Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T11CM01119
Parcel: 13317062A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI

Permit Number - T11CM01119
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/27/2011 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Gross area exceeds 4900 square feet. Corridors must be fire rated, no dead end corridors exceeding 20', or provide fire sprinklers. Verify correct door swing.
04/28/2011 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
05/05/2011 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET A-201; NORTH FLOOR PLAN: THE HALLWAY (HALL 20) STARTING AT THE WAITING ROOM AND EXTENDING NORTH TO THE READ ROOM IS A DEAD END CORRIDOR THAT EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2006 IBC SECTION 1017.3. VERIFY AND REVISE.
2. SHEET A-201; NORTH FLOOR PLAN: DOES THE HALLWAY (HALL 20) MEET THE FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIRED BY THE 2006 IBC TABLE 1017.1 AND THE EXCEPTIONS IN SECTION 1017.1? VERIFY.
3. SHEET A-201; KEYED NOTE 260: IS THE ELEVATION NOTE REFERENCE CORRECT? REVISE.
4. SHEET A-202; SOUTH FLOOR PLAN: IN THE NORTH-SOUTH PORTION OF HALL 36, DOOR 34 OPENS INTO THE CORRIDOR. THIS DOOR (34) IS A 3' DOOR AND REDUCES THE EGRESS TRAVEL PATH TO LESS THAN HALF, WHICH VIOLATES IBC SECTION 1005.2. VERIFY.
5. SHEET A-202; KEYED NOTE 250: IS THE DETAIL REFERENCE CORRECT? VERIFY.
6. SHEET A-601; SPECIALTIES GENERAL NOTES: IN NOTE 7, CHANGE THE ADAAG REFERENCE TO ICC/ANSI REFERENCE.
7. SHEET A-902; DETAIL 16: THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS ONLY REQUIRE A 2'-0" WIDTH OF TRUNCATED DOMES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAMP.
8. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; LAST SHEET: THIS DETAIL SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON THE FULL-SIZED DRAWINGS.
9. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
05/09/2011 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
05/09/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Clarify how the proposed water heater support is to be attached to the partition and provide structural calculations to show that the new partition is capable of supporting the load. Reference: Section 314.5, UPC 2006.
2. Clarify the source of the ¾' CW connecting to sink S-1 in the PET/CT room; it appears to be connecting to the non-potable water line. Reference: Section 608.1, IPC 2006.
3. Indicate the make-up water source for the air-cooler process chiller and show how the potable water system is being protected from backflow. Reference: Section 608.1, IPC 2006.
4. Specify pipe identification requirements for the non-potable water and other process fluids. Reference: Sections 608.1 and 608.8, IPC 2006.
05/12/2011 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. The design of the cryogen quench vent constitutes the practice of engineering and requires plans sealed by an Arizona Registrant. The details and notes shown on sheet M-303 appear to serve as guidance for the design engineer and are not adequate for construction purposes. Provide sufficient detail to show how a cryogen quench vent meeting the manufacturer's requirements is to be constructed. (Note that the ¼" mesh screen for the termination of the vent (note 20/M-202) does not agree with the 3/8" screen mesh called for by the manufacturer in note 8, sheet M-303.) Reference Arizona Revised Statutes 32-125, Board of Technical Registration Rules R4-30-304.
2. Provide insulation for chilled water and refrigerant piping at least per Table 503.2.8, IECC 2006, i.e. 1" for piping less than or equal to 1-1/2" and 1-1/2" of insulation for piping over 1-1/2" nominal pipe diameter.
05/16/2011 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied T11CM01119
310 N Wilmot Rd #302
Medical TI, Simonmed Imaging

Electrical :
1. The total va's for panels LB and LD are incorrect.
2. Panel HA sheet E-401 shows a 50/3 amp CB to x-ray equipment, the one line diagram shows a 150/3 amp CB ?


Ray T Majuta,
Elect Pln Ck,PDSD,
City of Tucson,
5/17/,
Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov
05/17/2011 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/19/2011


The project shall be approved once the following comments have been satisfied:

1. Provide the name and address of the property owner.
2. Provide the following:

a. A cost estimate for the proposed improvements, including mobilization and contingency costs.
b. A recent assessment or appraisal of the present value of the structure being remodeled.

Since the subject structure is impacted by the regulatory floodplain, the requested information will be evaluated to determine if the structure is proposed to be substantially improved as defined by the Floodplain Ordinance (i.e. Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement.).

If the structure is determined to be substantially improved, it shall conform to the Floodplain Ordinance regulations. At the time of improving or reconstructing the structure or development, floodproofing (nonresidential structures only) may be considered as one of the means of bringing it in compliance with the Floodplain Ordinance.

If the structure is determine not to be substantially improved, conformance to the Floodplain Ordinance is not required, but recommended. If additional improvements are proposed in the future, the cost will be added to the cost of the presently proposed improvements until the total improvements costs equal or exceed the 50% market value of the structure at that time. Full Compliance will be required then.
05/20/2011 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/13/2011 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/13/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed