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 - T12CM00376
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/20/2012 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning cannot approve the building plan until the development plan has been approved. |
| 03/21/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 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 adopted 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 a copy of the results from the design software. The drawings include the piping layouts, isometrics, and pipe support details for the two siphonic drain systems. Resubmit the siphonic roof drain calculations and supporting 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. Appeals to the building official are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 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.] |
| 03/21/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | An Appeal to the Building Official is separate and distinct from resubmitting the documents for a plan review. As an alternative to the occupancy load numbers of Section 403.3, IMC 2006 and of Table 6-1, ASHRAE 62.1-2006, the applicant must provide sufficient supporting data to show that the historical occupancy data is more appropriate to use for ventilation calculations for this building than the code-prescribed occupancy data. You have provided the values of the historical occupancy data on sheet M3 but there is no information supporting these occupancy values. Submit the historical occupancy data and justification using an Appeal to the Building Official form (see: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/dsd/Appeal%20form3.pdf). [Original comment: Section 403.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson allows the use of the ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (not 2007) ventilation calculation procedure provided that the default occupant densities and combined outdoor air rates are used. If the occupancy rates are to be based on statistical data per the exception to Section 403.3, IMC 2006, submit the statistical data for review.] |
| 03/22/2012 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/23/2012 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | 1. NEED TO SHOW LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER - MAY NEED TO PERMIT ON SITE PRIVATE SEWER WITH DEQ REVIEW & APPROVAL IF OVER 3000GALLONS/DAY FOR SITE WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS 2. NEED PCRWRD/3RD FLOOR/CHAD AMATEAU REVIEW OF LOCATION/METHOD OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER 740-6547 3. NEED PCRWRD/3RD FLOOR/CAPACITY RESPONSE KURT STEMM 740-6534 |
| 03/26/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T12CM00376 WAL MART AT 2711 S. HOUGHTON ROAD STRUCTURAL COMMENTS 1. SHEET S1 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S2 (DETAIL 8): DETAIL 8 INDICATES A CMU PILASTER "WHERE OCCURS". PROVIDE A DETAIL TO INDICATE IF THE PILASTER FOUNDATION (FROM GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE FOOTING) IS CMU OR CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE, AND ASSOCIATED REINFORCING. 2. SHEET S1; FOUNDATION PLAN: AT THE TRUCKWELLS (TWO LOCATIONS) AND AT THE COMPACTER, EXPAND THE PLAN NOTES TO "LIMITS OF CMU WALL REINF. A" AND "CMU WALL A" AND "CMU WALL REINF. B" TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE FOR CLARITY. 3. SHEET S1; FOUNDATION PLAN: AT THE NORTH TRUCKWELL, THE WALL FOOTING (DETAIL 2/S2.2) IS NOT SHOWN CORRECTLY ON THE PLAN (REFERENCE THE SOUTH TRUCKWELL). REVISE. 4. SHEETS S1 AND S3; FOUNDATION PLAN: NOTES OUTSIDE THE PLANS INDICATE "CMU CJ REF ARCH FOR DETAILS", WHILE THE ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (SHEET A2, NOTE 404) INDICATES "CONTROL JOINT, REFERENCE STRUCTURAL". THE DETAIL DOES SHOW UP ON A2.1. ON SHEETS S1 AND S3, REFERENCE SHEET A2.1 FOR CONTROL JOINTS. COORDINATE WITH THE ARCHITECT. 5. SHEET S1; FOUNDATION PLAN: A NOTE NEAR GRIDS 2.6 AND E INDICATES A REFRIGERATION PIT AND TUNNEL TYPICAL. IS THERE A DETAIL FOR THE TUNNEL? CLARIFY. 6. SHEET S1.1; SLAB PLAN: A NOTE BETWEEN GRIDS E AND F ON GRID 1 INDICATES "(2) #4X4'-0" IN SLAB AT EA CORNER OF CONST JT WITHOUT A CJ, TYP". EXPLAIN AND CLARIFY THIS NOTE. 7. SHEET S2.2; DETAIL 6: WHERE IS THIS DETAIL CUT ON THE PLAN (OR REFERENCED)? CLARIFY. 8. SHEET S2.2; DETAIL 6: A BOXED NOTE INDICATES TO REFERENCE 4/S2. REVISE (THIS DETAIL WAS NOT USED). 9. SHEET S3; FRAMING PLAN: AT THE METAL CANOPY NEAR GRIDS 1 AND L, TWO DETAILS (5/S5.1 AND 6/S5.1) ARE CUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CANOPY. IS THE HSS12 ALSO LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE CANOPY? CLARIFY AND INDICATE ON THE PLAN. 10. SHEET S3; FRAMING PLAN: ARE THE BOXED ELEVATIONS FOR THE EMBED. PLATES INDICATED IN 8/S4? MAKE A REFERENCE ON SHEET S3. 11. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |