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 - T16CM03461
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/11/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Unable to approve until Development Package has been approved. |
| 05/25/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET TS1.0; CODE ANALYSIS: PLEASE REVISE THE ICC/ANSI TO THE 2009 EDITION. 2. SHEET TS1.0; SITE LOCATION PLAN: A BOXED NOTE REFERENCES AN INCOMPLETE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. PLEASE REVISE. 3. SHEET A0.1; EXITING PLANS: THE MAIN LEVEL PLAN INDICATES 149 OCCUPANTS (12+34+1+1+1+15+85), BUT THE EXITS INDICATE 164 OCCUPANTS (56 AT THE WEST EXIT BOX, 108 AT THE EAST EXIT BOX). PLEASE COORDINATE. 4. SHEET A0.1; CODE INFORMATION (EXITING): THREE REQUIRED EXITS AND THREE PROVIDED EXITS ARE INDICATED FOR THE LOWER LEVEL. PLEASE REVISE. 5. SHEET A0.2: A NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SHEET INDICATES TO REFER TO 2010 ADA STANDARDS. REMOVE OR REVISE THIS NOTE TO THE 2009 ICC/ANSI. 6. SHEET A1.0; KEY NOTES: PLEASE COMPLETE NOTE 5.1. 7. SHEET A1.0; KEY NOTES: NOTE 5.4 IS THE SAME AS 5.1. PLEASE VERIFY AND REMOVE. 8. SHEET A1.0; KEY NOTES: NOTE 10.1 REFERENCES A SECTION IN THE ADA GUIDELINES. PLEASE REVISE TO THE ICC/ANSI. 9. SHEET A1.0; KEY NOTES: PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCES IN NOTES 10.6, 10.7, AND 10.8. 10. SHEET A1.1; KEY NOTES: PLEASE REVISE THE NOTES PER PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR SHEET A1.0. 11. SHEET A2.2; KEY NOTES: PLEASE REVISE THE NOTES PER PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR SHEET A1.0. 12. SHEET A3.0; EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS: ARE THESE ELEVATIONS REVERSED? PLEASE VERIFY. 13. SHEET A3.0; ELEVATION 5: ARE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PROVIDED FOR THE FLAG POLE FOUNDATION? PLEASE VERIFY. 14. SHEET A3.0; KEY NOTES: PLEASE REVISE THE NOTES PER PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR SHEET A1.0. 15. SHEET A5.0; DOOR SCHEDULE: NOTE (1) BELOW THE SCHEDULE REFERENCES SHEET SP2, DIVISION 8, PARAGRAPH D, SUB-PARAGRAPH 4 FOR HARDWARE. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE. 16. SHEET A6.0; SECTIONS 1 AND 2: INDICATE THE BRACING SIZE AND SPACING, AND PROVIDE THE CONNECTORS (SIZE AND QUANTITY) TO THE PARTITION WALL AND TO THE ROOF STRUCTURE ABOVE. 17. SHEET A7.0; DETAIL 4: PLEASE INDICATE HOW THE RAIL IS CONNECTED TO THE STAIR, OR ADD A REFERENCE TO THE NOTE. 18. SHEET A8.0; KEY NOTES: PLEASE REVISE THE NOTES PER PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR SHEET A1.0. 19. GENERAL: IT IS INTERESTING THAT 75% OF THE RESTROOMS ARE LOCATED ON THE LOWER LEVEL THAT HAS ONLY 13% OF THE BUILDING OCCUPANTS. PLEASE VERIFY. 20. GENERAL: PER THE IBC TABLE 508.4, AN 'A' OCCUPANCY MUST BE SEPARATED FROM AN 'S-2' OCCUPANCY (WHERE THE 'S-2' OCCUPANCY AREA IS USED FOR PRIVATE OR PLEASURE VEHICLES) BY A MINIMUM ONE HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY (SEE NOTE b BELOW THE TABLE). IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE FLOOR IS A ONE HOUR RATED ASSEMBLY. PLEASE VERIFY. 21. GENERAL: THE SHAFT ENCLOSURE LOCATED IN ROOM 106 DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRE BARRIER PER THE IBC SECTION 713 (ONE HOUR RATING). PLEASE VERIFY. 22. GENERAL: KEY NOTES REFERENCE A WINDOW SCHEDULE. WHERE IS THIS SCHEDULE? 23. SHEET S2.0; KEYNOTES: NOTE 11 REFERENCES MECHANICAL WEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS. WHERE ARE THESE INDICATED? 24. SHEET S3.0; SECTION 106: WERE THE MASONRY WALL AND FOOTING DESIGN INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS? PLEASE PROVIDE. 25. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 05/26/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 05/26/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The ventilation calculations indicate a required ventilation rate of 697 CFM but the two heat pumps serving the area are scheduled for a total of only 675 CFM. Provide the required amount of outside air to the area. Reference: Section 403.2, IMC 2012. 2. Clarify the note associated with the 48 x 48 louver on the lower level. Is it designed to be for make-up air when EF-1 is running or EF-2? 3. No documentation has been provided to justify the U-value and SHGC numbers for the building fenestration (also, no window schedule has been included in the drawing set). Provide NFRC fenestration product ratings for the U-factor and the SHGC values on COMcheck or use the appropriate default U-factor and SHGC values from Tables C303.1.3 (1), C303.1.3 (2) and C303.1.3.(3), IECC 2012. Reference: Section C303.1.3, IECC 2012. |
| 05/26/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The site utility plan (sheet 10 of 20) shows an existing water meter and reduced pressure backflow assembly. Verify the existence of these items; the meter is not indicated on the Tucson Water records, only an 1-1/2" water service pipe. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf |
| 05/26/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Approved | |
| 05/27/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDCDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Clubhouse at Dorado Golf Course Building Plans (1st Review) T16CM03461 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 27, 2016 DUE DATE: June 8, 2016 COMMENTS: Address the following zoning comments. Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. Comment 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans as it relates to the zoning review purview of the building plans such as heights, square footage, and building footprint but cannot approve them at this time. While the plans are consistent with the approved version of the development package, zoning cannot approve the building plans until the building plans are reviewed and approved by the PDSD structural plans reviewer and other PDSD commercial review agencies. Comment 2. Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal and compare them to the development package for consistency. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised Building Plans as required |
| 05/27/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Please fill in the approved development plan number on sheet TS1.0 Per AM 2-06.4.3. |
| 06/07/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2016 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |