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: COMMERCIAL NEW
Permit Number - T08CM03258
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/06/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/06/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. 2. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS DURING SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS. 3. SHEET G2; CODE ANALYSIS DATA: CURRENT BUILDING CODE IS 2006 IBC. REVIEW AND REVISE DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 4. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEET S3.1 (FRAMING PLAN): THE BEAM DESIGNATED B1 ON THE DRAWINGS (6X10) COULD NOT BE LOCATED IN THE CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY. 5. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEET 4: LEDGERS L1 (AT EAST AND WEST WALLS) AND L2 (AT NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS) ARE NOT INDICATED ON THE KEYPLAN. LEDGER L2 DESIGN IS NOT SHOWN. VERIFY. 6. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEETS 19 AND 20: WALL W2 (2X4 AT 8" OC PER CALCULATION)IS NOT INDICATED ON THE KEYPLAN. THE ONLY WOOD WALL INDICATED ON DRAWING SHEET S2.1 IS W1 (2X4 @ 16" OC STAGGERED). CLARIFY. 7. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEETS 19 AND 20: WALL W3 (2X8 @ 16" OC) IS NOT INDICATED ON THE KEYPLAN. IT DOES APPEAR ON DRAWING SHEET S1.1, ROUGH CARPENTRY NOTE #8. WHERE DOES THIS OCCUR? 8. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHEETS 19 AND 25: FOOTING F3 (1'-4" CONT. X 12") IS NOT INDICATED ON THE KEYPLAN. CLARIFY. 9. SHEET S3.1; FRAMING PLAN: NOTE 3 INDICATES DETAIL 224 FOR THE TRELLIS FRAMING. CHANGE THAT TO 223? VERIFY. 10. GENERAL: DID NOT LOCATE TRELLIS CALCULATIONS. PROVIDE. 11. SHEET A0.2: DID NOT LOCATE LATTICE CALCULATIONS. PROVIDE. 12. SHEET A0.2; DETAIL 3: PROVIDE WELD SIZE AND LENGTHS. 13. SHEET A0.2; DETAIL 4: PROVIDE WELD SIZE AND LENGTHS. 14. SHEET A0.2; DETAIL 5: PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF THICKENED SLAB (DEPTH X LENGTH X WIDTH) AND INCLUDE REINFORCING AS REQUIRED. 15. SHEET A0.2; DETAIL 5: WITH A 4X4 COLUMN AND A 6X6 BASE PLATE, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CLEARANCE FOR THE ANCHOR BOLTS. MODIFY. EXPLAIN THE 6X6X1/4 CL. BASE BOLT? 16. SHEET A1: PROVIDE DRINKING FOUNTAINS AS REQUIRED BY THE 2006 IBC, TABLE 2902.1. 17. SHEET A6; ROOF PLAN: SHOULD THE REFERENCE TO THE ROOF HATCH BE 1 AND 2/A6.1? VERIFY. 18. SHEET A6; ROOF PLAN: SHOULD THE REFERENCE TO THE MECHANICAL WELL BE SHEET A6.1? VERIFY. 19. SHEET A7; SHEET S1.2: THE ARCHITECTURAL KEYNOTES 5, 6, 8, AND 34 INDICATE METAL STUDS IN THE WALLS, WHILE THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS INDICATE WOOD STUDS. REVIEW ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WALL TYPES AND COORDINATE THE STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. 20. SHEET A14; TYPICAL ACCESSORY MOUNTING HEIGHTS DETAIL: LOCATE THE VERTICAL GRAB BAR PER ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, FIGURE 604.5.1. |
| 04/07/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS. |
| 04/17/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/21/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations (for Pima County < 4,000 feet). Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. 2. If the building energy compliance is not in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1, the duct insulation shall be determined by Section 503.2.7, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: Section 501.2, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 04/21/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the relative location of the existing reduced pressure backflow preventer for building water service. If it is located immediately after the existing water meter, a second backflow preventer, located at the new building is not required but if two reduced pressure backflow preventers are installed in series, the pressure drops associated with them shall be included in the water calculations. Reference: Section 27-76, Article V, Chapter XXVII, Tucson Code and Section 610.2, UPC 2006. 2. Coordinate the design of the water service piping to the new building as noted on sheet UT-1. The civil drawing shows a 1-1/4" water service but keynotes 1 and 2 call for a 1" service. 3. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2395.86') is higher than the first floor elevation (2394.5'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. See also Section 904.1, UPC 2006. 4. Revise detail 205/P2.1 to show the valve configuration of the proposed hot water recirculation system. Reference: Section 103.2.3 and 605.5, UPC 2006. 5. Clarify the size of the roof drain and overflow drain leaders. Sheet A6.1 calls out 8" pipes but detail 1/A6.2 shows 3" pipes. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2003. 6. Revise the roof drainage calculations (A6.1) using the roof data from this activity and the correct code edition. Reference: Section 1106.0, UPC 2006. 7. Revise the termination of the secondary (overflow) rainwater leader so that it terminates above grade in a location observable by the building occupants or maintenance personnel. Reference: Section 1101.11.2.2.1, UPC 2006. |
| 04/21/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/23/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: 202 E Speedway Bl. School Classroom Addition , T08CM03258. Electrical plans denied for the following: 1. Commercial Submittal Requirements state that the total service load be indicated on the plans in addition to new load added. 2.Sheet E-6 shows fault current calc, I presume this is at the service, what will the figure be at Panel A?. 3.Water heater is not indicated on the power plan in the Jan Rm. Ray T Majuta Electrical Plan Check. DSD City of Tucson 520-837-4988 4/24/09 |
| 04/27/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/30/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/30/2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 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 site 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 site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/12/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/12/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |