Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T14CM07049
Parcel: 14102013D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T14CM07049
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/24/2014 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change Final approval of DP14-0177 is required.
11/24/2014 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change PREVIOUS COMMENT 9
SHEET 3a1.0
1. Provide a large scale detail of the new ramp showing all accessible requirements including grade differences, dimensioning, slope, handrails in plan and elevation and landings.
a. Reference the large scale detail from detail 1/3a1.0.
PREVIOUS COMMENT 13
SHEET 3a6.0
2. Note 7.15 is pointing at the new steel bond beam which references the roof system. Provide another note referencing the steel bond beam to detail 3/a9.3.
a. At details 1 and 2/3a6.1, shouldn't the bond beam be shown on these two building sections?
PREVIOUIS COMMENT 16
3. In the structural engineer's separate letter, he indicates the certification is attached to this submittal. It is not to be found.
END OF REVIEW
12/09/2014 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Clarify the roof and wall construction. None of the wall or building sections identify the R-value of the cavity insulation. The wall sections do not identify any continuous insulation. Keynote 7.3 on sheet 4a5.0 calls for "3/4" perlite R-2.1 on wood roof deck" and keynote 7.15 calls for "R-5 polyiso rigid insulation on metal deck" on what appears to be the same roof. [Initial comment: Revise the energy code analysis for the building envelope, coordinating the roof insulation used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing (e.g. no R-values for cavity insulation or continuous insulation layers were shown on the building sections or details). Reference: Section C303.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.]
12/09/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Classrooms 404,405, 406, and 407 have first floor elevations that are greater than 12" above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole and shall not discharge through the backwater valve. [Initial comment: The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2908.97') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2909.50') of rooms 400, 401, 402, and 403. Provide a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve.]
".
2. Clarify the difference between "cleanse" and "rinse". In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "rinse" is defined as "to wash (something) with clean water and without soap" and "rinse" is listed as a synonym for "cleanse". [Initial comment: Clarify why hot water is not being supplied to the classroom sinks (P-5A). Reference: Section 607.1, IPC 2012.]

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/16/2014 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/16/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed