thermostatic control that provides for off-hour and set-back control, automatic shutdown and start-up control and, if the control does not require manual changeover from the heating and cooling modes, restricts set point overlap. Reference: Sections C403.2.4.1, C403.2.4.2, C403.2.4.3, C403.2.4.3, C403.2.4.3.1, C403.2.4.3.2, and C403.2.4.3.3, IECC 2012. 2. Show the size, routing, and termination of the condensate drains for the roof top units and the drain for the makeup air unit. Reference: Sections 307.2.1, IMC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. Provide calculations to demonstrate that adequate ventilation is being provided. Reference: Section 403.2, IMC 2012. 4. Section 507.9, IMC 2012 requires a smooth, cleanable, non-absorbent, and non-combustible material installed between the hood and the wall, and extending 18" beyond the hood. Verify that the grout for the wall tile behind the hood will be non-absorbent and cleanable. |
| 04/09/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T13CM01472 9484 E. 22nd Street T.I. for Chipolte Restaurant TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 9, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the zoning items have been addressed. 1. This development has very specific rezoning conditions that must be addressed not only for site development but building development. Address the following comments specifically related to the rezoning conditions that are related to the building. Respond and demonstrate on the building plans how rezoning condition 9 has been addressed. Respond and demonstrate on the building plans how rezoning condition 19 has been addressed. Respond and demonstrate on the building plans how rezoning condition 32.a and .b have been addressed. 2. The building plans include an architectural site plan that does not match the approved development package site plan. The development package site also does not include additional outdoor seating along the south side of the Chipolte Suite. If additional outdoor seating is proposed as shown in the building plans package floor plan and site plan and the development package site plan has not been revised, zoning cannot approve the building plans until the additional seating is removed from the building plans package or the development package is revised to reflect the proposed changes. This comment was made on the last review made by zoning (March 14, 2013) and neither plan has been revised and no response was in the re-submittal package included to explain the inconsistency. 3. In the review of the building plans and architectural site plan it is not clear how the accessible route along the east side of the building adjacent to the outside seating meets the minimum 4 feet wide clear path. Add the width of the pedestrian way along this location of the sidewalk and include the clearance height of the umbrellas that appear to encroach over the pedestrian way. Minimum accessible clearance is 80 inches. Include the information on the floor plans and elevation sheets. |