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
Permit Number - T11CM00491
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/05/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/07/2011 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please remove all the duplication sheets marked "For Reference". 2. The 24 x 36 development plans stapled with the rest of the construction documents are not as per the approved set of site development plans. Please replace them with an approved set of the same drawing size or remove them completely as a reduced set has been submitted as approved. 3. The Dairy Queen drawings at the end of the set (T-1 through P-2) are indicated on the Sheet Index as reference plans only. They are not sealed by an Arizona registrant and will not be reviewed for code compliance nor approved as such. a. Any details or notes that are included on these drawings that are intended for construction may not be referenced from the construction documents. Any required details and notes as such are to be included in the sealed set of construction documents. b. Please mark each sheet as "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR REFERENCE ONLY". 4. Please show reference markers for all exterior cementious panel details on the exterior elevations. END OF COMMENTS |
| 04/08/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Building plan can not be approved until a copy of the approved Development Plan Package D11-0002 is provided. Building Plan will be reviewed and approved once a copy of the D11-0002 is provided. |
| 04/18/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The provided calculations assume a 6" head for the rainwater and no edge effects for the sides or the top of the proposed scupper. Even discounting these issues, the proposed scupper width for the main roof appears to be too short to accommodate the design rainfall without exceeding a 2" depth of flow. Provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load. Reference: Section 1611.1, IBC 2006. [Provide calculations to show that the proposed scuppers comply with the capacity requirements of Table 1106.2, IPC 2006. (Note that scuppers act as weirs and not as horizontal pipes.) Reference: Sections 1101.7, 1102.6, and 1105, IPC 2006.] 2. Comment not resolved. The "overflow opening" in the collector box is too small to accommodate the rainwater flow from the main roof and does not provide any overflow capacity for the roof if the primary scupper is blocked. [Provide overflow roof drainage. Reference: Sections 1107.1 and 1107.3, IPC 2006.] 3. If the three soft serve freezers are to be submitted at a later date, provide a deferred submittal request letter to the Building Official, Mr. Ron Boose, requesting an additional review fee assessment. [The three soft serve freezers (2A, 2E, and 4B) appear to be water-cooled. Provide information to show that each unit is provided with a water-saving device as required by Section 1201.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson and that the water consumption by each of these units no greater than 3 gallons per nominal ton per hour.] |
| 04/21/2011 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/21/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/21/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |