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 - T18CM04433
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/08/2018 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Previous Comment 1; Sheet A0.0; Project Data: Per the IBC Section 303.1.1, a space used for assembly with an occupant load of less than 50 shall be classified as a Group B occupancy. The occupant load will still be based on the assembly use per IBC Table 1004.1.2 (Function of Space), which will be 34 occupants per your original calculation. The Building Classification can be listed as a B which could help in allowable area, separation of uses, and fire sprinkler requirements. The required plumbing fixtures will still be determined by the function (IBC Section 2902.1). My original comment was simply a recommendation for the Occupancy Type listing in the Project Data to reference the IBC Section 303.1.1 on your drawing. 2. Previous Comment 4; Sheet A2.1; Floor Plan: Per the first comment, the occupant load of 34 is correct, and based on the Occupancy Use (A2), two separate restrooms would be required. An appeal to the Building Official could be an option to the two required restrooms. Please visit our website at www.tucsonaz.gov/PDSD for the appeal process. 3. Previous Comment 8; Sheet A2.4; Keynotes: The reference to Detail 11/A6.1 in note 12 was not revised. 4. Sheet A2.4; Keynotes: Note 11 references Detail 7/A6.1 for a roof access hatch. Please revise the reference. 5. General; Special Inspection Certificate: The Special Inspection Certificate Part B must have the name of the ICC certified special inspector listed for each inspection. Please provide. 6. General: Please provide written responses to all review comments. |
| 08/09/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the COMcheck envelope assembly descriptions to correspond to the building design. The concrete floor is a slab-on-grade and not a concrete floor over an unconditioned space. The exterior walls do not appear to have continuous insulation. The roof construction consists of 1" of spray-applied foam and R-30 batt (cavity) insulation, not solely R43.4 continuous insulation above the roof. Include the NFRC -certified maximum U-value and maximum SHGC value that will be accepted for the fenestration on the drawings. Both the mechanical and the interior lighting COMcheck documents show reduced interior lighting power as the compliance method for Section C406, IECC 2012; correct the envelope compliance certificate to show the same compliance method. [Initial comment: Provide calculations for the building envelope to demonstrate compliance with the energy code; use the climate zone for Tucson. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. As a minimum, the information shall include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation and the SHGC for the fenestration. Reference: Sections C103.2 and C401.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] |
| 08/09/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | RECEIVED | |
| 08/09/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise item #5 of the Water and Fire Construction Notes to call for the installation of a reduced pressure backflow assembly (RPA) rather than a pressure vacuum breaker (PVB). Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf [Initial comment: Show the location of the proposed water meter, backflow preventer, and the water service pipe on a site plan. The development package is not a substitute for a complete site plan. Reference: Section 107.2.5, IBC 2012.] |
| 08/21/2018 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/23/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM04433 - New Building (Food Service Use) Related to DP18-0056 Building Plan Review (2nd Review) Dutch Brothers Coffee 9330 E. Golf Links Road TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 23, 2018 DUE DATE: August 29, 2018 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. COMMENT: Zoning has done a second review of the building plans but cannot approve them at this time or until the PDSD Commercial Plans Reviewers have approved the building plans. The DP was fully approved June 18, 2018 by all CDRC Plans Reviewers. As of this second review date of the building plans, the remaining fees of the DP have not been paid and the DP has not been picked by the applicant. The remaining fees according to our permits plus system are $748.30. Zoning cannot approve or release the building plans until the DP fees are paid and DP plans picked up by the applicant. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to assure consistency with the DP. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: building plans |
| 08/27/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T18CM04433 1. Engineering has done a second review of the building plans but cannot approve them at this time or until the PDSD Commercial Plans Reviewers have approved the building plans. Engineering can conduct an over the counter review once the above has been addressed. John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |