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 - T17CM03791
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/27/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/06/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/13/2017 | KELLY LEE | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | OM: Kelly Lee PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T17CM03784-New Recreation Building for Apartment Complex Building Plan Review (1st Review) 3510 N Craycroft - New Apartment Complex (Multi-Family) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 13, 2017 DUE DATE: June 12, 2017 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. Previous comment still applies: COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the development package. While the building footprints are consistent with the current version of the DP under review as it relates to the zoning review purview (Building footprint, height, square footage, site conditions, etc) zoning cannot approve the building plans until the Commercial Plans reviewers have approved the building plans. 2. Previous comments still applies: COMMENT: Assure that an approved and signed copy of the DP is included in the next submittal of the building plans or remove the DP plan set from the building plan set and reference the DP case number on the Architectural site plan. Also, the reference to the Development Package activity number on Sheet 1 is incorrect. 3. COMMENT: Please verify application permits for ramada(s) and postal center.These permits are not within the system. Please confirm buildng permits for these structures have been submitted. 4. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to assure that any revisions made to the building plans do not affect zoning requirements. 5. COMMENT: Please submit a copy of the approval from the Rio Verde PAD Design Review Committee. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Kelly Lee at (520) 837-6999 or by email Kelly.Lee@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised building plans |
| 07/19/2017 | FRODRIG2 | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/19/2017 | FRODRIG2 | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Reviewer: Chris Anderson, July 18, 2017 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Regarding response to previous Building comment 9, the 24” dimension from center of range to leading edge of adjacent counter was not added to the floor plan. Wall insulation continues to be problematic. For the residential structures (apartment buildings) the minimum insulation for framed walls is R-13. Apartment building section on sheet A1.3 and associated wall sections on sheet D1.1 indicate R-11. And the response to previous Building comment 12 regarding this refers to revised detail 4-4a/D3. Detail 4-4a/D3 meets the requirements of the 2012 IECC Table R402.1.1 however I cannot find reference to the detail on the building sections or wall sections. Please clarify that this is the detail to use for the apartment buildings by adding note(s) on the section sheets and by labeling this detail “Apartment Buildings Exterior Wall Assembly.” Detail 2/D3 (and associated details on sheet D3) which appears to be used on the apartment buildings must either have R-13 cavity insulation or R-11 cavity plus minimum R-2 continuous insulation behind the fiber cement siding to comply prescriptively with the IECC Table R402.1.1. For the recreation building, the response to previous Building comment 20 refers also to revised detail 4-4a/D3. However, neither this detail nor detail 1/D3 match the wall assemblies that appear in the COMcheck. For frame walls the COMcheck requires R-19 cavity insulation plus a layer of R-1.3 continuous insulation. For furred masonry walls the COMcheck requires R-11 cavity insulation plus a layer of R-2.4 insulation. Either revise the COMcheck or revise detail 1/D3 to add the continuous insulation and provide a new detail for the frame wall that matches the COMcheck assembly. Reference these details to the building and exterior wall sections. For the maintenance building, the response to previous Building comment 23 refers to revised detail 4/D3. However the insulation for 4/D3 does not comply with the prescriptive requirement of the 2012 IECC Table C402.2 which requires either R-20 cavity insulation or R-13 cavity insulation plus a continuous layer of R-3.8 insulation. R-values for each of these insulation types can be increased, but the required minimums for each must be met or provide an envelope COMcheck for this building. Provide a separate detail, keyed to the building and wall sections. Regarding response to previous Building comment 21, the uppermost portion of the interior masonry wall occurring between roofs is exposed to the exterior and must be insulated per the COMcheck. Regarding response to previous Building comment 24, if no detail is provided revise wall sections 3 and 4/D1.2 so that the Type X ceiling meets the Type X wall finish beneath the beams. As shown the fire rating is not maintained. Regarding response to previous Building comment 30, requirements for both the weep screed 2” clearance and an accessible entrance can be accomplished. One Code provision does not supercede another. A common method is to provide a concrete or fully grouted concrete masonry curb in locations where the exterior patio or landing elevation is close to the floor elevation. This will raise the foundation plate line so that the weep screed clearance can be met. |
| 07/19/2017 | FRODRIG2 | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL Regarding response to previous Mechanical comment 1, your argument is understood however this is an assembly (A-3) building and 2012 the IMC 507.2.1 and 507.2.2 govern. |