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 - T08CM02792
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/18/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/18/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: El Potosino Restaurant T08CM02792 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 18, 2008 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t08cm02792.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 08/19/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 1/8" LETTERING ON ALL DRAWINGS REQUIRED UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 2. ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVAL MUST ACCOMPANY DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 3. SHEET A.4; SECTIONS 3/4: PROVIDE CONNECTION INFORMATION FOR STUD BRACE TO BLOCKING AND TOP OF WALL. PROVIDE BLOCKING SIZE AND CONNECTION TO ROOF FRAMING. 4. SHEET S3.0; SECTION 104: PROVIDE WIDTH OF THICKENED SLAB. 5. SHEET S4.0; SECTION 203; SHEET S2.0; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: SECTION 203 INDICATES WOOD COLUMN, WHILE PLAN INDICATES STUD WALL AT THE SECTION CUT. CLARIFY. 6. SHEET S4.0; SECTION 204; SHEET S2.0; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: SECTION 204 DOES NOT INDICATE LINTEL BEAMS WHILE PLAN INDICATES LINTELS AT THE SECTION CUT. CLARIFY. 7. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PAGE 1: A SOILS REPORT DATED MARCH 23, 2007, WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE PLANS. PLEASE REVIEW. 8. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PAGES 2/3; SHEET S1.3 LINTEL SCHEDULE: AT SOUTH WALL, CALCULATIONS INDICATE (2) 2X12 (LT3), WHILE DRAWINGS INDICATE 6X10 (LT2). CLARIFY. 9. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PAGES 2/3; SHEET S1.3 LINTEL SCHEDULE: AT TYPICAL SECONDARY WALL, CALCULATIONS INDICATE A GLUE LAMINATED BEAM (LT5), WHILE DRAWINGS INDICATE A 6X10 (LT2). CLARIFY. 10. VERIFY ALL LINTELS HAVE COORDINATED CALCULATIONS WITH THE DRAWINGS. 11. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PAGES 2/3: INDICATE LOCATIONS OF B1 AND B2. 12. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PAGE 17: WHERE IS THIS LINTEL (LT3A), USED? CLARIFY. |
| 08/20/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/22/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Provide a letter from Tucson Water confirming that the use of a 5/8" water meter will be allowed for this project (24.5 fixture units equates to a demand of 17 GPM). |
| 08/25/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A separate building number, issued by Pima County Addressing, is required. 2. Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope, mechanical, and lighting. The calculations shall be for "Pima County < 4,000 feet", not the town of Pima, Arizona. Reference: Section 101.4, International Energy Conservation Code 2006 3. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 4. Provide structural calculations for the connection of the 4"x8" wood beam to the roof framing (Detail 2/A.4). Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 5. Show that the make up air duct within 18" of the Type I exhaust hood complies with the requirements of Section 506.3.1.2, IMC 2006. 6. Provide information to show that the proposed grease duct insulation system complies with ASTM E 2336. Note that the ES legacy report and NFPA 96-1998 do not indicate compliance with ASTM E-2336. Reference: Section 506.3.10 (1), IMC 2006. 7. Show that the outlet of fan EF-1 complies with the requirements of Section 506.5.5, IMC 2006. 8. Revise the installation of the hood to provide 18" of clearance between the hood and combustible construction (note that wood studs covered by gypsum board and a sheet of stainless steel are considered combustible construction by the IMC). Reference: Section 507.9, IMC 2006. |
| 08/25/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The applicable code for all commercial plumbing projects is the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code with Local Amendments. Provide an approved appeal to the building official if the plans are to be reviewed to the 2006 IPC (sheets P.2 and P.3). 2. Provide the site utilities plan for reference. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Provide the size of the expansion tank for the water heater. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 4. Include the water requirements and water fixture units for the hand sink provided by the kitchen equipment supplier and the ice maker in the fixture connection schedule. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 5. Revise the termination point of the water heater flue to comply with Section 510.6.2, UPC 2006 (i.e. at least 2 feet above any point on the roof within 10 feet of the flue). 6. Based on the provided water calculations, the water heater will require 1" HW and CW supply piping, not ¾". Reference: Section 610.1, UPC 2006. 7. Provide a floor drain in the kitchen. Reference: Sections 411.2.2 and 704.3, UPC 2006. 8. Rearrange the location of the vent for the 3-compartment sink with respect to the vent for the flow control device to comply with the requirements of Section 1014.2.1, UPC 2006. 9. The scupper widths for the north and south roof areas appear to be too short to accommodate the design rainfall without exceeding a 2" depth of flow. Provide calculations to support the scupper design or provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load. Reference: Sections 1101.11.1 and 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006, and Section 1611.1, IBC 2006. 10. The width of the scuppers for the center roof area appears to be too short to accommodate the design rainfall without exceeding a 2" depth of flow. Provide calculations to support the scupper design or provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load. Reference: Sections 1101.11.1 and 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006, and Section 1611.1, IBC 2006. |
| 09/08/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | 1)EL POTPSINO RESTAURANT- ISSUED W/ GREASE INTERCEPTOR 2)REPLACEMENT PROJECT- NEEDS WASTEWATER CREDIT REVIEW FOR PREV ISSUED PERMITS PT07S01081 & PT07S01082 3)NEEDS WWM 3RD FLOOR REVIEW/ILENE DECKARD REVIEW OF EASEMENTS USE AGREEMENTS DKT 12588 PG 1535 4)NEED WWM 3RD FLOOR MANHOLE TAP REVIEW & PERMIT/ YVONNE SUAREZ |
| 09/09/2008 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: T08CM2792 7865 E SPEEDWAY BLVD NEW RESTAURANT-EL POTOSINO Denied for the following items; 1. All electrical sheets must be signed by the electrical engineer, only the first page on each plan has been signed. Ray T Majuta DSD Electrical Plan Check City of Tucson, 520-837/4988 9-10-08 |
| 09/10/2008 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Needs Review | |
| 09/11/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Flood plain use permit required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/17/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/17/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |