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 - TI ALL
Permit Number - T14CM01923
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/25/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: July 25, 2014 REVIEWER: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T14CM01923 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received the building plan (T14CM01923). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the building plan applications at this time. The following items need to be addressed: BUILDING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Engineering could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the stamped approved Development Plan Package (DP14-0030). Please submit a copy of the stamped approved Development Plan Package with the next building plan submittal. 2) Engineering will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped Development Plan Package. Additional comments may be forthcoming. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide the building plan with a copy of the last approved Development Plan Package (DP14-0030). Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the building plan review. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. |
| 07/29/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: FedEx Ground Co-Location T14CM01923 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 29, 2014 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 has reviewed the building plans but cannot approve until a development package has been submitted and approved for the site changes 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 |
| 07/30/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | need updated Cover Sheet-it was not provided |
| 08/04/2014 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 28: THE PLUMBING FIXTURE SECTION INDICATES THERE ARE SIX DRINKING FOUNTAINS PLUS ONE HIGH/LOW. PER THE IBC SECTION 1109.5.2, WHERE MORE THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DRINKING FOUNTAINS ARE PROVIDED, 50% OF THE DRINKING FOUNTAINS PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS USING A WHEELCHAIR, AND 50% SHALL COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDING PERSONS. REVISE THE DRAWINGS TO MEET THIS STANDARD. 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT 13: THE VERBIAGE ON SHEETS ANSI-1, ANSI-2, ANSI-3, AND ANSI-4 DO NOT MEET THE 3/32" MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE). REVISE. 3. SHEETS A101a AND A101b; FRAMING PLANS: THE EAST/WEST BUILDING SECTION INDICATES -/A201a ON SHEET A101a, AND 1/A201a ON SHEET A101b. COORDINATE. 4. SHEET A101b: THIS SHEET WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ONE OF THE REVISION SETS. PROVIDE. 5. PREVIOUS COMMENT 16: THE ISSUE IN QUESTION CONCERNING THE AREA OF ASSISTED RESCUE IS THE FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF THE EXTERIOR WALL AND DOOR. PROVIDE DETAILS AND COMMENTARY ON THE DRAWINGS INDICATING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION (SECTION 1007.7.4) HAVE BEEN MET. 6. SHEET A400; ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN 16: AT THE RESTROOM AREA, AN ENLARGED PLAN DETAIL REFERENCES 16/A404. REVISE THE REFERENCE. 7. PREVIOUS COMMENT 30: NO COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO VERIFY THERE ARE NO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS/SECTIONS/DETAILS REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED FOUNDATION PLAN. WE WILL ASSUME THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS. 8. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 08/11/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/18/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Revise font sizes on sheets M101 and M102. [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. Revise the descriptions of the envelope assemblies to correspond to the actual construction of the building (e.g. see the wall and roof sections on sheet A301). Provide documentation of the NFRC certifications of the fenestration components as called for in footnote (b) of Section 3 of the envelope Compliance Certificate. Provide justification of "retail" as the building type. [Initial comment: Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for Tucson. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation and the SHGC for the fenestration. Reference: Sections C103.2 and C401.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] 3. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Provide notes on the drawings indicating provisions for commissioning the mechanical building systems per Section C408.2, IECC 2012.] |
| 08/18/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide a specification for the thermostatic mixing valve shown in the new water heater detail (B/PL200). [Initial comment: Provide details for the installation of the three water heaters, including the excess pressure relief, expansion tank, vacuum relief or other anti-siphon device, safety pan, and valves. Reference: Sections 503, 504, 606.1, 607.2, and 607.3, IPC 2012.] 2. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Provide calculations showing how the water supply piping has been sized. Reference: Sections 604.1 and 604.3, IPC 2012.] 3. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: The developed length of the hot water supply piping from EWH1to the furthest wash fountain it serves appears to be greater than fifty feet; provide a method for maintaining the temperature of the hot water supply system. Reference: Section 607.2, IPC 2012.] |
| 08/18/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Tucson Water limits 2" water meters to maximum demand of 120-GPM. Verify that the calculated demand for the new plumbing fixtures (predominately a flush valve system) plus demand from the 52 evaporative coolers will not cause the total demand to exceed the allowable limit. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/23/2014 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/23/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |