Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL NEW
Permit Number - T10CM02978
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2010 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/01/2010 | RICK MYERS | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. City of Tucson is currently under the 2006 UPC. Provide Petition of Appeal from the building official allowing the use of the International Plumbing code. |
| 11/02/2010 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At detail 1/AD3, bottom of main accessible sign to be 7'-0" as per COT DOT sign mounting height standards. 2. Please complete the code data analysis; required exit width, number of exits and provide an emergency exit plan. 3. Please provide plumbing fixture calculations as per Chapter 29. 4. Please provide Special Inspection Certifications as required by Sections 106 and 1704. Because the exact inspections required was not listed as per Section 1704, a list was provided and may be found in the Conditions Menu of this permit application. Please have the structural consultant review these for accuracy and provide a list in writing of those deemed unnecessary. STRUCTURAL REVIEW 5. SHEET SD-5 (DETAIL 3); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (CTS SHEET 8): THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS INDICATE A SUPPORT ROD TO BE 1 ΒΌ" DIAMETER, WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES A 1" DIAMETER ROD. CLARIFY. 6. SHEET SD-5 (DETAIL 5); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (CTS SHEET 9): PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR THE 3/8" BRACKET PLATE PER THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS. 7. SHEET SD-5; GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES: A MINIMUM 3/32" LETTERING HEIGHT IS REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS PER CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS. REVISE. 8. SHEET S1.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: ON THE EAST WALL, THERE ARE TWO SECTION CUTS 4/S3.0 SIMILAR. ON THE PLAN, THE FOUNDATION WALLS APPEAR LESS THAN 12" IN WIDTH, BUT THE SECTION CUT AND PLAN DO NOT PROVIDE A DIMENSION. VERIFY THE FOUNDATION WIDTH AND REVISE THE PLAN AS REQUIRED. 9. SHEET S1.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING, THERE IS A SECTION CUT 5/S3.0 SIMILAR. PROVIDE A DIMENSION ON THE PLAN AND/OR THE DETAIL INDICATING A FOUNDATION WIDTH. 10. SHEET S1.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S3.0 (DETAIL 10): THE CONCRETE PIER MARK IS NOT INDICATED ON THE PLAN OR THE DETAIL. PROVIDE. 11. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/02/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/04/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations using the correct climate zone (Pima County < 4,000 feet). Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation and the SHGC for the fenestration. The submitted calculations do not appear to be coordinated with the building design. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. 2. Justify the heating capacities of the rooftop units specified for the project as compared to the heat load calculations. Reference: Section 503.2, IECC 2006. 3. Clarify keynote M1 on sheet M1.0: how does an up-blast fan direct its discharge horizontally? Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 4. Show the size, routing, and termination of the condensate drains from the rooftop units. Reference: Section 307.2, IMC 2006 and Section 814.0, UPC 2006. 5. Clarify the termination point for the condensate drain from HP-1. Condensate drains may not terminate in an area that is not capable of absorbing the condensate flow without surface drainage. Reference: Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 6. Provide calculations demonstrating adequate ventilation. Reference: Section 401.2, IMC 2006. 7. Revise the size of the grease ducts (KH-2 and KH-3) to provide a minimum velocity of 1500 feet per minute. Reference: Section 506.3.4, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 8. Provide information to show that the operation of the Type I hoods and the hood exhaust fans comply with Section 507.2.1.1, IMC 2006. 9. Provide structural calculations and details to show that the Type I hoods are supported from the building structure in accordance with Section 507.6, IMC 2006. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 10. Show that the hood installations comply with Section 507.9, IMC 2006 for clearances from combustible construction. |
| 11/04/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Sheet P1.0 shows the water meter and water service backflow prevention assembly located inside of the fire riser room. Coordinate the location of the water meter, water service backflow prevention assembly with the site utility plan. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water; water meters are located at the property line. Reference: COT Backflow Prevention Ordinance, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/docs/backflow-ord.pdf |
| 11/08/2010 | STANTEC | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | November 8, 2010 To: Ron Boose, Building Official City of Tucson Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue, First Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 Re: McDonald's Restaurant (Electrical Review Only) City of Tucson No. T10CM02978 Stantec Project No. 816-10009 (10-023) Plan review for the above-referenced project has been completed, per the 2006 IECC and the 2005 NEC, all with local amendments, and the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code. This letter reflects comments to be addressed with a written response to each of the noted items indicating the action taken. In order to facilitate a shorter back-check time, we request that you please provide revised plans and calculations, clouding any changes that have been made. SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review covers electrical review only. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittal provided. All portions of the project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions and concerns before permit approval. GENERAL: " There are no general comments to be addressed. ELECTRICAL: " The engineer's seal on the site electrical drawings indicates that these drawings are a "BID SET / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"; please provide a "set for construction". The sheets in question are Site Electrical Sheets E1.1, E1.2, and E1.3, are located in the front half of the set, and are not to be confused with the electrical sheets in the back half of the set with the same numerical designations. " It appears that during the design process the electrical switch gear changed locations and the footprint of the building changed as well. Specifically the electrical site plans and Sheet E1.1 (Electrical Rough-in) show the switch gear inside the kitchen area along the exterior wall adjacent to the drive-thru. The architectural drawings and remainder of the electrical drawings show two rooms added onto the back of the restaurant; one of these rooms houses the electrical switch gear and has direct access to the exterior. Please coordinate. " There is a heat pump shown on Sheet M1.0 (HP-1) which is not shown on the electrical drawings, again please coordinate. " Provide on the plans a calculation showing compliance with the City of Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code. -End of Review- If you have any questions, please call (520) 750-7474. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Joel Svoboda Associate JES:jes Attachments: none |
| 11/08/2010 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need credit evaluation5th floor PWB 740-6606 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/10/2010 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/10/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |