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 - NEW
Permit Number - T19CM04566
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/26/2019 | RMCCOY1 | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/26/2019 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T19CM04566 - Commercial Service Use Group / Food Service Building Plan Review (1st Review) Dunkin Donuts - Related to DP19-0142 1066 W. Grant Road - I-1 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 26, 2019 DUE DATE: July 29, 2019 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 cursory review of the building plans and comparison to the unapproved version of the development package DP19-0142. In comparing the information related to the building areas on the building plans with building areas listed on the DP zoning found a discrepancy in the square footages. Assure that the DP and the building plans square footages for the building, the cooler and patio areas are consistent. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal and do a comparison to the approved DP if available to assure consistency with what is proposed on the DP drawings and vice versa as it relates to the zoning review purview (Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc.). Also zoning cannot approve the building plans until the Commercial Plans reviewer(s) have approved the building plans. 3. COMMENT: If any changes are necessary to the building plans due to plan review comments that affect zoning requirements the DP will have to be revised to reflect the changes. Once the DP is approved by all reviewers and the building plans are approved by the Commercial Plans reviewers zoning can approve 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 |
| 07/26/2019 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/31/2019 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/12/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The hot water recirculation system does not address the maximum distance requirement shown in Table C404.5.1, IECC 2018. The maximum distance of the hot water source from the public lavatory faucets is 2-feet using a ½" pipe. [Initial comment: Verify that the distance to the hot water termination from the hot water source complies with the requirements of Section C404.5, IECC 2018. 2. Revise detail 3/P3.1 to provide two separate drains for the two ovens. [Initial comment: Provide separate indirect waste pipes for each individual oven or ice cuber to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Sections 801.2 and 802.1.1, IPC 2018. 3. The dishwasher (KE 259), located next to the hand sink in the southwest corner of the building, is not shown on the plumbing drawings and the required 3/4'" HW supply (shown in the water riser diagram) is not shown either. A dishwasher is required to discharge to a grease interceptor but not to a hydromechanical grease interceptor. In addition, a water hammer arrestor is also required for the water supply. Reference: Sections 604.9 and 1003.3, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. [Initial comment: A dishwasher may not discharge through a hydromechanical grease interceptor. Verify how the discharge from the dishwasher can be accommodated with the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department. Reference: Section 1003.3, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 4. The floor drain for the Men's restroom still shows a floor sink instead of a floor drain on the sanitary isometric diagram. [Initial comment: The floor drains in the two restrooms are mislabeled in the sanitary isometric diagram as "floor sinks".] 5. Revise the sanitary isometric diagram to show three independent drains from the 3-compartment sink discharging to the grease interceptor. Provide a warning sign for each hand sink that states, "HANDWASH SINK ONLY! NO FOOD PREPARATION OR DISHWASHING ALLOWED." Reference: Sections 802.1.1 and 1003.3, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. [Initial comment: Clarify the sanitary isometric diagram. The diagram appears to show the grease interceptor with two inlets and no outlet. Identify which fixtures are required to discharge to the grease interceptor per Section 1003.3, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 6. On all of the non-plumbing sheets, the 75-gallon water heater is mounted above the service sink. Coordinate the location of the water heater and if mounted above the service sink, include structural calculations and a design for mounting the appliance (approximately 945-pounds). [Initial comment: Clarify the design of the hot water system. Sheet P-1.0 shows two appliances labeled WH-1, an instantaneous water heater (199 MBH) and a storage water heater (75 MBH). (Note: the architectural backgrounds on sheet P-1.0 do not agree with the floor plans in the remainder of the document set.) Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018.] 7. The water and gas plan (1/P-1.0) shows WH-1 with a gas input of 199 MBH instead of 75 MBH. It also shows the ice machine (KE414) with a gas input of 95 MBH and the convection ovens (KE552B) with no gas supply. The total gas load is 410 MBH, not 569 MBH. [Initial comment: Coordinate the natural gas loads shown on sheets P-1.0 andP-2.0. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018.] |
| 08/12/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Coordinate the required maximum U-factors and Solar Heat Gain Coefficients (SHGC) for the fenestration and doors shown on the plans with the values used on the Envelope COMcheck. (You might also want to clarify the roof insulation shown on the plans: both continuous insulation and cavity insulation are shown.) [Initial comment: Specify the required maximum U-factors and Solar Heat Gain Coefficients (SHGC) for the fenestration and doors on the architectural drawings. Reference: Section C103.2, IECC 2018.] 2. Indicate the weights of the three mechanical units on the roof framing plan to guide the truss designers. [Initial comment: Provide structural calculations to verify that the roof framing is adequate to support the proposed mechanical units on the roof (e.g. point load as well as dead load). Provide structural details as required for any special framing revisions needed to support the units and frame the roof penetrations. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2018.] |
| 08/21/2019 | QJONES1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2019 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 08/21/2019 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/21/2019 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |