Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T11CM01744
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/21/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/22/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/22/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/26/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | NEED TO BUILD PUBLIC SEWER- NEED PUBLIC SEWER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT- NEED HOLD HARMLESS LETTER NEED 3RD FLOOR REVIEW OF CAPACITY & LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER- CHAD- 740-6547 NEED WASTEWATER IWC REVIEW OF SANDOIL INTERCEPTOR- 5025 W INA RD- TOM TOMCHAK- 443-6200 NEED TO CONNECT4"BACK WASH FINES SEPARATION TANK WITH 4" OUTLET & TRENCH DRAIN"B" TO SEWER WITH A DIVERTER VAVLE TO RECLAIIM WASTE IRRIGATION SYSTEM- DEQ- 243-7400 NEED PCRWRD REVIEW FOR WATER VOLUME & SOLIDS DISCHARGED INTO PUBLIC SEWER FOR WATER PURIFICATION PLANT |
| 08/02/2011 | STANTEC | 2ND PARTY REVIEW | REVIEW | Denied | August 2, 2011 To: Ron Boose, Building Official City of Tucson Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue, First Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 Re: Culligan Water - New Warehouse City of Tucson No. T11CM01744 Stantec Project No. 816-30015 (11-013) Plan review for the above-referenced project has been completed, per the 2006 IBC, IMC, IPC, IECC, ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, the 2005 NEC, all with local amendments, and the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code. This letter reflects comments to be addressed with a written response to each of the noted items indicating the action taken. In order to facilitate a shorter back-check time, we request that you please provide revised plans and calculations, clouding any changes that have been made. SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review covers Architectural, Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittal provided. All portions of the project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions and concerns before permit approval. GENERAL: " There are no general comments to be addressed CIVIL: " The following comment has not been addressed. On Civil Sheet 1 of 4 there is a reference to a handicap ramp in front of the building; the reference indicates to look at a detail on Sheet 4 of 4. There is no ramp detail at this location. Please correct. Also, Keynote 14 on Sheet 3 of 4 indicates the location of truncated domes; the location is incorrect [ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13]. Truncated dome strips need to be 24" wide and are placed along the curb line adjacent to the parking area. The written response indicates that the approved civil drawings were corrected; the drawings we received "with approvals" do not show the comment addressed. ARCHITECTURAL: " The following previously made comment has been partially addressed. Provide detailing of the stairs to show code compliance [2006 IBC Sec. 1009]; specifically dimension the stair tread rise and run, guard rails including heights and openings, hand rails including heights, diameter, and mounting clearances. There are still dimensional requirements for the stairs found in 2006 IBC Sec. 1009 which have not been made clear on the plans. The width of each stair run is shown as 3'-8"; since the construction of the stair is not clear the minimum required width by code of 3'-0" between the inside face of the stringers (or wall surfaces) needs to be indicated [2006 IBC Sec. 1009.1, Exception 1]. What is the width of the intermediate landing? It needs to be 3'-0" minimum by code [2006 IBC Sec. 1009.4]. The height of the mezzanine floor is not communicated anywhere within the plans. So, what is the vertical rise of the longer stair run? The maximum vertical rise allowed by code is 12'-0" [2006 IBC Sec. 1009.6]. Regarding the picketed guard surrounding the exterior stairs, what is the spacing between pickets? What is the spacing between the bottom rail and the walking surface at the landings? What about the spacing between the bottom rail and the tread/riser area of the stairs [2006 IBC Sec. 1013.3]? STRUCTURAL: " The following previously made comment has been partially addressed. Provide the geotechnical report referenced in the structural general notes on the plans and in the structural calculations (Speedie Associates Report No. 110198SA, dated March 10, 2011). If the geotechnical report requires engineered fill than a special inspection certificate will also be required. The geotechnical report requires that special inspection be performed for geotechnical work; therefore a certificate is required at this time. The written response by the structural engineer indicates that the architect will provide the special inspection certificate; however a form was not received. Please provide. " The following previously made comment has not been addressed. Sheets E1 and E10 of the metal building shop drawings indicate that along Grid Line 7a there is to be a cross brace between Grid Lines F and G at the exterior wall. Sheet A1.0 of the building plans indicates there is a large roll-up door at this location which serves the maintenance shop. Please coordinate. {Noted that there are no sizes given for the roll-up doors on this project.} The written response by the architect indicates that the shop drawings have been revised; however we did not receive copies of the revised shop drawings. Please provide. MECHANICAL: " There are no mechanical comments to be addressed. PLUMBING: " The following previously made comment has been partially addressed. Civil Sheet 3 of 4 is missing the rim elevation for new Public Manhole # 1 on Gunter Road, however based on the surrounding spot elevations it appears that the manhole's rim elevation will be slightly higher than the finish floor elevation of the new building. A back water valve is required [2006 IPC Sec. 715.1 as amended]. Sheet P1.0 makes reference to Detail 227 on Sheet P2.2; however Sheet P2.2 has not been revised to add this detail. " The following previously made comment has not been addressed. Provide a vacuum relief valve for the storage-type water heater (located above the fixture outlets [2006 UPC Sec. 608.7]; reference Detail 211 on Sheet P2.1. The written response from the mechanical engineer indicates that Detail 211 on Sheet P2.1 has been revised; however we did not receive a revised Sheet P2.1. " New Comment: Check the gas schedule; there is a conflict. The schedule on Sheet P2.2 indicates a total gas load of 1,329.8 c.f.h.; however based on adding the numbers in the schedule the total should be 1,594.8 c.f.h. The 1,594.8 figure agrees with the note just below the table. Please correct. ELECTRICAL: " There are no electrical comments to be addressed. -End of Review- If you have any questions, please call (520) 750-7474. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Joel Svoboda Associate JES:jes Attachments: none |
| 08/02/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/03/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/03/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |