Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T18CM08709
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/22/2019 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/25/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Coordinate the insulation descriptions used for COMcheck with the keynotes on the drawings. The insulation descriptions in COMcheck do not agree with the insulation keynotes for the building and wall sections. The R-38 cavity insulation is not the same as R-38 continuous insulation. You have not provided the insulating value for the continuous roof insulation. The walls (detail D1/A7.1) have R-19 cavity insulation, not the R-21 cavity insulation noted in COMcheck. [Second comment: Specify the R-value of the continuous roof insulation on the drawing (shown as R-38 in the COMcheck envelope component description).] [Initial comment: Demonstrate energy code compliance for the building envelope using calculations based on the current code (i.e. provide COMcheck Envelope Compliance Certificate). Coordinate the response to Section C406 with the mechanical and electrical designs, Reference: Sections C101.3, C101.5, C103.2, C303, C401.2, and C406International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] |
| 02/25/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The minimum slope for a 6" sewer is 1%. [Second comment: An approved development plan is not a substitute for a building permit to install site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, etc.). Provide a site plan showing the installation of the water service to the building and the installation of the building sewer. Reference: Sections 104.2 and 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] [Initial comment: Provide the site drawing noted on sheet P1.0 that shows the size, route slope, and all cleanouts in the building sewer. Show where the building sewer connects to the public sewer. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 2. The submitted roof drainage calculations do not correspond to the requirements of the plumbing code. If you need help understanding the tables in Chapter 11, IPC 2012, consult with your mechanical engineer. [Second comment: Revise the roof drain calculations to include area of the top surface of the parapets and the effect of any vertical walls that can divert rainfall onto the roof. Secondary drainage provides protection for the roof, not the scupper box. If secondary drainage is not to be provided for the roof, provide structural calculations to show that the roof is capable of supporting the additional rain load caused by the primary roof drains being blocked. Note that scuppers are weirs and their size is not determined using Table 1106.2(2), IPC 2012. Scuppers that "daylight" onto another roof still need a secondary drain. The 2012 IPC does not address the use of holes in scupper boxes; secondary drainage is independent from primary drainage and discharges to a separate point. The secondary drainage has the same capacity as the primary drainage. Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012, and Sections 1611.1 and 1611.3, IBC 2012.] [Initial comment: Provide roof drainage calculations. Provide overflow protection for the roof. The scuppers require secondary roof drainage and as depicted in detail 4/A4.0, the gutter will also require secondary drainage. Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012.] |
| 03/04/2019 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM08709 - The Downtown Clifton - New Building/Restaurant-Bar Building Plan Review (3rd Review) 485 S. Stone Avenue TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 4, 2019 DUE DATE: March 6, 2019 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 revised and approved development package DP16-0238. 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, location, and the building package site plan to ensure consistency with the DP. 3. COMMENT: The previous building plans were approved and signed by Carolyn Laurie for the Design Professional. The final building plans will have to be approved, re-stamped and signed by Carolyn Laurie for the Design Professional once the building plans have been approved by all plans reviewers. 4. COMMENT: Once the plans have been reviewed and approved by the PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewers and the Design Professional, and zoning has verified continued consistency with 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 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Building Plans |
| 03/06/2019 | QJONES1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/06/2019 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 03/06/2019 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/06/2019 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |