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: REVISION - - 1ST
Permit Number - T12CM04806
Review Name: REVISION - - 1ST
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/05/2012 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/14/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET S1.10; CMU WALL REINFORCING SCHEDULE: SHOULD THE VERTICAL REINFORCING "TYPICAL THROUGHOUT" HAVE A SPACING ALONG WITH THE #5 DESIGNATION? VERIFY THE CALCULATIONS (SHEETS 87-116) INDICATE 24" O.C. 2. SHEET S1.10; FOOTING SCHEDULE: REVISION 4 INDICATES FOOTING F2 HAS BEEN REVISED. HOWEVER, THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS INDICATE F2 IS UNCHANGED. CLARIFY. 3. SHEET S1.10 (FOOTING SCHEDULE); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: CALCULATIONS FOR FOOTINGS F3, F7, AND F8 (AT THE ELEVATORS AND STAIRS) WERE NOT LOCATED IN THE REVISED CALCULATIONS. VERIFY. 4. SHEET S2.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: ADD THE F3 FOOTING DESIGNATION TO THE PLAN AT THE ELEVATORS. 5. SHEET S3.5; FRAMING PLAN: SHOULD THE CLOUDED BOX (Fe 108K (4T)) IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER INCLUDE THE VERBIAGE 'ADDITIONAL TENDONS' ? VERIFY. 6. SHEET S3.14; DETAIL G: THIS DETAIL CUT WAS NOT LOCATED ON ANY OF THE SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS. VERIFY. 7. GENERAL: PROVIDE TWO SETS OF STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS. 8. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 11/16/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/16/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Verify the scheduled air flow for EF-1. It is shown as 250 CFM (continuous) which seems very high for 4" duct. |
| 11/16/2012 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | T12CM04806 1 E. Broadway We do not have a copy of previous approved plans, there was no revision sheets explaning changes and why they were made. Provide previous approved plans or provide revision sheets indicating the changed made and for what reason. Ray T Majuta Elect Plan Review PDSD, C of Tuc 11/05/2012 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/16/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the presence of a floor drain in the boiler equipment room; a floor sink (P-8) appears in detail 5/P302 but not on any plumbing floor plans. Similarly, the waste piping for the 2" standpipe located in the boiler room approximately 11'-0" south of column F-3 is not shown on the plumbing floor plans. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006 and Section 1004.6, IMC 2006. 2. Clarify the titles for the plumbing isometrics; the 7th floor has reappeared. (see also detail 1/P302) |
| 11/20/2012 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning cannot approve the building plan until strutural and plumbing have approved the plan. This review can be done over the counter by setting an appoiontment with me. |
| 11/21/2012 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Will stamp when plans are ready - all reviewers are approved. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |