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 - T13CM02748
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/21/2013 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 9: NOTE 4 ON DETAIL 227 ON SHEET S403 HAS NOT BEEN DELETED. REVISE. 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT 15: DETAIL 308 ON SHEET S502 STILL INDICATES A WALL RATHER THAN A BEAM. REVISE. |
| 06/25/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the size of the fonts used on sheets P301 through P306 to a minimum of 3/32". 2. Show the calculations that include the effect of the vertical walls on the roof drain sizing. Also, it is not clear that the architectural roof drainage design is coordinated with the plumbing drawings; the architect shows two roof sections with roof drains that are not included on the plumbing drawings. [Initial comment: Revise the roof drain calculations to include the effect of any vertical walls that can divert rainfall onto the roof. Reference: Section 1106.4, IPC 2012.] 3. The roof drain conductor that is to convey storm water from 820 square feet is now shown on the floors below the 10th level roof but on the roof, there are now four deck drains feeding the roof drain conductor with a total of 1465 square feet. The roof drain conductor that was to convey storm water from 950 square feet is now shown on the floors below the 10th level roof but on the roof, there are now two deck drains feeding the roof drain conductor with a total of a total of 2654 square feet. [Initial comment: Clarify the routing of the roof drain conductor that begins on the 10th level near A-5.5 (820 SF, 3" dia.) and near column B-5.5 (1025 SF, 3" dia.). The conductors disappear on the 8th level and do not reappear until the 2nd level. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 4. The 1900 square feet now changes to 2110 square feet after the roof drain conductor runs horizontally on the second level. [Initial comment: Clarify the area served by the roof drain conductor that begins near column D-5.5 on the 10th level. On levels 10 through 3, it drains 1900 SF of roof area but on level 2 it is shown as draining 2110 SF of roof area. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] |
| 06/25/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | PLEASE PROVIDE NOTE ON PLANS THAT THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH SECTION 914.3.1.2 PER THE 2012 IFC. THIS IS A FIRE SPRINKLER DESIGN COMMENT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS NEEDED NOW FOR THE DESIGN TEAM. |
| 06/26/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | The Envelope Compliance Certificate from the architect indicates that the efficient HVAC performance option has been chosen for this activity; coordinate with the architect. [Initial comment: Complete the Mechanical Compliance Certificate by checking the appropriate line items in Section 4, the Requirements Checklist for the specified mechanical equipment. Note that the first item in the checklist calls for the selection of an "additional efficiency package" (i.e. efficient HVAC performance, efficient lighting system, or on-site supply of renewable energy) to be selected in order to comply with the energy code. Reference: Section C406, IECC 2012.] |
| 06/26/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T13CM02748 1031 N Park AV Park Ave Student Housing 1. Sheet PH1, Exterior Lighting Calculation, shows 13,302 lumens used for unshielded lighting. In Table 401.1 of the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code the only option which allows 250,000 Full Cut Off Lumens as your plan indicates does not allow any Unshielded Lumens, ( Option 2). Indicate which Option used and comply to the allowances. Any questions call at number below or e-mail. 2. Sheet E406 AND 411, how will illumination be provided for panels ? Ray T Majuta Elect Plan Review PDSD, City of Tucson 6/28/2013 Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-4988 |
| 07/10/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Park Ave Housing T13CM02748 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 10, 2013 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning has reviewed the building plans they appear to match the development package. 3. Due to the amount of comments from other PDSD review agencies Zoning will not stamp and approve the building plans at this time. 4. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |