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 TI
Permit Number - T09CM03368
Review Name: COMMERCIAL TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET A0.3; EGRESS PLAN: PROVIDE THE EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCES ON THE DRAWING. VERIFY THESE DISTANCES MEET IBC SECTION 1016 REQUIREMENTS. 2. SHEET A0.4; EGRESS PLAN: PROVIDE THE EGRESS TRAVEL DISTANCES ON THE DRAWING. VERIFY THESE DISTANCES MEET IBC SECTION 1016 REQUIREMENTS. 3. SHEET A2.1; REFERENCE NOTES: INCLUDE ALL PERTINENT REFERENCE NOTES ON THE PLAN. 4. SHEET A4.9; DETAIL 10: THE STEEL ANGLE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BEAM IS REFERENCED TO STRUCTURAL, BUT NOT FOUND ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. CLARIFY. 5. SHEET A7.2; DETAIL 20: PER THE IBC, SECTION 1607.13, INTERIOR WALLS OVER 6' IN HEIGHT SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE STRENGTH TO RESIST A HORIZONTAL LOAD OF NOT LESS THAN 5 PSF. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS TO INDICATE THIS REQUIREMENT IS MET. 6. SHEET S1.1 (SECTION 6); SHEET S2.3 (ELEVATOR AREA): THE SECTION INDICATES THE TUBE SIZE IS NOTED ON THE PLAN, BUT NO SIZE WAS FOUND. CLARIFY. 7. SHEET S2.2; SHEET S3.1 (SECTIONS 1 AND 2): THE SECTIONS CUT ON THIS PLAN AT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT SHOULD BE REMOVED. 8. SHEET S2.2 (ELEVATOR AREA): PROVIDE A SECTION TO INDICATE HOW THE NEW ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORT COLUMN IS CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING FLOOR BEAM. 9. GENERAL: A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DRAWINGS NEED TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS MADE TO THE STOREFRONTS. THERE IS A LACK OF INFORMATION (MEMBER SIZES AND CONNECTIONS) ON THE ARCHITECTURAL SECTIONS. 10. GENERAL: ALL LETTERING MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT (SEE SHEETS A0.2, S2.1, S2.2, S2.3). 11. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 01/06/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SEE BUILDING COMMENTS. |
| 01/28/2010 | RICHARD JIROUDEK | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Plans denied for the following: 1.Provide complete fault current analysis per City of Tucson submittal requirements. Provide equipment ratings for panels, elevator equipment, Douglas Trak Pak Lighting Pnls. Include conductor lengths and contribution from motor loads. 2. Provide conductor sizes for elevator and RTAC-7. 3. Can not locate RTAC-3 & 4 on electric plans. This equipment is shown in mechanical schedule on sheet M2.0. 4. Circuit LP2-29 is shown being used on sheet E3.11 and shown as spare on panel schedule. 5. Sheet E1.1 has buss rating of LP1 Section 2 of 125a and being fed with 400a feed thru from lugs from Section 1. 6. Sheet E1.2 has wire size of 4 1/0 from CT cabinet to HP1 for 600 amp feed. NEC 240.4/310.15. 7. Sheet E1.2 Existing 600a disconnect switch shown to be fused at 60a. 8. Sheet E1.2 Equipment ground from CT cabinet to HP1 should be sized for 600a. NEC 250.122. 9. Sheet E1.2 shows conductor size from HP1 to T1 as 1/0 and being protected by 200a breaker. Size conductors properly. NEC 110.14/240.4/310.15 10. Sheet E1.2 Shows conductor size from HP1 to T2 as #6 and being protected from 100a Breaker. Size conductors properly. NEC 110.14/240.4/310.15 11. Sheet E1.2 Secondary tap conductors for T1 not sized properly, size per NEC 240.21(C). Bonding jumper size to be changed in accordance with phase conductor size change NEC 250.30(A)(2). 12. Please review entire Sheet E1.2. Rich Jiroudek Electric Plns Exmn 520-954-0161 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/04/2010 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/04/2010 | FFIGUER1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |