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 - T13CM06879
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/22/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/22/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Coordinate the building sections 1/A-3.1, 2/A-3.1, and 3/A-3.1 to show R-19 cavity insulation in the exterior walls instead of R-21 cavity insulation. [Initial comment: Revise the energy code analysis for the building envelope, coordinating the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing (e.g. the drawings show two levels of cavity insulation in the exterior walls, some of the exterior walls are metal-framed, the glass schedule indicates a higher U-value and SHGC, two glass doors are not included, etc). Reference: Section C303.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 2. On sheet P-4.1, AC-2, AC-3, and AC-4 are still shown with ¾" condensate drains. Keynote 8 on sheet P-1.1 still indicates that a 1-1/4" condensate drain is to be reduced to 1" in the drop to the floor sink. [Initial comment: Verify the size of the drain pan condensate connections for the specified air conditioning units; Lennox typically has a 1" minimum drain pan connection. See also keynote 8 on sheet P-1.1; it shows the 1-1/4" condensate drain on the roof reducing to 1" in the drop to the floor sink. Condensate drains may not decrease in size in the direction of flow. Reference: Section 307.2.2, IMC 2012.] |
| 01/23/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/23/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved. Sheet T-1.1 references the 2012 UPC, sheet P-1.1 notes the 2012 IPC, and sheet P-4.2 references the 2010 California Green Building Code and the California Fuel Code. [Initial comment: The International Plumbing Code, 2012, is the controlling code for this activity, not the 2006 International Plumbing Code (similarly, the California Plumbing Code is not acceptable). The use of the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code is allowed provided an appeal to the building official is filed. There is no charge for this appeal. This review has been made using the 2012 IPC. Reference: Section 101, IBC 2012.] 2. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Coordinate the civil site utility plan (9 of 10) and the plumbing plan (P-2.1). The two plans show different locations and sizes for the water service to the building and different exit points from the building for the sanitary and grease waste. Include a coordinated civil site utility plan as part of the building plan set; the construction of the on-site utilities must be included as part of a building permit.] 3. Comment not resolved. Cleanouts shall be sized for the nominal size of pipes that they serve up to 4-inches. [Initial comment: Provide an additional cleanout for each 40-foot section of drains having a change of direction greater than 45 degrees. Cleanouts shall be sized for the nominal size of pipes that they serve up to 4-inches. Reference: Sections 708.3.3 and 708.7, IPC 2012.] 4. Comment not addressed by the civil engineer. [Initial comment: Provide the rim elevation of the sanitary manhole or cleanout in the public sewer system upstream of the connection of the building sewer to the public sewer system. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 5. Flat venting is not allowed inside buildings under the IPC but it is shown in five locations on sheets P1.1 and P5.1 and a note on sheet P1.1. [Initial comment: Verify that all of the vents (except for vents serving interceptors located outdoors; i.e. flat venting is not allowed inside buildings under the IPC) rise vertically to at least 6" above the flood rims of the fixtures they protect prior to running horizontally. Reference: Section 905.4, IPC 2012.] 6. Keynote 19 on civil sheet 8 of 10 (Grading) calls for the roof drains to "daylight at the face of the building on [a] concrete splash pad." Coordinate the termination of the primary rainwater leaders with the civil plans. [Initial comment: Coordinate the termination of the primary rainwater leaders with the civil site utility plan; no storm drains appear to be shown on the civil site plan.] |
| 01/23/2014 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/31/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/03/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Original correction comment #1 not addressed: Original comment " Must provide a calculation showing compliance with City of Tucson 2012 Outdoor Lifhting Code per City of Tucson Commercial Submittal Requirements. Can locate ODLC on Tucson Web Page ( Departments,Planning & Develop Srvs, to Bldg Codes). Need to select a location, Option Type, lumen total for Full Cut Off fixtures and Unshielded Fixtures. Note all outdoor fixtures must have a max color rated temperature of 3500K. Must indicate if fixtures are Full Cut Off or Unshielded. All outside fixtures included, however if a type full cut of fixture installed under a canopy or such, lumen totals under exception and not counted.The allowed lumen totals are per acre. Review and comply with ODLC." A) Note that the maximum allowable lumens from table 401.1 of the Outdoor Lighting Code are based on lumens per acre. You cannot claim 250,000 lumens for a site that is under 1 acre in size. B) Maximum color temperature for all outdoor lighting is 3500 degrees Kelvin. You are still showing LED lighting fixtures with a color temperature of 4000 Kelvin. |
| 02/04/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Chick Fil A @ Tanque Verde & Grant. T13CM06879 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 4, 2014 1. The building plans have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. The development package (DP) sheets provide within this building set are not the approved DP sheets. Either provide the approved sheets with you next submittal or remove the DP sheets from the building plan set. 3. Zoning has reviewed the building plans and they appear to meet the requirements of DP13-0083 but due to the number of comments by other PDSD review sections Zoning will not approve the building plans at this time. Once all other PDSD review sections have approved the building plans Zoning will approve. 4. 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2014 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/27/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |