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 - T05CM01898
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/10/2005 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | needs manhole tap permit |
| 05/18/2005 | CHRISTY FOREMAN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | CITY OF TUCSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STRUCTURAL REVIEW COMMENTS DATE: 5/25/05 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM01898 PROJECT NAME: SAN MIGUEL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT ADDRESS: 6601 S. San Fernando Rd. ARCHITECT / ENGINEER: aba Architects PROJECT REVIEWER: Christy Foreman TRANSMIT ORIGINAL DRAWINGS WITH NEXT SUBMITTAL. PLEASE CALL AT 791-5550 X1108 OR EMAIL AT CFOREMA1@CI.TUCSON.AZ.US IF YOU CARE TO DISCUSS. 1) 704.3 buildings on the same lot. Please provide imaginary lot line on site plan. 2) Per table 2902.1 - 3 water fountains required and it appears only 2 have been provided. 3) Please clarify / specify glazing on room finish schedule. 4) Structural calculations are not complete. Please note columns and footings on key plan, sht.19. 5) Section D8 /A401 rm 126 & rm 106 Classroom 1 and Assembly / Cafeteria. Please clarify floor plan Sht. A101 classroom 7 and classroom 1 & 2 . Also please clarify section D1 and floor plan A101. Class rooms or Assembly / Cafeteria? 6) Clarify calculation for W14 x 35 at canopy. 7) Clarify calculation for W18 x 71 upper roof framing. 8) Structural calculations key plan pg 19 masonry wall at column line 3A = MW1. Sht. S101 calls out W4. Please clarify. 9) Clarify wall finish per section 1210.2 for south partial walls next to urina & water closet in Mens / Womens toilet room. 10) Section 903.2.2 G201 - See City of Tucson amendments section 903.2.2 Group E - An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all group E occupancies. Clarify manual alarm per section 907.2.3. 11) Clarify section 1010.9 Edge protection for ramp at outdoor space. Clarify ramp surface per 1010.7.1. 12) Classroom 1 & 2 clarify location of 1011.3 tactile exit signs. 13) Clarify visible alarm notification per 904.4.2.1. |
| 05/18/2005 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/18/2005 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide a site plan to show the continuation of the building sewer noted on sheet P101. 2. Show the slope of the horizontal rainwater leaders and the overflow leaders. 3. Provide information to show that the two-way GCO complies with Sections 707.4(4) and 707.6, UPC 1994. 4. Neither the water pressure calculations nor the water velocity justifies the water supply sizes to the urinals. 5. Show the water piping to EC-1. Include the demand for the unit with the water calculations. 6. Clarify how WH-2 can be mounted no higher than 8'-0" AFF when the ceiling is 9'-8" AFF. No detail of the mounting platform is evident in the architectural drawings. |
| 05/19/2005 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 10 points. Replot sheets M101 and M201 to show all of the notes and details (i.e. Keynote 19/M101 and detail 5/M201). Reference Section 302.3, Uniform Administrative Code, 1997. 2. Coordinate the electrical requirements for the HPCU and fan coil units with the electrical engineer. 3. The occupant load used to calculate the required ventilation is not necessarily the same as the occupant load used for calculating exiting requirements. The occupant load used for calculating the minimum required ventilation is to be based on not less than the occupancy loads shown in Table 403.3, IMC 2000, or an approved engineering analysis of the specific occupancy type. Reference Section 403.3, IMC 2000. 4. The use of ASHRAE 62N rather than the IMC for calculating the required ventilation for the project requires a successful appeal to the Building Official. |
| 05/27/2005 | LINDA BUCZYNSKI | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | TRANSMIT ORIGINAL DRAWINGS WITH NEXT SUBMITTAL. PLEASE CALL AT 791-5550 X1106 OR EMAIL AT Linda.Buczynski@tucsonaz.gov IF YOU CARE TO DISCUSS. 1. City of Tucson just started enforcing the new Lighting Ordinance April 12, 2005, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/Tucson_Lighting_Code.pdf. Generally, plans sealed after that date are made to conform to this Ordinance. However, the Electrical Plans Examiner and Building Official concur that since Phase I would undoubtedly have been constructed before that date and since the present plans would have been advanced into design development before that date, there is no need to demonstrate such compliance at this Phase. 2. New pole-mounted lighting fixtures are on Circuits 16, 18, 20, and 22 per Sheet ES101. They are not on any of the panel schedules on Sheet E502. 3. Light Fixture Schedule for Fixture R1 refers us to Detail B on Sheet ES102. There is no such sheet this project. Could you mean Detail A Sheet ES 101? 4. Plumbing Sheet P301calls for Recirculation Pumps associated with the Water Heaters. This equipment does not appear to have electrical power for WH-2. 5. Keynotes 9 and 10 on Sheet E101 do not appear to have correspondence on plans. 6. Ckt 2C-26 has 3 courtyard receptacles. Please fill in load on panel schedule. 7. Ckt 2C-28 has rooftop receptacle. Please fill in load on panel schedule. 8. Keynote 4 on Sheet E101 is used twice on the plans. Could one be intended for Keynote 6, Panel 2B? 9. WH-2 is on a single-pole disconnect, is connected to line-to-line single-phase power at the panel (schedule), but plans call for Ckt 2A-35,37,39. Please clarify. 10. For the rooftop receptacle on 2B-33, please draw the common symbol for a receptacle. 11. No more than one branch circuit or feeder may to a Second Building or Structure per NEC 225.30. 12. Would like to see the fault calculations for the new panels. My cross-check comes with figures higher than 10,000A, but distances were given a conservative estimate. It is unclear from Note 4 Sheet E501 whether the intent is to series-rate the overcurrent protective devices in the new panels with the line-side fuses. If it can be demonstrated that the new panels will not see greater than 10,000A under fault conditions, this may not be necessary. |
| 06/03/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens FOR: David Rivera Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT:T05CM01898 San Migel Catholic High School Phase II Class Room Building Site/Building Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review 6/7/05 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. The covered area at the south west corner of the building was not part of the approved Development Plan. The detached accessory structure (ramada, porch, etc.) then falls under the requirements of the Land Use Code. LUC Sec. 3.2.5.3.B requires accessory structures shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, unless attached to a principal structure. If attached to the principal structure, maximum height permitted is the same as for the principal structure. FYI, the min. attachment requirement is a structure of at least six (6) feet in width and capable of carrying a twenty (20) pound per square foot load. The attachment or lowering the structure are options that are available in order to meet the requirements of the LUC. 2. The approved Development Plans, Landscape Plans, NPPO Plans, etc. must be physically attached to the building plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608 ext. 2000. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/07/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/07/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |