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 - T11CM03895
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET A001; PATIO PLAN: PER IBC SECTION 1109.11, AT LEAST 5% OF THE SEATING AND STANDING SPACES, BUT NOT LESS THAT 1, SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. FOR THE PATIO OCCUPANT LOAD OF 132 PEOPLE, THE NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES SHOULD BE 7. ONLY 2 ARE INDICATED ON THE PLAN. CLARIFY. 2. SHEETS A001 AND GOO3: PER IBC SECTION 1109.11.1, ACCESSIBLE SEATING AT TABLES OR COUNTERS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE FACILITY. FOR THE PATIO AND DINING AREAS, THE TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD IS 333 (201 + 132). 5% OF THAT IS 17 SPACES. INDICATE ON THE PLANS. 3. SHEET A002; DETAIL 28: A NOTE INDICATES A SOLID GROUTED CMU. IS THIS CORRECT? COORDINATE WITH THE STRUCTURAL. 4. SHEET A103; SECTION 02: A BOXED NOTE REFERENCES SECTION 07260 FOR A VAPOR BARRIER. REMOVE THE NOTE. 5. SHEET A200; KEY NOTE 12: THE REFERENCE 06/A704 IS INCORRECT. REVISE. THE NOTE WAS NOT FOUND ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 6. SHEET A200; FLOOR PLAN: IN RESTROOMS 119 AND 120, DETAIL 21/A700 IS INDICATED IN 3 LOCATIONS. VERIFY THESE ARE CORRECT. 7. SHEET A201; COUNTER PLAN 01: THE THREE SECTION CUTS 8/A704, 9/A704, AND 10/A704 ALL INDICATE A 2'-10" COUNTER HEIGHT. IS THAT HEIGHT CORRECT AT DETAIL 10? VERIFY. 8. SHEET A701; BAR PLAN 02: PER IBC SECTION 1109.11, AT LEAST 5% OF STANDING SPACES SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. INDICATE THIS ON THE PLAN. 9. GENERAL: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE SHEETS G001 AND A800. 10. SHEET S000; DETAIL 7: THE WALL NOTE INDICATES WOOD STUDS, BUT ALSO INDICATES STEEL STUDS "AT SIM.". REFERENCE THE FOUNDATION PLAN AND ROOF FRAMING PLAN. 11. SHEET S000; DETAILS 2, 4, 7, AND 8: THE TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATION WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN. VERIFY. 12. SHEET S000; DETAIL 4: PROVIDE A NOTE ON THE DETAIL TO GROUT SOLID ALL CMU BELOW GRADE. 13. SHEET S100 (SHEARWALL SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE L11): THE SHEARWALL ON GRID 1 INDICATES A HDU5-SD2.5 HOLDOWN, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A HDU8-SD2.5 HOLDOWN. CLARIFY. 14. SHEET S100 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGES F1 AND F5): IN THE CALCULATIONS, COLUMN M45 AT GRIDS A AND 1 IS LISTED AS A HSS5X5X1/4, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A HSS4X4X1/4. CLARIFY. 15. SHEET S100 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGES F1 AND F5): IN THE CALCULATIONS, COLUMN M42 AT GRIDS A AND 2 IS LISTED AS A HSS5X5X1/4, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A HSS4X4X1/4. CLARIFY. 16. SHEET S100; FOUNDATION PLAN: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE SECTION CUTS ON THE PLAN. 17. SHEET S101; DETAIL 6: PROVIDE THE WALL STUD SPACING. 18. SHEET S101; DETAILS 4, 5, 6, 11, AND 17: PROVIDE THE DEPTH AND WIDTH DIMENSIONS OF THE THICKENED SLAB. 19. SHEET S200 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGES F1 AND F5): IN THE CALCULATIONS, BEAM M55 ON GRID 1 IS LISTED AS A W16X31, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A W16X26. CLARIFY. 20. SHEET S200; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: PROVIDE THE TOP OF BEAM ELEVATIONS FOR ALL OF THE BEAMS ON THE PLAN PER PLAN NOTE 10. 21. SHEET S201; DETAIL 1: THE BOXED NOTE REFERENCES 17/S200. REVISE. 22. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 01/09/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide the civil site plan referenced on sheet P200 to show the location of the water meter and the continuation of the water service line to the building. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006. 2. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies for the building water service are required to be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf |
| 01/10/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide plans sealed by an Arizona Registrant. Reference: Arizona Revised Statutes 32-125, Board of Technical Registration Rules R4-30-304. 2. Provide the referenced civil site drawing that shows the size, route, cleanout locations, and the slope of the building sewer along with the specified gravity grease interceptor. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006. 3. Clarify Plumbing Note G on sheet P100 that prohibits the use of horizontal wet venting; the combination drain and vent system shown on P100 is a form of horizontal wet venting. 4. Provide cleanouts sized per Section 708.7, IPC 2006 (e.g. a 3" drain requires a 3" cleanout). 5. Provide a direct waste connection for the wash and rinse sections of the 3-compartment sink (see Detail 01/P101), with an indirect connection for the sanitizing compartment only. Reference: Section 802.1, IPC 2006. 6. Indirect waste piping that is greater than 2-feet in horizontal developed length or greater than 4-feet in total developed length shall be trapped (see Detail 07/P101). Reference: Section 802.2, IPC 2006. 7. Show the size, slopes, routing, and termination points for the roof drain and overflow roof drain leaders. Reference: Sections 106.3.1, 1106, and 1107, IPC 2006. |
| 01/12/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Buffalo Wild Wings @ Wetmore Plaza T11CM03895 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 12, 2012 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 can not approve the building plan until the Development Package has been approved. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. 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 |
| 01/13/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide plans sealed by an Arizona Registrant. Reference: Arizona Revised Statutes 32-125, Board of Technical Registration Rules R4-30-304. 2. The 2006 International Mechanical Code with the City of Tucson Amendments is the relevant code for this project. The "City of Anywhere Building and Fire Codes" are not appropriate. 3. Revise the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fan, EF-3, so that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2006. 4. 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. The required outside air quantities shall be as shown in Table 403.3, IMC 2006 (e.g. 20 CFM per person in dining areas). Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2006. 5. Key notes 7, 8, 9, and 10 on sheet M100 call for the grease exhaust ducts "to be encased in fire-rated enclosure". Provide a design for the fire- rated enclosure. Reference: Section 506.3.10, IMC 2006. 6. Provide information to show that the operation of the Type I hoods and the hood exhaust fans comply with Sections 506.3.4 and 507.2.1.1, IMC 2006 as amended by the City of Tucson. 7. 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 (i.e. the load includes the possible weight of people working on the hood). Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 8. Extend the stainless steel backsplash behind the hood a minimum of 18" beyond the hood per Section 507.9, IMC 2006. 9. Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for 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. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. |
| 01/17/2012 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T11CM03895 4329 N Oracle Rd Buffalo Wings Electrical plans denied for following: 1. Plans are required to be sealed by Arizona Registrant. 2. Sheet E 400, provide a calculation which allows the neutral to be reduced per NEC 220, for service feeders. 3. Provide a fault current calculation beginning at service on throught to panels. 4. Sheet E400, indicate on plan all ground systems for service,300 kva transformer and 800 amp disconnect to be tied together. 5. Indicate on plan if physical protection for service is not required per 2005 NEC 110.9(B). 6. Indicate on Sheet E400 if an equipment ground is required or not on the feeder between the 800 amp disconnect outside to the SES inside,and size. 7. Is the Power Plus SES Listed and Approved ? 8. The total VA loads on MDP for phases A,B,C are different than those for shown for individual phases ? 9. Lighting loads do not appear to be taken at 125% as required for continous loads ? 10. Trash Compactor not shown on panel schedule loads ? 11. Following circuits shown on plan not in panel schedule loads, P1-12 in LC-2 is part of another 3 phase load, P-26 is not in panel schedule, also check P1-28 not in schedule. Ray T Majuta Elect Pln Ck PDSD,C of T, 1/19/12 Ray.majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/20/2012 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | 1. BUFFALO WILD WINGS - GRILL & BAR 2. NEED SITE UTILITY PLAN SHOWING LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER 3. NEED PCRWRD/1ST FLOOR REVIEW OF LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER CHAD AMATEAU 740-6547 4. NEED PC/1ST FLOOR ADRESSING REVIEW MICHELENE 740-6480 5. NEED PCRWRD/3RD FLOOR CAPACITY REVIEW KURT STEMM 740-6534 6. NEED PCRWRD/INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CONTROL REVIEW OF GREASE INTERCEPTOR 3035 W EL CAMINO DEL CERRO 740-6200 7. NEED WASTEWATER 5TH FLOOR CREDIT EVALUATION FOR ANY BUILDING DEMOLISHED ERICA MINGO 740-6602 OR 740-6606 |
| 12/29/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/30/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 30, 2011 REVIEWER: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T11CM03895 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received the building plan (T11CM03895). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the building plan applications 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 Package (DP11-0017). 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 (DP11-0017). 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 Planning & Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/16/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |