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: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T13CM03535
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2013 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | SHEETS AS1.2 AND AS2.1 1. As per notes 9/AS1.1 and 5/AS2.1, the accessible parking layout and design is as per approved Development Plan DP13-0072: a. The develope package has not been approved b. These two sheets do not reflect the same design as submitted in the Development Package. 2. Once the Development package has been approved, provide changes on these sheets to reflect the approved development plan. 3. Insure all detectable warnings, ramps and accessible parking grade slopes are as per code requirements; 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14, 406 and 502.5. SHEET A3.1 4. Check your drainage volume calculations for the scuppers shown on detail 1. It appears that the middle scupper is taking a lot more drainage the the other two and all are the same size. SHEET S2.1 5. Call out the metal stud size (W2s not scheduled) around the 4 x 4 columns atop isolated footings. Calculations call for (SS2s page 21) 6" x 18 ga @ 16" o.c. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/12/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Scuppers provide drainage for discrete roof areas; unequal roof areas will require individual calculations. In the design shown on sheet A3.1, the downspout for the center roof area is undersized and all of the scuppers are undersized. Provide roof drainage and hydraulic scupper size calculations based on the 100-year hourly rainfall rate for Tucson, 3" per hour and state the maximum water depth you are using for the scupper size calculations. Reference: Sections 1106.1, 1106.4, and 1108.3, IPC 2012. |
| 07/12/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The COMcheck envelope compliance certificate calls for the exterior walls to be furred-in with R-19 batt insulation in the wall cavities. Where is this indicated on the drawings? 2. Both the COMcheck envelope compliance certificate and the COMcheck mechanical compliance certificate (sheet MP1.1) have checklists indicating possible design choices that had to be made to comply with the 2012 IECC. Check the boxes on the certificates that are appropriate to the proposed design. |
| 07/12/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/17/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/17/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Building Plan will be approved upon approval of the Development Plan Package. Location of building must match the DP Package. |
| 07/18/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 6080 N. Thornydale Road - New Retail T13CM03535 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 18, 2013 1. The building plans have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning can not approve the building plans until the development package has been approved. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 07/30/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | T13CM03535 6080 N Thornydale Rd New Retail Bldg 1. Sheet E4.0, feeders from TEP transformer to 800 amp CT show 4 parallel sets of 3 #250mcm, should be 4 parallel sets of 4 #250mcm. 2. Sheet E4.0, will the conductors from the 800 amp CT going to the 600 amp CT be installed under this permit, if so please size conductors and conduits on sheet. 3. Sheet E4.0, the fault current start value appears to be for a 120/208 volt 3 phase system, the 277/480 volt 3 phase start value should be 32,600 AIC. 4. Sheet E4.0, why is the 277/480 volt Main Disconnect grounded to a system ground when the 800 amp CT enclosure is grounded to a system ground ? 5. Sheet E4.0, size the transformer KVA. 6. Sheet E1.0, came up with 2596 lumens rather than 2880 shown on ODLC calculation ? 7. Sheet E2.0, the fixture specification sheets submitted do not match the fixtures on E2.0.fixture schedule. Can not find 3,500 K temperature limit of lamps and fixtures ? Ray T Majuta Elect Plan Review DSD, Tucson 7/31/2013 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/01/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |