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 - T15CM08921
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/17/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Provide the size of the proposed water meter and the total demand it will be serving.] |
| 02/17/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An ASSE 1070 listing is not noted as a requirement for the thermostatic mixing valve for the Bradley lavatory model and no thermostatic mixing valve is noted for the unit manufactured by Levantina. [Initial comment: Verify that the temperature mixing valve specified for the lavatory L11 is listed as conforming to ASSE 1070. Reference: Section 607.1.2, IPC 2012.] 2. Separate indirect waste pipes are not noted for each compartment of the 3-compartment sinks. [Initial comment: Verify that separate indirect waste pipes will be provided for each compartment of the 3-compartment sink to protect against cross-contamination or fouling. Reference: Sections 801.2 and 802.1.8, IPC 2012.] 3. The siphonic roof drain calculations were not included with the submitted documents. [Initial comment: Provide calculations to show that the siphonic roof drainage system has been designed in accordance with ASME A112.6.9 and ASPE 45. Reference: Section 1107.1, IPC 2012.] 4. The scupper sizing calculations noted in the reply to comments were not included in this submittal. While the architectural roof plan (A4) does show a 4-foot scupper width, the scupper details on sheet A4.1 do not show a scupper height dimension. [Initial comment: Secondary roof drainage is intended to prevent ponding on the roof that exceeds the structural capacity of the roof when there is no flow through the primary roof drains (Section 1101.7, IPC 2012). Provide calculations to show that the proposed roof scuppers are adequate to protect the roof from the rain load. The maximum ponding level shall include the head on the scupper required for the flow through the scupper to equal the design flow for the roof drainage (Section 1106.1, IPC 2012). Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012, and Sections 1611.1 and 1611.3, IBC 2012.] |
| 02/29/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/02/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. As per the last electrical plan review comment ( 1/28/16 ), "Please provide complete compliance with the Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code. Can be downloaded from www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd." The response to this comment was to refer to the civil plans for Outdoor Lighting Code Compliance. There is no compliance with section 104 or 401 of the Outdoor Lighting Code on the civil plans, or the architectural, or the electrical plans. Please review these sections and apply to the plan documents as necessary for a complete plan review. Ref: IBC 107.2.1, Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code. Dan Santa Cruz Electrical Plan Review, City of Tucson Dan.santacruz@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-4995 |
| 03/07/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Requires Approval of Development Plan Prior to Approval of this plan. |
| 03/10/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Approval of development package DP15-0194. The building plans must conform to the approved development package plans. Once the development package has been approved Zoning is willing to provide and over the counter review. |