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

Permit Number: T06CM06162
Parcel: 13621004E

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T06CM06162
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/24/2007 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
05/02/2007 LINHART PETERSEN POERS ASSOC. 2ND PARTY REVIEW REVIEW Denied May 2, 2007 CITY OF TUCSON- SECOND CHECK
Tucson Appl. No. T06CM06162
Bureau Veritas Job No. 01007-161001.001

Mr. Gordon Vernon
7500 E. Golf Links Road
Tucson, Arizona 85735


Re: Plan Review: Rincon Baptist Church- Structural Only Review
Address: 7500 E. Golf Links Road

Dear Mr. Vernon;

Bureau Veritas North America has completed a Second review of the following documents on behalf of the City of Tucson:


1. Plans: One (1) set of plans (46 sheets) dated March 15, 2005 by Antony C Tsang.

2. Structural Calculations: Two (2) sets of calculations, stamped by Bejun N. Anklesaria. Not dated.

4. Soils Report : One (1) copy dated March 2, 2005 by Oleg B. Lysyj.


These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the provisions of the 2003 International Building Codes (i.e., State of Arizona and Pima County amended 2003 IRC, 2003 IMC, 2002 NEC and 2003 IPC). Our comments follow on the attached list.

Please submit an itemized response letter and required number of complete and revised documents with all revisions clouded.




Sincerely;
Bureau Veritas



Randy McCoy
ICC Plans Examiner




RMC:sk

A. These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the provisions of the 2003 International Building Codes, 2003 International Residential codes, (i.e., State of Arizona and Pima County amended 2003 IRC, 2003 IMC, 2002 NEC and 2003 IPC).

B. Please respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check and hopefully, approval of this project. Thank you for your assistance.

C. These plan review comments are based on building code items only. If site-related comments are applicable to this project, they will be generated by others (e.g., City Engineering, Public Works, Health, etc.).





COMMENTS:


Provide a complete plan set. Sheets A000, A105, A109, A201, A301, A302, A303, A304, A401, A503 are noted on the index but are not provided in plan set. Sheet M502 is attached to plan set but not noted in Index.






END OF COMMENTS
05/04/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The maximum flow rates for plumbing fixtures shall be consistent with ARS Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 12. See text at: (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp). Reference Section 402.1, UPC 2003, as amended by the State of Arizona.
2. Clarify the design of the "electric drain system" shown in detail 9/P501. Reference Sections 103.2.3 and 703.0, UPC 2003.
3. Specify the device to be used to provide back-siphonage protection for the baptistery. Reference Section 407.1 and Table 6-2, UPC 2003.
4. Second request. "Waterless" urinals are not Code-compliant fixtures. Reference Sections 211.0, 406.2, 406.3, 601.1, and 1005.0, UPC 2003.
5. Provide upper terminal cleanouts on horizontal drainage pipes exceeding 5 feet in length (horizontal drain lines serving sinks and urinals require cleanouts regardless of length). (e.g. L-6 in room116, WC in room 117, and SS-1 in room 122) Reference Section 707.4, UPC 2003.
6. Provide a vent for each fixture trap. Reference Sections 901.0 and 910.1, UPC 2003. (e.g. rooms103, 104, and 105)
7. Second request. See also Tables D-1 and D-2, Appendix D, UPC 2003. The scupper width is too small to accommodate the design rainfall without exceeding a 2" depth of flow. Revise the scupper design or provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load. Reference Sections 1101.11.1 and 1101.11.2.4, UPC 2003, and Section 1611.1, IBC 2003.
8. Second request. The design of the scupper box (detail 2/A111) ensures that in the event of a downspout blockage, the secondary overflow will also be blocked until it reaches a depth greater than 6 inches. Revise the design as required to meet the requirements of Section 1101.11.2.3, UPC 2003.
05/04/2007 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to show the size and the location of the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 2003.
05/04/2007 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Second request. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). Reference Section 302.3, Uniform Administrative Code, 1997.
2. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include the R-values of the insulation. Reference Section 104.2, IECC 2003. (Note: Include all of the sheets shown on the sheet index with each submittal.)
3. Sign and seal the Compliance Statement for the energy conservation code calculations. Reference Arizona Revised Statutes 32-125, Board of Technical Registration Rules R4-30-304.
4. Revise the structural calculations to coordinate with units that are being installed to verify that the roof is capable of supporting the additional dead load due to the installation of the roof top units. Reference Section 302.1, IMC 2003.
5. Second request. Show how adequate access (i.e. walkways from the access hatch to the rooftop equipment) is being provided for the equipment located on the roof. Reference Section 306.5, IMC 2003.
6. Show that the roof drains being used to convey condensate terminate in an area capable or absorbing the condensate flow without surface drainage. Condensate drains may not terminate over a roof drain or gutter unless the roof drain or gutter terminates at or above grade in an area capable or absorbing the condensate flow without surface drainage. Reference Section 307.2.1, IMC 2003, as amended by the City of Tucson.
7. The provided documentation is insufficient to show that the proposed HVAC design will result in adequate indoor air quality. Provide ASHRAE 62.1-2004 calculations supporting the outside air quantities scheduled for each rooftop unit. Reference Sections 106.3.1 and 403.2 (as amended by the City of Tucson), IMC 2003 and Section 6.3, ASHRAE 62.1-2004.
05/10/2007 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. Baptistry Heater and Pump not documented on Plumbing and Mechanical Plans. This comment was made on the first submittal. Second submittal contained cut sheet information which requires a 15-A circuit breaker for the pump and a 30-A breaker for the heater. This does not correspond on the power provided according to Ckts LP1-33,36 and LP1-37. Cut sheet calls for 220V power for the heater and electrical powers at 208V. Coordinate with Plumbing and clarify.
2. Plumbing Sheet P501 calls for either a 5.5 KW or 11 KW heating system. Please identify actual power requirements.
3. Provide fault calculations. It appears that the AFC at Panels LP1, LPM1, and DR1 are 38,059A, 39,003A, and 26,739A, respectively, using current conductor sizes. This comment was made on the last submittal. On May 10, 2007, Electrical Plans Examiner spoke to Reid Allen and pointed out Tucson Electric Power Company's published fault current data on SR-510. It was agreed that Mr. Allen would contact the TEP developer for that area regarding the actual size and impedance of the transformer which will be installed at this site.
4. Demonstrate compliance with the Tucson Lighting Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/Tucson_Lighting_Code.pdf. This comment was made on the first submittal. Second submittal addressed provided a total of 234000 lumens. Lighting Code requires a schedule on the plans showing the calculations. See Section 8.1 #6. Shall itemize all exterior lighting on the site, including fixtures S3 and S3e on Sheet E111. Please note that full cutoff fixtures installed under canopies shall not be counted in the determination of total lumens for the site if their lighting distribution is full cutoff; if such is the case at this site, provide catalogue cut sheets for S3 and S3e.
5. If the total lumens per acre is greater than 100,000, add a note to the plans requiring a Special Inspection. Reference Tucson Lighting Code, Section 16.
6. Provide the ampere and fault current rating of the dimmer rack. A catalogue cut sheet would be appreciated. This comment was made on the first submittal On the second submittal the cut sheet was provided without clarification on the plans as to whether the DR12 Rack is specified with the "AX Auxiliary Rack with M option - Main Breaker". This may be important depending on the outcome of the final fault calculations referenced in Comment #3 above.
7. Provide electrical power for the Bi-Polar Ion Generators. Reference Sheet M001. This comment was made on the first submittal.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/14/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/14/2007 CINDY AGUILAR REJECT SHELF Completed