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 - T12CM04333
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/04/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | NONE OF THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED FOR THIS REVIEW. A LIST OF THOSE COMMENTS FOLLOWS: 1. SHEET A3.0; BUILDING FLOOR PLAN: TABLE 2902.1 OF THE 2006 IBC REQUIRES A HIGH/LOW DRINKING FOUNTAIN (OR SINGLE POINT-OF-USE DISPENSER). NONE WAS FOUND ON THE ARCHITECTURAL OR PLUMBING PLANS. VERIFY AND PROVIDE LOCATION AND DETAILS AS REQUIRED. 2. SHEET A3.0; BUILDING FLOOR PLAN: IN THE MEN'S RESTROOM, ELEVATION 1 IS INDICATED. REVISE. 3. SHEET S2.4 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 108): THE PLAN INDICATES TWO LINTEL BEAMS ON THE WEST END OF THE BUILDING (LT11 AND LT12), BUT THE CALCULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE A DESIGN FOR THESE. VERIFY. 4. SHEET S2.4 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 108): THE PLAN INDICATES TWO LINTEL BEAMS ON THE EAST END OF THE BUILDING (BOTH LT16), BUT THE CALCULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE A DESIGN FOR THESE. VERIFY. 5. SHEET S2.4 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 108): THE PLAN INDICATES FIVE LINTEL BEAMS ON THE NORTH WALL OF THE BUILDING (4-LT4 AND LT17), BUT THE CALCULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE A DESIGN FOR THESE. VERIFY. 6. SHEET S2.4; STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: COORDINATE ALL LINTEL BEAMS SHOWN ON THE ROOF FRAMING PLAN TO SHEET 108 OF THE CALCULATIONS, AND ENSURE ALL BEAMS HAVE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS. 7. SHEET S2.4 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 128): THE PLAN INDICATES 2 FOOTINGS (F1) ON AN INTERIOR NORTH/SOUTH WALL, BUT THE CALCULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE A DESIGN FOR THESE. VERIFY. 8. SHEET S2.4 (ROOF FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 122): THE PLAN INDICATES A BEAM (B2) ON AN INTERIOR NORTH/SOUTH WALL AS A 5 1/8" X 19 1/2" GLB, BUT THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 5 1/8" X 21" GLB. VERIFY. 9. SHEET S2.4; FOUNDATION PLAN: IS THE DETAIL 101 CUT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ENTRY CORRECT? VERIFY. 10. SHEET S2.4; FOUNDATION PLAN: IS THE DETAIL 118 CUT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING CORRECT? VERIFY. 11. SHEET S3.0; DETAIL 109: NOTE 5 IS INDICATED IN THE WRONG LOCATION. VERIFY. 12. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEET 113: WHERE IS THIS BEAM LOCATED ON THE CALCULATION KEY PLAN ON SHEET 108? VERIFY. 13. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: IS THE POST TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS? VERIFY. 14. GENERAL: PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR WALLS INDICATED IN DETAILS 34, 35, 36, AND 38 ON SHEET S1.6. 15. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 09/11/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not addressed. Provide information to show how the proposed water heater is to be connected to the building structure. Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 301.2, IPC 2006. 2. Comment not addressed. The water pressure calculations are based on a total fixture demand of 31.0 fixture units but the plumbing fixture schedule indicates a total of 23.5 fixture units for the building. Coordinate the two calculations. Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 604.1, IPC 2006. 3. Comment not addressed. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2735.45') is more than 12" lower than the first floor elevation (2736.85'). Eliminate the backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 09/12/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved; provide energy code compliance as requested, for Pima County <4,000 feet elevation. Revise the calculations to accurately reflect the building shown on the drawings (e.g. cavity roof insulation instead of continuous roof insulation, correct floor area, etc.). [Original comment: Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for Pima County < 4,000 feet. 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.] 2. Comment not resolved; revise the calculations to accurately reflect the building shown on the drawings (e.g. the building has three A/C units, not two). [Original comment: Provide energy code compliance calculations for the mechanical systems. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.] |
| 09/13/2012 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | 1. THE PLACE A PRESIDIO TRAIL - S12-017/DP12-0061 - CLUBHOUSE (18FU'S) - T12CM04333 - 13-APARTMENT BUILDINGS (3614FU'S) T12CM04334 THRU T12CM04345 & T12CM04347 - MAINTENANCE BUILDING (11FU'S) T12CM04657 2. NEED TO BUILD PUBLIC SEWER/NEED PUBLIC SEWER APPROVAL AND PUBLIC SEWER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND HOLD HARMLESS LETTER-NEED TO PERMIT ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER #PT12S00910 - NEED DEQ REVIEW & APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER - NEED COPY OF ON-SITE PRIVATE SEWER FOR BASE MAP UPDATE 3. NEED TO INDICATE SIZE OF WATER METERS ON "WATER SERVICES" TO SERVE BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC WATER PLANS - NOTE: THIRTEEN 2" WATER SERVICES" FOR 13-APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND ONE 1 1/2 "WATER SERVICE" FOR CLUBHOUSE AND ONE 1" " WATER SERVICE" FOR MAINTENANCE BUILDING FOR SEWER CONNECTION FEE CALCULATION |
| 09/13/2012 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning cannot approve until buliding and the development plan has been approved. |