Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T16CM00892
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/08/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Passed | |
| 02/08/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/08/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | COMMENTS COPIED FROM T16CM00136 - SPLIT INTO 2 ACTIVITY NUMBERS, 2 SUITES. - C.PIERCE FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 765 E. Wetmore Road T16CM00136 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 27, 2016 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. 2. The building plans cannot be approved until development package, DP15-0207, has been approved. 3. Until the above comments have been addressed and all other PDSD review agencies have approved the building plans zoning cannot approve. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 02/08/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | COMMENTS COPIED FROM T16CM00136, PERMITS SPLIT, 2 SUITE NUMBERS ON PLANS. DATE: January 19, 2015 DUE DATE: February 5, 2016 SUBJECT: New Restaurant TO: Diana K. Flynn LOCATION: 765 E. Wetmore Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: T16CM00136 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per previous comment 1 on the development package (ie. DP15-0207) TSM 2-01.4.1D and TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please add a general note to sheet 1 that reflects the geotechnical report recommendations from section 4.7.2 which require concrete have a compressive strength of 4,000 psi. 2) Per previous comment 5 on the development package (ie. DP15-0207) TSM 2-01.4.1D and TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please show how the requirements of the geotechnical report, section 4.1, are being met. This requirement is for exposed ground extending at least 10 feet from the perimeter, be sloped a minimum of 5% away from the buildings to provide positive drainage away from the structure. There is a section on sheet 2 near the northeast corner of the building where keynote 23 calls out a concrete drain block but where 5% slope for 10 feet is not being required. Please update to show compliance. 3) Per previous comment 13 on the development package (ie. DP15-0207) submittal the narrative from the developed conditions section of the drainage report indicates that the PWS is made up of a portion of the southern building (Building #2). This does not agree with the Proposed conditions watershed map in Appendix D or the spot grades on sheet 4. Please ensure the drainage for this structure reflects the final, selected configuration of the drainage report narrative and watershed maps accordingly. 4) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please list the DP15-0207 and T16CM00136 numbers on the plan. 5) Per AM 2-06.4.7A6 please provide information regarding the Gateway Corridor Zone related to 1st avenue. 6) Per previous comment 25 on the development package (ie. DP15-0207) submittal and TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please add a general note indicating that per Section 4.2.1 of the Geotechnical Report, site Preparation, that all materials derived from the demolition of existing pavements should be removed from the site and not be allowed for use as on-site fill. 7) Per previous comment 26 on the development package (ie. DP15-0207) submittal and TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please add a general note indicating that "per Section 3.1 of the Geotechnical Report, Typical Subsurface profile, that based on the field penetration testing, the existing fill soils are very loose to medium dense in relatively density and are not considered suitable for support of any structural elements associated with the proposed project. Existing fill soils were encountered across the entire site up to a depth of nine feet." If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 02/08/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/09/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET T1.1; GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY: PLEASE REVISE THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TO VB. 2. SHEET T1.1; GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY: PLEASE REVISE THE NON SEPARATED USES FROM 'NO' TO YES. 3. SHEET T1.1; PROJECT SCOPE: THE NARRATIVE SHOULD INDICATE THE NORTH SUITE IS A NEW RETAIL SPACE (PLEASE PROVIDE TENANT INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION), WHILE THE SOUTH SUITE IS A NEW RETAIL SHELL SPACE (PLEASE PROVIDE A SUITE NUMBER THROUGH PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING). THE NORTH SUITE WILL RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (IF TENANT INFORMATION PROVIDED), AND THE SOUTH SUITE WILL RECEIVE A LETTER OF COMPLETION. 4. SHEET T1.1; OCCUPANCY/EXIT PLAN: IN THE SOUTH SUITE, NONE OF THE DISTANCES BETWEEN EXITS THAT ARE INDICATED MEET THE 33.5' SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. PLEASE INDICATE A DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE IBC SECTION 1015.2.1. 5. SHEET AS1.1; SITE/HARDSCAPE PLAN: PLEASE IDENTIFY ENTRANCES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE. THE IBC SECTION 1105.1.6 REQUIRES AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE INTO EACH TENANT SPACE, AND SECTION 1105.1 REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 60% OF PUBLIC ENTRANCES TO BE ACCESSIBLE. 6. SHEET AS1.1; SITE/HARDSCAPE PLAN: PLEASE VERIFY AT EACH EXTERIOR DOOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ICC/ANSI TABLE 404.2.3.2 ARE MET FOR MANEUVERING CLEARANCES AT MANUAL SWINGING DOORS, AND INDICATE THESE ON THE PLAN. 7. SHEET AS1.1; SITE/HARDSCAPE PLAN: IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE SOUTHERNMOST DOOR ON THE WEST WALL MEETS THE LANDING REQUIREMENT OF THE ICC/ANSI SECTION 405.7.5 (RAMP INTERFERES WITH THE LANDING). PLEASE VERIFY. 8. SHEET AS1.1 (SITE PLAN); SHEET A1.1 (FLOOR PLAN): THE NORTH WALL OF LEASE SPACE 'A' IS LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE PER THE SITE PLAN. THE IBC TABLE 602 REQUIRES A TWO HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE RATING FOR THAT WALL ASSEMBLY (WT1 AND WT5). PLEASE INDICATE THE REQUIRED FIRE RESISTANCE RATING IN THE WALL TYPES, AND INCLUDE A U.L. LISTING NUMBER ON THE DRAWING FOR THAT WALL ASSEMBLY CONSTRUCTION. 9. SHEET A1.1; WALL TYPES: A NOTE INDICATES TO FIRE CAULK THE ENTIRE PERIMETER AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF ALL DEMISING WALLS PER THE IBC SECTION 712. THERE ARE NO REQUIRED FIRE RESISTANT DEMISING WALLS ON THIS PROJECT. THE IBC SECTION 714 DEFINES PENETRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE RESISTANCE RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES. 10. SHEET A1.1 (FLOOR PLAN); SHEET A3.1 (STOREFRONT TYPES): THE STOREFRONT C ON GRID 1 IS REQUIRED TO BE A FIRE WINDOW ASSEMBLY WITH A FIRE PROTECTION RATING PER THE IBC TABLE 716.6. PLEASE INDICATE ON THE DRAWINGS THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WINDOW ASSEMBLY RATING AND THE GLAZING MARKING. 11. SHEET A1.2; DETAIL 9: IS THE WATER HEATER SHELF SUPPORTED BY THE EXTERIOR MASONRY WALL OR THE INTERIOR METAL STUD WALL? PLEASE INDICATE ON THIS DETAIL. 12. SHEET A2.1; NORTH, EAST, SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS; E/W SECTION: KEYNOTE 10 INDICATES TO REFERENCE 4/A1.1 FOR THE CANOPY. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE. 13. SHEET A2.1; NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS; E/W SECTION: KEYNOTE 15 REFERENCES 6/AS1.2 FOR A BOLLARD. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE. 14. SHEET A2.1; KEYNOTES 19 AND 20: DETAILS 2/AS1.1 AND 3/AS1.1 ARE REFERENCED FOR BICYCLE PARKING. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCES. 15. SHEET S1.0; STRUCTURAL NOTES (FOUNDATIONS): PLEASE PROVIDE ONE COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR REVIEW. 16. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 02/09/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/03/2016 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2016 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |