Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T14CM00498
Parcel: 12310036E

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T14CM00498
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/30/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
01/31/2014 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET T1.0; SEATING/EXITING PLAN: A NOTE ABOVE THE PLAN TITLE REFERENCES ADAAG 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, AND 5.6. REMOVE THE ADAAG REFERENCE AND USE THE ICC/ANSI.
2. SHEET A1.0 (FLOOR PLAN); SHEET A5.3 (SECTION 6): THE WALL SECTION INDICATES THE PRESENTER'S WINDOW, WHILE THE SECTION IS CUT ON THE PLAN AT THE ORDER WINDOW. VERIFY.
3. SHEET A1.2; REFLECTED CEILING PLAN: A SECTION CUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DINING AREA INDICATES 3/A1.2. REVISE THE SHEET REFERENCE.
4. SHEET A1.2; REFLECTED CEILING PLAN: A SECTION CUT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DINING AREA INDICATES 11/A1.2. REVISE THE SHEET REFERENCE.
5. SHEET A4.2; DETAILS 1, 3, AND 4: PROVIDE THE CONNECTION SIZE AND QUANTITY FOR THE DIAGONAL BRACE AT THE WALL AND AT THE STRUCTURE ABOVE.
6. SHEET A4.2; DETAILS 8 AND 12: PROVIDE THE CONNECTION SIZE AND QUANTITY FOR THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE 2X4 HANGER.
7. SHEETS S1.0 AND S1.2: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS.
8. SHEET S1.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 12): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A POST DESIGN OF A HSS5X5X3/8 AT B3, WHILE THE FOUNDATION PLAN INDICATES A HSS5X5X1/4 (C1). CLARIFY.
9. SHEET S1.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 26): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE COLUMN C2 IS A HSS4X4X1/4, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A 6X6 WOOD POST. CLARIFY.
10. SHEET S1.2; FRAMING PLAN: AT THE SOUTH END OF THE BUILDING, A BEAM B1 IS DESIGNATED ON GRID 2. WHERE IS THIS BEAM SIZE NOTED ON THE PLAN? VERIFY. SECTION 7/S3.0 INDICATES A SCHEDULE. PROVIDE.
11. SHEET S1.2 (FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 13): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE BEAM B5 IS A 5 1/4 X 9 1/2 LVL, WHILE THE FRAMING PLAN INDICATES A 3 1/2 X 14 LVL (H3A). CLARIFY.
12. SHEET S1.2; NOTES: NOTE 7 REFERENCES A SNOW DRIFT DIAGRAM. REVISE THE NOTE.
13. SHEET S1.2; HEADER SCHEDULE: THE BEARING AT HEADER H3 INDICATES DETAIL 5/S3.1. VERIFY.
14. SHEET S1.2; HEADER SCHEDULE: SHOULD THE BEARING AT HEADER H3A ALSO INCLUDE DETAIL 8/S3.2? VERIFY.
15. SHEET S1.2; HEADER SCHEDULE: SHOULD THE BEARING AT HEADER H6 BE REVISED TO 8/S3.2? VERIFY.
16. SHEET S2.0; SECTION 1: IS THE SECTION CUT 5/S3.1 CORRECT AT THIS LOCATION? VERIFY.
17. SHEET S3.0; SECTION 10: A COLUMN NOTE REFERENCES 11/S3.0 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. REVISE THE REFERENCE.
18. SHEET S3.2 (SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 34): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE SHEARWALL B TO HAVE SHEATING NAILING OF 8d AT 4" OC, WHILE THE SCHEDULE INDICATES 8d AT 6" OC. CLARIFY.
19. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGE 11: WHERE ARE JOISTS J1 AND J2 LOCATED ON THE FRAMING PLAN? INDICATE ON PAGE 6 OF THE CALCULATIONS.
20. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
02/04/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: McDonald's @ 1711 E. Speedway Blvd
T14CM00498
Building Plan (1st 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. Zoning has reviewed the building plans and they appear to meet the requirements of DP13-0018 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.

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
02/05/2014 ERIC NEWCOMB COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Approved
02/07/2014 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
02/10/2014 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Show the size, routing, and termination of the condensate drains. Condensate drains may not decrease in size in the direction of flow. Reference: Sections 307.2.1 and 307.2.2, IMC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson.
2. The occupant load used to calculate the required ventilation for RTU-3 is not necessarily the same as the furniture layout provided by the Architect or 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 2012 or an approved engineering analysis of the specific occupancy type. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2012 and Section 104.11, IBC 2012.
3. Complete the Envelope Compliance Certificate by checking the appropriate line items in Section 3, the Air Leakage, Component Certification, and Vapor Retarder Requirements. Supporting documentation shall be either on the drawings or in the project manual.
4. Coordinate the wall and window component descriptions shown on the Envelope Compliance Certificate with the exterior wall and window assemblies shown on sheet A5.0.
5. Complete the Mechanical Compliance Certificate by checking the appropriate line items in Section 4, the Requirements Checklist. Supporting documentation shall be either on the drawings or in the project manual.
6. Provide justification for installing HVAC units having a sensible cooling capacity that exceeds the sensible cooling load shown in the submitted calculations by 37% to 42%. Reference: Section C403.2.2, IECC 2012.
7. The plumbing drawings show the installation of an automatic clothes washing machine adjacent to the water heater. Will a clothes dryer be installed also? Reference: Section 504.6.6, IMC 2012.
02/10/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
02/18/2014 KEN VAN KARSEN ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change T14CM00498

1. Notate the required AIC rating of the KES distribution panel and circuit breakers consistent with fault calculations. Any series rated type circuit breakers shall be installed so as to maintain the UL series rating of the system.
2. Show the KES panel on the plan and provide the panel schedule, or notate on the plans that a delayed submittal is required for review before the electrical inspection.
3. Show exhaust fan circuits on the plan and description/load on the panel schedule, or notate the KES panel on the exhaust fan diagram, sheet E4.0.
4. Update note #D17/E4.2 with the correct reference, NEC 210.8 (B) (2).

Ken Van Karsen
Elect Plan Review
PDSD, City of Tucson
520-837-4912
Kenneth.VanKarsen@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/10/2014 GERARDO BONILLA REJECT SHELF Completed