Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T07CM03741
Parcel: 14111365A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T07CM03741
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/16/2007 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/20/2007 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied REFERENCE COMMENT RESPONSE CORRESPONDANCE OF 11-5-07:
BUILDING COMMERICAL
1. 1/8" MIN FONT SIZE NOT CHANGED THROUGHOUT ENTIRE SET
2. TRUNCATED DOMES NOT ADDED AT DRIVE ENTRANCE ON NORTH PENSULA CURB RAMP
3. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR DETAIL S2/C4
4. WHAT ABOUT STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR DETAIL 6/C4 ALSO
11/30/2007 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). Reference Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006.
2. The proposed design for the drainage of the evaporative coolers violates the plumbing code. See plumbing comment #2. Provide a design for the drainage from the evaporative coolers. Reference Sections 106.3.1 and 304.1, IMC 2006.
11/30/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The cold water pipe branch serving the restrooms and the branch to the urinal are too small based on the submitted calculations. Revise as needed. Reference Section 610.0, UPC 2006.
2. The standpipe shown on the waste and vent diagram cannot be connected to the tailpiece of the sink as shown. Reference Sections 1001.2 and 1001.4, UPC 2006.
12/03/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T07CM03741
Building Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 3, 2007

1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal.

3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956

C:\planning\grading\t07cm03741.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
12/04/2007 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Show roof scupper location and sidewalk scupper design and location.

Remove Sheet C3 or place a note that makes it clear that nothing is to be constructed from the present Sheet C3. Including it as a reference sheet, in its present form, is unacceptable because of the great many errors that exist on this drawing.

Matt Flick, P.E.
Engineering Manager
Development Services Department
City of Tucson

Phone: (520) 837-4931
Fax: (520) 879-8010

Please visit our web site: www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd
12/07/2007 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. Please put the following note on the plans: "Special Inspection required per the Tucson Lighting Code, Section 16."
2. PP1-19, labeled as a dedicated circuit, has two such "dedicated" runs on the Electrical Power Plan.
3. Plumbing plans shall demonstrate that Water Heaters are cord-connected. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE REVIEW OF 10/2/07. Cut sheet diagram and photograph do not show a cord for this appliance.
4. Please provide a statement, coordinated with the Owner, about the intended activities. Given the presence of such items as the Band Saw, such statement will be used to determine whether this area shall be classified according to the requirements of NEC 500.5 (C). THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE REVIEW OF 10/2/07. Somehow this enclosure never made it into the current submittal.
5. AC-1 and AC-2 are specified as 3-phase on Sheet M1. Electrical provides single phase power. Please clarify. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE REVIEW OF 10/2/07. Mechanical specifications on Sheet M1 still call for 3-phase power. Electrical still provides single phase power. Coordinate with Mechanical and clarify.
6. Please provide overcurrent protection for the baseboard heaters.
7. Distances to Panels PP2, PP3, and PP5 appear to be longer than those indicated by fault calculations, resulting in values smaller than 22K in some cases. Please correct this to avoid the prospect that some contractor attempts the installation of 22K rated equipment. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE REVIEW OF 10/2/07. Distances for F2, F3, and F4 still scale out to be 5', 8' and 11' respectively, not 25', 40', and 55'. So available fault currents at Panels PP2, PP3, and PP5 come out to be 23,436A, 23,215A, and 22,999A respectively, not 22050, 21092, and 20232. This could tempt a contractor to install panels rated for 22K.
8. Please note that the series ratings of 65K/10K on Sheet E6 do not coordinate with the 25K ratings on the panel schedules. If these panels are fully rated for 25K there is no need to specify series ratings for any system components.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/14/2007 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/14/2007 GERARDO BONILLA REJECT SHELF Completed