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 - T16CM05829
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/05/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Clarify the point of discharge for the water heater pan drain. Detail 7/p3.0 calls for the drain to terminate at the mop sink; show how it is to be routed to the mop sink. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 2. Revise the configuration of the natural gas sediment trap, as shown in detail 7/p3.0 to comply with the requirements of Section 408.4, IFGC 2012 (i.e. the sediment trap is to be located downstream of the appliance shutoff valve, as close to the appliance as possible - see detail 8/p3.0). 3. For public toilet facilities, the required lavatory shall be located in the same room as the water closet. Reference: Section 405.3.2, IPC 2012. 4. Verify that the specified sensor-type automatic lavatory faucets will dispense a maximum of 0.25 gallons per metering cycle and that the faucet will operate for at least 10-seconds. Reference: Section 416.6, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson and Section 606.4, ICC/ANSI A117.1-03. 5. Revise the water demand calculation using the fixture unit values for public flush valve water closets for WC-1 and HWC-2. The system is predominantly a flush valve system with a demand of approximately 74 GPM not including the 10 GPM demand for irrigation. Reference: Sections E102.1 and E103.3 (2.1), IPC 2012. 6. Data from Tucson Water indicates that the available water pressure has a range from 49 PSI to 56 PSI. Revise the pipe sizing calculations using the lowest available pressure (49 PSI) instead of the highest pressure. Reference: Section E102.1, IPC 2012. 7. Provide calculations showing how the PEX water supply tubing has been sized. Reference: Sections 604.1 and 604.3, IPC 2012. 8. Verify that the pipe sizes called out for the flush valves will not result in water velocities greater than that recommended by the pipe manufacturer (e.g. limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for copper, PEX, or CPVC piping). At a minimum design flow rate of 25 GPM for a siphonic, flush-valve water closet, 1" PEX tubing has a flow velocity of 13.7 FPS. Reference: Table 604.3, IPC 2012. 9. Correct the descriptions of the backflow protection devices BP2 and BP3. BP2 is a dual-check valve with an atmospheric vent (ASSE 1022) and BP3 is a reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly (ASSE 1013), neither is a double-check valve. 10. Provide a detail to clarify how the hot water recirculation is arranged with respect to the PEX manifolds. Reference: Section 607.2.2, IPC 2012. 11. All water outlets or direct-connection of water to an appliance shall be protected against backflow. Specify the device to be used for each outlet or appliance connection. Reference: Sections 608.15 and 608.16, IPC 2012 12. Show the return piping for the recirculated hot water for the water heater on the plans and detail. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 13. Clarify what appears to be a connection between waste stack #1 and waste stack #2 on the plumbing waste plan. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 14. Clarify how waste stack #3 connects to waste stack #2 on the plumbing waste plan. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 15. The plumbing waste plan (p1.0) shows a connection to the public sewer in Herbert Avenue. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole from the sewer connection on Herbert Avenue and the first floor elevation. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 16. The plumbing waste plan (p1.0) shows a connection to the public sewer in 5th Avenue. Verify that a public sewer exists at that location. 17. The waste system serving the bar appears to be a combination waste and vent system. Provide a dry vent for the system. Reference: Section 918.3, IPC 2012. 18. The waste isometric for stack #2 appears to show the presence of a floor sink on the mechanical platform but it is not shown on the plumbing plan. Which drawing is correct? Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 19. Provide separate indirect waste pipes for each compartment of the 3-compartment sink to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Sections 801.2 and 802.1.8, IPC 2012. 20. Revise detail 4/p3.0 to provide separate indirect waste pipes for the cuber and the ice bin to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Section 801.2, IPC 2012. 21. The plumbing plan shows a total of four possible suites served by the gravity grease interceptor. Who will be responsible for maintenance of the interceptor? Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 22. Provide sizing calculations for the gravity grease interceptor based on Section 1003.3, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson, not the 2006 UPC. 23. Will the brewery also be bottling its product? Reference: Section 1003.7, IPC 2012 |
| 08/05/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/08/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Clarify the air distribution to the restrooms (105, 106, and 107). Rooms 105 and 106 appear to be receiving 450 CFM and 50 CFM is possibly being delivered to room 107 (no diffuser is shown within the room) for a total of 500 CFM while the ventilation calculations call for 600 CFM of supply air. 2. The balancing information for the mechanical equipment mezzanine shows three round diffusers but calls out four diffusers. 3. Clarify the extents and uses of the occupied spaces that are included in the ventilation calculations (e.g. how much of room 102 is a corridor and how much of it is a dance floor?). 4. Where does the condensate drain for the existing heat pump terminate? Reference: Section 307.2.1, IMC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 5. Table 403.3, IMC 2012 cannot describe all of the possible occupancies so the engineer must determine the most appropriate ventilation rate for areas not included in Table 403.3. Provide justification for the ventilation rate for the brewery. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2012. 6. Revise the heating and cooling load calculations, using the exterior design conditions shown in Section 302.2, IECC 2012, as modified by the City of Tucson. |
| 08/09/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please pick up the plans and look at redline notes or comments. Plans have wrong AHJ's and other references are incorrect. Please go over plans again and resubmit.-Kenb |
| 08/16/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | August 16, 2016 FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT NO.: T16OT00899 ADDRESS: 414 N 5th Ave Tucson, Arizona 85705 PROPERTY OWNER: Red 417 LLC 323 E 8th Street Tucson, Arizona 85705 The applicant is authorized to use a portion of the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AE floodplain per the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 04019C2277L, specifically described as: A portion of Parcel 117-05-0490; Tucson W2 Lot 11 & Lot 10 BLK 68. For the purpose of making a tenant improvement to an existing non-conforming building In reviewing this Floodplain Use Permit application for improvements to an existing floodprone structure, it has been concluded that the cumulative value of proposed improvements to this structure, as supported by documentation provided by the applicant, is less than 50% of the current value of the existing structure. The applicant agrees to comply with City of Tucson Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, and is bound by the conditions stated below. Violation of any of the conditions stated or referred to below, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be grounds for revocation of this permit. Responsibility for renewal of this permit, if necessary, is with the applicant. Issuance of this permit does not constitute a waiver of other requirements contained in the Tucson City Code, UDC, or any other Federal, State, or local regulation. No use other than as permitted herein is allowed. Additional uses allowed under City of Tucson Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Regulations require application for, review and approval of an additional Floodplain Use Permit. This floodplain use permit is issued with the following 11 conditions: 1) All improvements proposed under this permit will be cumulative in percentage, to include this project. 2) The proposed improvements shall not impose conditions that would increase the flood damage potential to the combined proposed and existing building, by 50 percent or greater of the existing structure's value. 3) The building valuation was submitted showing that the improvements are less than 50 % (estimate was 8.8%) of the assessed value ($768,840) as shown on the Pima County Assessors Website. No person shall repair or alter property in a piecemeal manner so as to avoid the provisions of Section 26-4.1.a.3, Chapter 26-Tucson Code. The estimate will be recorded and if piecemeal permits for this construction are applied for the cost estimate will be added to it. 4) Except as approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction, development under this permit shall not obstruct, retard or divert the existing flow of floodwaters from or to adjacent properties. 5) This Floodplain Use Permit is issued concurrently with the improvement plans/permit. Copies of these documents shall be kept in a readily accessible location on site at all times. 6) Any future permanent, freestanding walls or other structures shall have separate floodplain use permit applications submitted to this office for review and approval. 7) An application/processing fee of $50.00 (submittal fee) must accompany each future request for work to be authorized under this floodplain use permit. Engineering study review fees of $150.00 may be imposed based upon the fee schedule in the current floodplain ordinance. 8) The associated improvements are with permit activity number T16CM05829. 9) The applicant attests to the fact that the plans and documents submitted represent all of the improvements that will be done to the existing building, and that all additions, improvements or repairs to the building are included in the construction plans and/or documents herewith. No other improvements, repairs, reconstruction, additions or remodeling have been made to the structure that is not indicated in the attached plans and/or documents. 10) Renewal of this permit will require a new application, review and approval of that application by the City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Department, Engineering Division. This permit may be renewed for up to one year at the sole discretion of the City Engineer or designated representatives. 11) This permit is specific to the improvements for 414 N 5th Street as indicated on the approved plans. It shall not apply to any other structure or property, whether attached or unattached, not specified under this permit. This Floodplain Use Permit will be automatically revoked and becomes invalid if conditions are not complied with, as set forth in this permit. APPLICANT NAME: Metro TED ADDRESS: 2030 E Speedway Blvd, Ste #110 Tucson, AZ 85719 PHONE: 520-990-6866 OWNER: RED 417 LLC ADDRESS: 323 E 8th Street Tucson, AZ 85705 PHONE: TBD (EXPIRATION DATE) Month: 08 Day: 16 Year: 2017 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE The applicant is authorized by the City Engineer to receive a floodplain use permit subject to the above referenced conditions and restrictions. |
| 08/17/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Corbett Brewery - 414 N 5th Avenue (Zoning C-3) Building Plans (1st Review) T16CM05829 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17, 2016 DUE DATE: August 29, 2016 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. 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the UDC. Address the following comments and res-submit the building plans for review. a. On the application for this project the description was labeled as a Tenant Improvement for a Restaurant. It is clear that the plans submitted for review do not include a restaurant. There are annotations for future tenant spaces that are proposed as restaurants but they are not part of this permit. Any information related to this project shall be revised to reference an Alcoholic Beverage Service Use. (Bar) with Microbrewery as an accessory use. b. It is acknowledged that a Development Package was submitted to PDSD for review of the proposed site and uses. It is further acknowledged that the site will not meet the minimum parking requirements based on the location and size of the lot. This area is within the Downtown Links Sub-district - Warehouse Triangle Area and is eligible for the IID review and approval process. Indicate by response if the applicant has submitted for an application for an IID review. c. While a DP was submitted for review prior to submittal of the building plans, the DP package was not available to verify the proposed uses listed on the DP and comparing them to the uses proposed on this building plan. Also there appears to be an expansion of an outside patio depicted on the building plans which could not be verified without the DP. Ensure that any proposed expansions are also drawn and labeled as such on the DP site plan drawing if they were not depicted. d. Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal and do a comparison of the building plans with the approved DP if available and conditions of the IID approval if applicable. Be aware that additional zoning comments could be forthcoming on the next building plan review. 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 |
| 08/23/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (OCCUPANCY AREAS): TWO SERVICE AREAS ARE INDICATED AT THE EXTERIOR (1344 SF AND 2442 SF). THE FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET a3.0 INDICATES A PORTION OF THE 1344 SF AREA IS PATIO, AND ALL OF THE 2442 SF AREA IS PATIO. PLEASE REVISE THE OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THE EXTERIOR PATIOS (ASSEMBLY, NOT SERVICE AREAS), AND REVISE THE TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD AS REQUIRED. 2. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (RESTROOM CALCULATIONS AND EXITING REQUIREMENTS): PLEASE REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLUMBING FIXTURES AND THE EXITING PLAN DUE TO THE CHANGE IN OCCUPANT LOAD PER COMMENT 1. 3. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (ACCESSIBLE SEATING): 70 TOTAL SEATS ARE INDICATED ON SHEET a0.1, REQUIRING 4 ACCESSIBLE SEATS. PLEASE INDICATE ON THE FLOOR PLAN THE TOTAL SEATS, AND INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE ACCESSIBLE SEATS. DO THESE NUMBERS CHANGE DUE TO REVISED OCCUPANT LOADS? 4. SHEET a0.2; EXITING PLAN: ON THIS PLAN, PLEASE PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE TO EACH EXIT INDICATED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY THESE DISTANCES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC TABLE 1016.2. 5. SHEET a0.2 (EXITING PLAN); LEGEND: IT IS NOT CLEAR ON THE PLAN WHERE THIS ONE HOUR RATED HORIZONTAL FIRE SEPARATION IS LOCATED (PER THE LEGEND). PLEASE CLARIFY. 6. SHEET a0.2 (EXITING PLAN); LEGEND: PLEASE CLARIFY ON THE PLAN THE LOCATION OF THE EXIT SIGNS. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THERE ARE SIGNS AT SOME EXITS, AND THERE ARE SIGNS AT OVERHEAD DOORS THAT ARE NOT EXITS. 7. SHEET a2.0; DEMOLITION PLAN 1: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE. 8. SHEET a2.0; DEMOLITION KEYNOTES: NOTE 5 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. PLEASE VERIFY. 9. SHEETS a3.0 AND a4.0; FLOOR PLAN: MANY OF THE KEY NOTES ON PATION 100 CAN NOT BE READ. PLEASE REVISE. 10. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES: NOTE 34 REFERENCES DETAIL 48/a9.2 FOR A NEW GUARDRAIL. PLEASE REVISE THAT REFERENCE. 11. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN: IN THE MEN'S AND WOMEN'S RESTROOM AREAS, THE LAVATORIES SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE WATER CLOSET PER THE IPC SECTION 405.3.2. PLEASE REVISE. 12. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES: NOTE 43 REFERENCES DETAIL 48/a9.2 FOR A TUBE COLUMN. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE. 13. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES: NOTE 53 REFERENCES ANSI 117.1 FOR THE 32" MINIMUM CLEARANCE. THIS IS INDICATED IN THE LAVATORY AREA FOR THE RESTROOMS. PLEASE INDICATE THE ICC/ANSI SECTION REFERENCE ON THIS NOTE THAT REQUIRES THE 32". 14. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES: PLEASE LOCATE NOTE 55 ON THE PLAN. 15. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN: PLEASE INDICATE ON THE PLAN THAT ALL RAMPS WITH A RISE GREATER THAN 6" SHALL HAVE HANDRAILS ON BOTH SIDES (PER SECTION 1010.9) AND EDGE PROTECTION ON BOTH SIZES (PER SECTION 1010.10), OR GUARDRAILS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IN RAMP HEIGHT TO THE ADJACENT FLOOR OR GRADE IS MORE THAN 30" (PER SECTION 1013.2). PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED (IN ADDITION TO 45/a9.2 AND 46/a9.2). 16. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN: THE ICC/ANSI SECTION 904 INDICATES ACCESSIBLE SALES AND SERVICE COUNTER REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROACH, ACCESSIBLE COUNTER HEIGHT, AND ACCESSIBLE COUNTER LENGTHS. INDICATE THOSE CRITERIA ON THE DRAWINGS, AND VERIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. 17. SHEET a3.0; FLOOR PLAN: PLEASE INDICATE ON THE PLAN THE LOCATION OF ALL ACCESSIBLE SEATING AS CALCULATED ON SHEET a0.1. 18. SHEET a3.1; PLAN: PLEASE CLEAR UP THE PATIO 100 SO ALL NOTES CAN BE READ. 19. SHEET a3.1 (PLAN); WALL TYPES: NOT ALL WALLS ON THE PLAN HAVE A WALL TYPE IDENTIFICATION. PLEASE PROVIDE. 20. SHEET a3.1; WALL TYPES: PLEASE REMOVE THE WALL TYPES THAT ARE NOT USED ON THIS PROJECT. 21. SHEET a3.1; WALL TYPES: TYPES A, E, AND N REFERENCE DETAIL 43/a9.2. PLEASE REVISE. 22. SHEET a4.0; REFLECTED CEILING PLAN: PLEASE INDICATE ALL EXIT AND EMERGENCY LIGHTING LOCATIONS ON THIS PLAN. 23. SHEETS a8.0, a8.1, AND a8.2: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE. 24. SHEET a9.0: PLEASE INCLUDE DIMENSIONED DETAILS ON THIS SHEET FOR THE URINALS (ICC/ANSI FIGURE 605.2). 25. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 08/25/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Passed | |
| 08/29/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. #1. Ref: Plan sheet E1 and E2. The one-line diagram shows panel C rated at 225 AMPS, and the panel schedule shows it as 100 AMP. #2. Provide complete compliance with the TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR LIGHTING as outlined per Chapter 1 of the Code. This Code can be downloaded from www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd. Ref: 2012 IBC sec. 107.2.1, 2011 NEC, |