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 - T16CM04943
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/13/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/13/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Comment not resolved. Per footnote (b) on the submitted Envelope Compliance Certificate, "Fenestration product performance must be certified in accordance with NFRC and requires supporting documentation." The glazing specifications do not show the same SHGC as used on the Envelope Compliance Certificate. [Initial comment: Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include the NFRC-certified U-factors and solar heat gain factors (SHGF) of the fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation. Reference: Section C103.2, IECC 2012.] |
| 09/13/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/21/2016 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 58: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. NO WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED IN THIS RESUBMITTAL. NO REVIEW WAS PERFORMED. |
| 09/22/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields, Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: New office building with Garage - 1120 N 4th Avenue Building Plan Package (2nd Review) T16CM04943 (Related to DP16-0111 and DP14-0072) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 22, 2016 DUE DATE: September 30, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the building plans for the new Office / Garage building based on the approved DP14-0072 and as it relates the zoning review purview of the building plans. While the building plans are in substantial compliance with the approved DP, zoning cannot approve the building plans until the PDSD Commercial Plans Reviewers have approved the building plans. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal and compare it to the approved DP14-0072 to ensure that any changes that may be or are made to the building plans are still within substantial compliance with the approved DP. 3. COMMENT: Because the building plans could not be reviewed by the Structural plans reviewer due to no response comments in the building package, zoning will defer to the next submittal for another consistency review with the DP14-0072 Development Package. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: (Revised building plan package) |
| 09/22/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. #1. As per the first plan review comment, " #3. Provide for tamper resistant receptacles where applicable as required per NEC 406.2, 406.14." The Response, did not address NEC 406.2 or 406.14 as referenced by the comment. Instead it referenced NEC 406.12 ( DWELLING UNITS ), and a statement "This building is not a child care or daycare facility", and that, "Tamper resistant receptacles will be added in the 1st floor waiting room where children may be present". However, It appears by the room descriptions there will be other areas or rooms besides the "1st floor waiting area" that may be occupied by children at times. Such as 'PLAY THERAPY' or 'GROUP THERAPY', perhaps restrooms intended for children. The review comment referenced NEC 406.2, ( Definition ) "Child Care Facility. A building or structure, or portion thereof, for educational, supervisory, or personal care services for more than 4 children 7 years old or less". Please verify there will not be children in these or any other areas, or provide for tamper resistant receptacles as required by Code. #2. As per the first plan review comment, "#4. Indicate conduit, conductor types and sizes for the elevator equipment." The disconnect and conductor sizes and the 60 amp OCPD at the equipment do nor correlate with the OCPD at panel GH1 ckts 37,39,41. The rating of the overcurrent protection from the Panel to the equipment are not coordinated, NEC 240.12. Also provide load calc's for the elevator equipment to verify this. Ref: 2012 2012 IBC, 2011 NEC |