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 - T16CM01533
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Principle Planner PROJECT: 160 S. Avenida Del Convento T16CM01533 Building Plan (4th Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 10, 2016 1. The building plans have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. The building plans have been reviewed and it appears that the building plan match development package D05-0022. But until D05-0022 has been approved Zoning will not approve the building plans. 3. Until the above comments have been addressed and all other PDSD review agencies have approved the building plans zoning cannot approve. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 10/19/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | [Waiting for letter from Tucson Water] Provide a letter from Tucson Water (contact: Richard Sarti, 520-837-2215) stating that locating the water meter set and the backflow preventer within the building is acceptable to Tucson Water. If permission to locate the meter set and backflow preventer in the building is granted, revise the drawings to show how the equipment will be installed with the required maintenance and access space. [Initial comment: Water meters and reduced pressure zone backflow prevention assemblies are required to be installed in locations accessible to Tucson Water. Contact Richard Sarti, New developments Manager, (520) 837-2215, to coordinate access with Tucson Water. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf] |
| 10/20/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Revise the installation of the water hammer arrestors per the manufacturer's instructions and include water hammer arrestors for the hot water supplying the solenoid valves for the automatic clothes washers. Item #4 of General Notes (Water) is still unexplained; if a backflow preventer is still to be installed prior to any solenoid valves, show the location of the backflow preventers and show the route and termination of the intermediate vents. Reference: Sections 303.2 and 608.14.2.1, IPC 2012. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; see General Notes (Water), item #4.] [Initial comment: Provide pressure-absorbing devices for the water connections to appliances equipped with quick-acting or solenoid valves (see "General Notes (Water)" which specifies a dual check backflow preventer for this application). The pressure-absorbing devices shall conform to ASSE 1010. Reference: Section 604.9, IPC 2012.] 2. Area drains have been removed from the balconies and decks but scuppers have replaced some of those area drains. Show the area of the balconies or decks that are being drained with scuppers and calculate the required scupper dimensions. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; show the area of the balconies or decks that are combined with the roof drainage piping.] [Initial comment: Provide the roof drain calculations (i.e. show the total area drained by each roof drain). Include the effect of any vertical walls that can divert rainfall onto the roof and show the area of the balconies or decks that are combined with the roof drainage piping. Reference: Section 1106, IPC 2012.] 3. The dimensions on the gas schematic on sheet P5.1 total 416-feet not the 224-feet shown on the notes. In addition, the pipe segment following the fireplace (180 CFH @ 450 feet) still requires a 1-1/2" pipe based on Table 402.4 (2), IFGC 2012. [Initial comment: The revised natural gas piping shows a total developed pipe length that does not agree with the dimensions shown on the gas piping schematic on sheet P5.1. Correct the size of the pipe segment following the branch serving the pool heater: 180 CFH @ 450 feet requires a 1-1/2" pipe based on Table 402.4 (2), IFGC 2012.] 4. Based on the plumbing floor plan (P1.1) there appears to be at least 18 instances where stacks connect to horizontal branches with less than 40" of horizontal pipe between the vertical stack and the connection to the horizontal branch. Note: the waste piping for some of the first floor restrooms is not shown which may increase the number of problematic stack connections. [Initial comment: Verify that no horizontal waste branches connect to the base of a waste stack within 10 diameters of the stack. Reference: Section 704.3, IPC 2012.] 5. The submitted civil drawing (DP-2) shows the southern building sewer connecting to a private sewer collection system without a manhole. An 8" sewer requires manholes to be installed at each change of direction which will include the connection to the existing private sewer. Revise the civil drawings to show the proper connection; show the rim elevation of the new manhole at the southern building sewer connection and the rim elevation of the existing private manhole at the connection of the northern building sewer. Determine the need for any backwater valves per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: Section 708.3.2, IPC 2012. [Initial comment: Verify that a manhole is provided within 200-feet of the connection of the building drain to the building sewer. Reference: Section 708.3.2, IPC 2012. Note: the installation of a manhole on private property will require submission of the plans to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality.] |
| 10/21/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The maximum duct diameter that is allowed under the exception to Section 607.6.1, IMC 2012 is 4"; the 6" bathroom exhaust duct does not comply with the requirements. In addition, since the ceiling-mounted fan penetrates the membrane of the fire-rated floor/ceiling assembly, a listed ceiling radiation damper will be required for the fan. [Second comment: Show how the penetration of the fire-rated horizontal assemblies by the dryer exhaust ducts and the bathroom exhaust ducts complies with the exception to Section 607.6.1, IMC 2012. Provide an architectural construction detail of the fire-rated shaft enclosing the garage exhaust.] [Initial comment: Explain how the required horizontal and vertical fire separations and the rated egress corridors are to be maintained with the proposed routing of the exhaust ducts (dryer, bathroom, EF-7, EF-8, and EF-9). Reference: Sections 708.3 and 711.3, IBC 2012.] 2. Based on the submitted documentation for the stackable washer/dryers, the vent lengths for B1, B1-Alt, and C1 apartment types may have excessive vent lengths. In addition, apartment 115 appears to have an excessive vent length. Verify that the dryer vent lengths comply with the manufacturer's recommendations. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; no cut sheet for a stackable washer/dryer was included. Section 504.6.1, IMC 2012 calls for a 4" diameter duct with no other options for a domestic dryer. If the dryer specified is not capable of extended duct lengths, how will the dryers on the ground floor be vented? Reference: Section 504.6.4.1, IMC 2012.] [Initial comment: Provide listing information for the clothes dryers to show that the proposed dryer exhaust ducts are sized correctly. Reference: Sections 304.1 and 504.6.1, IMC 2012.] 3. The sections for the exterior wall types (3/A8.01 and 5/A8.01) and the roof (3/A8.03) do not show R-values for the cavity and continuous insulation that agrees with the values shown on the Envelope Compliance Certificate. [Second comment: The continuous U-values shown on the architectural sections for the roof and the exterior walls along with the cavity U-values for the exterior walls are different than shown on the Envelope Compliance certificate.] [Initial comment: Revise the energy code analysis for the building envelope, coordinating the building components used in the analysis with those shown on the drawing (i.e. coordinate the wall types shown on the plans with the wall types used in the COMcheck analysis). Reference: Section C303.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 4. The ventilation notes on sheet G0.05 do not address how the residential portions of the building are to be constructed to limit air leakage. Natural ventilation is not an option in this climate zone; mechanical ventilation is required per Sections R402.4 and R403.5, IECC 2012. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; the architectural drawings do not appear to address this issue.] [Initial comment: Show how the residential portions of the building envelope are to be constructed to limit the air leakage per the requirements of Section R402.4, IECC 2012.] |
| 10/25/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ALTHOUGH THIS PLAN REVIEW WAS APPROVED, THE ARCHITECT INDICATED THEY ARE CHANGING THE FOURTH FLOOR PLAN (REDUCING ASSEMBLY AREA), SO THIS REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED AWAITING THOSE CHANGES. |
| 10/28/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Unable to locate response letter addressing Fire Department comments from previous submittal. |