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.3
Permit Number - TC-COM-0524-01058
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/12/2024 | Bldg Permits - Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 08/14/2024 | Design Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | MGD Design Package needs to br approved by PDSD Director prior to review of this applications. If you have any questions, please let me know: maria.gayosso@tucsonaz.gov. Thank you. | ||
| 09/12/2024 | External Reviewers - Stantec | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | September 11, 2024 2nd Review Ankrom Moisan Architects Attn: Jason Jones 38 NW Davis Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: CAPSTONE SPEEDWAY STUDENT HOUSING FOUNDATION ONLY City of Tucson Permit Number: TC-COM-0524-01058 Stantec Project Number: 185215066 Stantec File Number: TUC-24-059 Plan review for the above referenced project has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. PLEASE send all response to comments back to the City through the permit portal! Responses sent directly to Stantec will be ignored. Also, please submit complete copies of all permit documents (i.e. plans, calculations, reports, etc.) even if they have not been changed. Please cloud and delta all changes and provide a letter with a written response to each of the comments indicating the action taken. The scope of this review covers the architectural, structural, plumbing, and electrical designs as they relate to the codes adopted by the jurisdiction. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. Occupancy Group Construction Type Area (Square feet) Occupant Load Automatic Fire Sprinklers Fire Alarms A-3 I-A 7,600 TBD Yes Yes B 2,288 R-2 44,340 S-2 54,885 R-2 III-A 165,181 Separate Permits: Fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system. Deferred Submittals: Post-tension elongation calculations, shoring, crane, and hoist designs. Special Inspections: Earthwork, caissons, concrete, post-tension, masonry, high-strength bolts, field welding, and epoxy and expansion anchors. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Previous Comment: Please specify in the Project Description that the scope of work for this submittal is for the foundation work only and the scope of such work. {Foundation only permits cover work from grade and below.} Still Required: The project description is detailed as being the foundation and above grade concrete up to the level 3 podium. The City’s definition of a foundation only permit is that it shall only include work from grade and below, so you cannot include the podium work above grade. This must be done with the superstructure permit. The description does not address or detail the electrical and plumbing work that will be completed with this project. Please be sure to include this as well. 2. Addressed. 3. Previous Comment: Please clarify on the site plan if the private site utilities are part of this permit or are under a separate permit. {An approved development plan does not constitute a building permit to build private site utilities; on-site private utilities need to be submitted as part of this permit or under a separate permit.} Still Required: There appears to be confusion on the site utility work. The civil drawings do indicate the site utility work to be done but the architectural site plan is indicating that the site utilities will be applied for separately. Please clarify and if the site utilities are going to be applied for on a separate permit include on the cover page. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS Sheet G2.01 1. Addressed. 2. Previous Comment: Note on this sheet that special inspection is required for earthwork, caissons, concrete, post-tension, masonry, high-strength bolts, field welding, and epoxy and expansion anchors. {In lieu of listing on this sheet you can provide a note referencing Sheet S0.02 for these structural special inspections.} Also, provide City of Tucson special inspection certificate(s) with Parts A and B completed. Make sure that the owner or their legal representative signs the form. Still Required: See response below for Comment #3 for special inspection certificate requirements. 3. We did receive a special inspection certificate as requested above, however there are several issues with the certificate: a. Previous Comment: The certificate lists an inspector (Parker Schrandt) who has not been vetted on the Town of Oro Valley or Pima County list of special inspectors. He will have to submit his qualifications for all special inspections, or you can provide a certificate with a vetted special inspector. New Comment: The resume for Parker Schrandt referenced in the response letter was not provided. b. Previous Comment: Parker appears to be with PK Engineering; does PK Engineering have the lab and or equipment to be able to perform any of the required tests, such as concrete cylinder breaks? New Comment: The response letter provided indicated that the geotechnical engineer will be doing concrete testing. Please provide and updated special inspection certificate with their information and Parker removed for that inspection. c. Previous Comment: The certificate does not include earthwork which is required under the geotechnical report; please provide a special inspection certificate for earthwork. {Terracon is the author of the geotechnical report and can perform not only the special inspection for earthwork but many of the other special inspections.} New Comment: A special inspection certificate was not provided for the earthwork special inspection. Sheet G2.21 1. This comment does not necessarily pertain to the Foundation Only permit but we would like to address it now for future submittals. Stair 1 appears to indicate the use of the exception for Section 1028.1. Exception one would allow for egress through lobby to the main entrance, but Section 1.1 indicates that the exit be readily visible which it is not. To qualify for exception 2 and egress through the vestibule the area must be separated from the remainder of the exit discharge by fire partitions which it is not. Please revise. 2. The electrical room exits into the roadway which posses a life safety concern if cars are driving through. Can this entrance be brought back to exit onto a landing before stepping into the road? STRUCTURAL COMMENTS General 1. Previous Comment: On the plans note the specific limits of construction for the foundation phase of the work. If structural details include elements from future work in the details note the point where the work must stop for the foundation. Be clear in the detailing so lap splices and concrete joints are located to avoid a reduction in reinforcing strength because of development length. Also note specific concrete strength changes if any occur from the foundation elements to future columns, grade beams or walls. Coordinate plumbing openings required in the slabs. The plumbing drawings are not sealed and ready for construction, clarify in the next submittal if openings are at risk. Similarly, no electrical information was included. Coordinate with project team on addressing electrical conduits, if any, that are to be installed with this phase. Still Required: Please see comment #1 under General Comments for explanation. Structural Calculations 1. Addressed. 2. Addressed. Sheet S2.01 1. Addressed. Advisory Notes for Future Phases 1. Addressed. 2. Addressed. 3. Addressed. MECHANICAL COMMENTS General 1. Addressed. PLUMBING COMMENTS General 1. Addressed. 2. Addressed. 3. Addressed. 4. Addressed.] 5. Addressed. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS General 1. Addressed. Should you have any questions regarding the plan review comments, please contact the plan reviewer listed for the appropriate discipline. Plans reviewed by: Trevor Bies, Senior Plan Reviewer 602-338-9922 trevor.bies@stantec.com Structural plans reviewed by: Kenton Steiner, P.E., S. E. Structural Plans Examiner 480-518-7252 notnek@cox.net |
||
| 09/09/2024 | Historic | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | The Special District minor review application submittal is complete. Please submit all the same materials under the Historic sub-record. Once you log into TDC Online, go to the My Work tab, and then go to Plans (not Permits). Under Plans there should be the Historic sub-record which I have opened under the TC permit number, and this is where the same materials are submitted.Once submitted the system will generate an SD #. Staff will then contact you about the next steps including invoicing and payment of review fee. Once fee are paid, a minor review will be scheduled. Here is a link on how to get to the sub-record. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/2/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/sub-records.pdf I am also attaching a flow chart that should help you understand the process. If you have any questions, contact Michael.Taku@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 09/09/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | see zoning comment | ||
| 09/05/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | ZONING REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: TC-COM-0524-01058 812 E SPEEDWAY BL. – UHR-1, UHR-2 UHR-3 Group Dwelling (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL: September 5, 2024 1. Zoning has reviewed the foundation only plans for compliance with TD-DEV-0324-00107, and although it appears that the plans match until the DP is approved by all review agencies Zoning cannot approve the building plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 08/07/2024 | PDSD Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED |