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: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T18CM04450
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/11/2018 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/15/2018 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Sheet CV; Design Loads: The seismic design category for Tucson is B, with a site classification of D. Please revise. 2. Sheet A1.0 (Floor Plan); Sheet A5.3 (Detail 9): Please revise the Detail 9 to match the structural (1/S4.1), and reference structural for all new wall construction on that detail (remove architectural notes). 3. Sheet A1.0 (Floor Plan); Sheet A5.3 (Detail 5): Please revise the Detail 5 to match the structural (2/S4.1), and reference structural for all new wall construction on that detail (remove architectural notes). 4. Sheet A1.0; Floor Plan: Please indicate the interior partition type for the wall between the men's and women's restroom lavatories, or reference 1?A4.0 (Enlarged Restroom Plan). 5. Sheet A1.0 (Floor Plan); Sheet A4.1 (Counter Plan 7 and Interior Elevation 20): The floor plan indicates a 6'-6" dimension for the Pick-Up counter, which doesn't match any dimension shown. Please clarify. 6. Sheet A1.0 (Floor Plan); Sheet A4.1 (Counter Plan 7): The counter plan indicates the Order Area length of 6'-11", while the floor plan indicates a 8'-11" dimension for that area. Please clarify. 7. Sheet A1.2; Reflected Ceiling Plan: The Dining Area requires two exits per the IBC Section 1015. The first exit is indicated on the east wall of the Dining Area 101. The second exit must be from one of the two exits in the Playplace Area per the IBC Section 1011.1. It appears a directional sign should be located above the opening from the Dining Area into the Playplace. Please provide. 8. Sheet A4.1 (Front Counter Plan 7); Sheet A4.1 (Interior Elevation 20): The counter plan indicates the Pick-Up shelf counter length (5'-11") plus the west end of that counter length (7'-7") to the wall on the west, for a total 13'-6" length. The interior elevation indicates 10'-8" total length for that area. Please clarify. 9. Sheet A5.1; Section 12: At the infill portion of the wall, please reference the Structural Foundation Plan on Sheet S2.1 for the infill stud size and spacing. 10. Sheet A5.1; Section 20: At the new wall construction, please reference the Structural Foundation Plan on Sheet S2.1 for the stud size and spacing. 11. Sheet S1.1: The City of Tucson requires all lettering (upper and lower case) to be a minimum of 3/32" in height. Please revise. 12. Sheet S1.1; Design Criteria: The City of Tucson uses the 2012 IBC. Please revise all references to the 2015 IBC, and verify all designs meet the 2012 IBC Specifications. 13. Sheets S1.2, S1.3, and S2.1: The City of Tucson requires all lettering (upper and lower case) to be a minimum of 3/32" in height. Please revise. 14. Sheets S2.1 and S2.2; Plans: Please add north arrows to the plans. 15. Sheet S2.2 (Framing Plan); Structural Calculations (Sheet 9): The calculations indicate a new beam in the Presenter's Area sized as a 6x12 DF#1, while the plan indicates a new 6x8 DF#1. Please clarify. 16. Sheet S2.2 (Framing Plan); Structural Calculations (Sheet 17): The calculations indicate a new 5 1/4 x 11 7/8 PSL beam at the Playplace infill wall. The framing plan indicates the beam size as a new 3/4" x 11 7/8" PSL (low). The Detail indicator (6/S4.3) is not correct. Please revise the beam size and detail. 17. Sheet S2.2; Framing Plan: Three details are referenced on the southeast wall of the Playplace area. The City of Tucson requires all lettering (upper and lower case) to be a minimum of 3/32" in height. Please revise those references. 18. Sheet S2.2; Framing Plan: A detail reference 3/S4.2 at the west interior of the building does not indicate the location of that detail. Please revise. 19. Sheet S4.3; Detail 4: A note at the kicker indicates to "see 1 and 2 for kicker information". Where are those details 1 and 2 located? 20. Sheet FD1; Digital Menu Board Foundation: The 6-#6 vertical bars in the pier (from the calculations) were not shown on this detail. Please add. 21. Sheet FD1; Pre-Browse Board Foundation; Digital Menu Board Foundation: The required embedment length of the 3/4" diameter anchor rods (24") were not shown on these details. Please add. 22. Sheet FD3; General Notes: The City of Tucson uses the 2012 IBC. Please revise all references to the 2015 IBC, and verify all designs meet the 2012 IBC Specifications. 23. Structural Calculations; Sheet 15: This calculation calls for a new 2x12 connecting the new parapet to the existing mansard. What detail includes this connection? 24. Structural Calculations; Sheet 1: The City of Tucson uses the 2012 IBC. Please revise all references to the 2015 IBC, and verify all designs meet the 2012 IBC Specifications. 25. General: Please provide written responses to all review comments. |
| 06/22/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The Envelope compliance Certificate shows the new exterior walls with R-20 cavity insulation but the wall sections only indicate new batt insulation with no minimum R-value shown. Label the required R-value for the new batt insulation in the wall sections. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 06/22/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Verify that the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department will allow the drain from the mop sink (keynote P10), the floor drain (keynote P12), and the floor sinks (keynote P11) to bypass the grease interceptor. Reference: Section 1003.3, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. 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. 3. Verify that the automatic faucets for the public lavatories, F-1, will operate for at least 10-seconds. Reference: Section 606.4, ICC/ANSI A117.1-09. |
| 06/22/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/29/2018 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. #1. The Parking lot lighting on the electrical site plan were not identified. If these luminaires are within this parcel please identify them and include them in the lumen calcs. If they are already in the lumen calcs then identify them as parking lot pole lighting. Verify they are in compliance for shielding, lumens output, color temperature output. Section 102.4.2, 104.2(1), (2), 104.2.1, 402.1 #2. The lamp source color temperature was not included for the canopy, parking, and rooftop luminaires. #3. Ref: Plan Sheet E2.0. The integral and the 'F12T' canopy security lighting is not included in the lumen calcs. Please clarify. #4. Identify the type and location of the 12 existing site fixtures shown in the lumen calcs. #5. The exterior luminaire quantities shown on the Comcheck does not correlate with the outdoor lumen calcs. Ref; 2012IBC sec 107.2.1, 2011 NEC, Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code Dan Santa Cruz Commercial Electrical Plan Review, City of Tucson Dan.santacruz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/02/2018 | EHAMBLI1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Elisa Hamblin, AICP Lead Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM04450 - Façade updates, drive through Building Plans (1st Review) McDonald's remodel 540 W Valencia Rd, C-1 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 2, 2018 DUE DATE: July 6, 2018 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 reviewed the building plans but cannot approve them at this time. The development package has been returned for corrections. An approved development package (DP) is needed for comparison at the time of the building plan review by zoning. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal as it relates to the zoning review purview and compare the building plan footprint, building height, and square footage and location to ensure consistency with the DP. (Include a copy of the most current or the approved and PDSD stamped version of the DP with the next building submittal.) The PDSD approved and signed copy of the DP shall not be incorporated into the building plans unless it is a PDSD approved and stamped copy. 3. COMMENT: If any changes are necessary, due to the PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewer's comments that affect or change the building footprint, height, or square footage, the DP will need to be updated prior to approval of the building plans by Zoning. 4. COMMENT: Once the plans have been reviewed and approved by the Commercial Plan Reviewers and zoning has verified consistency with the PDSD approved and signed copy of the DP, the building plans can be approved by zoning. If you have any questions please contact me at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4966. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Building plans and current or approved version of the DP as reference. |
| 07/10/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T18CM04450 1) An approved development plan is required prior to Engineering approving the building plans. Engineering can review the building plans over the counter once the development plan has been approved. John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2018 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 07/13/2018 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/13/2018 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |