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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/01/2008 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/03/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Hampton Inn and Suites T08CM00837 Building Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 3, 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 development plan. The provided development plan is not a copy of the stamped approved plan. Provide copies of the stamped approved development plan with you next 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\t08cm0837.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 07/08/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. THE ISSUE CONCERNING THE 1/8" LETTERING HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED A REQUEST(S) TO APPEAL THE FONT SIZE TO OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS, HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED AN APPROVAL LETTER TO YOU. MR. SANDERS IS THE ONE SOURCE THAT CAN APPROVE THAT ISSUE. |
| 07/15/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/16/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 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. |
| 07/16/2008 | 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. 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 prevention assemblies (RP). Please refer to them by their proper name to avoid confusion in the field. Reference Section 603.2.7, UPC 2006. 3. The provided sizing calculations for the thermal expansion tanks (Watts Water Expansion Tank Sizing software) indicate that the specified thermal expansion tanks are incorrectly sized. Per the calculation software, "Note: Both the Tank Volume and the Acceptance Volume must be greater than the calculated volumes as indicated." For WH-5, a total volume of at least 14.14 gallons is required; the Taco PAX-30 has a total volume of only 8 gallons. For WH-1, -2, -3, -4, a total volume of at least 29.95 gallons is required; the Taco PAX-84 has a total volume of only 22 gallons. 4. The support intervals shown 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. |
| 07/23/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | building plumbing plans Do not match with site sewer development |
| 07/24/2008 | 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 SUBMITTALS OF 4/14/08 AND 6/13/08. 2. Demonstrate compliance with the Tucson Lighting Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/Tucson_Lighting_Code.pdf. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTALS OF 4/14/08 AND 6/13/08. Account for the unshielded fixtures, those being Floodlights FL and FL1. Option 2 on Table 5.1 may not be used for this site. 3. 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 SUBMITTALS OF 4/14/08 AND 6/13/08. 4. 6. Apply date to seal on plans. Sheet E2.4. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTAL OF 6/13/08. TYPICAL. INDICATE EXP. DATE. 5. Mechanical calls for maximum fuse sizes for the CU units. Specify such fuse sizes on Sheet E2.4. THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTALS OF 4/14/08 AND 6/13/08. 6. For the BP-1 feeders, please change the #8G to a #6. Reference NEC Table 250.122. Aluminum feeder rechecked, previous submittal. 7. Provide size of Main Bonding Jumper. Size per NEC 250.28 (D). THIS COMMENT WAS MADE ON THE SUBMITTALS OF 4/14/08 AND 6/13/08. 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). |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/28/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/28/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |