Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T11CM02005
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/07/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire Comments: 1. An 8 foot fire department access is needed from the south edge of the roof along the roof wall back to the skylights. (approx grid line G) |
| 07/18/2011 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET A2.2 (NOTES); SHEET A3.1 (NOTE): THE NOTES ON SHEET A2.2 INDICATE THE "MEGA RIB DECKING" IS PART OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBMITTAL, WHILE THE BOXED NOTE ON SHEET A3.1 INDICATES ONLY THE SOLAR MODULES AND THEIR ATTACHMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS SUBMITTAL. CLARIFY. 2. SHEET S0.1; GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES (FOUNDATION): NOTE 2 INDICATES A SOIL REPORT WAS USED IN THIS DESIGN. IF THE SOIL REPORT WAS USED FOR ANY FOUNDATION DESIGN, PROVIDE THAT REPORT FOR REVIEW. 3. SHEET S0.1: REMOVE NOTES THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THIS PROJECT. 4. SHEET S1.0; CARPORT LAYOUT: TWO PLANS INDICATE ADDITIONAL ROOFING MATERIAL IS TO BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING CARPORTS. SPECIFY THE MATERIAL (OR REFERENCE A NOTE), IT'S BOUNDARIES, AND HOW IT IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING ROOF SYSTEM. 5. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PAGES 28 THROUGH 33 INDICATE A SHADE STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT NOTHING ON THE DRAWINGS INDICATES THAT STRUCTURE. CLARIFY. 6. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 07/25/2011 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T11CM02007 Currently we are under the 2005 NEC and C of T Amendments Electrical plans denied for the following: 1. Sheet E 4.1, the SQ D Panelboard as required per 690.64.B.(2) must equal the total of the overcurrent devices in it, 250 a plus 125 a plus 125 a =500 amps ? 2. The back fed circuit breaker at the 3000 amp SES is to be Identified for it's use. Please notate on plan. 3. Why is one circuit breaker at SES 250 amps and the other overcurrent device at the PV System (AC) disconnect 225 amp fused ? 4. The plan indicates on Sheet E 4.1 that a calculation is to be made at 125% of the rating of the buss of the 3000 amp SES for the total of the 250 amp cb plus the 3000 amp SES main cb to equal the total allowed per 690.64.B.(2). The EE should provide this. 5. The conductors between, 1. the SES and the 400 amp disconnect fused at 225 amps 2. also between the 400 amp disconnect fused at 225 amps and the SD D panelboard, should comply with the requirements of 690.64.B.(2), per overcurrent device totals ? Please indicate how each comment was addressed and resolved. Ray T Majuta Elect Pln Ck PDSD, C of Tucson 7/28/2011 Ray.majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/13/2011 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/13/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |