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 TI
Permit Number - T10CM01122
Review Name: COMMERCIAL TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/26/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET S100; FOUNDATIONS: NOTES 1 THROUGH 3 INDICATE A SOIL REPORT WAS USED FOR THE FOUNDATION DESIGN. PROVIDE THE REPORT FOR REVIEW. 2. SHEET S200 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S400 (DETAIL 406): THE PLAN ALONG THE SOUTH WALL INDICATES THE EXISTING WALL FOOTING EXTENDS BEYOND THE FACE OF THE BRICK WALL, WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES THE EXISTING FOOTING STOPS AT THE FACE OF THE BRICK WALL. THIS AFFECTS THE NEW COLUMN BASE PLATE AND CONCRETE FOOTING. IS THE EXISTING FOOTING TO BE REMOVED PER FOUNDATION NOTE 6 ON SHEET S100? CLARIFY WITH A NOTE ON THE DETAIL. 3. SHEET S200 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S400 (DETAIL 406): THE PLAN ALONG THE NORTH WALL INDICATES EXISTING FOOTINGS IN FIVE LOCATIONS THAT EXTEND INTO THE NEW FOUNDATIONS. IS THE EXISTING FOOTING TO BE REMOVED PER FOUNDATION NOTE 6 ON SHEET S100? CLARIFY WITH A NOTE ON THE DETAIL. 4. SHEET S200 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S400 (DETAIL 414): THIS DETAIL MAY NOT WORK AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STAIR WHERE THE STRINGER WILL REST ON A NEW SLAB OVER AN EXISTING FOOTING. IS THE EXISTING FOOTING TO BE REMOVED PER FOUNDATION NOTE 6 ON SHEET S100? CLARIFY WITH A NOTE ON THE DETAIL. 5. SHEET S200 (FOUNDATION PLAN); SHEET S400 (DETAIL 405): WHERE THIS DETAIL IS CUT AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NEW STAIR, IS THE EXISTING FOOTING TO BE REMOVED PER FOUNDATION NOTE 6 ON SHEET S100? CLARIFY WITH A NOTE ON THE DETAIL. 6. SHEET S300; FRAMING PLAN NOTE 9: DOES THIS NEED TO BE A 3X10 (PER CALCULATIONS) OR A 3X12? A NEW 3X11 IS NOT A STANDARD SIZE. CLARIFY ON THE DRAWING. 7. SHEET S300; FRAMING PLAN NOTE 10: A NEW 2X11 IS NOT A STANDARD SIZE. CLARIFY ON THE DRAWINGS. 8. SHEET S300 (FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 31): THE DESIGN FOR DB13 AND THE CALL OUT ON THE FRAMING PLAN ARE NOT INDICATED. VERIFY. 9. SHEET S400; DETAILS 404, 412, AND 413: THE MINIMUM LETTERING SIZE SHALL BE 3/32" PER CITY OF TUCSON REQUIREMENTS. REVISE. 10. SHEET S500: THERE ARE TWO SHEETS DESIGNATED AS S500. REVISE. 11. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEET 8: DID NOT LOCATE THE CALCULATION FOR JOIST DJ10. PROVIDE. 12. GENERAL: PROVIDE THE DESIGNATION FOR THE GRID LINE BETWEEN GRIDS 1 AND 2. 13. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 04/26/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/05/2010 | SREEVES1 | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 05/05/2010 | SREEVES1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 05/05/2010 | SREEVES1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 05/05/2010 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/05/2010 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |