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 - T07CM00243
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/29/2007 | LINHART PETERSEN POERS ASSOC. | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | March 29, 2007 CITY OF TUCSON - SECOND CHECK Tucson Appl. No. T07CM00243 Bureau Veritas Job No. 01007-161001.013 Shane Chism ABA Architects 1001 N. Alernon Way # 175 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Re: Plan Review: San Miguel Catholic High School – Bldg D – Structural Only Address: 6601 S. San Fernando Rd Dear Mr. Chism, Bureau Veritas North America has completed a second review of the following documents on behalf of the City of Tucson: Plans: One (1) set of building plans (121 sheets, G101 through E801) dated January 18, 2007 by Ronald H. Schneider of Schneider & Associates Structural Engineers. Structural Calculations: Two (2) sets of calculations, dated January 17, 2007 by Ronald H. Schneider of Schneider & Associates Structural Engineers. Geotechnical Report: One (1) set of soils report dated August 5, 2004. by Oleg B. Lysy J of Terracon. Miscellaneous: One (1) set of Construction Documents dated January 2007 by ABA Architects. These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the provisions of the 2003 International Building Codes (i.e., State of Arizona and Tucson amended 2003 IRC, 2003 IMC, 2002 NEC and 2003 IPC). Please submit an itemized response letter and required number of complete and revised documents with all revisions clouded. Sincerely, Bureau Veritas North America Randy McCoy ICC Plans Examiner RM:sk enclosures Re: Stories: One Occupancy/Const.: E/VB Building Area (sq. ft.): 6904 (multi-purpose room) A. The following plan review comments are based on the City of Tucson Building Regulations and referred to the 2003 International Building Code. B. Please respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. Indicate which detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check and hopefully, approval of this project. Thank you for your assistance. C. These plan review comments are based on building code items only. If site-related comments are applicable to this project, they will be generated by others (e.g., County Engineering, Public Works, Health, etc.). GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Structural calculations specify a description and size of beam, however the plans specify a different description and size of beam. Please clarify. Call me if necessary Randy McCoy (520) -820-1980. Low Roof framing plan does not correspond with framing plan in the structural calculations. Please clarify. High Roof framing plan does not correspond with the structural calculations. Please clarify. Outdoor basketball court framing plan does not correspond with the structural calculations. Please clarify. Beams B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, and B14 are not represented in the structural calculations. Beam B5 in structural calculations specify a W12x19 but in the beam schedule B5 is HSS6 x 2 x 5/16. Please clarify. Beam B6 in structural calculations specifies a W18 x 46, but in the Beam Schedule, B6 is a HSS6 x 2 x 5/16. Please clarify. Beam B7 in structural calculations specifies a HSS8 x 4 x ¼, but in the Beam Schedule B7 is HSS6 x 4 x ¼. Please clarify. Beam B8 is structural calculations specifies a HSS20 x 8 x 1/2, but in Beam Schedule B8 is HSS8 x 3 x ¼. Please clarify. Lintel LT5 in structural calculations specifies a HSS4 x 4 x ¼, but in the Beam Schedule LT5 is 32 “ deep with 2” #5 bottom. Please clarify. Lintel LT7 in structural calculations specifies a concrete & steel lintel, but in the Beam Schedule LT7 is a HSS6 x 6 x 1/4. Please clarify. Columns C1, C2, C3 in column (c) schedule do not correspond with C1, C2, and C3 in structural calculations. Please clarify. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Randy McCoy at (520) 820-1980 between 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., M-F. |
| 03/29/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Second request. Provide adequate make up air for the kitchen exhaust hood. AC-14, which is interlocked with EF-9, supplies only 500 cfm of outside air to replace the required 775 cfm of exhaust for the area served by AC-14. Reference Section 508.1 IMC 2003. |
| 03/29/2007 | LINHART PETERSEN POERS ASSOC. | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/30/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | For roof area A, the scupper width has been changed to 12" in detail G1/A612 but the schedule on sheet A602 still shows the width as 8". Coordinate the drawings to resolve the inconsistency. Reference Sections 1101.11.1 and 1101.11.2.4, UPC 2003, and Section 1611.1, IBC 2003. |
| 04/09/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Building plans cannot be approved until the revised development plan has been approved and stamped as a Site Plan. |
| 04/19/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Once the building plans are approved by building code division and the development plan is stamped as a site plan, zoning will review the building plans at the counter. A copy of the development plan stamped as a site plan must be inserted into each set of building plans. To convert a development plan to a site plan is simply for records - obtain a yellow site card application at the permit counter and walk through the stations for stamp approval. |