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 - T14CM07287
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/30/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/03/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 11/04/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T14CM07281, T14CM07282, T14CM07283, T14CM07284, T14CM07286, T14CM072871, T14CM07289, T14CM07290, T14CM07291, T14CM07292, T14CM07293, T14CM07294 9013 E. Old Vail Road Buildings for New Warehouse Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 2014 DUE DATE: November 17, 2014 COMMENTS: Zoning has reviewed the building plans as it relates to the zoning purview. Address the following comments and re-submit the building plans for review. 01. While the building plans are in substantial compliance with the development package drawings zoning cannot approve the building plans until the development package is approved by all reviewers and the building plans are approved by all building trades reviewers. 02. Replace the development package plan sheets included in the building plan set with the approved and signed copies of the development package. 03. Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to ensure that the approved development package is included. Zoning will also verify that the Development package is approved by all plans reviewers. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: As noted above. |
| 11/06/2014 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET SG-1; BUILDING OCCUPANCY TABLE: THE THREE BUILDINGS ARE LISTED HERE, BUT THE OCCUPANCY IS LISTED AS 5 PER BUILDING. THE ACTUAL OCCUPANCY SHOULD BE 5 FOR EACH SUITE IN EACH BUILDING (20 OCCUPANTS TOTAL PER BUILDING). VERIFY AND REVISE. 2. SHEET SG-1; BUILDING PLANS INDEX: VERIFY ALL BUILDING PLANS INDICATED IN THE INDEX ARE INCLUDED IN THE SET. 3. SHEET SG-1; 'LEGAL' BOX: THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA IS LISTED AS 12,000 SF PER THE IBC SECTION 903.2.3. REVISE THE REFERENCE TO THE IBC TABLE 503, AND A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF 17,500 SF (S-1 OCCUPANCY) + AREA INCREASES. 4. SHEET SG-1; 'LEGAL' BOX: THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT IS LISTED AS 75'. PER THE IBC TABLE 503, THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS 55'. VERIFY. 5. SHEET A-1; 'OCCUPANCY LOAD AND EXIT CALCULATIONS' BOX: THE OCCUPANT LOADS SHOWN (WAREHOUSE 4 OCCUPANTS AND OFFICE 6 OCCUPANTS) ACCOUNTS FOR TWO OF THE SUITES IN EACH BUILDING. EACH BUILDING SHOULD HAVE 20 TOTAL OCCUPANTS, AND EACH SUITE SHOULD HAVE 5 TOTAL OCCUPANTS. REVISE. 6. SHEET A-1; 'OCCUPANCY LOAD AND EXIT CALCULATIONS' BOX: THE TOTAL BUILDING AREAS ARE LISTED AS 12,000 SF FOR THE S-1 OCCUPANCY, AND 2400 SF FOR THE B OCCUPANCY. THE 14,400 SF TOTAL IS CORRECT FOR 12 SUITES, BUT THE S-1 PORTION IS 932 X 12 = 11,184 SF, AND THE B PORTION IS 268 X 12 = 3216 SF. REVISE THE DRAWINGS. 7. SHEET A-1; 'OCCUPANCY LOAD AND EXIT CALCULATIONS' BOX, AND 'MINIMUM PLUMBING FIXTURES REQUIRED' BOX: THE NUMBERS SHOWN ARE FOR TWO SUITES. INDICATE THE OCCUPANCY FOR ONE SUITE ONLY. EACH ACTIVITY NUMBER IS FOR ONE SUITE ONLY (5 OCCUPANTS, 1 EXIT REQUIRED, ONE UNISEX RESTROOM REQUIRED, AND NO DRINKING FOUNTAIN OR MOP SINK REQUIRED). 8. SHEET A-2; TOILET ROOM ACCESSORIES: FINISH THE DETAIL REFERENCE IN NOTE E. 9. SHEET A-3; ELEVATION KEY NOTES: NOTES 15 AND 16 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE ELEVATIONS. VERIFY. 10. SHEET A-4; SECTION KEY NOTES: NOTES 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, AND 15 WERE NOT LOCATED ON THE SECTIONS. VERIFY. 11. SHEET A-4; DETAIL 1: THE CITY REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE VERBIAGE. 12. STRUCTURAL SHEETS: THE FOUNDATION PLAN SHOULD HAVE A SHEET NUMBER OF S-1. REVISE. 13. FOUNDATION PLAN: ON THE DRAWING, PROVIDE THE ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING VALUE USED IN THIS DESIGN. 14. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: NO FOUNDATION CALCULATIONS WERE PROVIDED FOR THIS PROJECT. PROVIDE. 15. FOUNDATION PLAN: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLAN. 16. SHEET S-2; FRAMING PLAN: NO CALCULATIONS WERE PROVIDED FOR THE INTERIOR CEILING JOISTS, HEADERS, AND WALLS. PROVIDE. IS THE 4" SLAB SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE WALL LOADS? VERIFY IN THE CALCULATIONS. 17. SHEET S-2; FRAMING PLAN: SECTION 4/S-2 IS CUT AT GRIDS LINES 2 AND 4, BUT THERE IS NO SECTION 4/S-2 SHOWN. PROVIDE. 18. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 11/07/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Coordinate the waste and vent diagram, plumbing plan, and the fixture specifications for fixture call-outs. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 2. Revise the plumbing notes to eliminate the notes that do not pertain to this activity. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 3. Provide a specification for the lavatory faucets to demonstrate compliance with Section 416.6, IPC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson (i.e. 0.25 gallons per cycle). 4. Coordinate the size of the water service pipe with the site plan. The site plan shows a 3/4" meter and reduced pressure backflow preventer that appears to serve all three buildings with a ½" water service pipe but the plumbing plan is based on a 1" meter, a 1-1/4" reduced pressure backflow preventer, and a 1-1/4" water service pipe to just this building. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012 and 603.1, IPC 2012. 5. Correct the arithmetic in the water pressure calculations and determine the required pipe sizes based on accepted engineering practices. Reference; Sections 604.1 and 604.3, IPC 2012. 6. The drawings call for two 2-1/2" vents through the roof but ABS pipe is not available in that size. Reference: Section 702, IPC 2012. |
| 11/07/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Clarify basis of the envelope compliance certificate; the design of the single office (plus one restroom?) does not correspond to the values shown in the COMcheck Envelope Assemblies section. There are two types of "exterior" walls: the metal building wall and the walls that are inside of the un-conditioned warehouse (the wall between the two suites can be ignored because there is no temperature difference from one side to the other). The drawings show no continuous insulation on the walls. The drawings show no projection over the window but a PF-value of 2.0 on COMcheck would correspond to a structure that extends at least 4-feet from the building. Provide NFRC certification of the U-value for the insulated metal door or use the default U-value of 0.60 for an insulated metal door. Reference: Section 303.1 and 303.1.3 and, C402.3.3, IECC 2012. 2. Revise the mechanical compliance certificate to apply to just one suite. 3. Show that each heat pump 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: Section C403.2.4, IECC 2012. 4. Show the size, routing, and termination of the condensate drain. Reference: Section 307.2.1, IMC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson. 5. Provide calculations to show how natural ventilation has been provided. Reference: Section 402.1, IMC 2012. |
| 11/07/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Provide calculations to show the appropriate meter size to serve the water demand for the plumbing fixtures served by this meter. Show the location of the meter and its associated backflow preventer on the site plan. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012 and 603.1, IPC 2012. |
| 11/10/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Jeff Stanley P.E. ACTIVITIES: T14CM07281, T14CM07282, T14CM07283, T14CM07284, T14CM07285, T14CM07286, T14CM07287, T14CM07288, T14CM07289, T14CM07290, T14CM07291, T14CM07292, T14CM07293, & T14CM07294 PROJECT: DP14-0056 Lot 42 Rita Ranch Building plan Permits - Engineering Review ADDRESS: 8257 S RITA RD, Ward 4 LOCATION: T15S R15E Section 27 PROPERTY: 141-11-4030, BROWN/RITA RANCH LOT 40 FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 2925L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the project resubmittal package with the EOR in a meeting on 10NOV14 and does not recommend approval of the building plans until the remaining comments on the Development Package are addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2014 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | REJECT SHELF | Completed |