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 - T09CM02434
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/10/2009 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/11/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/11/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | This is a City of Tucson Owned and operated property. All accessibility requirements are to be as per ADAAG 1994 Edition. Reference the ADA folder for accessibility comments. |
| 09/14/2009 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET S2.03 (LOW ROOF FRAMING PLAN); SHEET S6.02 (SECTION 5): THE SECTION CUT 5/S6.02 ON THE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE SECTION. CLARIFY. 2. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE BEAM SOUTH OF GRID 107 AND EAST OF GRID C.e IS UNMARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 568). REVISE. 3. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE BEAM CROSSING GRID 108 AND CROSSING GRID B.e IS INCORRECTLY MARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 525). THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W14X22, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A W12X16. CLARIFY. 4. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE SHORT BEAM NORTH OF GRID 108 AND CROSSING GRID B.e IS UNMARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 563). REVISE. 5. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE SHORT BEAM SOUTH OF GRID 107 AND EAST OF GRID B.e IS UNMARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 496). REVISE. 6. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE DIAGONAL BEAM ON GRID 101 AND WEST OF GRID A.3e IS INCORRECTLY MARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 34). THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W12X14, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A W10X12. CLARIFY. 7. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE BEAM WEST OF GRID A.3e AND CROSSING GRID 108 IS INCORRECTLY MARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 523). THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W18X71, WHILE THE PLANS INDICATE A W18X50. CLARIFY. 8. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE BEAM NORTH OF GRID 101 AND WEST OF GRID A.3e IS INCORRECTLY MARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 185). THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W12X14, WHILE THE PLANS INDICATE A W10X12. CLARIFY. 9. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE BEAM ON GRID 101 AND CROSSING GRID A.3e IS INCORRECTLY MARKED (CALCULATION BEAM 41). THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W12X14, WHILE THE PLANS INDICATE A W10X12. CLARIFY. 10. SHEET S2.04; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE BEAM SOUTH OF GRID 18.2e AND EAST OF GRID B.e (CALCULATION BEAM 554) SHOULD EXTEND ON THE PLAN TO THE W12X14 BEAM TO THE WEST (CALCULATION BEAM 378). VERIFY. 11. SHEETS S6.01 AND S6.02; TYPICAL STEEL CONNECTION DETAILS: WHERE ARE THE TYPICAL STEEL CONNECTION TYPES AND DETAILS LOCATED ON THE DRAWINGS? PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCE. 12. CALCULATION PAGES 105 AND 126; BEAM 551: THE BEAM IS CALCULATED ON PAGE 126 AS A W12X14, BUT COULD NOT FIND THIS BEAM ON PAGE 105. VERIFY. 13. CALCULATION PAGES 109 AND 126; SHEET S2.03: THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W14X22 (CALCULATION BEAM 30), WHILE THE FRAMING PLAN INDICATES A W12X16. CLARIFY. 14. CALCULATION PAGES 109 AND 126; SHEET S2.03: THE CALCULATIOLNS INDICATE A W12X26 (CALCULATION BEAM 66), WHILE THE FRAMING PLAN DOES NOT INDICATE A BEAM. CLARIFY. 15. CALCULATION PAGES 117 AND 127; SHEET S2.02: THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A W8X10 (CALCULATION BEAM 108), WHILE THE FRAMING PLAN DOES NOT INDICATE A BEAM. CLARIFY. 16. CALCULATION PAGES 138 AND 139: THE BASE PLATE DESIGN IN THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE 14" HSS COLUMNS IS BASED ON 10" TUBE COLUMNS. VERIFY THE BASE PLATE DESIGN IS ACCEPTABLE. 17. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 09/14/2009 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/14/2009 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Passed | |
| 09/15/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the sizing of the natural gas piping serving RAHU-1 and RAHU-2 using Table 12-9 instead of Table 12-31 (undiluted propane). Reference: Section 1216.1, UPC 2006. 2. Revise detail 14/P4.1 to include all of the sizes for the new pipe sections. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 09/15/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 3/32-inch. Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. Show the size of the duct serving room 105 Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 3. Clarify how the ceiling diffuser located in room 105 is connected to RAHU-1; the drawings don't appear to show a duct running vertically to connect it to the unit. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 4. Provide smoke detectors in the return air duct, upstream of any outside air connections, for RAHU-1. Reference: Section 606.1, IMC 2006. |
| 09/15/2009 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | may not be approved until the development plan is approved. |
| 09/15/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/15/2009 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/16/2009 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The plans will be reviewed for consistency with the development plan once the development plan has been approved. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2009 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/01/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |