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 - T10CM02521
Review Name: COMMERCIAL TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/13/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/14/2010 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/17/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | Reference Building Folder for comments |
| 09/17/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/17/2010 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | STRUCTURAL REVIEW 1. Please provide Special Inspection Certifications for review and approval. 2. Please provide complete structural calculations for all concrete foundations and footings. a. As per the note on page 2-1 of the structural calculations, no geotechnical evaluation and report was provided for foundation design. Please design all foundations as per recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Foree&Vann, Inc., dated 5 March 2010 that was submitted with the permit documents. 3. Please provide complete structural calculations for the suspended heat pumps. 4. The roof framing plan is not clear as to what is new and what is existing to remain. Please clarify. 5. Please show north arrow on all floor plans and any partial floor plans. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/17/2010 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | |
| 09/21/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T10CM02521 875 W. Miracle Mile Ghost Ranch - Three Unit Building - buildings 4 - 7 TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 20, 2010 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Review the square footage of building 4 - 7 based on the actual building dimensions labeled on sheet A-5.0. Ensure that the correct square footage has been listed on sheet AS-1. Please ensure that when calculating the square footages of the building that the outside dimensions are used and all non enclosed areas such as porches are not included. Carports are not part of the dwelling square footage but do count towards the lot coverage and should be listed as carport square footage where applicable. While the additional square footage does not increase the need for additional parking spaces it does affect the lot coverage and floor area ratios. The development criteria will have to be revised as required to match the actual per the floor plan dimensions. I acknowledge the note for the replacement of existing windows but I'm not sure that this is what Jonathan had in mind. I believe but I admit I'm not clear myself if the note is intended for existing windows or was it to include the new ones. I have put in a call to Jonathan for some feed back but I am requesting that you (Paul) do the same and get a clarification. 2. After reviewing and comparing the building package site plan and landscape plan with the previously approved site and landscape plans it is clear that there are some changes to the site and building one that must be addressed. Zoning is requesting that a revised site and landscape plan is submitted for review and approval for the proposed changes which include the square footage of building one and the redlined areas on sheet AS-1. 3. When submitting the revised site and landscape plans for review, include a cover letter explaining the changes that have been made. These are the changes noted as part of this zoning review, which will include any calculation changes. a. Cross walk location and access ramps at main entrance along Miracle Mile. b. Sidewalk and the access ramp at the corner of Fairview and Miracle Mile. c. Sidewalks, access ramps and crosswalk at the northwest entrance along Fairview. d. Crosswalks and access ramps between buildings 1 and 3. e. Relocation and addition of an additional HC parking adjacent to buildings 1 and 2. f. Sidewalks and relocation of the bicycle parking facilities from building 3 to building 4. g. Calculations for building square footage must be revised. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\idrive\cdrc\DSC\Ghostranch lodge units 1-12.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 09/23/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The applicable code for all commercial plumbing projects is the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code with Local Amendments. Provide an approved appeal to the building official if the plans are to be reviewed to the 2006 IPC. 2. The minimum residual water pressure is 15 PSI unless it can be shown that no specified fixtures or appliances require minimum residual pressures greater than 8 PSI. Note that some water closets and some appliances (e.g. dishwashers and clothes washers) require minimum residual pressures greater than 15 PSI. Reference: Section 608.1, UPC 2006. 3. Specify the precise method to be used to sterilize the PEX water distribution system that meets the requirements of the PEX manufacturer. The UPC provides two methods of sterilization and one of them (200 ppm for 3 hours) may be harmful to the PEX. Reference: Sections 310.4 and 609.9, UPC 2006. 4. The pipe sizing chart, shown on sheet P-7, is supposed to be based on a friction factor of 7.2 PSI per 100 feet of pipe. If it is designed for sizing the aboveground piping (PEX), the stated upper limits for each tubing size are incorrect. All of the friction factors are in excess of 12.5 PSI per 100 feet and the tubing sizes of 1" and greater have velocities much greater than 8 FPS. Revise the chart as required to limit the pressure drops to the calculated values and the velocities to 8 feet per second or less. 5. An approved 2-way cleanout fitting is a single fitting, not a field-assembled group of individual fittings. The ASTM standards for 2-way cleanouts only list 3" and 4" sizes, all in hubless cast iron. The new 2" 2-way cleanout located near the clothes washers does not appear to be an approved, listed fitting. If you wish to have a cleanout for the 2" building drain at that location, a 1-way cleanout may be installed but a 2-way cleanout is unnecessary. Reference: Sections 707.4 and 707.11, UPC 2006. 6. The maximum developed length for a 1-1/4" trap arm is 2'-6". Reference: Section 1002.2, UPC 2006. 7. Provide vent piping of sufficient size to comply with Section 904.1, UPC 2006. Vents located upstream from pumps, ejectors, backwater valves, or other devices that obstruct the free flow of gases between the building sewer and the outside atmosphere shall not be used for meeting the required cross-sectional vent area. 8. Clarify how an air gap fitting will be employed for terminating the HVAC condensate drain. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 807.2, UPC 2006. |
| 09/24/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/29/2010 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Denied,see comments for Activity T10CM02528 |
| 10/05/2010 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/13/2010 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |