Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T13CM03176
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not addressed by the architect. Verify the energy code analysis for the building envelope. The exterior walls (sheet A302) indicate cavity insulation equal to R19 but the envelope compliance certificate shows cavity insulation equal to R21. The glazing calculations (e.g. projection factors) do not agree with those shown on the envelope compliance certificate. Coordinate the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing and the attached calculations. Reference: Section C303.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 07/19/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. All water outlets or direct-connections of water to an appliance shall be protected against backflow. Specify the device to be used for each outlet or appliance connection. Reference: Section 608.15, IPC 2012. 2. Provide cleanouts in the building sewer at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Reference: Section 708.3.2, IPC 2012. 3. Revise the indirect waste lines for the ice machine (detail 12/P500) to provide separate indirect waste pipes for the ice maker and for the ice bin to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Section 801.2, IPC 2012. 4. Provide separate indirect waste pipes for each compartment of the 3-compartment sink (detail 7/P500) to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Sections 801.2 and 802.1.8, IPC 2012. 5. Revise the indirect drain detail (15/P500) to comply with the requirements of the 2012 edition of the IPC. Indirect waste piping that has a developed length greater than 30-inches (30") when measured horizontally or greater than 54-inches (54") in total developed length shall be trapped. Exception: indirect waste piping conveying only clear-water waste (e.g. effluent from a sanitizing compartment) does not require a trap. Reference: Section 802.2, IPC 2012. 6. With the exception of island venting, all vents located indoors (e.g. fixture vents, branch vents, relief vents, or loop vents) shall rise at least 6" above the flood rim of the highest fixture served prior to running horizontally. Reference: Sections 905.5 and 909.1, IPC 2012. 7. Keynote 6 on sheet p101 calls for the roof drain leaders to connect to the storm drain. No storm drain system is shown on the civil plans but if one is proposed provide a cleanout at the base of each roof drain stack prior to connection to the horizontal storm drain. Reference: Sections 708.3.4 and 1101.8, IPC 2012. 8. Based on the stated developed pipe length of 100 feet used for sizing the natural gas piping, revise the size of the natural gas pipes serving the three deep fryers from ¾" to 1" per Table 402.4 (2). Reference: Section 402.4, IFGC 2012. |
| 07/22/2013 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 7; SHEET A-502; ELEVATION 9: PROVIDE DETAILS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE ELECTRIC WATER HEATER. INCLUDE CONNECTION SIZES AND SPACING, AND SHOW THE WALL FRAMING AT THOSE CONNECTIONS. |
| 07/23/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T13CM03176 9130 S Houghton RD New Panda Express 1. My last review (5/31/2013) item #2," Provide a calculations showing compliance with 2012 City of Tucson Outdoor Lighting Ordinance #10963" could not be located on returned material. The response letter by Woodward Engineering indicated it was provided. 2. Sheets E-001 and E-401 have been recopied and are now too light for our scanners to reproduce for our records. Ray T Majuta Elect Plan Review PDSD, Tucson 7/24/2013 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/25/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T13CM03176 9130 S Houghton Road Building Plans for Panda Express TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 25, 2013 DUE DATE: August 2, 2013 COMMENTS: 01. Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the Development Package Site plan, and while the building plans are in substantial compliance with the un-approved DP zoning cannot approve them at this time. Zoning will re-review the building plans on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved DP. 02. Ensure that any Special Exception Conditions that apply to the is development are addressed and demonstrated on the plan by notes or details drawing etc. Provide a response letter that explains how any conditions of the special exception that apply to the building have been addressed. 03. Zoning will continue to review the building plans until the development Package site plan is approved and any changes that may be required are addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised Site Plan and Elevation Drawings |
| 07/30/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/30/2013, The plan shall be recommended for approval after the DP is approved. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/14/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |