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 - T19CM00809
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/12/2019 | NICHOLAS ROSS | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 04/12/2019 | NROSS1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Reviewer: Charlie Bard Regarding response to previous electrical review comment 1, no outdoor lighting calculations in a form that can be evaluated for compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Code were included in the resubmittal. The photometric plan and table on sheet E0.3 is not what is required. Per previous review comment please “provide Outdoor Lighting Code calculations to show compliance with City of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code Table 401.1. Select a commercial option from that table and multiply the total lumens allowed for that option x the lot acreage; and multiply the total unshielded lumens x the lot acreage to ascertain the maximum lumens allowed and the maximum portion of the total that can be unshielded. Then, in tabular form, calculate the proposed total and proposed unshielded lumens for each fixture type, showing that the proposed lumens are no more than what is allowed. The lighting area for this parcel is E3.” |
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL Reviewer: Chris Anderson No response was made to previous plumbing review comment 2. Please submit roof gutter and leader sizing calculations per 2018 IPC Tables 1106.3 and 1106.6. |
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Reviewer: Chris Anderson The response to previous building review comment 8 is “added note to wall types to indicate GC shall use cmu block from one of the UL listed manufacturers per UL Detail 905. Eligible manufacturers listed on website: https:.iq……..” This response to comment 8 is not sufficient. The customers for this information are the concrete block supplier and the building inspector. The SE’s general note referral to U905 does not provide the required information to order the masonry, and neither does the Architect’s masonry specification on sheet A9.0. Lightweight block is specified there; and it is not clear that all lightweight block can achieve a 2-hour fire-rating. This should be checked against the UL approved concrete block specification. Additionally referring to a website address in the wall types schedule is not acceptable because it is not reasonable to expect the inspector to pull up information on a website when he is on the jobsite. Per previous comment please add the approved manufacturers/products in the masonry specification or on sheet T1.1 with a note in the specification referencing this sheet. Regarding response to previous building review comments 14 and 15 the prescriptive method for insulating this building was selected by the Architect. However, 1) the insulation shown for masonry wall assemblies in the revised wall types schedules on the plan and in the building and exterior wall sections is R-13 cavity insulation in the furred wall at the interior side of the masonry. This does not comply with the 2012 IECC Table C402.1.3 where either the masonry shall be insulated on one side with minimum R5.7 insulation or ungrouted cores shall be filled with materials having a maximum thermal conductivity of 0.44 Btu-in/h-f2 degrees F. 2) the insulation shown for exterior metal stud walls in the wall type schedules and in the building and exterior wall sections is R-19 cavity insulation. This does not comply with the 2012 IECC Table C402.1.3 where metal framed walls must also have a layer of R-5 continuous insulation. Regarding response to previous building review comment 16, the revised roof assemblies on building sections 1 and 2/A5.10, wall sections 2, 3 and 4/A5.11, building sections 1 and 2/A5.30, wall sections 1, 2 and 3/A5.31, and roof plans on sheet A3.30 show TPO roofing over R-38 batt insulation on top of metal deck. Batt insulation cannot be installed above the roof deck as a base for TPO. If a continuous rigid roof insulation is desired above the metal deck the 2012 IECC Table C402.3 allows minimum R-20. The specification on sheet A9.1 calls for R-30 rigid insulation so revise the schedules and sections to show R-30 rigid insulation on roof deck. Regarding response to previous building review comment 17, “revised drawings to call out values (doors R-values) as indicated on comment,” please provide locations in the document set for this information. It could not be found in the revised drawing set. Regarding response to previous building review comment 18, “revised drawings to call out values (windows U-values) as indicated on comment,” please provide locations in the document set for this information. It could not be found in the revised drawing set. Regarding response to previous building review comment 21, the note added to the guard rail detail 12/A8/1 must read “must be less than 4”. No action was made regarding previous building review comment 22. Submit a filled out Special Inspection Certificate. |
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/30/2019 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 04/30/2019 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/30/2019 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |