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 - T06CM00851
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. According to approved tentative plat Case # S99-018, the NPPO plan indicates that Block A has all the plants inventoried on-site as preserved in place. Show how the site meets approved preservation plan or provide the following information: 2. Submit a separate NPPO plan, A Native Plant Preservation Plan shall consist of the information itemized according to the preservation and mitigation methodology chosen by the applicant: Choose appropriate methodology Plant Inventory, or Plant Appraisal per DS 2-15.3.0 3. Set Aside Submittal Requirement. Environmental Resource Report shall be submitted in the assessment of the area(s) of natural resource to be set aside as undisturbed natural open space in lieu of performing a Native Plant Inventory, Analysis, and Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan. In addition, an aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, is required at a minimum 1" = 100' delineating the natural resource values for areas on the site and the area(s) to be set aside which will be platted and included in Covenants verifying area as NUOS. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a note on the plans stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. |
| 05/22/2006 | WILDAN | 2ND PARTY REVIEW | REVIEW | Denied | May 20, 2006 City of Tucson PO Box 7210 Tucson, AZ 85726 RE: VAZQUEZ RESIDENCE – 2nd REVIEW CITY OF TUCSON LOG NO T06CM00851 WILLDAN PROJECT NO. 13881-6012 The second review for the above project has been completed. This letter contains comments which need to be addressed by written responses to each which indicate any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter third review, all corrections and revisions must be made on the original plans and two complete new sets of prints, along with one complete redlined set, must be returned to our office. To avoid delays, ensure that all corrections have been made, are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable detail and note sheets, and that all changes have been highlighted with appropriate revision numbers, revision dates, and “cloud bubbles.” Pen or pencil corrections on final prints are not acceptable. This project has been reviewed for conformance with the 2003 IRC, 1997 UAC, 2003 IMC, 2003 IECC, 2002 NEC codes with local modifications, and the 2003 UPC with State of Arizona Amendments. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan. Should you have questions regarding the comments herein, please contact your plans examiner John Stigalt. Occupancy Occup. Load Construction Area S.F. Sprinklered Alarms SFR Garage Patio N/A VB 6046 1265 884 No Yes Special Inspection is required for the following items: Post tension slab, epoxy anchors, concrete, and structural masonry. The following items are acceptable for deferred submittals: N/A GENERAL COMMENTS: A completed special inspection form for the post tension slab, epoxy anchors, concrete, and structural masonry will need to be submitted prior to the plans being resubmitted. Reference Section 1704.4 and the City of Tucson submittal requirements. Comment Remains - Not submitted. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: Reviewed and accepted. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: Sheet 5 Please provide a soils report for the installation of 1010 cubic yards of fill. Also, a post tension slab is noted in the structural general notes. The foundation plan and details indicate a conventional footer/foundation system. Please clarify. Reference Sections R106.1.1 and R301.1.3 IRC. COMMENT REMAINS – Not referenced in the structural calculations or on plans. Sheets 7,8 and 9 Please coordinate the structural plans with the architectural plans. The structural plans indicate that a post tension slab has been designed for this structure, yet the architectural plans show a conventional footer/foundation system. Reference Section R106.1.1 IRC. COMMENT REMAINS - Please clarify. PLUMBING COMMENTS: Sheet 13 Annotate on the plans the length of each gas piping supplying each gas-burning appliance along with the BTU’s for each appliance. Reference Section 103.2.3 UPC. COMMENT REMAINS - Not annotated on plans. MECHANICAL COMMENTS: Reviewed and accepted. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: Reviewed and accepted. ENERGY CODE COMMENTS: Reviewed and accepted. ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS: Not part of this review Sincerely WILLDAN Martin Haeberle, C.B.O. Building Official MAH/tb |
| 05/24/2006 | SEPTIC APPROVAL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | SEPTIC REVIEW NOT COMPLETE |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/25/2006 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/25/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |