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 - T10CM03491
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need approved DP D10-0044 need capacity evaluated and/or point and method of connection approved by PCRWRD liason unit- 3rd FL PWB- 740-6535 NEED REVIEW/APPROVAL FOR NEW BUILDING CONNECTION TO SEWER BY PCRWRD - 1ST FL PWB- 740-6369 |
| 02/01/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/01/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/01/2011 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. NEW SHEET A1.1 (SECTION H7): STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 35): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A PIER FOOTING DIAMETER OF 2 FEET, WHILE THE DRAWING INDICATES 1'-8". CLARIFY. |
| 02/01/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved; no current site plan has been included in the drawing set. [No utility drawings have been included in the plan set to show the site utility work (e.g. building sewer, water service, gas service, etc.). Please include a site utility drawing as part of the construction documents. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.] 2. Comment not resolved; no backflow assembly appears on the plumbing sheets. [Provide backflow protection for the mister system. Reference: Section 603.4.6, UPC 2006.] 3. Comment not resolved; no current site plan has been included in the drawing set. See also Section 904.1, UPC 2006 for venting requirements for the building sewer. [The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2594.97) is higher than the first floor elevation (2592.84). Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. Refer also to Section 904.1, UPC 2006.] |
| 02/02/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Plans have been reviewed by zoning but cannot verify compliance with the development plan at this time. Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal and compare with the development plan for site complaince. |
| 02/07/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 7, 2011 REVIEWER: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T10CM03491 (Building Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received the building plan (T10CM03491). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the building plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: BUILDING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Engineering could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with a stamped approved Development Plan Package (D10-0044). Please submit a copy of the stamped approved Development Plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 2) Engineering will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped Development Plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide the building plan with a copy of the last approved Development Plan (D10-0044). Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the building plan review. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 03/14/2011 | JEFF DRUMM | LANDFILL | REVIEW | Needs Review |