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

Permit Number: T05CM00436
Parcel: 119410570

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM

Permit Number - T05CM00436
Review Name: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/11/2005 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Passed
02/18/2005 DOUG WILLIAMS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: 1841 West Probasco Drive
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 22 February 2005
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T04OT02516/T05CM00436

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the site plan and drainage report for this proposed development. In accordance with Tucson Code, Section 26 (Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Regulations), prior to commencement of any site improvements or grading, a grading plan showing all proposed grading and improvements onsite must be submitted to this office for review and approval. Please provide two sets of grading plans with a completed grading permit application (with resubmittal of the site plan package, preferably - see item 2, below). Prior to site plan approval, the following two items must be addressed:

1. The drainage report must contain a statement certifying that the proposed erosion protection measures discussed in the report (placement of fill 5' landward, and the proposed 2' stem walls) will provide sufficient erosion protection measures for the structure, in accordance with Floodplain Development requirements [see reference to Section 26-8 (d) 1 & 2, below].
2. Access may not be permitted to the site as depicted. The adjacent parcel (to the east), is city-owned property (not right of way). Access must be provided via Probasco Drive.

The sections, or excerpts thereof, provided below apply to this proposed development:
1. Tucson Code, Section 26-8 (d):
a) In areas subject to flooding where no fill is proposed to be used, the building line shall be located no closer to the floodplain than the edge of the area subject to flooding by the base flood.
b) In areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of the building site, the building line shall be located not less than twenty-five (25) feet landward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. No fill shall be placed in any floodway; nor shall any fill be placed where it diverts, retards or obstructs the flow of water to such an extent that it creates a danger or hazard to life or property in the area.
2. Tucson Code, Sec. 26-11.2 a 2 (b): (Provide a) plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; structure, fill or storage elevations; size, location and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site; location and elevations of streets, water supply lines, sanitary sewers and waste disposal facilities.
3. Tucson Code, Sec.26-11.2 b: Any grading or alteration (including excavation) of any watercourse regulated by this chapter shall be controlled to minimize the loss of soil through erosion from rainfall or stormwater flowage. Methods to control erosion and sedimentation must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city engineer prior to the granting of a floodplain use permit for any work in any floodplain. Both temporary and permanent measures for sediment and erosion control must be clearly delineated on plans or other written documents prior to receiving a floodplain use permit.
4. Tucson Code, 26-11.2 h: Prior to the issuance of final occupancy permits for development undertaken pursuant to a floodplain permit, the applicant shall submit, on a form provided by the city, certification that the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floors (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures is at or above the regulatory flood elevation. The certificate shall also disclose the method used to determine the regulatory flood elevation and the required erosion hazard setback, if any. The certification shall be signed by a state-registered professional civil engineer or land surveyor. Following acceptance of a certificate by the city engineer, a copy shall also be maintained in the building safety division records of the development.

Please visit the following link for access to this Code in its entirety:
http://library6.municode.com/gateway.dll/AZ/arizona/409?f=templates&fn=default.htm&npusername=11294&nppassword=MCC&npac_credentialspresent=true&vid=default

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or via email at Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov.

Doug Williams
Sr. Engineering Assoc.
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
02/23/2005 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
03/14/2005 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St.Paul FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Planning Technician Principal Planner

PROJECT:
T05CM00436
1841 West Probasco Drive
SFR 1st review
TRANSMITTAL: March 14, 2005
DUE DATE: March 14, 2005


COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.
CODE SECTION/
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD

1. This review is for a proposed single family residence (SFR) in the R-1 Zone. The Development Designator is "G" and is subject to LUC Sec 3.5.7.1.E, .F, .G and .H.
LUC Sec 2.3.4.2.A.1
2. The property to the east is owned by the City of Tucson. It is not designated for vehicle use access. An access easement must be granted from the City of Tucson to access the lot with the configuration presented on this plot plan.

3. If the house show on the Pima County aerial photo has not been demolished please depict the existing house on the plan.

4. List site coverage calculation on the site plan. Lot coverage all enclosed structures and all vehicle use areas.
03/21/2005 DAVE WITT BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL REVIEW Denied PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - PROJECT #T05CM00436

3/21/05 1841 W. PROBASCO DR.

PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED STRUCTURE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THIS LETTER REFLECTS COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A SHORTER BACK CHECK TIME, WE REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE PROVIDE REVISED PLANS AND CALCULATIONS, HIGHLIGHTING ANY CHANGES, ALONG WITH A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE NOTED ITEMS INDICATING ACTION TAKEN.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:

THE SCOPE OF THIS PLAN REVIEW COVERS ARCHITECTURAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, MODEL ENERGY AND ELECTRICAL CODES. ALL CODE REFERENCES ARE TO THE 2003 IRC AND STATE PLUMBING CODE. ALL FEATURES WERE CHECKED ONLY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY THE SUBMITTALS PROVIDED. ALL PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT ARE ASSUMED TO MEET OR WILL MEET OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS BEFORE PERMIT APPROVAL.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. ALL PLANS SHALL BE LEGIBLE AND A SCALE NO SMALLER THAN ΒΌ INCH = 1-FOOT SHALL BE USED
FOR ALL FLOOR PLANS, FRAMING PLANS AND ELEVATIONS. DETAILS &CROSS SECTIONS AT A MINIMUM 3/8 INCH = 1-FOOT SCALE.

2. ALL CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS SHALL BE MADE ON THE ORIGINAL TRACINGS AND TWO NEW SETS OF PRINTS OR (1) SEPIA & (1) BLUE LINE SHALL BE RETURNED ALONG WITH ALL REDLINE PRINTS.

3. PEN OR PENCIL CORRECTIONS ON FINAL PRINTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. TO AVOID DELAYS ENSURE ALL CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, ARE COMPLETE AND HAVE BEEN COORDINATED ON ALL APPLICABLE DETAILS AND NOTES.


SITE PLAN:

1. THE ROUTE OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE CONFLICTS WITH THE PLUMBING PLAN. PLEASE CO-ORDINATE.

2. SEE THE PLUMBING COMMENTS REGARDING THE WATER METER SIZE.


FOUNDATION PLANS:

1. PLEASE DIMENSION THE LOCATION OF THE POST FOOTINGS.

2. ALL FOUNDATION HOLD-DOWNS AND ANCHOR BOLT SPACING FOR SHEAR WALLS SHALL BE SPECIFIED AND
LOCATED.

FLOOR PLANS:

1. FLOOR PLAN NOTE / A2 ; THE WALLS OF TUBS AND SHOWERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED 72" ABOVE THE DRAIN. SEE R307 .

2. PROVIDE ACCESS TO EACH SEPARATE ATTIC AND CRAWL SPACE THAT EXCEEDS 30SF. DESIGNATE
LOCATIONS ON THE DRAWINGS. OPENINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 22" BY 30". THE ATTIC ACCESS SHALL
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 30" OF HEADROOM, AND SHALL BE LOCATED IN A HALLWAY OR READILY
ACCESSIBLE SPACE PER R807.

3. PLEASE NOTE ON THE PLANS THAT THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE IS THE CODE OF REFERENCE.

4. LOCATE AND IDENTIFY SHEAR WALL TYPES AND LOCATIONS. PROVIDE NAILING SCHEDULE.

5. HOW DOES THE 3050 XO BY THE FRONT DOOR COMPLY WITH R308?


STRUCTURAL PLANS:

1. SPECIFY DESIGN CRITERIA ON PLANS. VALUES FOR FLOOR DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD, ROOF DEAD LOAD
AND LIVE LOAD.

2. SPECIFY LUMBER GRADE AND SPECIES. SPECIFY MANUFACTURER AND SERIES ON GLULAMS AND "I" JOISTS.

3. PROVIDE MANUFACTURER'S CALCULATIONS AND DATA FOR PRE-FAB TRUSSES. TRUSS CALCULATIONS MUST BE SIGNED, DATED AND WET-SEALED BY AN ENGINEER WHO IS REGISTERED IN ARIZONA. TRUSS CALCULATIONS SHALL BE CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE FLOOR PLANS.

4. DETAIL GABLE END BRACING CONNECTIONS.

5. SPECIFY AND DETAIL ALL OVER FRAMING. IF SOLID SHEATHING IS USED ON THE LOWER TRUSSES, PROVIDE
MINIMUM OPENINGS OF 22" BY 30" FOR ACCESS AND VENTILATION INTO OVER FRAMED AREAS (>30 S.F.). IF
SOLID SHEATHING IS NOT USED ON LOWER TRUSSES, PROVIDE DETAILS FOR BRACING OF TOP CHORD OF
LOWER TRUSSES.

6. DETAIL ALL SHEAR CONNECTIONS FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE ROOF PLYWOOD.

7. THE DOUBLE 2 X 6 HEADER OVER THE 6' DOOR APPEARS INADEQUATE. PLEASE JUSTIFY.

8. PLEASE JUSTIFY THE HEADER SCHEDULE.

9. PROVIDE BEAMS FOR THE FRONT PORCH.

10. SPECIFY THE HIPS ON THE FRONT PORCH.

ELEVATIONS:

1. IS THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF 12/13?

2. SHOW CALCULATION OF ATTIC VENTILATION AREA IN COMPLIANCE WITH R806.2. NOTE LOCATION OF ALL
VENTS NEEDED TO COMPLY.

3. NOTE GLASS IN HAZARDOUS AREAS SHALL BE SAFETY GLASS PER R308.4.

4. FOAM INSULATION: CLARIFY YOUR COMPLIANCE WITH R314 ON THE WALLS TO THE ATTIC.

SECTIONS - DETAILS - MISC. NOTES:

1. 1 / A4 ; PLEASE INDICATE THE CONTINUOUS #4 AS BEING IN THE TOP OF THE STEM WALL INSTEAD OF IN THE FLOOR.

2. 1 / A4 ; PLEASE NOTE PRESSURE TREATED BOTTOM PLATE. SEE R319 AND R318.

3. HOW DOES THE GYP BOARD ON THE CEILING COMPLY WITH TABLE R702.3.5 FOOTNOTE D?

4. THE 3 - 16d CONNECTION OF THE LEDGER TO THE WALL APPEARS TO BE INADEQUATE. PLEASE JUSTIFY.

5. 4 / A4 ; PROVIDE THE DEPTH OF THE FOOTING BELOW NATURAL GRADE. SEE R403.1.4 .

6. 4 / A4 ; CLARIFY THE "DELETE MONOLITHIC POUR" NOTE.

7. 4 / A4 ; SPECIFY THE LENGTH OF THE WEDGE ANCHOR. SEE ICBO ER-1372 .

8. DEFINE "RMT", "PSL", AND "GL" IN THE HEADER SCHEDULE. SPECIFY THE COMBINATION SYMBOL FOR THE GLUE LAM BEAMS.

9. THE DOUBLE 2 X 6 HEADER OVER THE 6' SPAN APPEARS INADEQUATE. PLEASE JUSTIFY.


PLUMBING PLANS:

1. JUSTIFY THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SIZES. PROVIDE TOTAL FIXTURE DEMAND & MAXIMUM DEVELOPED LENGTH. SEE TABLE 6 - 4 . ALSO CHECK THE WATER METER SIZE. REMEMBER THE LIFT.

2. NOTE ON PLAN COMPLIANCE WITH WATER CONSERVATION; WATER CLOSETS 1.6 GALLONS PER FLUSH, SINKS
AND SHOWERHEADS 3 GALLONS PER MINUTE.

3. THE WATER LINE'S ENTRANCE LOCATION CONFLICTS WITH THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE CO-ORDINATE.

4. PLUMBING NOTE / A5 ; PLEASE DRAIN THE CONDENSATE INTO THE TAIL PIECE OF A TRAP .

5. NOTE ON PLANS THAT SHOWER AND TUB / SHOWER COMBINATIONS THAT HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONTROL
VALVES SHALL BE OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE.

MECHANICAL PLANS:

1. PLEASE MAKE THE DUCT SIZES MORE LEDGIBLE IN THE SHADED AREAS.

2. PROVIDE A RETURN AIR SYSTEM. SEE M1403.1 .

3. SHOW EXHAUST FAN LOCATIONS FOR THE LAUNDRY ROOM IN LIEU OF OPERABLE WINDOWS, PER R303.3

4. SPECIFY THE CONDENSER FOR THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM.

5. WHO MAKES THE "RGPHOTEAUER" FURNACE?

ELECTRICAL PLANS:

1. INCLUDE THE A/C IN THE ELECTRICAL LOAD CALCULATIONS. DOES THIS HOUSE HAVE A/C? IT HAS A COIL AND O.B.D.s .

2. THE RECEPTACLE OUTSIDE THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR IS NOT PERMITTED ON CIRCUIT 13. SEE E3801.3.1 .

3. PROVIDE ARC FAULT PROTECTION FOR THE BEDROOM RECEPTACLES. SEE E3802.11 .

4. PROVIDE G.F.C.I. PROTECTION FOR ALL COUNTER TOP RECEPTACLES. SEE E3802.6 .

MODEL ENERGY CODE:

1. PROVIDE RES-CHECK OR EQUAL TO JUSTIFY THE WINDOW U-VALUE OF .87 .




IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR ASSIGNED PLANS EXAMINER:
DAVE WITT @ 791-5550 EXT. 1110

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/22/2005 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/22/2005 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed