Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T16CM03536
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/13/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/26/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide the future connected load and developed length used for determining the size of the gas piping. Reference: Section 402.2, IFGC 2012. 2. Clarify the nature of the rooftop HVAC units: heat pumps or A/C units with gas heat. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 05/26/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Demonstrate energy code compliance for the building envelope using calculations based on the current code. Reference: Sections C101.3, C101.5, C103.2, C303, and C401.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012. 2. Revise the SHGC values for the storefront system and the pass-through window to comply with Tables C402.3 and C402.3.2.1, IECC 2012. Note that the SHGC values (and similarly the U-values) listed are maximum values, not minimum values. 3. Clarify the nature of the rooftop HVAC units: heat pumps or A/C units with gas heat. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 05/26/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 05/26/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET T1.1; CODE SUMMARY: PLEASE REMOVE THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ADD THE 2009 ICC/ANSI A117.1 ACCESSIBILITY CODE. 2. SHEET T1.1; EXIT DOORS: THE DRAWING INDICATES A 32" EXIT DOOR AND A 44" EXIT DOOR, WHILE THE DOOR SCHEDULE INDICATES DOOR 101 AS A 6'-0" WIDE DOOR (66" CLEAR), AND DOOR 103 AS A 3'-0" DOOR (32" CLEAR). PLEASE COORDINATE THE DRAWINGS AND INDICATE THE ACTUAL EGRESS EXIT WIDTH ON THE DRAWINGS. 3. SHEET A1.0; KEYNOTES: A KEYNOTE 6 IS INDICATED OUTSIDE THE SOUTHWEST BUILDING CORNER. PLEASE REVISE. 4. SHEET A1.0; KEYNOTES: NOTE 8 INDICATES TO SEE A ROOF LADDER DETAIL ON SHEET A5.0. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBER. 5. SHEET A1.0; KEYNOTES: THE FLOOR PLAN INDICATES KEY NOTES UP TO 11, WHILE THERE ARE ONLY 9 LISTED KEYNOTES. PLEASE COORDINATE. 6. SHEET A4.0; KEYNOTES: NOTE 1 REFERENCES CORNICE SECTION ON SHEET A6.0. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE. 7. SHEET S0.1; FOUNDATION NOTES: PLEASE PROVIDE ONE COPY OF THE REFERENCED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR REVIEW. 8. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 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: Starbucks Shell Building Building Plans (1st Review) T16CM03536 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 27, 2016 DUE DATE: June 9, 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 did a comparison of the building plans square footage of the proposed building and found a discrepancy between the two plans. The development package lists the building square footage of the building as 1810 sq ft, the building plans lists the square footage as 2,042 sq ft. The development package will have to be revised to match what is actually going to be constructed and any calculations that are affected by this change need to be revised as well. (The building heights listed on the utilities site sheet list the wrong building height for building 2 and 3. As part of the revisions to the DP and for consistency the building heights should be revised on the utilities site sheet to match sheet 3.) Contact Steve Shields about revising the DP. Comment 3. 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 | Approved | |
| 06/08/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/2016 | RBENT1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |