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: RESIDENTIAL - BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/NPPO
Permit Number - T10CM03559
Review Name: RESIDENTIAL - BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/NPPO
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2011 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: T10CM03559 10538 East Seven Generations Way New SFR on two (2) lots TRANSMITTAL: January 11, 2011 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. This site is located in the Civano Neighbor 1 subdivision, Neighborhood Center District (Civano Master PAD: F-3.3.1). The zone is PAD 12. Provide all this information on the plot plan. This plan must be submitted to the Civano Community Association Design Review Committee for review relative to CC&Rs and Design Guidelines (Civano Master PAD F-2.7). (See http://www.civano1.com/ and/or http://www.civanoneighbors.com/civano/neighborhood1/ for information.) Swaim Associates is the architectural firm that does the reviews for the homeowners' association (520 326 3700). The Review Committee's approval is required. You may want to read the "Purpose, Scope, Main concepts and Goals" in the Civano Master Plan (Civano Master Plan: F-1.0 INTRODUCTION). "The plan is based upon principles of 'New Urbanism' of which 'Neo-Traditional Planning is a part" (Civano Master PAD: F-1.1). [Note: The portion of Master Plan for Neighborhood 1 is on pages 127 through 172.] The plot plan presented is incomplete and cannot be fully reviewed. See the plot plan instructions and model sheet provided with the return set, or retrieve a copy from the zoning review counter, for the plot plan requirements; or use Development Standards 2-02. Provide all the information required on the plot plan. These include, but are not limited to, the correct lot dimensions, the distances from the structure to the each lot line and dimensions of the structure. Also provide the street and sidewalk information with dimensions as shown on the instructions. Provide detailed information concerning the planter and retaining wall from the previous permit on this plan. "In accordance with the Civano IMPACT system, individual houses will be designed to provide an interior use of 53 gallons per person per day (a 54% reduction form 1991 residential baseline) and 28 gallons per person per day for the exterior" (Civano Master PAD F-2.1.3). Demonstrate compliance on the plan. "Each building will be designed with a dual water supply system, one for potable water and one reclaimed water which will be used for all outdoor irrigation" (Civano Master PAD F-2.1.3). Demonstrate compliance on the plan. The lot coverage calculations provided are convoluted. Lot coverage for a residential site is a list of all enclosed structures with their square footage and the square footage of the vehicle use areas. The lot coverage as presented states that the vehicle use area is 5% of the lot coverage, but the square footage provided (390 SF) exceeds 5% of the lot coverage (388.4 SF). Please be aware that there shall be additional comments relative the additional information provided. |
| 01/12/2011 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | need to provide a single address with Pima County Addressing prior to approval |
| 01/13/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/14/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. All new development must be reviewed by the Civano Community Association Design Review Committee in relation to the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines (Civano Master PAD F-2.7). 2. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed. 3. Additional comments may apply |
| 01/24/2011 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEETS S1, S2, AND S3; PLANS: SHEET S1 INDICATES A SCALE OF 3/16"=1'-0", WHILE SHEETS S2 AND S3 INDICATE 1/8"=1'-0". CLARIFY. 2. SHEET S1; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: TWO BEAMS ARE NOT REFERENCED TO THE BEAM SCHEDULE. THESE BEAMS ARE BETWEEN THE BEDROOM/COMPUTER ROOM AND THE BEDROOM/BATH. ARE THESE B1 BEAMS? VERIFY AND INDICATE ON PLAN. 3. SHEET S1 (LINTEL SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 36): LINTEL L1 ON SHEET S1 INDICATES #3 STIRRUPS AT 15"O.C., WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE #3 STIRRUPS AT 12" O.C. CLARIFY. 4. SHEET S1; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: A DETAIL 6 IS CUT BETWEEN THE COVERED SITTING AREA AND THE WALKWAY. SHOULD THIS BE DETAIL 4? VERIFY. 5. SHEET S2; RASTRA GENERAL NOTES: NOTE 8 SHOULD REFERENCE SHEET S3 FOR VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL WALL REINFORCING, NOT THE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS. 6. SHEET S2; FRAMING NOTES: IS NOTE 4 CORRECT? WALLS ARE NOT WOOD STUDS. REVISE. 7. SHEET S2; FRAMING NOTES: IS NOTE 16 CORRECT? WALLS ARE NOT SHEATHED IN PLYWOOD. REVISE. 8. SHEET S2; FRAMING NOTES: IS NOTE 18 CORRECT? WALLS ARE NOT WOOD STUDS AND SHEATHING. REVISE. 9. SHEET S2 (FRAMING PLAN); SHEET S4 (DETAIL 8): DETAIL 8 INDICATES THE ROOF OVER THE ELEVATOR, WHILE THE DETAIL IS CUT AT THE FLOOR. VERIFY AND REVISE. 10. SHEET S2 (FRAMING PLAN); SHEET S4 (DETAIL 11): DETAIL 11 INDICATES IT IS AT THE ROOF LEVEL, WHILE THE DETAIL IS CUT AT THE FLOOR. VERIFY AND REVISE. 11. SHEET S2 (FRAMING PLAN); SHEET S4 (DETAIL 11): DETAIL 11 INDICATES IT IS AT THE ROOF (NON-BEARING), WHILE THE DETAIL IS CUT AT THE FLOOR (BEARING). VERIFY AND REVISE. 12. SHEET S2 (FRAMING PLAN); SHEET S4 (DETAIL 6): DETAIL 6 INDICATES IT IS AT THE PORCH ROOF, WHILE THE DETAIL IS CUT BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE WALKWAY AT THE FLOOR. VERIFY AND REVISE. 13. SHEET S3 (FOUNDATION NOTES); SHEET S4 (DETAIL 26): NOTE 3 INDICATES FOOTINGS SHALL BE FOUNDED A MINIMUM OF 18" BELOW NATURAL OR FINISHED GRADE. DETAIL 26 DOES NOT INDICATE THAT. REVISE. 14. SHEET S3; FOUNDATION NOTES: NOTE 7 INDICATES CONTROL JOINTS SPECIFICATION. NO CONTROL JOINTS ARE INDICATED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 15. SHEET S3; RASTRA GENERAL NOTES: NOTE 5 IS MISSING VERBIAGE. PROVIDE. 16. SHEET S3; FOUNDATION NOTES: CLEAR UP NOTE 4. 17. SHEET S3; FOUNDATION NOTES: IS NOTE 11 CORRECT? WALLS ARE NOT WOOD STUDS. REVISE. 18. SHEET S3; WALL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE: THE LAST NOTE REFERENCES GENERAL NOTES FOR REBAR AT OPENINGS, JAMBS, CORNERS, ETC. PROVIDE THOSE NOTES OR REFERENCE SPECIFIC DETAILS. 19. SHEET S3 (FOUNDATION NOTES); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGES 16, 18, 19, 21, AND 23): FOUNDATION NOTE 2 INDICATES ALL CONCRETE TO BE 2500 PSI, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE 3000 PSI CONCRETE FOR FOOTING DESIGNS. REVISE THE CALCULATIONS OR THE DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 20. SHEET S3 (FOUNDATION NOTES); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 23): THE FOUNDATION NOTE INDICATES AN ASSUMED SOIL BEARING PRESSURE OF 1500 PSF, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE 2000 PSF. REVISE THE CALCULATIONS OR THE DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 21. SHEET S4 (DETAIL 2); SHEETS S1 AND S2 (FRAMING PLANS): SHEET S4 INDICATES THE DETAIL IS NOT USED. BUT THE FRAMING PLAN INDICATES DETAIL 2 BETWEEN THE BEDROOM AND THE EXERCISE ROOM, AND BETWEEN THE TV ROOM AND THE BEDROOM AT THE SECOND FLOOR. 22. SHEET S4 (DETAIL 3); SHEET S1 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN): THE DETAIL INDICATES ROOF JOISTS BEARING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BEAM, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES JOIST BEARING ON ONE SIDE AND PARALLEL TO THE BEAM ON THE OTHER. VERIFY AND REVISE. 23. SHEET S4; DETAIL 15: COMPLETE THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DETAIL 'SIZE AND SPACING PER ___ '. 24. SHEET S4; DETAIL 16: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES A MINIMUM LETTERING HEIGHT OF 3/32" ON ALL DRAWINGS. REVISE. 25. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 5); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 7); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 11): PAGES 5 AND 7 INDICATE A 20 PSF WIND PRESSURE USED FOR THE LATERAL DESIGN, WHILE PAGE 11 INDICATES 17 PSF. CLARIFY. 26. GENERAL: THERE ARE THREE SHEETS DESIGNATED AS S4. REVISE. 27. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 01/28/2011 | CLAYTON TREVILLYAN | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Denied | PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: 1-28-11 Activity: T10CM03559 Address: 10538 E Seven Generations Applicant: Jacques Gerstenfeld Plan review for the above referenced structure has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. In order to facilitate a shorter back check time, we request that you please provide revised plans and calculations, along with a written response to each of the noted items indicating action taken. SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this plan review includes architectural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and energy conservation. The purpose of this review is to verify compliance to the 2006 International Residential Code with local amendments. Other comment references may be derived from additional codes and standards adopted by The City of Tucson. All features have been checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided for review. All portions of this project are assumed to meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Any architect and/or engineer involved in the design of the structure shall seal the related new or revised sheets of plans including details and calculations in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Technical Registration. INCLUSIVE HOME DESIGN: 2. Provide a complete set of notes on the plan to meet the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance 10463. PLUMBING PLAN: 3. Kitchen and laundry sinks are considered black water fixtures and may not discharge into the gray water drain line. 4. Show the black water drain near the first floor laundry room connecting to the main building drain. 5. Drains must be sized according to connected fixture unit load, P3005.4 (check the 3" lines on the first floor) 6. The International and Uniform codes are not interchangeable. Code references must match the proposed code used (gas table) 7. Specify the design length of the gas supply, G2413.1. 8. Use the maximum input values for all gas appliances. 9. Provide note requiring that water hammer arrestor be installed in accordance with ASSE 1010-2004 on water lines serving appliances equipped with quick-closing valves to include but not limited to: clothes washers, dishwashers, and refrigerators, IRC P2903.5. 10. Provide a complete water supply piping plan for review. 11. Provide the maximum developed length of water line from the meter the furthest appliance served, P2903.7. 12. Specify shower and tub/shower combinations that have individual control valves shall be of the pressure balance or thermostatic mixing valve type. 13. All construction drawings submitted after March 1, 2009 for one- or two-family dwellings require a solar water heating system, or future installation preparation with one of the following provisions: control and ¾"water piping; 3" metallic sleeve; or an accessible attic over the water heater. ELECTRICAL PLAN: 14. On June 17, 2008, Mayor and Council unanimously voted to require all new residences to be solar ready for electric (PV). Starting July 1, 2009, all new single family homes or duplexes must include in the plans either a photovoltaic system or preparation for later installation of a PV system in order to receive a permit. 15. Include both subpanels and their respective over-current devices on the main panel schedule, E3502.2 16. Clarify the grounding electrode method and size of the grounding electrode conductor, E3508. (2'8"x5/8" ground rods are not acceptable, did you mean 2-8'x5/8") If you have any questions please contact: Clayton Trevillyan 520.837.4913 Residential Plan Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2011 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/01/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |