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 - TI ALL
Permit Number - T10CM00252
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire Comments: The following fire sprinkler design criteria must be on the sealed plans. 1. The hazard classification of the building, including any special hazards. Please check the hazard class. How are tires stored per NFPA 13 Chapt 12. 2. The density required of the water supply. The fuel tanks need a separate permit. Include a site plan, equipment plan and all material and tank submittals. It should be a deferred submittal. |
| 03/17/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Sun Tran Expansion T10CM00251, T10CM00252, T10CM00253 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 17, 2010 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning has reviewed the building plans and it appears they match the development package. Until the development package has been approved Zoning cannot approve the building plans. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped Development Package. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 03/18/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/18/2010 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2010 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | See comments for Activity # T10CM00251, Ray T Majuta PDSD, City of Tucson 3/29/10 |
| 03/30/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/30/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Replot sheets P1.5.1EXW, P1.5.1EXE, P1.5.1E, P1.5.1W, P1.5.2W, P1.5.2E, P1.5.3W, P1.5.3E, P5.01, and P5.02: the sheets are illegible. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. Coordinate the natural gas piping design: the high pressure pipe branch to regulator #1 is shown as both ¾" (P1.5.1W and P5.02) and as 1"on sheet P5.01. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 1217.0, UPC 2006. 3. The natural gas calculations shown on sheet P0.01 indicate a developed length of 700 feet was used to size the 5 PSI NG line but the gas schematic on sheet P5.02 appears to show a developed length greater than 700 feet. Which is correct? Reference: Sections 1202.0 and 1209.4, UPC 2006. 4. Comment not resolved; 15 PSI minimum water pressure is adequate provided the installed fixtures do not require a minimum pressure greater than 15 PSI. Revise the water pressure calculations to include the minimum residual water pressure. Note that the specified tankless water heater requires a minimum residual pressure of 25 PSI and the specified emergency shower requires a minimum pressure of 30 PSI to operate properly. Note also that the pressure drop due to the water meters and the reduced pressure backflow preventer has not been included in the calculations. Reference: Sections 608.1, 610.1 and 610.2, UPC 2006. 5. Comment not addressed. The branch piping sizes called out for the flush valves (P-1 and P-2) will result in water velocities greater than 8 FPS. Limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for the copper piping. Reference: Sections 610.1 and A 6.1, UPC 2006 and IS 3-2003, Section 2.6. 6. Comment not addressed. Provide a description of CP-1 and show how it complies with the requirements of Section 805.0, UPC 2006. 7. Comment not resolved. Coordinate the design of the building sanitary sewer and the WP Oil piping; the design shown on CU101 and the plumbing floor plans (P1.5.1W, P1.5.1E) are very different. Provide a design for an appropriate interceptor for the oily or flammable wastes. 8. Comment not resolved. If the size of the scuppers and the conductor overflow openings shown on detail 13/A8.5.1 are correct, many of the scuppers and the conductor overflow openings are too narrow (the scupper height and downspout size shown in the detail are not an issue). See the sizing criteria in Section 1101.11.2.1, UPC 2006. Reference: Section 1101.11, UPC 2006. |
| 03/31/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The majority of the mechanical drawings are illegible due to the bold font and the line weights used, replot them. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IBC 2006. 2. Revise the submitted energy code analysis, coordinating the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing. The submitted energy analysis is missing most of the windows, nine of the doors (most of the roll-up door areas do not match the plans), and all of the skylights. The three wall types noted in the plans include credit for continuous insulation but none of the drawings appear to support this claim. Specify either on the plans or in the specifications the U-values of the doors, windows, and skylights and the SHGC of the glazed doors (50% or more glazing), windows, and skylights. Reference: Section 101.5, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. Revise the mechanical energy code analysis to reflect the actual equipment used in the building (e.g. the project does not include a gas-fired instantaneous water heater with a circulation pump). Reference: Section 101.5, IECC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |