Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T20CM05084
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/04/2021 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The configuration of the crickets shown on the roof plan on sheet A2 implies that each flat roof section has two primary roof scuppers. The notes for two of the flat roof sections state that there are four "secondary/primary roof drainage" locations while two other flat roof sections are noted as having four "secondary roof drainage" points. Clarify the design, showing that each flat roof section has both a primary scupper and an independent secondary scupper. Reference: Sections 1106.5 and 1108, IPC 2018. [Third comment: Comment not resolved. The code requires a scupper with a width equal to the circumference of the required roof drain AND a minimum height of 4-inches. A 6.5-inch diameter circular scupper does not have the same flow capacity of a 6.5-inch by 4-inch rectangular scupper. Show the primary and secondary scuppers on the elevation drawings.] [Second comment: The roof drainage calculations are incorrect: you have no horizontal gutters so Table 1106.6, IPC 2018 is not appropriate. Based on the areas of the flat roof sections of the building and using Table 1106.2, IPC 2018, a 2" roof drain would be required. Section 1106.5, IPC 2018 specifies that a scupper is to have a width equal to the circumference of the required roof drain, 6.28" in this case. The secondary scupper must be the same size as the primary scupper (Section 1108.3, IPC 2018).] [Initial comment: Provide secondary (overflow) roof drainage for the four flat roof areas of the garage. Reference: Sections 1106.5, 1108.1, 1108.2 and 1108.3, IPC 2018.] |
| 11/16/2021 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the electrical comments and provide a written response. As per the previous electrical plan review comments; In consideration that the original Registrant is deceased and not available to update the lighting site plan he sealed in the year 2006. The revised site lighting plan must be re-drawn and re-sealed as a completely new document in order to be considered compliant with R4-30-304. 1. Provide complete compliance with the 2012 Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting code section 102, 104, especially 104.2.3. And all other applicable sections of this Code. If necessary, the applicant can obtain the services of an Engineer that has experience in the design of exterior lighting. 2. The total luminaire inventory must correlate between the site lighting plan and the revised lumen calculations shown (new and existing). Also the color temperature shown in the COLOR TEMPERATURE column for the âFâ luminaire cannot exceed 3500K, section 402.1 OLC. 3. Delta #2 was added to the clouded in Garage Buildings and plan sheet 2 of 5 was added to the plan set since the first submittal. Is there 2 Garage Buildings proposed under this activity? If yes, provide electrical plans for both Garage Buildings 4.The electrical line diagram is still not correct. (a) Show a complete line diagram with the correct quantity and size of secondary feeders back to the utility transformer and feeder between the Meter and the Panel âAâ. (b) Why does the panel schedule show a 100 amp main circuit Breaker and also a 20 amp 1 pole circuit breaker in space #4 ? 5. Please provide electrical design and calculations performed by an Arizona registrant who has demonstrated proficiency through registration, education, technical knowledge, or experience to perform such work. 6. Due to the nature of these plan review comments, additional review comments may be generated at the subsequent electrical review. Ref; 2018 IBC section 107.2.1, 2017 NEC, 2018 IECC, City of Tucson Commercial Plan Submittal requirements, 2012 Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code (OLC) |