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
Permit Number - T10CM02172
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/22/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Verify the specifications for the existing rooftop unit; the packaged A/C unit schedule shows RTU-3 as a 6-ton unit but the mechanical key notes on sheet M-1.0 states that RTU-3 is a 5-ton unit. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 2. Comment not addressed. Clarify the flow rate for exhaust fan EF-3, it is scheduled for 450 CFM but the mechanical plans call for 500 CFM of exhaust. Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 403.3, IMC 2006. 3. The structural calculations showing how the Type I hood is to be supported from the building structure are acceptable and the attachment detail will also be acceptable once it is added to the drawing set. The Rod Connection detail on sheet M-3.0 is still not applicable because the existing building does not have steel joists or steel beams. See also detail 3/A-1.2 which erroneously allows for the use of wood studs in the wall adjacent to the hood. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 4. The Mechanical Specifications on sheet M-2.0 have been revised to call for 18-gauge stainless steel for the grease exhaust duct but the details on sheet M-3.0 still call out galvanized steel for the grease exhaust duct. Reference: Section 105.3, IMC 2006 and Section 1704.1.1, IBC 2006. 5. Comment not resolved. Provide information to show that the wall assembly of the walk-in cooler is non-combustible. Reference: Section 202, IMC 2006 (Combustible Assembly). |
| 09/23/2010 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: T10CM02172 The Electrical Rebuttal Sheet indicates that the IECC Lighting Budget Calculations are added with this set, I have reviewed both sets of plans and independent materials and do not find them. Ray T Majuta, Elect Pln Ck, PDSD, City of Tucson, 9/23/10 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/23/2010 | SREEVES1 | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | needs 5th floor credit evaluation need capcity evaluation-Kurt Stemm-740-6607- 3rd floor |
| 09/23/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The civil drawing provided with this submittal along with the revised shell plumbing drawing clearly show that the plumbing site plan on sheet P-0.1 does not reflect what is happening with this activity. Revise the plan appropriately (especially the part where the gravity grease interceptor drains to the water service pipe). Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. Coordinate the natural gas piping design; the load for the fryers (21E) is 122 MBH according to the kitchen equipment schedule (K-1.0), not 110 MBH as shown on the plumbing drawings. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 3. Coordinate the waste and vent design. The waste and vent floor plan does not agree with the waste and vent riser diagram for fixture and pipe sizes, and the type of waste system (i.e. sanitary waste or grease waste) Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 4. Revise the detail of the "Ariston GL6" water heater installation (1/P-3.0), to include the vacuum relief valve. (A vacuum relief valve is not the same as a temperature and pressure relief valve; both are required) Reference: Sections 103.2.3, 605.5, 608.3, and 608.7 UPC 2006. 5. Revise the gravity grease interceptor calculations using Table 10-3, UPC 2006. Reference: Section 1014.3.6, UPC 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/29/2010 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/29/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |