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 - T14CM03129
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/29/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide plumbing plans for the new work, including water isometrics and waste and vent isometrics. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 2. Specify the piping materials to be employed in this activity. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 3. Provide tempered water for the lavatories using approved devices conforming to ASSE 1070 (ASSE 1016 has been superseded by ASSE 1070 for non-shower point of use devices). Note that a variation of the specified Toto TEL3LS10 faucet is available which includes an ASSE 1070 thermal mixer (Toto TEL5LS10. Reference: Sections 416.5 and 607.1.2, IPC 2012. 4. The modified tower is shown on sheet A1.3 with roof drains discharging to the main roof. Provide roof drainage calculations and plans for the new tower roof. Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012. 5. Architectural sheets A2.2 and A5.0 indicate that a new rain gutter and two rain leaders are being added to the north side of the building. Provide roof drainage calculations and plans for the new gutter and rain leaders. Reference: Sections 1101 and 1106, IPC 2012. |
| 05/30/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide construction documents that are complete and clearly indicate the extent of the proposed work (e.g. show the ductwork being modified and provide balancing data for the diffusers). Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 2. Show the locations of the exhaust grilles for the restrooms. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 05/30/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/02/2014 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET CVR; BUILDING CODE: ADD THE ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 EDITION TO THE LIST FOR ACCESSIBILITY. 2. SHEETS AS1, AS2, AND AS3: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE VERBIAGE. 3. SHEETS SD2, SD3, AND SD4: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE VERBIAGE. 4. SHEETS A0.2 AND A1.3; DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN AND ROOF PLAN: DARKEN THE LINE QUALITY AT THE ROOF EXISTING RTU'S AND EXHAUST FANS. 5. SHEET A1.0; FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES: NOTES 4, 17, AND 19 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 6. SHEET A1.0; FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES: NOTE 8 REFERENCES DETAIL 13/AS1 FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 7. SHEET A1.0; FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES: NOTE 10 REFERENCES DETAIL 13/AS1 FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 8. SHEET A1.0 (FLOOR PLAN); SHEET A2.2 (ELEVATION 19): THE ELEVATION INDICATES A DOUBLE DOOR ADJACENT TO THE NEW DOOR. IS THIS CORRECT? VERIFY. 9. SHEET A1.1; ACCESSIBILITY CLEARANCES: A NOTE AT THE TOP LEFT REFERENCES 2/AS2 FOR ADA SIGNAGE. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 10. SHEET A1.3; ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES: NOTE 7 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 11. SHEETS A2.0, A2.1, A2.2 AND A2.3 (PROPOSED ELEVATIONS); ELEVATION KEYNOTES: NOTES 16, 18, 19, AND 25 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE ELEVATIONS. VERIFY. 12. SHEETS A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 (EXISTING ELEVATIONS); DEMOLITION KEYNOTES: NOTES 9, 13, AND 15 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE ELEVATIONS. VERIFY. 13. SHEETS A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3; PROPOSED ELEVATION KEYNOTES: NOTE 24 REFERENCES DETAIL 8/CVR2. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 14. SHEETS A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3; PROPOSED ELEVATION KEYNOTES: NOTE 25 REFERENCES DETAIL 9/AS1. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 15. SHEET A2.2; ELEVATION KEYNOTES: ELEVATION 19 HAS A KEYNOTE REFERENCE OF 28 (ACROSS THE ROOF). NO KEYNOTE 28 IS LISTED. VERIFY. 16. SHEET A2.2; ELEVATION KEYNOTES: ELEVATION 19 HAS A KEYNOTE REFERENCE OF 16 AT THE BOTTOM. IS THIS CORRECT? VERIFY. 17. SHEET A3.0; DETAILS 2 AND 9: PROVIDE THE LATERAL BRACING SIZE AND CONNECTIONS AT EACH END (SIZE AND QUANTITY), OR REFERENCE THE STRUCTURAL. 18. SHEET A3.1; DETAIL 17: IS THERE A DOUBLE ANGLE LINTEL INDICATED ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AT THE EXISTING MASONRY WALL? VERIFY. 19. SHEETS A5.0, A5.1, A5.2, AND A5.3: DARKEN THE LINE QUALITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ELEMENTS. 20. SHEET A5.3; SECTION 4: A SECTION CUT REFERENCES 5/A5.2 AT THE ROOF. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 21. SHEETS S1.1 THROUGH S1.4: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE VERBIAGE. 22. SHEET S1.1; FOUNDATION NOTES: NOTE b REFERENCES THE IBC SECTION 1804.2 FOR A SOIL BEARING VALUE TO BE USED WITHOUT A SOIL REPORT. REVISE THE REFERENCE TO THE 2012 IBC. 23. SHEET S2.1 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: A NEW COLUMN, COLUMN FOOTING, AND WALL FOOTINGS ARE INDICATED ON SHEET S2.1, BUT NO CALCULATIONS WERE PROVIDED FOR THEM. PROVIDE. 24. SHEET S2.1 (FOUNDATION PLAN AND FOOTING SCHEDULE); SHEET S4.1 (DETAIL 4): ON SHEET S2.1, THE NEW FOOTING AT THE NEW CASHIER LOCATION INDICATES AN F1 FOOTING (24" WIDE CONTINUOUS WITH 2-#4 TOP AND BOTTOM), WHILE DETAIL 4/S4.1 INDICATES 1-#4 TOP AND BOTTOM. CLARIFY. 25. SHEET S2.2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE NEW CANOPIES AND SUNSHADES MUST BE SUBMITTED AS DEFERRED SUBMITTALS AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC SECTION 107.3.4.1. 26. SHEET S3.0; SECTION 2: IS THE DETAIL 9/S1.3 INDICATED ON THIS SECTION CORRECT? VERIFY. 27. SHEET S3.1; SECTION 1: IS THE DETAIL 9/S1.3 INDICATED ON THIS SECTION CORRECT? VERIFY. 28. SHEET S3.3; SECTION 1: IS THE DETAIL 2/S4.1 INDICATED ON THIS SECTION CORRECT? VERIFY. 29. SHEET S4.1; DETAIL 2: IS THE SECTION CUT 1/S3.2 ON THIS DETAIL CORRECT? VERIFY. 30. SHEET S4.1; DETAIL 1: IS THIS DETAIL INDICATED ANYWHERE ON THESE DRAWINGS? VERIFY. 31. SHEET S4.1; DETAILS 5 AND 8: CALL OUT THE NEW WALL STUD SIZE AND SPACING. 32. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 06/05/2014 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | Approval of DP14-0088 is required. |
| 06/16/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/23/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The development package must be approved first. A floodplain use permit may be required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/27/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/27/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |