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 - T12CM00933
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2012 | CARL SCHULTZ | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/09/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET S001: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE. 2. SHEET S100 (CONTINUOUS FOOTING SCHEDULE); GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (PAGE 7): FOOTING MARK WF1 INDICATES A 2'-0" WIDE FOOTING, WHILE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENTS A MINIMUM CONTINUOUS FOOTING WIDTH OF 3'. CLARIFY. 3. SHEET S100; FOUNDATION PLAN NOTE J: THE NOTE INDICATES CW1, CW2, ETC. REFERENCE CONCRETE COLUMNS. REVISE NOTE. 4. SHEET S100 (ISOLATED FOOTING SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE G2): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE FOOTING F8 IS REINFORCED WITH 16-#9 EACH WAY TOP AND BOTTOM, WHILE THE DRAWING INDICATES 16-#8 EACH WAY TOP AND BOTTOM. CLARIFY. 5. SHEET S100 (LEVEL P1 PLAN); SHEET S100A (ENLARGED FOUNDATION PLAN 2): THE ENLARGED PLAN INDICATES TO SEE S100 FOR DIMENSIONS OF THE MAT FOOTING (NOTE 1), BUT THE PLAN ON S100 DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE MAT SIZE. CLARIFY. 6. SHEET S100; FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES: PROVIDE A NOTE (SIMILAR TO NOTES I AND J) FOR SHEAR WALLS. INCLUDE A REFERENCE SHEET FOR THE SHEAR WALL SIZE AND REINFORCING. 7. SHEET S100 (LEVEL P1 PLAN); SHEET S301 (DETAILS 109 AND 111): DETAIL 109 INDICATES A "SUMP PIT AS OCCURS". SINCE DETAIL 111 IS CUT NEAR BOTH SUMP PITS, IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO INDICATE THE PITS ON THAT DETAIL AND REMOVE THE PIT FROM DETAIL 109. VERIFY. 8. SHEET S100 (LEVEL P1 PLAN); SHEET S301 (DETAIL 103): THE UPPER PORTION OF DETAIL 103 SHOULD HAVE THE DETAIL CUT ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 9. SHEET S100; LEVEL P1 PLAN: IS DETAIL 109 AT THE ELEVATORS CUT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION? VERIFY. 10. SHEET S201 (COLUMN SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE G55): THE CALCULATIONS DESIGN A 24" DIAMETER COLUMN CC9 (LEVEL 1 TO LEVEL 2), BUT DO NOT INDICATE A DESIGN FOR THE 24"X24" COLUMN (LEVEL P1 TO LEVEL 1). CLARIFY. 11. SHEET S201 (COLUMN SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: ANALYSIS WAS NOT FOUND IN THE CALCULATIONS FOR CC5, CC6, CC7, CC10, CC11, AND CC13. VERIFY. 12. SHEET S201; DETAIL 01: DID NOT LOCATE NOTES 11, 12, OR 13 ON THE DETAIL. VERIFY. 13. SHEET S203; NOTE: A NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SHEET INDICATES TO SEE SHEET S203 FOR THE SPANDREL BEAM SCHEDULE. REVISE. 14. SHEET S204; NOTE: A NOTE INDICATES TO SEE SHEET S203 FOR THE SPANDREL BEAM SCHEDULE. REVISE. 15. SHEET S301; DETAIL 102: NOTE 11 WAS NOT IN THE DETAIL NOTES. VERIFY. 16. SHEET S301; DETAIL 107: REVISE NOTE 6. 17. SHEET S301; DETAIL 107: NOTES 13 AND 14 WERE NOT IN THE DETAIL NOTES. VERIFY. 18. SHEET S301; DETAILS 108, 109, AND 111: NOTE 6 ON DETAIL 109 INDICATES A 7'-0" MAXIMUM, WHILE DETAILS 108 AND 111 LET NO LIMIT. COORDINATE THE DETAILS. 19. SHEET S301; DETAIL 109: NOTE 11 INDICATES TO THICKEN THE FOOTING WHERE THE SUMP PIT OCCURS. PROVIDE A DETAIL AT THAT CONDITION. 20. SHEET S302; DETAIL 117: NOTE 2 INDICATES #6 Z BARS, BUT THE DETAIL DOES NOT DEPICT Z BARS. CLARIFY. 21. SHEET S302; DETAIL 120: DID NOT LOCATE NOTE 8 ON THE DETAIL. VERIFY. 22. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEETS M1 THROUGH M46: WHERE IS THE ACUTAL FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING INDICATED IN THESE CALCULATIONS? CLARIFY AND PROVIDE A SUMMARY PAGE FOR THE FOOTING SIZES AND REINFORCING. 23. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEETS M47 THROUGH M67: WHERE IS THE ACTUAL FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING INDICATED IN THESE CALCULATIONS? CLARIFY AND PROVIDE A SUMMARY PAGE FOR THE FOOTING SIZES AND REINFORCING. 24. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGES L1 THROUGH L110: FOR SHEAR WALLS SW1 THROUGH SW7, WHERE ARE THE ACTUAL WALL THICKNESS, LENGTHS, AND REINFORCING INDICATED IN THESE CALCULATIONS? CLARIFY AND PROVIDE A SUMMARY PAGE FOR THOSE WALLS. 25. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 03/14/2012 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | Riser diagrams provided for reference, but no actual design plans provided at this time. They will be submitted and fully reviewed with building plans. |
| 03/19/2012 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | The foundation plans cannot be approved at this time. The development package is still under review and requires approval prior to zoning approval of any building or foundation plans. THe commercial plans reviewer has also denied the foundation plan and will require a resubmittal. Once the DP is approved and the commercial plans reviewer approves the foundation plans, zoning will also approve the foundation plans. |
| 03/20/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/20/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the intended slope of the 8" building sewer located along column line 6; is the slope 1/8" per foot as in sheet P1.0 or ΒΌ" per foot as on sheet P1.1? 2. An "approved two-way cleanout" is a listed, fitting, not a field-assembled group of fittings as shown in detail 2/P2.1. Reference: Sections 708.3.5 and 708.5, IPC 2006. 3. Cleanouts shall open to allow cleaning in the direction of flow (see detail 4/P2.1). Reference: Section 708.5, IPC 2006. 4. Air admittance valves are not approved for use in a combination drain and vent system. Reference: Section 917.3, IPC 2006. 5. Clarify the need for traps and vents for the area drains serving the sand separator. Individual traps will function as mini-separators resulting in maintenance issues. In addition, with the over-sized drains and low velocities inherent in combination drain and vent systems, they are intended only for clear-water wastes, not sandy waste water. 6. Provide listing information for the proposed sand/oil separators. Reference: Section 1003.2, IPC 2006. 7. Provide a design for the subsoil drainage system. Reference: Sections 1111.1 and 1112.1, IPC 2006. 8. Clarify the total gas load on regulator #2; are there future loads being considered? Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 402.2, IFGC 2006. 9. Show the extent of the proposed natural gas piping that will be done with this activity number on the plumbing plans. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IFGC 2006. |
| 03/20/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/21/2012 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/21/2012, The foundation plan shall be approved after the Development Package is approved. |
| 03/21/2012 | LHANLY1 | WWM | REVIEW | Passed | Sewer plans on this permit provided for reference only. Actual design for wastewater to be submitted with building plans for full PCWW review and fee calculations. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/12/2012 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |