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 Number: T09CM01660
Parcel: 12213210B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL NEW

Permit Number - T09CM01660
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/30/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
06/30/2009 MATT FLICK ZONING REVIEW Approved Bldg. dim. as per approved tp/dp (S09-026).
06/30/2009 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
07/01/2009 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Approved
07/08/2009 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
07/08/2009 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope (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.
3. Clarify how the outside air quantity totals for HP-2 through HP-5 were determined. Further, the use of ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 for ventilation calculations for multiple-zone systems supplied by a single air handler requires the use of the calculations covered by Section 6.2.5, ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 to determine the design outdoor air intake.
07/09/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The specified drinking fountain does not meet the accessibility requirements as shown in Section 1109.5, IBC 2006.
2. Coordinate the location of the building sewer with the civil drawings. The presence of manholes in the private sewage system for this project mandates a review by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. The design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson (this permit is separate from the building permit). Reference: A.R.S. 49-104 (B) (13). Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
3. Clarify how the lab sinks (P-5), the exam sinks (P-3) not covered by the riser diagrams on sheet P2.0, the mop sink (P-6), and the clothes washer (P-7) are vented. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 901.0, UPC 2006.
4. The scupper width appears to be too short to accommodate the design rainfall without exceeding a 2" depth of flow. Provide calculations to support the scupper design or provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load. Reference: Sections 1101.11.1 and 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006, and Section 1611.1, IBC 2006.
07/13/2009 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
07/15/2009 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Project: 3915 E Lee St, T09CM01660

New Building,Medical Office.


The Electrical Plans have been denied for the following:

1. Please indicate on the plans that the wiring serving the patient care areas to be per 2005 NEC 517-13.
2. Please show the connection between the two grounding systems on the services per 2005 NEC 250-58.
3. The Available Fault Current at the TEP delivery point is shown at 75,100 amps for a 600 amp service, the TEP SR book shows 55,00 amps. The fault current shown on the plans is very close to the numbers you show, curious as to why the 75,100 a figure used?

Ray T Majuta
Elect Plan Ck
City of Tucson
7/16/09

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/17/2009 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed