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 - T08CM01058
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/21/2008 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Building Official appeal for use of 3/32" size lettering must be submitted with drawings. 2. Toilet plan have insufficient dimensions and several are referenced to other sheets. Please provide all required dimensions on the large scale toilet floor plans. 3. Dimension shown for toilet distance from wall of 1'-0" is incorrect. Must be 16" to 18". 4. Details 17/A3-1 and 3/S-7 are not coordinated as requested. Please insure details are the same. 5. Provide structural calculations for all light standard foundations. |
| 07/21/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/21/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please include the following design criteria to the plans. 1. Flow data (static pressure, residual pressure, GPM) Available from the Fire Department (520) 791-3234 2. The hazard classification of the building, including any special hazards. 3. The density required of the water supply. These notes must be provided by the architect or engineer of record on the cover sheet. |
| 07/25/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/25/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 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 note added to sheet P-2 regarding the slope of the building waste and grease waste is correct for the 4" waste pipes only. Pipes smaller than 4" shall have a minimum slope of ΒΌ" per foot. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Comment not resolved. The design of the water heater piping (detail 16/P-3), with valves located between the water heaters and the expansion tank, makes it impossible for the expansion tank to accommodate the thermal expansion of the water in the water heaters, as intended by Section 608.3, UPC 2006. 4. Provide the sizing calculations for the thermal expansion tank serving the two main water heaters (WH-1). Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 5. Water heater WH-2 requires both a vacuum breaker and a shutoff valve on the cold water inlet. Reference: Sections 605.5 and 608.7, UPC 2006. 6. With the exception of general note #14 on sheet P-1 and the floor cleanouts, upper terminal cleanouts for many horizontal drainage pipes exceeding 5 feet in length are not evident on either the plumbing floor plan or the waste and vent schematic. Reference: Section 707.4, UPC 2006. |
| 07/28/2008 | 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). (A 3/32" font may be allowed with an appeal to the building official.) Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. The design of the condensate trap shown in detail 12/P-3 is completely incorrect if the RTU does not have an internal trap. The vent for the trap should be located downstream of the trap because the trap is used to accommodate the pressure difference between the inside of the RTU and the ambient atmosphere. Show that the roof top heat pumps are being installed in accordance with the conditions of its listing and the manufacturer's installation requirements with respect to the design of the condensate drain traps (detail 12/P-3). Reference: Section 304.1, IMC 2006. 3. The provided calculations do not include the basis for determining the populations of the individual spaces and the amount of ventilation air needed for each space. See Section 403.3 and Table 403.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Provide calculations demonstrating adequate ventilation. Reference: Section 401.2, IMC 2006. 4. The provided sequence of operation shows how the rooftop units are to be operated but the restroom exhaust fans are still show as operating only when the restroom lights are on. If the supply air operates continuously while the building is occupied but the exhaust fans are operating only when the lights are on, then 100% of the air supplied to the restroom will be recirculated when the exhaust fan is turned off. Provide information on the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust to show that recirculation of the air from the restroom will not occur. Reference: Section 403.2.1, IMC 2006. 5. The structural calculations for the 2"x6" sub-purlins do not include provision for point loads and, according to the calculation program, the wrong database has been used to establish the properties of the sub- purlins. Provide structural calculations and details to show that the Type II hood is supported from the building structure in accordance with Section 507.6, IMC 2006. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 6. If several rooftop units are being used to provide the makeup air for the exhaust hood, they shall be electrically interlocked to insure their operation when the exhaust fan is operating. Reference: Sections 403.3 and 508.1 IMC 2006. |
| 07/31/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | NEED MANHOLE TAP PERMIT PER UTILITY PLAN C4 FROM PCRWRD- PIONEER BLD- 100 N STONE AV- 617-8228 |
| 08/04/2008 | 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. Pole and foundation detail and calculations shall be designed and sealed by a Registered Structural Engineer. Coordinate with Structural Plans Examiner for deferred submittal. PREVIOUS COMMENT. 2. 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. NO RECORD OF SUCH APPEAL. IN ANY CASE, THERE ARE LEGIBILITY ISSUES. FOR EXAMPLE, FIXTURE U IS BARELY DISCERNABLE ON SHEET E1. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR REVIEW, AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. IF YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT THIS APPEAL WILL BE APPROVED, PLEASE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE THE PLANS FOR SUCH LEGIBILITY ISSUES, TYPICAL, ALL SHEETS. 3. Add Fixture U to Tucson Lighting Code calculations. PREVIOUS COMMENT. Fixture U has been identified as a shielded fixture on the Lighting Code compliance calculation on Sheet (untitled), but is specified as up-lighting on the Lighting Fixture Schedule Sheet E2. The ground-mounting configuration as described in Keyed Note 8 Sheet E1 would have it that such fixtures be oriented in an uplighting configuration. Please clarify. Landscape lighting does not get an exemption from lumen counts, regardless of the times of operation. 4. Please add the following note to the plans, preferably on the Photometric Plan: "Special Inspection required per Tucson Lighting Code, Section 16." 5. Provide cut sheets for all exterior lighting. PREVIOUS COMMENT. Please clarify which fixtures are which on the lighting cut sheet submittals. 6. After consideration of 25% for continuous loads, the feeder to Panel B appears to be overloaded at aprox. 177A. PREVIOUS COMMENT. It appears that this panel is still overloaded. For example, when 1.25% is multiplied by the continuous loads, the total KVA on Phase B is 210A. |
| 08/12/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/18/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 08/18/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/18/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |