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 - T18CM02298
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/23/2018 | MMORENO1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/25/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | There appears to be several locations where the waste stack from the 2nd floor either dropping directly into a horizontal drain or having less than 10 pipe diameters separation from the connection with the horizontal drain. [Initial comment: Horizontal branches shall connect no closer than ten diameters downstream of the bases of vertical stacks. Reference: Section 704.3, IPC 2012.] |
| 05/25/2018 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Previous Comment 3; Sheet A0.2; Enlarged Plan 1: Please add a note to Key Note 25 indicating the flag pole and foundation calculations will be a deferred submittal. 2. Previous Comment 13; Sheet A4.2; Detail 8: The vertical column is described as a TS (indicating a square tube). Please revise the note to indicate a pipe column. 3. Previous Comment 18; Sheet S1.0; General Structural Notes (Foundations): One copy of the soil report was not provided as requested. 4. Previous Comment 23; Sheet S2.1; Framing Keynotes: Note 5 was not located. Please verify. 5. General: Please provide written responses to all review comments. |
| 05/25/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/06/2018 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments, Also provide a written response. Ref: Outdoor Lighting Calculations. Plan Sheet ES101. Please revise the following information. (a) The Option #1 used in the calcs is for LPS (low pressure sodium) lighting. For LED full cut-off should be option #2. (b) The luminaire quantity and lumen output totals do not correlate with the site plan and the luminaire schedule. For example, the site plan shows 6- 'P2' luminaires. The lumen calcs show 3, the luminaire schedule shows them at 23,811 lumens each, the lumen calcs show them at 43,414 each. The math doesn't add up. Please revise to show the correct values. (c) What about the existing parking lights shown on plan sheet ED101? Ref: 2012 IBC sec 107.2.1, Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code, 2011 NEC |
| 06/11/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2018 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 06/15/2018 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/15/2018 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |