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 - T10CM03018
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/04/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET S1 (GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES); SHEET S2 (DETAIL 102): GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTE 11 INDICATES CMU WALLS SHALL BE REINFORCED WITH #5 VERTICAL REINFORCING AT 48" O.C. MAXIMUM, WHILE DETAIL 102 (NOTE 3) INDICATES 8" MASONRY WALL WITH #5 VERTICALS AT 32" O.C., AND NOTE 11 INDICATES #4 DOWELS AT 48" O.C. IN THE WALL ABOVE GRADE. THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE #5 AT 32" O.C. CLARIFY AND COORDINATE. 2. SHEET S2; DETAIL 102 (NOTE 1): IF THIS NOTE IS REQUIRED, PROVIDE A TYPICAL DETAIL. 3. SHEET S2; DETAIL 101: THE DETAIL INDICATES THE HELICAL PIER IS TO EXTEND 10'-0" INTO THE SOIL, WHILE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INDICATES A MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH BELOW FINISHED GRADE OF 15 FEET (PAGE 5). CLARIFY. 4. SHEET S2; FOUNDATION KEYNOTES: MOVE NOTES 4 AND 5 OVER TO THE PLAN VIEW OF THE RAY TRACKER MODULE. 5. SHEET S2; FOUNDATION KEYNOTES: NOTE 4 INDICATES THERE ARE 6 HELICAL PIERS AT THE MODULES, WHILE THE PLAN VIEW OF THE RAY TRACKER MODULE INDICATES 5 LOCATIONS. CLARIFY. 6. SHEET S2; PLAN VIEW-TYPICAL RAY TRACKER MODULE: REVISE THE METRIC UNITS INDICATED TO U.S. STANDARDS. 7. SHEET S2; DETAIL 102 (NOTE 3): REVISE OR REMOVE NOTE (WALL INDICATED ONLY ON S2). 8. SHEET S2; FOUNDATION KEYNOTES: NOTE 4 INDICATES A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THE HELICAL PIER OF 8'-0" (PER MANUFACTURER), WHILE DETAIL 101/S2 INDICATES 10'-0" (PER MANUFACTURER), WHILE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INDICATES A MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH OF 15 FEET. CLARIFY AND COORDINATE. 9. SHEET S2 (DETAIL 102); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 22): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 3'-4" FOOTING WIDTH AT THE RETAINING WALL, WHILE THE DRAWING INDICATES A 2'-6" WIDE FOOTING. CLARIFY. 10. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 11/12/2010 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: John R. Calvert / President and CEO, Cal Energy Group SUBJECT: Plaza Del Sol Solar Array Plan Review ADDRESS: 1655 W Ajo Wy LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Sections 34/35 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. FLOODPLAIN STATUS: FIRM Panel: 040076 2236K (effective date 2/8/99), SFHA zone: AE. ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T10CM03018 SUMMARY: PDSD Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Package plan set submittal, and does not recommend approval of the plan review applications until the special exception process is completed. If you have any questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 11/17/2010 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Project: T10CM03018 1655 W Ajo Wy, New Photo Voltaic System The electrical plans have been denied for the following, please review and address individually All refernces are to the 2005 NEC and Amendmt's, 1. Provide information sheet on new Electrical Switching Cubicle, 4160/2400 V , "match existing" insufficient. 2. Identify conductors going from Existing Cubicle to New . 3. Provide a detail of how New Cubicle is to be installed, (concrete pad?), show clearances as required by code, is equipment accessible to traffic regarding physical protection. 4. New Cubicle becomes Main Service, provide grounding detail, note on sheet that grounding system of existing Cubicle is to have neutral and equipment ground connection removed. 5. What is the voltage drop on the conductors from new Cubicle to new 500 KVA transformer ? 6. Two grounds shown on 500 KVA transformer, would this be to two grd rods, if so they would need to be tied together. 7. Provide elevation detail of new PV Service, is any of this equipment accessible to traffic? 8. New PV Service (1000 A,277/480V) requires a grounding system, provide detail and size. 9. Provide a fault current calculation beginning at New Service Cubicle and on through to all electrical equipment until reduced to 10,000 AIC. 10. Note 3 sheet E1.1 states on plan "New Electrical Cubicle 4160VAC 3ph, this should be 227/480V since on secondary side of 500 KVA transformer. 11. Provide information sheet on new 1000A 277/480V service. 12. Describe type of fusing and or circuit breakers in comparison to FC. 13. Provide information sheet on Inverter, Combiner Boxes and modules. 14. Have modules been adjusted for voltage per NEC 690.7? 15. Provide current levels at following points, a. New Service Cubicle, b. 500 KVA transformer, primary and secondary, c. Primary at new 1000A 277/480 V service, e. Inverter AC and DC terminals, f. Combiner Boxes, 16. Under the Wire Schedule on Sheet E1.1, "C" conductors at 500mcm good for 380a appears too low ? 17. Under the Wire Schedule on Sheet E1.1, "B" conductors good for 230a appears too low? 18. All exposed conductors to be rated for use outdoors? Have all conductors been adjusted on ampacity for temperature as per 310.16? 19. The new 1000A PV Service rated at 1000A is required to meet NEC 2005 230.95, Performance Testing (GF) protected, Written record of this test to be available to Inspector once tested, note on plan. 20. All warning signs per 690 to be installed , these include the following---- 690.14.C,690.17,690.53,690.54, 690.64.B.5, if notes in your plans do not include these, please do so. Ray T Majuta, Elect Pln CK, PDSD,City of Tucson, 11/17/10, Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/18/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 11/19/2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/10/2010 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/10/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |