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

Permit Number: T13CM06530
Parcel: 14028019A

Address:
6220 S TUCSON BL

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T13CM06530
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/29/2013 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
10/31/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/01/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 6220 S. Tucson Blvd.
T13CM06530
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 1, 2013

1. The building plans have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

3. Until the development package has been approved the building plans cannot be approved.

4. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. 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
11/04/2013 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET A1.0: THE REFERENCE SITE PLAN INDICATES 43,380 SF FOR THE BUILDING, WHILE THE CODE REVIEW INDICATES 43,793 SF. CLARIFY.
2. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: THE ICC/ANSI CODE IS LISTED AS THE 2006 EDITION. REVISE TO 2009.
3. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: TABLE 508.3.3 IS REFERENCED IN THIS SECTION (THIS IS USED IN THE 2006 IBC). REVISE THE TABLE REFERENCE TO THE 2012 EDITION OF THE IBC (TABLE 508.4).
4. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: THE EXIT WIDTH REFERENCES TABLE 1005.1, WHICH WAS USED IN THE 2006 IBC. REVISE THE REFERENCE TO THE 2012 EDITION OF THE IBC, AND REVISE THE REQUIRED WIDTHS ACCORDINGLY.
5. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: THE NUMBER OF EXITS REFERENCES TABLE 1019.1, WHICH WAS USED IN THE 2006 IBC. REVISE THE REFERENCE TO THE 2012 EDITION OF THE IBC, AND REVISE THE NUMBER OF EXITS ACCORDINGLY.
6. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: THE VERTICAL EXIT ENCLOSURES REFERENCES SECTION 1020, WHICH WAS USED IN THE 2006 IBC. REVISE THE REFERENCE TO THE 2012 EDITION OF THE IBC, AND REVISE THE EXIT ENCLOSURE ACCORDINGLY.
7. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: WHY WAS THE S-1 OCCUPANCY GROUP USED FOR THE PLUMBING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS? IT IS NOT THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THE S-1 OR F-2 OCCUPANCY GROUPS. RESTROOM REQUIREMENTS ARE THE SAME FOR THE S-1/F-2 GROUPS, BUT THE S-1 GROUP REQUIRES ONE DRINKING FOUNTAIN PER 1000 OCCUPANTS (ONE TOTAL), WHILE THE F-2 GROUP REQUIRES TWO. CLARIFY.
8. SHEET A1.0; CODE REVIEW: CONCERNING THE PLUMBING FIXTURES, YOU CAN APPEAL THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BY FILLING OUT THE ONLINE PETITION OF APPEAL AND SUBMITTING IT TO RON BOOSE (520-837-4937 OR RON.BOOSE@TUCSONAZ.GOV).
9. SHEET A2.1; MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN: REVISE GRID 3.5 TO GRID 3.
10. SHEET A2.1; FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND ENLARGED PLAN 3/A6.0: IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE PARTITION IN THE SHOWER ROOM 120A IS CONSTRUCTED (INCLUDES DOOR 120). CLARIFY.
11. SHEET A2.1; FIRST FLOOR PLAN: IS THE LOCKER ROOM 119 ACCESSIBLE AND UNISEX? PROVIDE AN ENLARGED PLAN AND ELEVATIONS/DETAILS ON THE DRAWINGS FOR THIS AREA.
12. SHEET A2.1; FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND KEYNOTES: THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN (HIGH/LOW AS SHOWN ON P1.1) WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN OR IN THE KEYNOTES. VERIFY.
13. SHEET A2.1; KEYNOTES: NOTE 1 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN OR IN THE KEYNOTES. VERIFY.
14. SHEET A2.1; FIRST FLOOR PLAN: IN THE LOBBY (ROOM 100) THE METAL STUD WALL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEST WALL IS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR CONSTRUCTION TYPE. PROVIDE.
15. SHEET S1.0; GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES (FOUNDATIONS): FOUNDATION NOTE 1 INDICATES A SOIL REPORT WAS USED FOR THE FOUNDATION DESIGN ON THIS PROJECT. PROVIDE THAT REPORT FOR REVIEW.
16. SHEET S1.5; DETAILS 36 AND 37: WAS THE DESIGN OF THESE WALLS AND FOUNDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS? VERIFY.
17. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 8): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THE EDGE BEAM IS A 24" WIDE X 18" DEEP CONCRETE BEAM WITH 2-#4 CONTINUOUS TOP AND BOTTOM, WHILE THE DETAILS 104 AND 105 INDICATE A 24" WIDE X 16" DEEP EDGE BEAM WITH 1-#5 TOP AND BOTTOM. CLARIFY.
18. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 3): F4 IN THE CALCULATIONS INDICATES AN END WALL COLUMN AND FOOTING. IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE DRAWINGS? VERIFY.
19. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 26): IN THE CALCULATIONS, THESE ANCHOR BOLTS ARE USED (6-3/4" X 15" EMBEDMENT) AT THE F14 FOOTING (3'-6" DIAMETER X 6'-3" DEEP). ON THE PLAN, THAT FOOTING (A14) HAS A3 ANCHOR BOLTS (8-1 1/4" X 28" EMBEDMENT). CLARIFY.
20. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEETS 65 AND 66): IN THE CALCULATIONS, IT APPEARS SW1 REPRESENTS THE WALL ON THE PLAN THAT IS LOCTED EAST OF GRID G. THE PLANS INDICATE A STEEL STUD WALL, WHILE THE CALCULATION INDICATES MASONRY. CLARIFY.
21. SHEET S2.0; KEYNOTES: NOTES 2 AND 3 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY.
22. SHEET S2.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: AT GRIDS B AND 2, FOOTINGS F12 AND F14 INTERSECT EACH OTHER. PROVIDE A DETAIL ON THE DRAWINGS FOR THIS CONDITION.
23. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S3.0 (DETAIL 103): THE DETAIL INDICATES A TRIANGULAR PEDESTAL WITH DIMENSIONS PER THE PLAN. THE PLAN SHOWS NO DIMENSIONS, AND THE PEDESTALS APPEAR RECTANGULAR. CLARIFY.
24. SHEET S2.1 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN 2); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 30): ON THE PLANS, THERE ARE FIVE BEAMS ALONG GRID J.1, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE FOUR. COORDINATE THE CALCULATIONS WITH THE PLANS.
25. SHEET S2.1 (FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 1); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 32): ON THE PLANS, THERE ARE FIVE BEAMS ALONG GRID J.1, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE FOUR. COORDINATE THE CALCULATIONS WITH THE PLANS.
26. SHEET S2.1; FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 3: PROVIDE A SIZE ON THE BEAMS.
27. SHEET S2.1; FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 3 AND ROOF FRAMING PLAN 4: WAS THE DESIGN FOR THESE AREAS IN THE CALCULATIONS? VERIFY.
28. SHEET S2.1; FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 3: DETAIL 202 ON THE NORTH WALL SHOULD BE REFERENCED AS SIMILAR (202 IS CUT AT THE ROOF).
29. SHEET S3.0; DETAIL 102: NOTE 7 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE DETAIL. VERIFY.
30. SHEET S3.0; DETAIL 105: CHANGE THE NOTE INDICATOR ON THE DETAIL FROM 5 TO 4.
31. SHEET S3.0; DETAILS 110 AND 111: SHOULD THERE BE EXPANSION JOINT FILLER BETWEEN THE SLAB ON GRADE AND THE WALL? VERIFY.
32. SHEET S4.0; DETAIL 213: NOTES 4 AND 5 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE DETAIL. VERIFY.
33. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEETS 11 AND 13: FOOTING F1 IS LISTED AS A 9'-6" SQUARE X 24" DEEP FOOTING ON SHEET 11, BUT SHOWN AS A 7'-0" SQUARE X 22" DEEP FOOTING ON SHEET 13. NO OTHER CALCULATIONS WERE FOUND FOR THIS CONDITION. CLARIFY.
34. GENERAL: MAKE SURE THE FRAMING/FOOTING DESIGN PLANS MATCH THE DESIGN CALCULATIONS.
35. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
11/06/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide a site drawing showing the size and route of the building water service, the location and size of the water meter and the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly, the size, route, and slope of the building sewer and the location of its connection to the public sewer. An approved development plan is not a substitute for a building permit to install site utilities. Reference: Sections 104.2 and 107.1, IBC 2012.
2. The plumbing floor plan appears to indicate an additional fixture located north of the shower, P-5, in room 120; on sheet A2.1 it is identified as a floor sink with an ice machine but no such fixture is shown on detail 3/P2.1 or identified in the fixture schedule, and no water service is shown for the ice machine. Coordinate the plumbing design with the architectural design. Reference: Section 107.1, IBC 2012.
3. Provide a design for mounting the water heater above the mop sink along with structural calculations to show that the water heater is safely supported. Reference: Section 301.2, IPC 2012.
4. If the shower does not have a pre-fabricated receptor, provide details to show that the construction of the receptor complies with the requirements of Section 417.5.2, IPC 2012.
5. The plumbing fixture specifications for lavatories P-1 and P-1A call for 2.2 GPM aerators. The maximum flow rates for plumbing fixtures shall be consistent with ARS Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 12. See text at: (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp).
6. Show how the temperature of the hot water supply to the public lavatories is controlled. Reference: Sections 416.5 and 607.1, IPC 2012 and Section C404.3, IECC 2012.
7. Provide a detail of the water heater installation, including the excess pressure relief, expansion tank, vacuum relief or other anti-siphon device, safety pan and drain, recirculation pump, temperature mixing valve, check valve, and shut off valves. Reference: Sections 502.1, 503.1, 503.2, 504, 606.1, 607.2.2, and 607.3 IPC 2012.
8. Provide calculations showing how the water supply piping has been sized. Reference: Sections 604.1 and 604.3, IPC 2012.
9. Clarify the sizes of the hot water piping on detail 4/P2.1; it appears to show the pipe changing in the direction of flow from ¾" to 1-1/4", back to ¾" and then to 3" before the hot water return pipe starts at ½".
10. Provide location and sizing information for the gutters and downspouts for the metal building. Based on the area of the roof served by the roof drains for the southern section of the office building (6,006 square feet), at least part of the metal building roof drains onto the office building. Reference: Sections 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012.
11/06/2013 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
11/07/2013 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The operations office is heated and cooled with a heat pump; verify that the operations office has been included in the envelope energy calculations. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information on the drawing shall, as a minimum, include the R-values of the insulation. Complete the Envelope Compliance Certificate by checking the appropriate line items in Section 3, the Air Leakage, Component Certification, and Vapor Retarder Requirements. Supporting documentation shall be either on the drawings or in the project manual. Reference: Sections C101.4.3, C101.5, and C103.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.
2. The exterior wall sections do not appear to show a continuous layer of insulation. Revise the energy code analysis for the building envelope, coordinating the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing. Reference: Section C303.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. As noted in the COMcheck Envelope Compliance Certificate, the reduced indoor lighting power option was selected as the additional efficiency package requirement to comply with Section C406, IECC 2012. The lighting plans however do not show compliance with the requirements of Section C406, IECC 2012. The workshop building appears to have less than 1.0 Watt per square foot used for space conditioning. As such, it is exempt from compliance with the building thermal envelope requirements but shall comply with the lighting requirements of the energy code. Revise the indoor lighting plans or select one of the other additional efficiency package options. Reference: Sections C101.5.2 and C401.2, IECC 2012.
11/08/2013 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/08/2013,

The Development Package has not been approved yet.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/19/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed