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 - T13CM02495
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/30/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T13CM02495 1. In reference to Response Letter dated 5/28/2013, item #3 Electrical Comment Responses,''the existing 1200 Amp SES and Tenant Spaces A and B-- have been provided by Landlord and have already been reviewed and approved by City of Tucson,reference Permit T13CM02833''. Permit T13CM02833 does not show a 1200 Amp Main disconnect as does your current plan, also the number of main services after the 1200 amp enclosure is different. Permit T13CM02833 was issued to allow the services for Panels A and to to be installed for coming Permit T13CM02495. Current City of Tucson Submittal Requirements for T I's require a current diagram of service for building and tenants showing up to date loads. Provide an accurate up to date one line diagram , show size and number of feeders from utility to existing 1200 Amp SES, show all services after and total current loads on this 1200 Amp SES. Show if SES actually has a Main Disconnect. Had inspector from our department check site today to attemp to review existing SES, electrical closets locked. Ray T Majuta Electrical Plan Review PDSD, Tucson 5/31/2013 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/31/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | No response letter regarding fire review. Travel distance, exit door information refer to sprinklers system, verify existence of sprinkler system or correct information. (sheet A0.1) Delta 1 on sheet A0.1 refers to occupant load calculations on sheet A0.2. Unable to find calculations on this sheet. |
| 06/03/2013 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | ALL RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS ARE CAPITAL LETTERS SHEET A0.0 1. OK SHEET A0.1 2. OK 3. OK SHEET A1.0 4. OK SHEET A1.2 5. Section A1.1 in not the correct wall section. Please provide a new wall section through the new exhaust hood showing all structural support details and back construction materials and finishes as per code. a. Provide all structural calculations and details for the support elements. PLEASE PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR ALL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AS SHOWN ON NEWLY ADDED SHEETS S1 AND S2 SHEET M1.0 6. Provide structural calculations for all new top mounted HVAC equipment. PLEASE PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR ALL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AS SHOWN ON NEWLY ADDED SHEETS S1 AND S2 GENERAL 7. City of Tucson minimum actual lettering size is 3/32" both upper and lower case. Several sheets of this submittal do not meet this minimum standard. Please correct all non compliant sheets and resubmit. PLEASE REVISE ALL SHEETS WITH SUBSTANDARD LETTERING SIZES (3/32" ACTUAL UPPER AND LOWER CASE) AND RESUBMIT END OF RESUBNMITTAL REVIEW |
| 06/03/2013 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/04/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the domestic water riser diagram on sheet P3.1 to reflect the addition of the recirculating hot water system. [Initial comment: Verify the developed length of the two branches of the hot water distribution system. If the developed length of either hot water supply branches is greater than fifty feet; provide a method for maintaining the temperature of the hot water supply system. Reference: Section 607.2, IPC 2012.] 2. Comment not resolved; adding the note to require the vents to rise at least 6" above the flood rim of the fixture they serve is not helpful if the design clearly shows otherwise. Revise the venting for the floor drains in the restrooms and the floor sinks in the point-of-sale area. [Initial comment: Verify that all of the vents located within the building rise vertically to at least 6" above the flood rims of the fixtures they protect prior to running horizontally. Reference: Section 905.4, IPC 2012.] |
| 06/04/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/04/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved; revise the under-sized font on sheets M2.0 and M3.0. [Initial comment: Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum height of 3/32-inch. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 2. Complete the mechanical compliance certificate by checking the applicable boxes in the requirements checklist. Checked items shall be supported by specifications (i.e. on the drawings or book specifications) for the activity. [Initial comment: Show that the proposed HVAC system and equipment meet the requirements of Sections C403.2 and C403.3, IECC 2012 (e.g. provide the mechanical energy code compliance certification from COMcheck based upon the 2012 IECC). Reference: Section C303.1, International Energy Conservation Code 2012. 3. Comment not resolved; is RTU-3 a 6-ton or a 5-ton unit? [Initial comment: Show the size of the condensate drain pipes. Note that RTU-3 is noted as having a cooling capacity of 6-tons on sheet M1.0 but only 5-tons on sheet P1.0. Reference: Sections 307.2.1, IMC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson.] 4. If the ventilation calculations are not to be done per Section 403.3, IMC 2012, provide an engineering analysis of the occupant load as an appeal to the building official as described in Section 104.11, IBC 2012. [Initial comment: The occupant load used to calculate the required ventilation is not necessarily the same as the occupant load used for calculating exiting requirements. The occupant load used for calculating the minimum required ventilation is to be based on Table 403.3, IMC 2012 or an approved engineering analysis of the specific occupancy type. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2012. 5. The referenced note on sheet M3.0 is ambiguous. Modify the note to state the type of listed construction that is being employed. [Initial comment: If the proposed Type I hood is not listed for zero-clearance to combustibles, provide information regarding the construction of the demising wall adjacent to the grease hood (i.e. combustible or non-combustible construction?). Reference: Section 507.9, IMC 2012.] |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/12/2013 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/12/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |