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
Permit Number - T11CM02898
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/09/2011 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/10/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/14/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify which of the two different methods of providing a slope to the restroom floors, as shown on sheet A6 and detail 11/P2, is to be used. [Original comment: Slope the restroom floors toward the floor drains. Reference: Section 411.2, UPC 2006.] 2. An Appeal to the Building Official is separate and distinct from resubmitting the documents for a plan review. As an alternative method of construction that is not explicitly covered in the plumbing code, the applicant must provide sufficient calculations and supporting data to show that the proposed method of construction is equivalent or superior to the code-prescribed construction in effectiveness, durability, and safety. You have provided documentation that establishes the technical basis for Siphonic roof drainage (ASME A112.6.9-2005 and the ASPE standard, Siphonic Roof Drainage) along with data from the manufacturer of the Siphonic roof drains and the design software. The drawings include the piping layouts, isometrics, and pipe support details for the four siphonic drain systems. The drawings do not show how high the overflow roof drains are to be mounted in relation to the siphonic roof drains to allow the siphonic drain system to prime (the overflow drains associated with the siphonic roof drains (RD1) do not include a 2" dam). The structural calculations do not appear to address the additional rain load on the roof and, with no crickets on the roof, the extent of the rain load will be more widespread than with normal roof drainage systems. Resubmit the siphonic roof data using an Appeal to the Building Official form (see: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/dsd/Appeal%20form3.pdf). [Original comment: Siphonic roof drainage is an engineered system that requires the submission of an Appeal to the Building Official under Section 301.2, UPC 2006, Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Equivalency. Submit the calculations, upon which the design is based, for review by the Building Official. Include in the calculations the structural requirements for the effect of the roof ponding.] 3. Comment not resolved; revise the termination of the primary rainwater leaders along the west side of the building so that the rainwater drainage doesn't cross over the sidewalk. Reference: Section 4.4 F, City of Tucson Development Standard No. 3-01.0. [Original comment: Provide a cleanout at the base of each roof drain leader prior to its connection with the horizontal storm drain. Reference: Section 1101.12.2, UPC 2006.] |
| 11/15/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved. Correct the condensate pipe sizes for rooftop units 3, 10, 14, 15, and 19 (see detail4/P1 for note regarding the size of condensate drains for single rooftop units and air handling units). Correct the size of combined condensate drains based on the requirements of Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. [Original comment: Revise the size of the condensate drains in accordance with Section 307.2.1, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Show all the pipe sizes on the drawing. Note that the minimum pipe size for a condensate drain is ¾" or the size of the drain pan connection, whichever is larger.] 2. Comment not resolved; hood EH1 still has a duct velocity of 1432 FPM and hood EH2 now has a duct velocity of 1375 FPM. [Original comment: Revise the size of the grease ducts to provide a minimum velocity of 1500 feet per minute (Type I hood). Reference: Section 506.3.4, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 3. Gas-fired ovens are capable of producing smoke and grease as well as heat, steam, and products of combustion. Provide a Type I hood for the oven. [Original comment: Provide justification for the use of a Type II hood over the gas-fired bakery oven. Reference: Section 507.2, IMC 2006.] |
| 11/21/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need PCRWRD reivew of location/method of connection to public sewer- Chad Amateau- 740-6547 need copy of on-site private sewer plan U-1 & u-2 for base map update need PCRWRD capacity evaluation- Kurt Stemm- 740-6607 need WW/IWC reivew of grease interceptor- Tom Tomchak- 443-6200 - 5025 W Ina rd need wastewater 5th floor credit evaluation for demo of Macy's - 740-6602 |
| 11/21/2011 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 01/31/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/31/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |