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: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Permit Number - T16CM05829
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/04/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/10/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. A double check valve (BP1) is shown after the water service meter. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed directly after the water meter for buildings that have food service facilities. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf [Initial comment: 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.] 2. The Plumbing Specifications on sheet p0.1 state that no joints for water piping are to be located underground; where do the two branches of the hot water return join? Specify how the hot water return pipes are to be insulated below ground. [Initial comment: 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.] 3. Waste stack #3 shows vents that appear to run horizontally prior to rising 6" above the flood rim of the fixture they serve: see Section 905.4, IPC 2012. [Initial comment: Clarify how waste stack #3 connects to waste stack #2 on the plumbing waste plan. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 4. Provide the rim elevation of the sewer structure 3004-67 and the first floor elevation. [Initial comment: 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.] 5. Provide the rim elevation of the sewer structure 9847-03 and the first floor elevation to justify the installation of backwater valves in the building sewer. Note that plumbing fixtures that are located on a floor that is greater than 12" above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole (e.g. the mezzanine) may not drain through a backwater valve. [Initial comment: 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.] 6. The dry vent for the combination waste and vent system appears to run horizontally prior to rising 6" above the flood rims of the fixtures it serves: see Section 905.4, IPC 2012 [Initial comment: 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.] |
| 10/10/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Verify the ventilation calculations - the maximum Zp is not zero for any of the calculations (e.g. for RTU-3,4,5 it is 0.41). [Initial comment: 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?).] |
| 10/11/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (EXITING REQUIREMENTS): THE EXITING WIDTH USES AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 479, WHILE THE OCCUPANCY CALCULATION ABOVE INDICATES 488. PLEASE COORDINATE. 2. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (EXITING REQUIREMENTS): THE EXITING REQUIREMENTS INDICATE 2 TOTAL EXITS PROVIDED, WHILE THE EXITING PLAN ON SHEET a0.2 INDICATES SEVERAL EXITS. PLEASE COORDINATE. 3. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (RESTROOM CALCULATIONS): THE RESTROOM CALCULATIONS USE AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 479, WHILE THE OCCUPANCY CALCULATION ABOVE INDICATES 488. PLEASE COORDINATE. 4. SHEET a0.1; PROJECT DATA (RESTROOM CALCULATIONS): THE CALCULATION FOR THE MEN'S AND WOMEN'S WATER CLOSETS IS INCORRECT. 50% OF 488 IS 244. MEN'S/WOMEN'S REQUIRED WATER CLOSETS ARE 244/75 = 4 FOR EACH SEX. PLEASE REVISE THE CALCULATION. 5. SHEET a0.2; EXITING PLAN: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE THE EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCES INDICATED. 6. SHEET a0.2; EXITING PLAN: THE FOUR EXITS INDICATED HAVE A TOTAL OCCUPANCY CAPACITY OF 338 AS INDICATED. THE 163 OCCUPANTS AT PATIO 100 ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 13 OCCUPANTS AT THE EXIT. WHERE ARE THE OTHER 150 OCCUPANTS AT THE PATIO EXITING? PLEASE REVISE. 7. PREVIOUS COMMENT 13; MINIMUM CLEARANCE AT LAVATORIES; SHEET a3.0: THE KEY NOTE 56 HAS BEEN ADDED AT THE COMMON LAVATORIES BETWEEN RESTROOMS 105 AND 106, WITH A REFERENCE TO THE ANSI 117.1 SECTION 606.2. THAT SECTION INDICATES A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE PER SECTION 306 POSITIONED FOR FORWARD APPROACH. THE REQUIRED 30" X 48" CLEAR SPACES ARE SHOWN, BUT THERE CAN BE NO FORWARD APPROACH AS INDICATED. PLEASE VERIFY. 8. SHEET a3.0; TITLE BLOCK: THE TITLE BLOCK INDICATES A 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE FOR THE SHEET. PLEASE REVISE. 9. PREVIOUS COMMENT 22; EXIT SIGNS AND EMERGENCY LIGHTING LOCATIONS; SHEET a4.0: IT DOESN'T APPEAR ALL OF THE EXIT SIGNAGE, DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE, AND EMERGENCY LIGHTING IS ON THIS PLAN. PLEASE VERIFY AND PROVIDE AS REQUIRED (COORDINATE WITH SHEET a0.2). 10. PREVIOUS COMMENT 23; LETTERING SIZE: SHEET a8.1, ELEVATION 7, HAS A NOTE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE CITY OF TUCSON LETTERING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. PLEASE REVISE. 11. SHEET a9.2; DETAIL 45: THE TITLE OF THIS DETAIL CAN BE REVISED TO HANDRAIL (THE DIFFERENCE IN FLOOR ELEVATIONS IS LESS THAN 30"). 12. SHEET a9.2; DETAILS 45, 46, AND 49: PLEASE INDICATE EDGE PROTECTION ON THE RAMPS PER THE IBC SECTION 1010.10. 13. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE AN ENLARGED, DIMENSIIONED FLOOR PLAN OF THE MEN'S RESTROOM (105), THE WOMEN'S RESTROOM (106), AND THE LAVATORY AREA BETWEEN THOSE RESTROOMS. 14. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 10/12/2016 | 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 (2nd Review) T16CM05829 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 12, 2016 DUE DATE: October 27, 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. FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT 1: I acknowledge the responses to the previous zoning comments. However, the previous comments are still applicable until such time as the DP and the IID is approved. Once the IID and the DP is approved zoning will review the building plans and assure that the building plans are consistent with the approved DP and IID and if applicable any conditions of approval of the IID. Previous Comment 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. |
| 10/25/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/31/2016 | LBOJORQ1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 10/31/2016 | LBOJORQ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/31/2016 | LBOJORQ1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |