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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Permit Number - TC-COM-0124-00162
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/23/2024 | Water - PDSD | APPROVED | |||
| 02/23/2024 | Bldg Permits - Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 02/14/2024 | External Reviewers - SAFEBuilt | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Structural(S) Reviewer Madeline Nelson mnelson@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 2/13/2024 7:38:46 PM 1. GENERAL - UPDATES: For project updates, please submit sheets with all changes clearly marked in revision clouds. Please provide a written response to each comment; updates without a clear response to all comments may not be reviewed. If you have any questions regarding the comments, you may contact me directly. Updates may result in additional comments. 2. GENERAL - SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: Please have the Registered Design Professional in Responsible Charge of this project complete and return the City of Tucson Special Inspections Certificate with signatures. The form can be downloaded at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/city-services/planning-developmentservices/documents/special_inspection_certificate.pdf 3. GENERAL - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Please provide a copy of the site-specific geotechnical report referenced in the structural general notes. The report should support the appropriateness of the selected foundation system for the project site. All building code references must be updated to the current code adopted by the City. 4. S0.1 - CURRENT CODE: The currently adopted building code for the City of Tucson is the 2018 International Building Code and its auxiliary codes. Please update the seismic design portion of the structural general notes to comply with this code, including the 2016 version of ASCE 7. 5. S0.1 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Please confirm the typical fasteners called out under "Steel Roof Deck" and "Steel Floor Deck" on Sheet S0.1. The general notes state that the floor diaphragm shall be designed for a higher diaphragm shear capacity than the roof diaphragm. However, the fasteners called out are the same or are placed at a larger spacing than the typical roof diaphragm fasteners. Please confirm that this was the engineer's intent and that the fasteners indicated for the floor diaphragm are sufficient to resist the shear imposed by wind and seismic events. 6. S1.0 - COLUMN SCHEDULE: Notes on the Column Schedule refer to Detail 70 for base plate information at Column Types "C5" and "C8". However, Detail 70 Note 2 calls for "screw anchors per column schedule". Please provide information on how the base plates are fastened for these two column types. 7. S1.1 - MISSING INFORMATION: Foundation plan notes 4 & 5 on S1.1 indicate the typical thickness of two types of slab-on-grade. Please indicate how these slabs are reinforced, keeping in mind the recommendations for the minimum area of steel recommended to resist temperature and shrinkage cracking on ACI 318-14, Table 24.4.3.2. 8. S2.1 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Please refer to the Low Roof/2nd Floor Framing Plan, at the slab step separating the indoor dining area from the west balcony. The plan shows a steel beam type "B21" (W24x207) out of plane of the coldformed steel wall, as shown in Section Cut 251. Because this beam is not directly below the wall, it is also not aligned with Steel Columns "C8" and "C5", carrying roof loads above. Please confirm that this is acceptable, and the slab directly below these columns has been designed for punching shear. 9. S2.1 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Please refer to the Low Roof Plan/2nd Floor Framing Plan, Grid A between Grids 3 & 4. The low roof is framed with "stub beams", cantilevered off Grid A via multiple beam-to-beam moment connections. Detail 251 is cut on plan to describe this connection, however, it does not capture the moment connection, nor the interior B3 beams spanning between Grids A and B, which appear to be vertically offset by a maximum of 6" (Ref Detail 251). Please provide a new detail that shows clearly how this cantilevered low roof is being framed. 10. S2.1 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: Section Cut S268 cut at the southwest corner of the Low Roof Framing Plan indicates a steel channel (Plan Note 10) that does not appear on plan. Framing Plan calls out beam type "B6" (W12x14) at this location. Please confirm that this is acceptable and revise the detail accordingly. 11. S2.1 - MISSING DETAIL: Framing Plan S2.1 includes Section Cuts 283, which do not appear on detail sheet S6.5. Please provide the missing detail or correct the section cuts. 12. S3.1 - MISSING BEAM SIZES: Please provide beam sizes for canopy overhang shown on the southwest corner of the building. Where shown on the section cuts, please provide CFS stud and joist size and spacing. Refer to Details 259, 264 and 267 for more information. 13. S3.1 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: Please refer to the High Roof Framing Plan, east elevation. The headers shown currently do not match the window pattern shown in Architectural Elevation 3/A9.1. Please confirm the final window layout and resubmit plans. 14. S3.1 - Refer to Roof Plan 1/S3.1, Grid C/5. Section 263 is called out to describe the roof deck overhanging Beam "B7". Detail 263 calls out a maximum overhang of 10", which is exceeded at this location. Please confirm that this is acceptable. 15. S3.1 - MISSING INFORMATION: Roof Plan 1/S3.1 shows a non-load bearing infill wall below the high-roof framing above marked with Plan Note "38". Please provide Plan Note 38 for clarity. 16. S3.1 - MISSING DETAIL: The High Roof Framing Plan includes a section cut for Detail 274, which does not existing on Sheet S6.4. Please either provide the missing detail or revise the section cut. 17. S4.1 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Review Detail 18. By inspection, an HSS2x2x1/4 post at 8'-0" oc maximum does not appear to be able to resist lateral loads from wind as prescribed in structural general notes. Please provide calculations to substantiate this post size. In addition, please provide footing reinforcement where it is currently unlabeled. 18. S5.2 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: Details 121, 126 & 127 provide conflicting information for the thickness of the concrete mat footing below the elevator pit. Please confirm if the footing shall be 12" or 20" thick and resubmit. 19. S6.1 - MISSING INFORMATION: Detail 214, Note 2 refers to the beam schedule on Sheet S1.0 for information on typical bundled CFS studs supporting steel beams. The beam schedule does not provide this information. Please clarify where this information can be found. 20. S6.3 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Detail 254 shows a steel beam mounted on an embed plate within a CMU wall. This detail includes horizontal slotted holes and a greased bearing seat to allow for movement of the beam. However, it also includes a welded connection to a vertical embed plate. Please confirm that this is acceptable, and it is the engineer's intent that the beam will be restricted from movement out of plane of the wall. 21. S6.4 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Detail 275 is titled "Steel Drag Beam at Masonry Wall End/Corner", and shows a steel beam mounted on an embed plate within a CMU wall. This detail includes horizontal slotted holes and a greased bearing seat to allow for movement of the beam. Please confirm that this was the design intent, and that the beam is not intended to transfer ("drag") diaphragm forces into the CMU wall. 22. S6.4 - MISSING INFORMATION: Details 267 & 268, called out at the southwest corner of the building, do not provide sizes for the cold-formed steel stud size, joist size or spacing. Please information where this information has been provided. 23. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: Due to the complexity of this project, please provide with the following structural calculations at each level: The floor maps noting all of the beam member sizes, the floor maps noting all surface loads considered, and the beam summary sheets noting that all beams have passed the analysis. Building(B) Reviewer Andrew Bevis abevis@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 2/1/2024 10:40:44 AM 1. Sheet A0.2-1: The fitness area is missing the occupant load calculation. Provide a occupant load calculation for the fitness area in accordance with 2018 IBC Table 1004.5 Mechanical(M) Reviewer Jorge Valido jvalido@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 2/12/2024 6:47:29 PM 1. Plan Sheet M2.1-2 - (2) SAD (Supply Air Drop) coming from AC-5 in Corridor not identified. Provide type of grill and CFM quantities. - 2018 IBC Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 2. Plan Sheet M2.1-2 - AC-2 Supply main trunk line not drawn in on plan sheet. Include Main Supply Air Trunk line on plans and connect all associated SAD (Supply Air Drops) to trunk line - 2018 IBC Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 3. General - Provide Air Balance Schedule. Show air balance for Kitchen Hood. Show where the Makeup Air for Grease Hood is coming from. - 2018 IMC Section 508.1.2 4. HP 1 shows on Plan Sheet M3.1 on the RTU HP Schedule 800 CFM of total Supply air. Plan Sheet M2.2 shows for HP1, (2) RG3 at 800 CFM each and does not provide SAD (Supply Air Drop) CFM quantities. Confirm all CFM quantities - 2018 IBC Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 5. Plan Sheet M2.1-2 - SAD (Supply Air Drops) inside of Bath 1 thru 4 (4) in total) do not have CFM Quantities. - 2018 IBC Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 6. Plan Sheet M3.3 - Add, As per Table 403.3.1.1 to OSA Ventilation Schedule - 2018 IMC Section Table 403.3.1.1 - 2018 IBC Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents Electrical(E) Reviewer Ron Ross rross@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 2/7/2024 3:34:59 PM Electrical Review of Tucson Fire Station 3 By: Ron Ross PE E3.1 POWER PLAN - 1ST FLOOR: Why do 120V receptacles have 3 circuits when they should only need one? This is shown on numerous receptacles while not shown on others. Should daisy chain receptacles if using this method. Should daisy chain circuit for power cord reels (Keynote 41) to clarify three circuits shown on top power cord reel. E5.2 PANEL SCHEDULES AND DETAILS: Should upsize Panel F as Demand on phase A is 199.65A and fuse protection is rated for 200A. Current size provides no capacity for an additional circuit. Confirm that RFP allows for distribution board to a Fused Distribution Board. Should consider circuit breaker distribution board for better MTBF due to circuit overloads (such as potential issue with Panel F). This is a Fire Station where a fuse blown could easily cause downtime during a critical life and death event. A fuse will need to be replaced vs a circuit breaker could be reset immediately after the fault is cleared. Fuses require replacements that may or may not be readily available. Plumbing(P) Reviewer Perry Hendershott phendershott@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 2/13/2024 6:19:18 AM First Plumbing Review: 1). Trench Drain system Bldg drain on plan page P4.0 needs 1 vent to the exterior. -2018 IPC 904.1, 901.2.1 2), Clothes washer boxes on plan pages P2.1, P2.1-2,P4.0, P5.0 need to discharge thru an Lint interceptor -2018 IPC 1003.6 3). Sump pump detail on plan page P3.1 needs to include a shut off valve on the discharge side of the check valve piping - 2018 IPC 712.2 4). The roof drainage method for the apparatus bay roof on plan page A8.1 isn't clear? -2018 IPC 1101.2 5). The Roof decks on plan page P2.1 need secondary drains -2018 IPC 1108 6). Plan page P2.1 needs to include the GPM the 2" deck drains will be responsible for. -2018 IPC 1106.2 7). BBQ grills below covered roof on plan page P2.1-2 need to have an exhaust hood above-2018 IFGC 623.1, 623.5 |
||
| 02/15/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | See zoning comment | ||
| 02/07/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: TC-COM-0124-00162 - TD-DEV-1223-00498 24 N NORRIS AV. – R-2 TUCSON FIRE STATION NO. 3 (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 7, 2024 Please resubmit revised drawings detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This site is located in the R-2 zone (UDC 4.7.9). Protective Service (government owned and operated only) is a permitted use in this zone (Table 4.8-2). See Use-Specific Standard 4.9.13.F. 1. The building plans have been reviewed for compliance with Development Package (DP) TD-DEV-1223-00498 and all though it appears that the plans match until the DP is approved by all review agencies Zoning cannot approve this building plan. 2. As perimeter yard setback requirements are not met along the north property line a Board of Adjustment for Variance or a CMO waiver is required and must be approved prior to approval of this plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 02/05/2024 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/29/2024 | PDSD Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED |