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: T11CM01613
Parcel: 14041063B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T11CM01613
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/01/2011 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
06/08/2011 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Denied need pcrwrd 3rd fl capcityreview & approval - Michael Harrington - 740-6305
06/10/2011 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Architectural/Accessibility Comments by Ron Brown:

GENERAL
1. For the purpose of assessing additional plan review fees, please send a deferred submittal summary letter to the building official Mr. Ron Boose.
2. Please provide structural calculations and details for the following:
a. All roof top mounted HVAC equipment
b. Water Heater 2 mounted above the ceiling
3. Please submit for review and approval Special Inspector Certification as outlined on sheet S1.2.
SHEET A.1
4. The demising wall between rooms 137 and 128 is a rated wall assembly.
a. Should not the demising 8" RCMU wall between rooms 137 and 126 be equally rated?
b. Should not door number 117A also be rated?
c. Doors 137 and 128 are both shown to be in a fire rated wall assy. Why is it that door 137 is rated and door 128 is not?
5. Why is door 117 rated? It is not indicated to be in a fire rated wall assy.
SHEET A1.1
6. Please complete all code required accessible dimensioning, accessories, clearance and fixtures in the toilet floor plans.
a. Several key accessible dimensions are missing; i.e. water closet center line, lav center line and etc.
b. The urinal clear width is supposed to be 3' wide as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 605 and 305.
7. Doors 121 and 122 are not code compliant as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1, Sections 404.2.3.1 and Figures (b) and/or (g).

STRUCTURAL COMMENTS BY ERIC NEWCOMB

8. SHEET S1.0; STRUCTURAL NOTES (FOUNDATIONS): NOTE 1 INDICATES A SOILS REPORT WAS USED IN THE FOUNDATION DESIGN. PROVIDE THE REPORT FOR REVIEW.
9. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN NOTE 15); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PROVIDE A CALCULATION FOR THE RADIO TOWER FOUNDATION SHOWN ON DETAIL 116.
10. SHEET S2.0; FOUNDATION PLAN NOTE 13: DID NOT LOCATE THIS NOTE ON THE PLAN. VERIFY.
11. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S4.0 (DETAIL 111A): THE PLAN AND THE DETAIL DO NOT INDICATE HOW FAR THE FOOTING EXTENDS OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE BLOCK WALL. PROVIDE.
12. SHEET S4.0; DETAIL 116: CLEAR UP THE BOXED NOTE.
13. SHEET S5.0; DETAIL 212: REVISE THE DETAIL TITLE.
14. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PROVIDE A KEY PLAN INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE BEAMS DB1 THROUGH DB6.
15. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PROVIDE A KEY PLAN AND CALCULATIONS FOR ALL LINTELS INDICATED ON SHEET S3.0.
16. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
06/15/2011 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
06/20/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide a design for the mounting shelf for the water heater (WH-2) along with structural calculations to show that the water heater is safely supported. Reference: Section 301.2 IPC 2006.
2. Provide roof drainage calculations for each scupper installation and provide additional calculations to show that the overflow cutout on the collector box is capable of handling the same flow as the required scupper. Reference: Sections 1101.7, 1106.1, 1106.2, 1106.4,1106.5, 1107.1, and1107.3, IPC 2006.
06/20/2011 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
06/21/2011 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the envelope energy calculations to reflect to current building (e.g. CMU exterior walls, not metal-framed walls, include the doors, etc.). Clarify the insulation R-values for the roof and for the walls - Sheet A4 shows different R-values than the envelope energy calculations and sheet A6.
2. Provide the listing and installation information for the specified radiant heaters. Reference: Sections 301.4 and 304.1, IMC 2006.
06/23/2011 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Approved
06/27/2011 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied T11CM01613
3201 E Universal Way
Bureau of Land Management


The electrical plans have been denied for the following:

1. Provide Fault Current Calculations beginning at service on through to Panels.
2. The equipment bonding jumper for the feeder from T-1
225 KVA transformer to DSB is shown as a #1 cu awg, per 2005 250.102.C, the equipment bonding jumper for the derived conductors per 250.66 should be 1/0 cu.

Ray Majuta,
Elect Pln Ck,PDSD.
City of Tucson,
6/28/11
Ray.majuta@tucsonaz.gov.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/08/2011 SUE REEVES OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/08/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed