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 - T03CM02889
Review Name: COMMERCIAL TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/24/2003 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/30/2003 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/01/2003 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide calculations of heating and cooling loads to justify the 5-ton roof top air conditioner shown on detail 3/A1.2. Reference Section 703.2, IECC, 1998. 2. Provide size, material, route, and termination of condensate drain from air conditioner. |
| 07/14/2003 | RAUL PALMA | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | City of Tucson, Development Services BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL COMMENTS 1) Handicapped restrooms-Provide 12" clear at side of latch (lavatory not permitted in that space). 2) Is there an openning between the new dinning room and the existing structure? How wide is the openning? 3) a. What do the letters (h), (d) indicate? Shown on the foundation plan sht. A1.2. b. What do " " (g), (b), (f), and (a), represent? Shown on roof plan. 4) The calculations specify that the system used for lateral resistence is by rotation, however, per section 2305.2.5, this requires a rigid diaphragm and the dia- phragm shown is a flexible diaphragm. Unless it can be shown by sect. 2305.2 with computations that it meets all the requirements for a rigid diaphragm. |
| 07/18/2003 | Linda Buczynski | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1- MOCP for AC Unit is 35 per Sheet A1.2. Conflicts w/the 60/2 CB on Panel A Schedule. Note that the Mechanical Plans Examiner has entered a comment that there is a conflict regarding the size of the new A/C Unit, which is specified as 2 Ton and 5 Ton; they can't be both. Electrical may have to review this again if Mechanical has more changes. Also note that although two sets of plans have been submitted for review, they were sealed at different times and contain different information. Review pertains to the more recent set of the two. 2- For the Load Calculations, for the largest motor, it would seem that the largest new motor would be (2) (5356) = 10,712, from the Panel Schedule, yet it is 8640 here. Please clarify. 3- In the Load Calculations, 36,765/240 = 153.2 > 102.0 A. Please correct after addressing Comment #2 above. then address panel size. If this is has a 100A main, it will be overloaded. 4- 1998 IECC limits lighting energy to 1.7 W/SF, and your calculation demonstrates that you are using 1.94 w/SF. However, please note that according to Sheet T1.0, this addition is 629 SF, not 526. If so, then 1020/629 = 1.62 < 1.7, so it would pass. Please clarify. |
| 07/21/2003 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Site Plan approval required prior to building plan approval |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/23/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/22/2003 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |