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 - T18CM05426
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/10/2018 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Per section 3206.7.5 of the 2018 International Fire Code, doors for high-piled storage facilities shall be spaced no more than 125' apart. |
| 09/19/2018 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/24/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Provide sheet C3.0 that is referenced in the comment response. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, storm drains, etc.). Provide the civil plans showing the installation of the building utilities as part of the building plan set. Reference: Sections 104.2 and 107.2.1, IBC 2012. [Initial comment: Reduced pressure backflow prevention assemblies are required at the water meter for multi-use commercial buildings. Reference: Chapter XXVII, Article V, Section 27-72, the Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/backflow-ordinance.pdf.] |
| 09/24/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/24/2018 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Detail 4/P5.1 still shows the vent for the 3" floor drain running below the slab before rising above the flood rim of the floor drain. Note that Table 909.1, IPC 2012 allows for a 12-foot maximum distance from a 3" trap and its vent. [Initial comment: Verify that all of the vents rise vertically to at least 6" above the flood rims of the fixtures they protect prior to running horizontally (see detail 4/P5.1). Reference: Section 905.4, IPC 2012.] |
| 09/28/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM05426 - New Building (Tucson Airport DC) Building Plan Review (2nd Review). 6850 S. Brosious Avenue - I-1 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 28, 2018 DUE DATE: October 3, 2018 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 compliance with the current version of the submitted development package. While the building footprint is consistent with the DP as it relates to the zoning review purview (Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc) 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 as it relates to the zoning review purview and compare the building plan footprint, building height, and square footage and location to ensure consistency with the DP. (Include a copy as reference of the approved and PDSD stamped version of the DP with the next building plan submittal.) 3. COMMENT: If any changes are necessary, due to the PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewer's comments that affect or change the building footprint, height, or square footage, the DP will need to be updated prior to approval of the building plans by Zoning. 4. COMMENT: Once the plans have been reviewed and approved by the 3rd Party or PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewers and zoning has verified consistency with the PDSD approved, stamped and signed version of the DP, the building plans can be approved by zoning. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/28/2018 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. #1. No resolution to comment #4 from the previous electrical review. Comment, "#4 The electrical equipment shown on the one line diagram does not correlate with the equipment shown on the enlarged power plan. Plan sheet E4.1" Please note that the enlarged power plan, E4.1, identifies the 480v panel as 'HA' and the transformer as 'T45-1' and the 208v panel as 'LA'. The one line diagram E5.1, shows them as 'HP'-'T30-3'---'LP', also revise the electric room shown on E3.1. And the panel schedules so all the electrical equipment Marks or Identification correlates with each plan. Ref; 2012 IBC sec 107.2.1, 2011 NEC |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/2018 | AVAUGHN1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 10/11/2018 | AVAUGHN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/11/2018 | AVAUGHN1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |