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 - T11CM00617
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/05/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/08/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need to build public sewer- need public sewer construction permit - need hold harmless letter - connecting with 1-8" private hcs to newly constructred public on-site manhole - need DEQ review & approval of on-site private sewer (if over 3000 gal/day). need PCRWRD 3rd floor capcity review- Chad Amateau- 740-6547 |
| 04/13/2011 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide an approved site plan 2. There appears to be more special inspections required than of those provided on the special inspecial certification submitted with this second review submittal package. Please have the structural engineer review the inspections list shown in the Conditions Menu of the permit application and provide a written statement of those not required and certifications for those additional inspections deemed necessary. 3. PREVIOUS COMMENT 9: THE FOUNDATION PLAN ON S2.0 STILL INDICATES THE COLUMN AT THE ENTRANCE CANOPY IS A C4, AND THE COLUMN SCHEDULE ON SHEET S1.5 INDICATES C4 IS A HSS3X3X 3/16, WHILE THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS INDICATE A HSS3X3X 3/8. REVISE. 4. NEW COMMENT; SHEET S2.7: PROVIDE THE TOP OF STEEL ELEVATION FOR THE SUPPORT FRAMING OF THE SOLAR PANELS. 5. PREVIOUS COMMENT 17: THE CALCULATION SHEET 26 INDICATES BEAM B3 (B10 ON THE PLAN) IS A W8X15, WHILE THE SCHEDULE ON SHEET S1.5 INDICATES BEAM B10 IS A W8X10. REVISE. 6. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/13/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/13/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved. Table 604.3, IPC 2006 requires a minimum water flow rate of 25 GPM for flushometer valves serving water closets. At 25 GPM, the water velocity in a 1" Type L copper tube is 9.74 feet per second. The supply to the water closet flush valve may be reduced to 1" as close to the valve connection as possible. [Revise the size of the water supply piping to the flush valve water closets (WC-3 and WC-4) to reduce the water velocity to less than 8 feet per second. Reference: Section 604.4, IPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.] |
| 04/13/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved. The architectural roof drawing (A4.2) indicates that the majority of the condensing units and exhaust fans will be located below an extensive array of solar panels which does not follow the recommendations of the condensing unit manufacturer. [Show how the condensing units, heat pumps, and exhaust fans are to be installed per code, the manufacturer's recommendations, and be coordinated with the installation of the solar panels. Reference: Sections 304.1 and 501.2, IMC 2006.] 2. Comment not resolved. A note indicating that the fan coils are to be mounted to the structure "per the manufacturer's installation instructions" is inadequate. Specify how the fan coils are to be attached to the hollow-core pre-cast concrete planks. [Provide a detail specifying the "mounting fasteners" for the fan coils (sheet M5.1) and showing how they are to be attached to the structure above. Reference: Sections 302.1 and 302.2, IMC 2006. ] 3. Comment not resolved; the drawings still show multiple fan coils using a ¾" condensate drain. A ¾" condensate drain can accommodate 10-tons of air conditioners but a 1" condensate drain is required if two or more air conditioning units are tied together. [Revise the size of the condensate drains in accordance with Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 4. Comment not resolved. According to the manufacturer, installation of a common exhaust duct for multiple Type II dryers requires provision for cleaning out the accumulated lint in the exhaust duct; show the cleanout provision on the drawing.. [Type I domestic dryers are not designed to be connected to a common exhaust duct serving multiple dryers but shall be independent of all other exhaust systems. Provide for termination of each dryer exhaust directly to the exterior of the building and be equipped with a backdraft damper. Reference: Sections 504.2 and 504.4, IMC 2006.] |
| 04/14/2011 | WILDAN | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS PROVIDED ROGER BROOKS WITH WILLDAN REVIEWED 4/14/11 FOR ELECTRICAL ONLY 1. THE LlIFE SAFETY (NEC 700) SYSTEM DOES NOT COMPLY WITH NEC 700.9. THE LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM IS DEFINED IN NEC 700.1 AND THE EXHAUST FANS AND ELEVATORS ARE AN NEC 701 SYSTEM AS DEFINED BY NEC 701.2 AND THE FINE PRINT NOTE. THE NEC 700 LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM MUST BE KEPT COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM ALL OTHER WIRING FROM THE GENERATOR TO THE END OF EACH CIRCUIT. THE NEC 701 WIRING CAN BE COMBINED WITH ALL OTHER WIRING EXCEPT THE LIFE SAFETY WIRING. 2. THE EXHAST FANS AND FAN COILS SHOULD BE NUMERICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PANEL SCHEDULES AND FLOOR PLANS TO PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH NEC 408.4. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER CAN IDENTIFY THE EQUIPMENT AS HE CHOOSES BUT THE CODE PANEL WANTED TO ENSURE DE-ENERGIZING THE CORRECT EQUIPMENT BY SERVICE MEN SO THE EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION AND PANEL SCHEDULES MUST COMPLY WITH NEC 408.4. |
| 04/18/2011 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/18/2011 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/20/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/20/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |