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 - T17CM01721
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/24/2017 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/26/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T17CM01721 Building Plans for Popeyes Restaurant (2nd Review) 1058 E Market Place Boulevard TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2017 DUE DATE: May 15, 2017 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. COMMENT: Zoning has done a second review of the building plans. While the plans are in substantial compliance with the approved DP zoning cannot approve them at this time. 2. COMMENT: Zoning has verified that the building plans are in compliance with the DP as it relates to the Zoning review Purview, building footprint SF, building height, etc. The DP included in the Building Plan set is not the approved and PDSD signed set. The previous zoning comment requested that a copy of the approved DP set be included, that the unapproved version of the dp in the building set be removed or that each sheet of the unapproved DP in the building set be removed. The DP was approved on March 7, 2017 by all reviewers and signed by the PDSD project manager. The approved and signed DP plans are still with the PDSD and have yet to be picked up by the applicant. Once the applicant has paid the remaining fees and picked up the plans an approved copy can be made and included in the building plan set or use the other two options noted above. 3. COMMENT: As also noted in previous comment 3, the building plans cannot be approved by zoning until all PDSD review agencies have approved the plans. This is to ensure that any changes to the plans that are necessary due to PDSD reviewer agencies comments do not affect zoning requirements (usually is not an issue). 4. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to verify compliance with the zoning review comments. Zoning is willing to review the building plans over the counter with an appointment if and when zoning is the remaining review agency that needs to approve and sign the building plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Building plans re-submittal |
| 05/08/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The proposed location of the backwater valve does not protect the grease waste system in the building from backwater conditions. [Initial comment: The civil utility drawing indicates that a backwater valve will be required for this building. Show the location of the backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 2. The grease interceptor calculations and the interceptor detail on P400 show a 1500-gallon interceptor but the waste/vent riser isometric shows a 1200-gallon interceptor. [Initial comment: Provide sizing calculations for the gravity grease interceptor per Section 1003.3, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 3. Sheet A200 has not been revised to show the roof areas or the roof drain sizes. [Initial comment: Provide roof drainage calculations and plans. Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012.] |
| 05/08/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 05/09/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Coordinate the envelope COMcheck component listing with the drawings by revising the note on sheet A200 that calls for the roof to have a "minimum R-value of 30". Coordinate the specification for the rigid roof insulation: on sheet A400, R-16 is called for but the envelope COMcheck component list shows R-18. [Initial comment: Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; COMcheck was not found on sheet A450. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation and the SHGC for the fenestration. Reference: Sections C103.2 and C401.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] 2. The mechanical COMcheck was not included with this submittal. [Initial comment: Revise the mechanical COMcheck compliance certificate to use the 2012 edition of the IECC rather than the 2009 edition.] 3. The mechanical COMcheck was not included with this submittal. [Initial comment: Revise the water heater description in the mechanical COMcheck compliance certificate to show a natural gas input of 199 kBtu/h instead of 180 Btu/h. Verify the efficiency of the proposed water heaters; the published data for the Rennai model R94LSi shows an energy factor of 0.82 rather than the 0.94 used in the submitted COMcheck.] 4. Replot the keyed notes on sheet M100 so the notes are legible. [Initial comment: Show that each rooftop unit has a thermostatic control that provides for off-hour and set-back control, automatic shutdown and automatic start-up control (i.e. the thermostat is capable of automatically adjusting the start time of the HVAC equipment in order to bring the interior conditions to the desired temperature at the start of occupancy) and, if the thermostat does not require manual changeover from the heating and cooling modes, it restricts set point overlap. Reference: Section C403.2.4, IECC 2012.] 5. Revise the note to state the desired termination point for the 1-1/2" condensate drain. [Initial comment: Show the size, routing, and termination of the condensate drains from the three rooftop units. Reference: Section 307.2.1, IMC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson.] |
| 05/15/2017 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Previous Comment 2; Sheet SD125; Site Detail 19: There were no structural calculations indicated on that sheet for the wall as indicated in your response. Please verify. 2. Previous Comment 4; Sheet A001; Accessible Standards: The lettering had not been revised to a minimum of 3/32" in height, and the font was not darker. Please verify. 3. Previous Comment 5; Sheet A001; Accessible Standards: Many of the figures and notations are still not from the 2009 ICC/ANSI A117.1 Accessibililty Standards. Please verify. 4. Previous Comment 7; Sheet A002; Figure 604.5.1: The vertical grab bar locating dimensions still do not match Figure 604.5.1 of the 2009 ICC/ANSI. Please verify. 5. Previous Comment 10; Sheet A102; Floor Plan: The note concerning the trench drain is still no adequate. Please provide a note to reference a detail on a plumbing sheet, or add a detail on the architectural sheets. 6. Previous Comment 11; Sheet A103; Section 1: None of the member connections were provided. Please verify. 7. Previous Comment 13; Sheet A126; Mounting Notes: The notes still do not meet the 3/32" height requirement. Please verify. 8. Previous Comment 19; Sheet A300; Elevations: The section sheet references still do not meet the 3/32" height requirement. Please verify. 9. Previous Comment 34; Sheet S0.2: The lettering still does not meet the 3/32" height requirement. Please verify. 10. Previous Comment 37; Sheet S1.1; Foundation Plan: The shear wall holdown note still indicates 19 locations. Please verify. 11. General: Please provide written responses to all review comments. |
| 05/15/2017 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. Second review. #1. Ref: Plan Sheet E001, E002, E100. (a) Could not identify or locate the P2 luminaires shown on the luminaire schedule plan sheet E100. (b) The luminaire schedule on plan sheet E002 shows the E type luminaire at 22 watts and the Light Fixture Schedule on plan sheet E100 shows it at 26 watts. Please clarify. (c) Ref: Plan Sheet E002. The option used for the Outdoor Lighting calcs (350,000) is for (mostly LPS lighting). The lighting on the plans are specified as LED. Per the note below the lumen calcs,"All lighting fixtures provided and installed shall be full cut off", in this scenario the correct option per table 401.1 should be option #2. (250,000) lumens per acre. Please revise the lumen calcs and verify that all exterior lighting lamp color temperature output does not exceed 3500 Kelvin as specified per section 402.1 of the Outdoor Lighting Code. #2. No response or compliance with preliminary plan review comment #5 D," The Electrical system Design exceeds the allowable size and rating for other than an Electrical Design Professional registered in the STATE OF ARIZONA, to seal and sign the electrical plans. Per the CITY of TUCSON COMMERCIAL PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (electrical), Also per the STATE of ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES 32-125, and BOARD of TECHNICAL REGISTRATION RULES R4-30-302, R4-30-304. An Electrical Professional Engineer registered in the State of Arizona is required to Design, Seal and Sign the electrical plans when the electrical system exceeds 400 amps and or the available fault current exceeds 22k (COT). 225 amp 120/208 volts 3 phase. Ref: 2012 IBC sec. 107.2.1, 2011 NEC, TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE, CITY OF TUCSON COMMERCIAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES |
| 05/18/2017 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved |