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: COMMERCIAL NEW
Permit Number - T08CM00782
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2008 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | |
| 03/20/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. TRUSS JOIST DEFFERAL SUBMITTAL NEEDS AN APPROVAL FROM BUILDING OFFICIAL. TRUSSES ARE NOT TO BE ERECTED UNTIL REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY DSD, STRUCTURES. 2. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL DETAIL AND CALCULATIONS FOR ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT 3. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR FOUNDATION PLAN. 4. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR FOUNDATION PLAN INCLUDING TIE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE IN BOTH DIIRECTIONS. 5. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR ROOF FRAMING PLAN. 6. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S SEAL AND CALCULATIONS FOR ALL NEW BUILDING STRUCTURE, MODIFIED EXISTING RAMADA RELOCATION AND EXTERIOR DECKING. 7. PROVIDE CIVIL ENGINEER'S SEAL FOR ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN AND ALL REQUIRED STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY CODE 8. MODIFIED RAMADA DESIGN IS REJECTED. PROVIDE PROPER STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR FRAMING, FOUNDATION AND REUSE OF ALL MATERIAL INCLUDING ALL REQUIRED DETAIL AND CALCULATIONS 9. MODIFED, REUSED 2" DECK DESIGN IS REJECTED. PROVIDE PROPER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERED DESIGN, DETAILING AND CALCULATIONS. 10. NEW CONCRETE WALKWAY AND ENTRANMCE TO ADDITION INCORRECT. EXISTING WALKS ARE NOT DRAW AT CORRECT WIDTH AS PER LAST APPROVED SITE PLAN; REDESIGN, REWORK AND RESUBMIT 11. APPEARS AS IF NEW ADDITION IS SET PPROXIMATELY 4" AWAY FROM EXISTING CMU. CLOSE THE GAP AND REDESIGN. 12. DETAIL REFERENCES WRONG, I.E. 4/A-6 13. FINISH STRUCTURAL DETAILS, CALL OUT OUT ALL METAL CONNECTORS. 14. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH IBC 2006 SECTION 3409.7.1, BREAK DOWN COSTS AND SHOW THAT BEING SPENT ON ACCESSIBILITY MODIFICATIONS 15. OCCUPANCY LOAD DOES NOT APPEAR CORRECT: RECALCULATE SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAK DOWN AND RECALCULATE NUMBER OF STUDENTS AND STAFF ALLOWED BY 1BC 2006, TABLE 1004.1.1. READ DEFINITION OF GROSS S.F. AS DEFINED 1002.1 WHICH DEFINES BUSINESS AREA FOR LOAD CALCULATIONS. 16. ONCE ACCURATE STUDENT AND STAFF OCCUPANCY LOADING HAS BEEN DEFTERMINED, RECALCULATE REQUIED NUMBER OF TOILETS AND TOILET FIXTURES. EXISTING COUNT IS INSUFFICIENT. 17. REDESIGN, REDRAW CORRECT THOSE NOTED DEFICIENCIES AND ANY OTHERS THAT ARE NOT NOTED AND RESUBMIT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOT ALL DIFFICIENCIES ARE NOTED. |
| 03/21/2008 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/28/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/28/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The energy calculations (M2) and detail 5/A3 call for R-19 batt insulation in the exterior walls but the framing detail (A3) and Section 1/A5 call for R-22 batt insulation in the exterior walls. Which insulation resistance is correct and if R-22 is the correct insulating value, how is it to be installed in 2x6 wood stud walls? Reference: Section 104.2, IECC 2006. 2. Justify the use of a projection factor (PJ) greater than or equal to 0.5 for the east door and the west window. Reference: Section 502.3.2, IECC 2006. |
| 03/28/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Show that the materials used for the storm sewer (culvert) are listed for use under a building. Reference: Section 1102, UPC 2006. 2. If the 3" downspout becomes blocked, show how secondary drainage is to be provided or provide structural calculations to show that the roof can support the weight of water that will accumulate. Reference: Section 1101.11.2, UPC 2006 and Section 1611.1, IBC 2006. 3. Refer to Section 1102.11.2.1, UPC 206 for the minimum scupper width. |
| 04/10/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Montessori Schoolhouse Addition T08CM00782 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 24, 2008 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t07cm00782.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 04/17/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/07/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/07/2008 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |