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: REVISION - - 5TH
Permit Number - T15CM05730
Review Name: REVISION - - 5TH
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2017 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET A1.1b; FLOOR PLAN WEST; COMMENT c: THE ADDED ELEVATION VIEW MARKER IS NOT COMPLETE. PLEASE REVISE. 2. SHEET A1.2b; PLACEMENT PLAN WEST; COMMENT a: THE UPDATED PADS HAVE UPDATED ELEVATION INDICATORS THAT THE TEXT IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 3/32" MINIMUM HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE THE TEXT. 3. SHEET A1.2a; GENERAL: THE TEXT FOR THE ELEVATION INDICATORS AT THE CONCRETE SLABS IS LESS THAT THE REQUIRED 3/32" MINIMUM HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE THE TEXT. 4. SHEET A1.1.1; MEZZANINE PLACEMENT PLAN; COMMENT a: THE CORRECTED FLOOR DRAINS ALSO INCLUDE AN ELEVATION INDICATOR WITH TEXT THAT IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 3/32" MINIMUM HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE THE TEXT. 5. SHEET A2.1b; WEST ELEVATION: ABOVE THE ROOF NEAR GRID A.9, A MATERIAL NOTE IS NOT COMPLETE. PLEASE PROVIDE. 6. SHEET A6.1; DOOR 156b: THE DOOR HAS NOT BEEN NOTED AS REVISED. PLEASE VERIFY. 7. SHEET A2.1b; ELEVATIONS 1 AND 3: AT THE EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS NEAR GRID 9 ON ELEVATION 1 AND NEAR GRIDS AA.1 AND A.9 ON ELEVATION 3 ARE NOT COMPLETE. PLEASE REVISE. 8. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 01/04/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 01/04/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the mechanical design for the RTU-4 ductwork as required to avoid using the corridor as a return air duct. Reference: Section 601.2, IMC 2012. |
| 01/04/2017 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL POWER, LIGHTING AND SYSTEMS INSTALLATIONS. ALSO PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE. #1. Please provide evidence on the plan documents that the exterior lighting changes are in compliance with the TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE. Provide revised lumen calculations, and light source color temperature output information for the replaced luminaires as necessary to verify compliance. Ref: Bulletin #8, item #1, #2, and Bulletin #9, item #6. Also Ref : TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE. #2. The conductor sizes were not printed in the panel schedules for the changes as specified per the Bulletin modifications statements. Example Bulletin #4, item #3a. #3. Ref; Bulletin #8, item #11d, and plan sheet E6.2. The feeder conduit size shown on the one-line diagram for future TLC does not correlate with the that shown on the feeder schedule. Ref: 2012 IBC sec. 107.2.1, 2011 NEC, TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE. Dan.santacruz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/04/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide copies of the revised civil drawings, C3.10 and C4.40 for review. 2. Provide the total amount of compressed helium gas that will be stored and in use in the building. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 3. Keynotes 22.152 and 22-153 call for cast iron drain piping where the water discharge temperature exceeds 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Provide an approved method of cooling the waste stream to a temperature of 140 degrees Fahrenheit or less prior to discharging the hot water in all applicable locations. Reference: Section701.7, IPC 2012. 4. Verify that the addition of the discharge from SP-1 will not overload the 4" building drain to which it is discharging (50 GPM = 100 drainage fixture units). Reference: Sections 709.3, 709.4.1, and 710.1, IPC 2012. 5. Verify that the overflow roof drain noted in keynote 22-151 complies with the requirements of to ASME A112.6.4 0r ASME A112.3.1. Reference: Section 1102.6, IPC 2012. 6. Keynote 22-151 has been removed from the pharmacy canopy at column-line 9 and keynote 07-111 instead calls for an "overflow pipe through tube." Provide calculations to show that this method of providing for secondary drainage is adequate or provide structural calculations to show that the canopy roof can support the weight of water that will accumulate if the primary roof drains are blocked for any reason. Reference: Section 1108.1, IPC 2012 and Section 1611.1, IBC 2012. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/24/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 01/24/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/24/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |