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

Permit Number: T14CM08565
Parcel: 137276530

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T14CM08565
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/09/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Clarify the plumbing code to be used for this activity. The plumbing Fixture Table on sheet G-001 refers to the 2000 IPC and the Grease interceptor Calculation on sheet P-101 also refers to the 2000 IPC. Also, the Water Calculation on sheet P-101 appears to refer to the City of Mesa. This review has been made using the 2012 IPC using the amendments from the City of Tucson.
2. Coordinate the water service and building sewer locations (and the size of the building sewer) with the civil drawing, C2.0. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
3. Verify that the specified mixing valves for the restroom lavatories are listed per ASSE 1070. Reference: Sections 416.5 and 607.1.2, IPC 2012.
4. Revise detail 12/P-500 to provide separate indirect waste pipes for the ice maker condensate drain and the ice bin drain to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Section 801.2, IPC 2012.
5. Revise detail 7/P-500 to provide separate indirect waste pipes for each compartment of the 3-compartment sink to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Sections 801.2 and 802.1.8, IPC 2012.
6. Revise detail 15/P-500 to show the IPC requirements for adding a trap to an indirect waste pipe. Reference: Section 802.2, IPC 2012.
7. Provide sizing calculations for the gravity grease interceptor using the calculations shown in Section 1003.3, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. Coordinate the size, type, and location of the grease interceptor with the civil drawing, C1.3 and sheet A-100.
8. Hand sinks in the kitchen are allowed to connect to the sanitary waste system instead of the grease waste system only if each sink has a sign posted above it stating, "HANDWASH SINK ONLY! NO FOOD PREPARATION OR DISHWASHING ALLOWED." Reference: Section 1003.3, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
9. Clarify the termination point of the roof drains. Reference: Section 1101.2, IPC 2012.
10. Verify the size of the pipes serving the deep fryers; at a developed length of 100-feet, Table 402.4 (2), IFGC 2012 shows a minimum size of 1" for a 122-MBH load. Reference: Section 402.1, IFGC 2012.
01/09/2015 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Completed
01/12/2015 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Demonstrate energy code compliance for the building envelope using calculations based on the current code. Reference: Sections C101.3, C101.5, and C103.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.
2. Show how the "Additional Efficiency Package Requirements" noted in COMcheck (C406, IECC 2012) is to be accomplished. Reference: Section C401.2, IECC 2012.
3. Provide NFRC fenestration product ratings for the U-factor and the SHGC values on COMcheck or use the appropriate default U-factor and SHGC values from Tables C303.1.3 (1), C303.1.3 (2) and C303.1.3.(3), IECC 2012. Reference: Section C303.1.3, IECC 2012.
4. Provide heating and cooling load calculations that justify the capacities of the heating and cooling equipment specified for the project. Reference: Sections C403.2.1 and C403.2.2, IECC 2012.
5. Show that each rooftop unit has a thermostatic control that provides for automatic start-up control. Reference: Section C403.2.4, IECC 2012.
6. Provide information on the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fan to show that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted during operating hours for the restaurant. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2012.
7. Verify that the proposed Type I hood is equipped to automatically start the hood exhaust fan when cooking operations commence. Reference: Section 507.2.1.1, IMC 2012.
01/14/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Panda Express - 1600 W. Valencia Road
T14CM08565
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 14, 2015

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 but cannot approve until development package DP14-0138 has been approved.

3. The development package sheets provided in this package are not approved. Ensure on final submittal that the development package sheets are signed by all PDSD agencies or remove them from the building plan.

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
01/14/2015 KEN VAN KARSEN ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change T14CM08565 Panda Express

1. The City of Tucson has adopted the 2012 IECC for lighting calculations: update the entries shown on sheet E-600.

2. City of Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code (Ord #10963) compliance: provide the calculations that are referenced at the Luminaire Schedule Note on sheet E-105. Include all exterior fixtures referenced on sheet G-005 and E-105.

3. The rated color temperature of proposed exterior fixtures may not exceed 3500K, see Lighting Code Section 402. Update fixtures L82 and L70 on sheet G-005 and E-001 with compliant color temperature ratings. Also, verify compliance of undisclosed ratings

The 2012 Outdoor Lighting Code may be found on The City of Tucson Website under: www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd; Codes, Standards, Ordinances & Guidelines; Building Codes.

Ken Van Karsen
Electrical Plan Review
PDSD, City of Tucson
520-837-4912
Kenneth.VanKarsen@tucsonaz.gov
12/22/2014 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Bldg plan T14CM08565 will be reviewed by PDSD Engineering after Dev Pkg DP14-0138 is approvable by Engineering.
12/29/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
12/30/2014 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. SHEET G-001; CODE ANALYSIS (BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS TABLE): THE OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATION INDICATES 105 TOTAL OCCUPANTS, WHILE THE BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS TABLE LISTS 95 OCCUPANTS. CLARIFY.
2. SHEET G-001; PLUMBING FIXTURES: THIS TABLE REFERENCES THE 2000 IPC. REVISE THE REFERENCE TO THE 2012 IPC (TABLE 403.1), OR THE 2012 IBC (TABLE 2902.1).
3. SHEET G-001; PLUMBING FIXTURES: INCLUDE A SERVICE SINK IN THE TABLE OF REQUIRED PLUMBING FIXTURES.
4. SHEET A-301; SECTION 2: AT THE TOP OF THE WALL, A DETAIL 12/S-300 IS REFERENCED. IS THAT REFERENCE CORRECT? VERIFY.
5. SHEET A-302; SECTION 2: THE TOP OF THE WALL REFERENCES 04/S-300. REVISE THAT REFERENCE.
6. SHEET A-302; SECTION 3: AT THE TOP OF THE WALL, A DETAIL 19/S-300 IS REFERENCED. IS THAT REFERENCE CORRECT? VERIFY.
7. SHEET A-304; SECTIONS 1 AND 2: AT THE TOP OF THE WALL, A DETAIL 11/3-300 IS REFERENCED. IS THAT REFERENCE CORRECT? VERIFY.
8. SHEET A-400; DETAILS 5 AND 6: AT THE BUMP-OUT AT THE TOP OF THE WALL, INDICATE FRAMING MEMBER SIZES AND CONNECTIONS TO OTHER MEMBERS. STRUCTURAL SECTION 2/S-300 REFERENCES ARCHITECTURAL.
9. SHEET A-401; DETAILS 9 AND 10: IS THE PRE-FAB AWNING TO BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL? VERIFY.
10. SHEET A-401; DETAILS 9 AND 10: ADD TO THE NOTE THAT INDICATES 'BLOCKING-REF. STRUCTURAL' TO SEE DETAILS 9/S-500 AND 18/S-500.
11. SHEET A-402; DETAIL 6: ADD TO THE NOTE THAT INDICATES 'WOOD HEADER-REF. STRUCTURAL' TO SEE DETAIL 7/S-500.
12. SHEET A-404; DETAIL 10: NOTE 10 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE DETAILS. VERIFY.
13. SHEET A-405; ELEVATION 5: IS THE UMBRELLA STRUCTURE TO BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL? VERIFY.
14. SHEET A-406: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE VERBIAGE IN 2, 17, AND 18.
15. SHEET A-407; PLAN 1: A NOTE INDICATES THE TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SUBMITTED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. VERIFY.
16. SHEET A-408; DETAIL 4A: THE DISTANCE FROM THE SIDEWALK/FINISHED GRADE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN SHOULD BE 84". REVISE.
17. SHEET A-408; DETAIL 15: THE TRUNCATED DOMES ARE REFERENCED TO 14/A-508. REVISE THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBER.
18. SHEET A-408; DETAIL 15: NO REFERENCE IS MADE ON THIS DETAIL TO THE ALLOWABLE SLOPE OF THE RAMP. PROVIDE.
19. SHEET S-000: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE SPECIAL INSPECTION NOTES.
20. SHEET S-000; STRUCTURAL NOTES (FOUNDATION DESIGN): NOTE 2 INDICATES A MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING VALUE OF 1500 PSF. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT INDICATES AN ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE OF 2500 PSF MAY BE USED FOR THE DESIGN. INCLUDE THE 2500 PSF IN THE STRUCTURAL NOTES.
21. SHEET S-100; FOUNDATION PLAN; WALL FRAMING LEGEND: THE WOOD SHEARWALL INDICATOR IN THE LEGEND DOES NOT SHOW UP ON THE PLAN. DARKEN THOSE AREAS.
22. SHEET S-300; SECTION 7: INDICATE THE FRAMING AND CONNECTIONS FOR THE BUMP-OUT AT THE TOP OF THE WALL (REFERENCE DETAIL 6/A-400).
23. SHEET S-400 (DETAIL 11); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 88): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 1'-8" DEEP FOOTING AT THE TRASH ENCLOSURE WALL, WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES AN 18" DEEP FOOTING. CLARIFY.
24. SHEET S-400; DETAIL 3: A FOUNDATION NOTE INDICATES TO REFERENCE THE PLAN FOR A FOOTING WIDTH. WHERE IS THAT DIMENSION INDICATED ON S-100? VERIFY.
25. SHEET S-400; DETAIL 4: A FOUNDATION NOTE INDICATES TO REFERENCE THE PLAN FOR A FOOTING WIDTH. WHERE IS THAT DIMENSION INDICATED ON S-100? VERIFY.
26. SHEET S-500 (SECTION 3); SHEET S-101 (TOWER FRAMING PLAN): THE FRAMING PLAN INDICATES THE BEAM CONNECTING TO THE COLUMN AT THE COLUMN CENTERLINE, WHILE THE SECTION INDICATES THE BEAM 6" OFF THE COLUMN CENTERLINE. CLARIFY.
27. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/30/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed