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 - T11CM03849
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 3/32-inch (all upper case). Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. Provide a cleanout at the junction of the building drain and the building sewer. Reference: Sections 719.1 and 719.2, UPC 2006. |
| 01/06/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/06/2012 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/06/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET A4.0; DETAIL 9: KEYNOTE 2 AND THE DETAIL INDICATE THE EDGE OF THE TURNDOWN SLAB (AND FACE OF FOUNDATION) IS 3-1/2" OFF THE GRID LINE. VERIFY THIS CONDITION IS INDICATED ON THE PLANS ON A1.0. 2. SHEET A4.1; DETAIL 12: PROVIDE A NOTE ON THIS DETAIL SIMILAR TO ROOF FRAMING KEYNOTE 5 ON SHEET S2.1. 3. SHEET S1.1; FOUNDATIONS: NOTE 1 INDICATES A SOILS REPORT WAS USED IN THE FOUNDATION DESIGN. PROVIDE THAT REPORT FOR REVIEW. 4. SHEET S2.1; FOUNDATION PLAN KEYNOTES: NOTE 5 SHOULD BE MOVED TO THE MASONRY WALL. VERIFY. 5. SHEET S2.1; FOUNDATION PLAN KEYNOTES: NOTE 4 SHOULD BE ADDED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 6. SHEET S3.1; DETAIL 105: THE TOEDOWN DOES NOT EXTEND THE 1'-6" MINIMUM PER FOUNDATION NOTE 1 ON S1.1. CLARIFY. 7. SHEET S2.1; FOUNDATION PLAN: WILL THE TOP OF THE COLUMN FOOTINGS ON THE EAST WALL DROP 6" IF THE SLAB TOEDOWN (DETAIL 105/S3.1) EXTENDS 1'-6" BELOW GRADE? VERIFY. 8. SHEET S3.1; DETAIL 104: PROVIDE A NOTE ON THIS DETAIL FOR THE TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATION. 9. SHEET S4.1: PROVIDE REFERENCES TO THE ARCHITECTURAL FOR TOP OF CMU WALLS (DETAILS 201, 202, 203, AND 207). 10. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY RON BOOSE (BUILDING OFFICIAL) BEFORE THOSE SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED. RON.BOOSE@TUCSONAZ.GOV. 11. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 01/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | Provide the referenced utility plan to show the location of the new water meter and reduced pressure zone backflow prevention assembly. |
| 01/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the font size used on the drawings to a minimum of 3/32-inch (all upper case). Reference: Section 106.1.1, IBC 2006. 2. Revise the energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope, using the climate zone for Pima County < 4,000 feet (the town of Pima is located in Graham County). Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation and the SHGC for the fenestration. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/17/2012 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |