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 - T10CM03491
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2011 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/03/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Plans have been reviewed by zoning but cannot verify compliance with the development plan at this time. Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal and compare with the development plan for site complaince. Be aware that there are several issues with the development plan and may require changes to the site design which may in turn affect the building design. |
| 12/17/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/20/2010 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 20, 2010 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T10CM03491 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the building plan (T10CM03491). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the building plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: BUILDING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Engineering could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with a stamped approved Development Plan (D10-0044). Please submit a copy of the stamped approved Development Plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 2) Engineering 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. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide the building plan with a copy of the last approved Development Plan (D10-0044). Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the building plan review. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 12/21/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | Reference Building Comments |
| 12/27/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET T-1: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS REQUIRE ALL LETTERING TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 3/32". REVISE NOTES AS REQUIRED. 2. SHEET T-1; CODE REVIEW (ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE BUILDING CODES): REMOVE THE REFERENCES TO THE "2006 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE", AND THE "2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE". ADD A REFERENCE TO THE ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 ACCESSIBILITY CODE. 3. SHEET A1: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS REQUIRE ALL LETTERING TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 3/32". REVISE NOTES AS REQUIRED. 4. SHEET A1 (DETAIL C8); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 33): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE 8" CMU WITH #5 VERTICAL BARS AT 32" OC, WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES #4 AT 32" OC. CLARIFY. 5. SHEET A1; DETAIL 4/ALT: A SECTION CUT 8/A9 IS CUT ON THIS DETAIL. THERE IS NO SHEET A9. CLARIFY. 6. SHEET A2: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS REQUIRE ALL LETTERING TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 3/32". REVISE NOTES AS REQUIRED. 7. SHEET A3: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS REQUIRE ALL LETTERING TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 3/32". REVISE NOTES AS REQUIRED. 8. SHEET A3; ELEVATION A3(1): AT THE URINAL, REMOVE THE NOTE "VERIFY ADA MOUNTING HGT". 17" IS PER ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, FIGURE 605.2(a). 9. SHEET A3; ELEVATION A3(3): ADD A VERTICAL GRAB BAR AT THE SIDE WALL PER ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, FIGURE 604.5.1. 10. SHEET A3; ELEVATION B3(3): INDICATE THE VERTICAL GRAB BAR. 11. SHEET A4; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: SEVERAL OF THE HEADERS ON THE BEARING WALLS ARE DESIGNATED AS 1 3/4 X 11 1/4 LVL, WHILE OTHERS ARE 1 3/4 X 11 7/8 LVL. CLARIFY. 12. SHEET A4 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 19): WHERE IS THE DINING ROOM HEADER (3-16" LVL) ON THE PLAN? VERIFY. 13. SHEET A4 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 19): WHERE IS THE DOOR HEADER (HSS 6X4X5/16) ON THE PLAN? VERIFY. 14. SHEET A4: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS REQUIRE ALL LETTERING TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 3/32". REVISE NOTES AS REQUIRED. 15. SHEET A6: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS REQUIRE ALL LETTERING TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 3/32". REVISE NOTES AS REQUIRED. 16. GENERAL: PROVIDE THE NORTH ARROW ON ALL PLANS. 17. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 12/29/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. No utility drawings have been included in the plan set to show the site utility work (e.g. building sewer, water service, gas service, etc.). Please include a site utility drawing as part of the construction documents. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. Provide information to show that the hub drains (HUB-1, HUB-2) and the fixture referred to as "open site" (1) comply with Sections 411.1 and 804.1, UPC 2006. 3. Clarify the nature of the drainage fixture called out as "HB-2 on roof" as shown in the waste isometric on sheet P3. 4. Show that the installation of the vacuum relief valve for the water heater complies with the manufacturer's listing requirements (i.e. no valves located between the vacuum relief valve and the water heater). Reference: Section 310.4, UPC 2006. 5. Show how the temperature of the hot water supply to the public lavatories is to be controlled. Reference: Section 413.1, UPC 2006 and Section 504.3, IECC 2006. 6. Provide a condensate drain for the water heater flue (WH-1) per Section 510.9, UPC 2006. 7. A dual check valve is not acceptable for protecting the water supply to a carbonator; a reduced pressure backflow preventer is required. Reference: Section 603.4.12, UPC 2006. 8. Provide specifications for and clarify the installation of the chemical feed and the booster heater (20 and 26). Show how an atmospheric vacuum breaker is appropriate for these applications. Reference: Sections 310.4 and Table 6-2, UPC 2006. 9. Provide backflow protection for the mister system. Reference: Section 603.4.6, UPC 2006. 10. The branch piping size called out for the urinal flush valve will result in water velocities greater than 8 FPS (1 GPM in approximately 4 seconds). Limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for the copper piping. Reference: Sections 610.12 and A 6.1, UPC 2006 and IS 3-2003, Section 2.6. 11. Provide upper terminal cleanouts on horizontal drainage pipes exceeding 5 feet in length (horizontal drain lines serving sinks and urinals require cleanouts regardless of length). Reference: Section 707.4, UPC 2006. 12. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2594.97) is higher than the first floor elevation (2592.84). Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Refer also to Section 904.1, UPC 2006. 13. Provide a vent for each fixture trap (e.g. floor drains). Reference: Sections 901.0 and 910.1, UPC 2006. 14. The gravity grease interceptor sizing calculations indicate the use of a 1,000-gallon interceptor but a 1,500-gallon interceptor is specified. Over-sizing gravity grease interceptors typically results in anaerobic decomposition of solids at the bottom of the tank and the subsequent formation of hydrogen sulfide gas which leads to corrosion of the interceptor itself. Provide justification for the selected size of the interceptor. 15. Clarify the natural gas piping materials of construction and the initial gas pressure. The specifications are based on 2-PSIG gas with piping 2" and smaller but the drawings are based on larger pipe sizes and with gas delivered at 7" WC with no more than 0.3" WC pressure drop at any appliance at full demand. Reference: Sections 103.2.3, 1217.3, and 1217.4, UPC 2006. |
| 12/29/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Clarify the size of the proposed water meter. It is shown as 1" on the utility plan and 1-1/2" on sheet P3. Tucson Water limits a 1" meter to a demand of 25 GPM; the calculated demand for this restaurant is 41 GPM. |
| 12/30/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The occupant load used to calculate the required ventilation is not necessarily the same as the occupant load used for calculating exiting requirements. The occupant load used for calculating the minimum required ventilation is to be based on Table 403.3, IMC 2006 or an approved engineering analysis of the specific occupancy type. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2006. (Note: Section 403.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson also allows the use of the ASHRAE 62-1-2004 ventilation calculation procedure provided that the default occupant densities and combined outdoor air rates are used.) 2. The kitchen hood exhaust detail on sheet M2 allows the use of one layer of "3M Firemaster Fast Wrap". Provide listing information that justifies this application method. Note that 3M does not manufacture Firemaster Fast Wrap, it is manufactured by Thermal Ceramics Inc. The comparable products from 3M are "Fire Barrier Duct Wrap 15A" and "Fire Barrier Duct Wrap 20A". |
| 12/30/2010 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need approved DP D10-0044 need capacity evaluated and/or point and method of connection approved by PCRWRD liason unit- 3rd FL PWB- 740-6535 NEED REVIEW/APPROVAL FOR NEW BUILDING CONNECTION TO SEWER BY PCRWRD - 1ST FL PWB- 740-6369 NEED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE PLUMBING FIXTURE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE THE TOTAL # OF ALL FIXTURES & DRAINS CONNECTED TO THE SEWER SYSTEM |
| 12/30/2010 | JEFF DRUMM | LANDFILL | REVIEW | Denied |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/27/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |