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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T08CM00837
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/28/2008 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | HAMPTON INN T08CM00837 SECOND REVIEW COMMENTS 1. COMMENT 31 FROM THE FIRST REVIEW IS NOT RESOLVED. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS INDICATE A CHASE ON THE WEST WALL OF THE LAUNDRY/LINEN ROOM WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE STRUCTURAL FRAMING PLANS. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT. 2. COMMENTS 36 AND 37 FROM THE FIRST REVIEW HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED AS INDICATED. VERIFY. 3. COMMENT 41 FROM THE FIRST REVIEW HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. 1/8" LETTERING ON ALL DRAWINGS IS REQUIRED UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. |
| 06/04/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not addressed; the backflow prevention assembly is shown as being inside room 130 on sheet P2.1. Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water. Reference: COT Ordinance 9976, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/docs/backflow-ord.pdf Note: Tucson Water will allow the use of a 3" water meter for demands up to 350 GPM. Contact Bill Tilghman at Tucson Water (520-791-5080 x 1287) for additional information regarding new services. |
| 06/05/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. There is no record of an appeal to the building official having been submitted for this activity. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). (A 3/32" font may be allowed with an appeal to the building official.) Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. The submitted cut sheet for the Sloan mechanical mixing valve (model MIX-60-A) indicates that it is not designed to control the water temperature to 110 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Show how the temperature of the hot water supply to the public lavatories (L-3 and L-4) is controlled. Reference: Section 413.1, UPC 2006 and Section 504.3, IECC 2006. 3. The revised fixture schedule indicates that BT-2 and SH-2 still do not conform to the requirements of ASSE 1016. Provide information to show that the shower and tub/shower control valves conform to the requirements of ASSE 1016. Reference: Section 418.0, UPC 2006. 4. Provide the discharge flow of the commercial clothes washers (GPM). Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 702.0, UPC 2006. 5. Comment not resolved. General note G5 on sheets P1.1, P1.2, and P1.3 is not an issue; see the waste calculations on sheet P3.0. The minimum acceptable slope for waste piping smaller than 4" is ΒΌ" per foot (see P3.0). Reference Section 708.0, UPC 2006. 6. Neither the Watts model 009-QT-S (RPBP-1) nor the Watts model 909-OSY-S (BFP-1) is a double check valve backflow preventer; they are reduced pressure principle backflow assemblies (RP). Reference Section 603.2, UPC 2006. 7. An isolated water heater is not necessarily an un-fired water heater. Note also that WH-5 is not part of the manifold assembly but a shut off valve is still located between the expansion tank and the water storage tank. The design of the water heater piping, with valves located between the water heaters and the expansion tanks, makes it impossible for the expansion tank to accommodate the thermal expansion of the water in the water heater, as intended by Section 608.3, UPC 2006 (detail8/P4.0). 8. Revise the gas piping schematic (detail 7/P4.0) to coordinate with the changes that have been made to the scheduled gas load. 9. The provided sizing calculations for the thermal expansion tanks indicate that the specified thermal expansion tanks are incorrectly sized. Correcting the calculations for WH-5 to have a final temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit indicates that the specified Taco PAX-30 has an insufficient total volume. Without changes to the specified conditions, the total volume of the Taco PAX-84 expansion tank for water heaters WH-1 through WH-4 is also insufficient. 10. The support intervals shown on in detail 10/P4.0 are fine for use with threaded steel pipe but the chart does not indicate for which material it is intended. Show how the pipe support intervals noted in detail 10/ P4.0 comply with the requirements of Section 314.0, UPC 2006. 11. Sheets P1.1, P1.2, and P1.3 were revised to comply with the requirements of Table 11-1, UPC 2006 but sheet P1.4 was not revised. The RD-1 and OD-1 entries on the plumbing fixture schedule on sheet P3.0 should also be revised to coordinate with the revised drain sizes. 12. Comment not resolved; no documentation provided. Show the minimum dimensions for connection of vertical to horizontal drainage pipes requiring suds relief. Reference: Section 711.0, UPC 2006. |
| 06/06/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. There is no record of an appeal to the building official being submitted for this activity. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 1/8-inch (all upper case). (A 3/32" font may be allowed with an appeal to the building official.) Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. Comment not addressed. 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 (see keynote #1, P1.4). Similarly, other condensate drains (e.g. PTAC units) terminating at grade shall be in an area capable or absorbing the condensate flow without surface drainage. Reference: Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 06/09/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Hampton Inn and Suites T08CM00837 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 9, 2008 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. 2. Zoning acknowledges that the building plan as submitted is in compliance with the provided approved development plan. 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\t08cm0837.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/18/2008 | LINDA BUCZYNSKI | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | TRANSMIT ORIGINAL DRAWINGS WITH NEXT SUBMITTAL. PLEASE CALL AT 520.837.4907 OR EMAIL AT Linda.Buczynski@tucsonaz.gov IF YOU CARE TO DISCUSS. 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. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 4/14/08. 2. For all poles greater than 30' in height, that pole and its foundation shall have a detail and calculations prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. 3. Demonstrate compliance with the Tucson Lighting Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/Tucson_Lighting_Code.pdf. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 4/14/08. Account for the unshielded fixtures, those being Floodlights FL and FL1. Option 2 on Table 5.1 may not be used for this site. 4. Provide disconnecting means for EFs 8, 10, and 18 on Sheet E2.1L. EF-16 on Sheet E2.2L. EF-17 on E2.3L. EF1-EF-4 on E2.4. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 4/14/08. 5. On Sheet E2.1P, Keynote 5 indicates irrigation controller for load on Ckt 1A-4. This circuit powers Unit 100 on the panel schedule. Please clarify. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 4/14/08. 6. Apply date to seal on plans. Sheet E2.4. 7. Mechanical calls for maximum fuse sizes for the CU units. Specify such fuse sizes on Sheet E2.4. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 4/14/08. 8. For the BP-1 feeders, please change the #8G to a #6. Reference NEC Table 250.66. Aluminum feeder rechecked, this submittal. 9. Provide size of Main Bonding Jumper. Size per NEC 250.28 (D). THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 4/14/08. With 9-500KCMIL parallel service entrance conductors, the MBJ would be sized at (9) (500) (0.125) = 562.5, or a minimum of 600KCMIL. NEC 250.28 (D). |
| 06/23/2008 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Only one set of the plans was signed by architect. Engineering can approve building plan once both plans have a signed seal. |
| 06/23/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | building plumbing plans Do not match with site sewer development |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/23/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/23/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |