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 - TI ALL
Permit Number - T13CM05208
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/08/2013 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS SHOWN IN ALL CAPS SHEETS S1.1, S2.1, S3.1, S4.1, S4.2 1. OK STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 2. Please provide structural calculations and structural details for the following: a. All Roof mounted HVAC equipment b. All suspended exhaust hoods c. All lighting pole foundations NON-RESPONSIVE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ITEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTED CALCULATION BOOKLET. 3. Please provide key plans for all framing and foundation calculations. NON-RESPONSIVE NO FOUNDATION NOR ROOF FRAMING KEY PLANS ARE PROVIDED IN THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEET A7.3 4. OK GENERAL 5. Several sheets including all disiplines, have lettering that is non-compliant with City of Tucson standards; minimum 3/32" actual, both upper and lower case. NON-RESPONSIVE LETTERING SIZE HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED TO MINIMUM ACTUAL SIZE (NOT CAD FONT SIZE) OF 3/32" UPPER AND LOWER CASE. THIS INCLUDES ALL DIMENSIONING, INDEXED NOTES, SCHEDULES AND DETAIL NOTES. 6. Please provide certification of all special inspectors required by the 2012 IBC and your structural engineer. NON-RESPONSIVE CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IS REQUIRED. ON THE COT/PDSD WEBSITE UNDER FORMS AND FEES IS A TWO PART CERTIFICATE FORM FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL FOR ALL SPECIAL INSPECTORS AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA. PLEASE PROVIDE THIS FORM COMPLETE WITH THE NAMES OF THE ACTUAL INSPECTORS SELECTED BY YOU TO COMPLETE THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED AND PRESENT IT TO THE STRUCTURAL PLAN REVEWIERS FOR APPROVAL. END OF REVIEW |
| 10/08/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/14/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | From: David Rivera, Principal Planner Activity No: T13CM05208 - New Restaurant Building - Texas Longhorn Building Plans Review Address: 5725 E Broadway Blvd. Submit a response memo explaining how the zoning review comments have been addressed. 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans and compared them to the preliminary development package site plan for compliance. While the building plan are in substantial compliance with the preliminary development package site plan as it pertains to the zoning review purview, zoning cannot approve the building plans until the DP is approved. 2. Zoning has approved the development package Site plan as it relates to the zoning review purview. However the development package has not been reviewed by all review agencies so it is hard to say if all reviewers will require additional changes to be made to the DP Site Plan. In addition there is a 30 day waiting period after the DP is approved by reviewing agencies and sent to Mayor and Council for approval, before zoning can approve the building plans for permits. 3. The site plan in the building g drawing package depicts a different configuration for the sidewalk along the north side of the building. Ensure that the sidewalk system and location matches the DP site plan or visa versa. Make the necessary revisions to one or the other drawing package. Previous Comment: The site plan that is included with the building plans must be revised to the most current site plan created as part of the development package submittal. The site plan in the building plan set does not match the preliminary site plan in the development package. The development package site plan has been through the first review so the second submittal may include a revised site plan based on the rezoning conditions. Ensure that building plans include the most current site plan that matches the DP. |
| 10/16/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/21/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/24/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/28/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Tempered water for lavatories shall be supplied through a mixing valve conforming to ASSE 1070. In addition, verify that the Leonard mixing valve (as shown in the Gas Water Heater Riser, P4.2) is being installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. [Initial comment: Provide tempered water for the lavatories and public hand-washing sinks using approved devices conforming to ASSE 1070. Note that the specified temperature mixing valve (Leonard TM-30-E) is obsolete. Reference: Sections 416.5 and 607.1.2, IPC 2012.] 2. The water service riser detail shown on sheet P5.1 does not appear to have been modified since the initial submittal. [Initial comment: Coordinate the location of the reduced pressure backflow preventer for the building water service with the civil drawings. The reduced pressure backflow preventer for the building water service is located adjacent to the water meter at the north property line. A separate water meter and backflow preventer for the irrigation system are also located at the north property line; on the civil plans, the irrigation water service does not enter the building. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf] 3. The water piping isometric shows flush-valve two water closets supplied with ½ pipe and two others with 1" pipe. The minimum flow for a siphon jet water closet is 25 GPM. [Initial comment: Verify that the pipe sizes called out for the flush valves will not result in water velocities greater than that recommended by the pipe manufacturer (e.g. limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for CPVC piping). Reference: Table 604.3, IPC 2012. 4. Verify that the roof areas used for determining each of the scupper and downspout sizes included half of the area of any vertical walls that divert rainwater to the roof. Note that detail A6/A8.3 calls for 4" downspouts and the width of the scupper serving the largest roof area may not be sufficient. [Initial comment: Provide roof drainage and hydraulic scupper calculations for the four unequal-sized drainage areas. Reference: Sections 1101 and 1106, IPC 2012.] |
| 10/28/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved. There are two roof types in this building. The only portion of the building with R-30 cavity insulation and a layer of metal standing seam roofing is the vestibule but the vestibule is not a metal building. The roof of the vestibule should be entered as an "attic roof with wood joists". The rest of the building has a flat roof with continuous insulation. The best description of this roof type in COMcheck is "other"; enter the overall U-factor for the roof assembly (including the interior and exterior air films) in the U-factor field. Provide a copy of the U-factor calculations for the main roof. [Initial comment: Revise the energy code analysis for the building envelope, coordinating the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawings. The roof has a metal, standing-seam layer it is not a "metal building standing-seam roof with thermal blocks"; the walls have R-19 batt insulation, but R-5 continuous insulation is shown on some of the wall sections. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/30/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/30/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |