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-0624-01147
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/26/2024 | Bldg Permits - Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 07/05/2024 | External Reviewers - SAFEBuilt | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Structural(S) Reviewer Madeline Nelson mnelson@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 7/2/2024 8:17:03 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 – DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: Per the 2018 IBC, Section 106.3.4, “The registered design professional in responsible charge shall list the deferred submittals on the construction documents for review by the code official.” The list of Contractor Shop Drawings presented on S0.1 does not appear to capture all the items whose design is being deferred (ex. the Aquarium Walls & Foundations and the Dock Retaining Walls are not listed. Refer to Sheet S1.1B.) Due to the complexity of this project, please provide a complete list of all items that will be designed by a specialty engineer as a deferred submittal and include that list in the Structural General Notes. Please be advised that we will place an Administrative Hold on the Certificate of Occupancy pending the submittal of the deferred structural drawings as a REVISION. All Revision fees will apply. 3. S0.1 - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: The geotechnical report referenced in the Structural General Notes under "Earthwork and Foundations" does not match the report submitted to the City. Please revise the general notes to refer to the report by Pattison Engineering or submit a revised report. 4. S0.1 - DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS - WIND LOADS: Per the 2018 IBC, Section 1603.1.4, all applicable wind design data must be included on the construction documents. Please update the structural general notes to include the design wind pressures to be used for exterior components and cladding materials, expressed in pounds per square foot. 5. S0.1 - LIVE LOADS: The live loads listed on the Sheet S0.1 do not include design assumptions for the mezzanine framing. Refer to Enlarged Plan 1/S3.2 for LSS Platform Framing Plan. Please indicate the live load assumptions used for design of this framing. In addition, the Clerestory Roof Isometric (2/S3.1) and Roof Framing Plan - Area B appear to show attic framing between Grids AA-B and Grids 2.9-4.1. Please confirm what this area is being used for, and if these joists have been designed for storage. 6. S0.1 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: The structural general notes provide conflicting information on the concrete to be used in the elevated concrete slabs over metal deck. Please confirm if the structural concrete shall be lightweight per "Cast In Place Reinforced Concrete" Note 2(c) or normal weight per "Steel Roof/Floor Deck" Note 1. Revise notes to remove this conflict. 7. S0.1 - DEFERRED SUBMITTAL DESIGN LOADS: The engineer of record has indicated that design of the Prefabricated Metal Trusses shall be completed by a specialty engineer. Please complete the portion of the structural general notes that states the required loads that metal trusses shall be designed to withstand. 8. S1.1A - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: The typical detail section cuts called out at the main entrance on Foundation Plan - Area A show information that conflicts with what is shown on plan. Details 3 & 9/S2.1 are called out at multiple locations where cold-formed steel stud walls are indicated on plan (with or without veneer). Please provide details that show all relevant framing conditions. 9. S1.1A/1.1B - MISSING COLUMN INFORMATION: Steel Column Type "C7.4" is called out on the Foundation Plan - Area B plan-north of Grids 2.9/A and 4.1/A. Per the Column Schedule on Sheet S1.1A, this column size "Varies" and is not shown on plan or in Elevation (4/S6.1). Please revise sheets to provide a size for all structural elements. 10. S1.1B - MISSING FOUNDATION INFORMATION: The Foundation Plan - Area B does not provide callouts to indicate the size or reinforcement for grade beams and spread footings plan-north of Grid A under the clerestory framing. Please provide a callout or a section cut that identifies the foundation elements in this area. 11. S1.1C - MISSING FOUNDATION INFORMATION: The Foundation Plan - Area C does not provide a callout to indicate the size or reinforcement for the interior grade beam parallel to Grid C plan-east of Grid 9. Please provide a callout or a section cut that identifies this grade beam 12. S2.0 - MISSING INFORMATION: Detail 4/S2.0 shows a typical tilt-up concrete wall connection to a continuous wall footing. Please indicate a maximum spacing for embed plates to be cast into the foundation and welded to the walls. 13. S2.1 - MISSING INFORMATION: Detail 9/S2.1 is cut in multiple locations on Foundation Plans - Areas A & D. The detail indicates that the footing width and width of taperer veneer shall be indicated on plan. However, reviewer was unable to locate this information. Please provide the size and reinforcement of all structural elements relevant to the foundation. 14. S3.1 - CONFIRM DESIGN: On the Roof Framing Plan - Areas A & B, no structural element is called out below the clerestory cold-formed steel walls. Please review this area and confirm that a typical open-web roof truss (24K7 per plan) is capable of supporting the wall without additional reinforcement. 15. S3.1A/S3.3 - MISSING INFORMATION: The Roof Framing Plan - Area A appears to show some intermediate support for Mansard Framing parallel Grid G between Grids 2-2.9. The Mansard & High Roof Framing Plan does not call out any structural member at this location, and instead calls out a typical 6" cold-formed steel rafter spanning the full 26'-0" from cold-formed steel stud wall to exterior concrete wall. Please confirm the design and submit calculations to support a 600S200-43 rafter spanning 26'-0". 16. S3.1B - STRUCTURAL MEMBER SIZE: The Roof Framing Plan - Area B calls for framing members "2.5K3" below the clerestory framing plan-north of Grid A. This is not a standard joist size. Please confirm what the intention is at this area and provide a standard framing element if required. 17. S3.1C - CONFIRM LATERAL DESIGN: On Roof Framing Plan - Area C, the structural steel frame shown at the Boat Service area is laterally braced by two moment frames oriented in the plan-north-south direction. Please confirm how the columns have been braced against racking in the plan east-west direction. Further, please provide a detail for how "3/4" dia. anchor rods shall be installed to provide the necessary rigidity. 18. S4.1 - STEEL CONNECTIONS: Please address the following comments related to the structural steel connections: i. In Detail 5/S4.1, please provide a minimum gusset plate thickness. ii. Detail 12/S4.1 Section A does not match the Truss T-1 Elevation 2/S6.1. Please revise to provide a consistent design. iii. Detail 13/S4.1 shows a diagonal brace that does not appear on Truss T-2 Elevation 1/S6.1. Further Detail 13, Section A does not match the truss elevation. Please revise to provide a consistent design. iv. Detail 14/S5.1 calls for a stub call "Ref Plan". Where this detail is called out on Enlarged Plan 3/S3.2, no column size is indicated. Please provide a minimum column size. 19. S4.2 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: Please refer to Detail 1/S4.2. The continuous ledger size called out (L5x3x3/8) conflicts with the ledger size indicated in typical details 2 & 3/S4.2 (L6x6x3/8). Please revise to eliminate this conflict. Further, the Joist Girder elevation view appears to show three long vertical gusset plates that do not appear in section view. Confirm the design intent and indicate a minimum size for these plates if required. 20. S4.2 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: The Roof Diaphragm Connection schedule provides information that conflicts with the structural general notes. Please confirm if the require fastener sizes for Roof Diaphragm "RD-1" shall be #12 screws or 1/4" Tek screws per Sheet S0.1, "Steel Roof/Floor Deck" Note 2. Revise notes as required. 21. S4.2 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Please refer to Detail 14/S4.2. The detail callouts indicate that the steel erector seat shall be mounted with horizontally slotted holes as well as welded to one panel. No connection information is called out at the adjacent panel. Please note that welding the seat to the embed plate will not allow for horizontal movement, if desired. Further, if not connection is made to the second panel, the erector seat will be loaded asymmetrically. Please confirm the design and revise as needed. 22. S4.3 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Refer to Detail 4/S4.3. The weld callouts indicate that the structural steel "straps" shall only be welded at one end, and therefore the two panels are not positively anchored together. This will not allow transfer of shear forces between panels and may cause instability if straps are only provided on one face of the tilt-up panels. Please confirm the design and indicate how shear forces are being transferred between panels. 23. S4.4 - STEEL CONNECTIONS: Please address the following comments related to the structural steel connections: i. In Detail 5/S4.4, please indicate a minimum weld size and length for connections between HSS brace members and the 3/4" round gusset plate. ii. In Details 6 & 10/S4.4, please identify all miscellaneous steel, welds and bolts required for connections. iii. In Detail 8/S4.4, please specify a minimum weld length required to transfer tensile forces between the HSS brace and beam. 24. S4.5 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Detail 4/S4.5 shows an outrigger connection in which the roof overhang members are "stubbed out" from the wide-flange roof beam via welded moment connections. This results in the wide-flange beam being loaded in torsion. Because no stiffener plates are shown, please provide a calculation to show that this beam has been designed for torsion caused by either roof dead/live load or wind uplift loads. Mechanical(M) Reviewer Jorge Valido jvalido@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 6/28/2024 1:13:19 PM 1. General - Provide Ventilation Calculation/Schedule - 2018 IMC Section 403 Table 403.3.1.1 - ASHRAE 2. General - Provide Energy Heat load calculations - 2015 IECC Section C403.2.1 Calculation of heating and cooling loads. 3. General - Provide isometric detail for the Air Compressor piping - 2015 IECC Section C103.2Information on construction documents - 2018 IBC – Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 4. Plan Sheet M1.1C - ROOFTOP UNIT/NATURAL GAS FIRED SCHEDULE on Plan Sheet M3.0 States under RTU-9 Supply Fan/Supply Air (CFM 8000 CFM. Plan Sheet M1.1C states 7000 CFM. Confirm CFM for RTU-9. - 2015 IECC Section C103.2Information on construction documents - 2018 IBC – Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 5. Plan Sheet M1.1C - ROOFTOP UNIT/NATURAL GAS FIRED SCHEDULE on Plan Sheet M3.0 States under RTU-10 Supply Fan/Supply Air (CFM 7000 CFM. Plan Sheet M1.1C states 8200 CFM for SAD (supply air drop) CFM total for RTU-10. Confirm CFM for RTU-10. - 2015 IECC Section C103.2Information on construction documents - 2018 IBC – Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 6. Plan Sheet M1.1C - ROOFTOP UNIT/NATURAL GAS FIRED SCHEDULE on Plan Sheet M3.0 States under RTU-15 Supply Fan/Supply Air (CFM 3000 CFM. Plan Sheet M1.1C states 3400 CFM for SAD (supply air drop) CFM total for RTU-15. Confirm CFM for RTU-15. - 2015 IECC Section C103.2Information on construction documents - 2018 IBC – Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. 7. Plan Sheet M1.1C - ROOFTOP UNIT/NATURAL GAS FIRED SCHEDULE on Plan Sheet M3.0 States under RTU-5 Supply Fan/Supply Air (CFM 1200 CFM. Plan Sheet M1.1C states 600 CFM for SAD (supply air drop) CFM total for RTU-5. Confirm CFM for RTU-5. - 2015 IECC Section C103.2Information on construction documents - 2018 IBC – Section [A]107.2.1Information on construction documents. Electrical(E) Reviewer Ron Ross rross@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 6/24/2024 4:16:52 PM 1. E2.0D ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN - AREA D: missing Key Note 266. 2. E3.0A ELECTRICAL POWER PLAN - AREA A: All receptacles in common area accessible to children shall be tamper proof. Provide note or revised symbol to meet this requirement. Comment applies to all sheets that have receptacles. 3. E3.1 ELECTRICAL SITE POWER PLAN: Generator shows 80-amp circuit breaker protection for HEA, but Power Riser Diagram shows as 150 amp with 150-amp conductors. Correct/coordinate sheets to correct value. 4. E3.2 ELECTRICAL POWER PLAN - ROOF PLAN: 120V rooftop circuits need 2 current carrying conductors vs 1 as shown. 5. E5.0 ELECTRICAL POWER RISER DIAGRAM: Generator has 150-amp CB and feeders into ATS-LS, to then feed a 100-amp feeder into MLO Panel HLSA. Upsize 100-amp feeder or reduce generator and MDP 150-amp circuit breakers to comply with NEC overload requirements for conductors. 6. FA3.0 FIRE ALARM INITIATION PLAN: Pull stations should (strongly advised) be relocated into the vestibules vs inside the building to meet the requirement of having a pull station within 5 feet of the exit/egress. Plumbing(P) Reviewer Perry Hendershott phendershott@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 7/2/2024 8:26:02 PM First Plumbing Review: 1). Plan Page A2.0,:missing Gutter & Downspouts sizing calculations. Add gutter and down spout sizing calculations in accordance with -2018 IPC 1106.1, 1106.3. 1106.6 2). Plan Page P2.0:Keynote indicators on the roof plan don't have a correlating note, Add a correlating note for keynote indicators 1 & 2. -2018 IPC 106.3.1 3). Plan page P1.1: The primary & secondary roof drain locations & quantity don't correlate with locations & quantity shown on plan page P2.0. Update Plan page P1.1 to correlate with all the roof drains shown on P2.0. -2018 IPC 106.3.1 ( if some of these interconnect provide a complete storm system riser diagram with GPM loads at points of interconnection for clarity) 4) Plan P3.0: Add note to detail 3 stating RPZ is supplying make water to aquarium for clarity. In accordance -2018 IPC 608.3 5). Plan Page P3.0: Where will the WH4 discharge to? There isn't a mop sink or floor drain below this WH location as shown in typical water heater detail. Provide place of discharge for this water heater in accordance with -2018 IPC 504.6 thru 504.7.2 6). Plan page M2.0: Gas input schedule Missing gas sizing table used. Add the gas sizing table that derives from -2018 IFGC 402.3 7). Plan Page M4.1 detail 12: Missing gas fireplace exhaust size. Add exhaust size to plan page - 2018 IFGC 503.1 8). Plan page M4.1 Detail 6: Missing gas fireplace device model # manufacture name. Add Gas fireplace appliance information -2018 IFGC 301.3, 303.1, & Chapter 6 9). Plan Page M4.1 detail 7: Sediment trap needs to illustrated in accordance with -2018 IFGC 408.4 10). Plan page A5.10A: missing the lavatory to lavatory fixture separation distances. Add the lavatory to lavatory fixture separation distances in accordance with -2018 IPC 405.3.1 |
||
| 07/26/2024 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Address SafeBuilt comments. Questions: patricia.shelton@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 07/22/2024 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1) Provide a detail and location of the roof drainage connection to the site storm drain system. 2) See Development plan comments on pedestrian circulation requirements to egress points. 3) See zoning comments. Joshua Garcia joshua.garcia@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 07/17/2024 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | RE: zoning review of building plans For: Bass Pro Site address: 1500 E Tucson Marketplace Bl Building permit: TC-COM-0624-01147 Reviewer: Heather Thrall (Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov) Date: 7/17/24 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Please resubmit updated drawings along with a detailed comment response letter, which states how all zoning review comments were addressed. 1. COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the unapproved development package (TD-DEV-0424-00140) and found that the building plans are consistent with the unapproved development package as it relates to the zoning requirements (location, building footprint). 2. COMMENT: In lieu of the City of Tucson Design Review Board (DRB) process, the PAD-15 Design Review Committee (DRC) shall govern the review of the building architecture for this large retail establishment. That said, the DRB still is responsible for the review of the site elements pertaining to the large retail establishment (such as, landscaping, central features / community spaces, outdoor lighting, etc.) The DRB is under the guidance of my colleague, Maria Gayosso. The materials needed to provide the DRB review, dates of the DRB meetings and scheduling can be found here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Public-Meetings-Boards-Committees-Commissions/Design-Review-Board In addition, the PAD DRC letter is needed to proceed. 3. COMMENT: Please mark the development package sheets included in this building plan set as “reference only” – or include approved development package sheets. 4. COMMENT: for the record: A) building height is measured from grade. A dimension for height is shown from top of slab, unclear if that slab element is site grade level. Please show the measured difference between the site grade and the finished floor, with building height of 60 feet. B) please check that all gross floor area (GFA) as defined in the UDC is noted on the building plan site plan set, and matches the development package set. C) Please add number of floors (i.e. mezzanine, include as part of GFA) 5. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to assure that any updates made to the building plans or the development package does not affect zoning requirements. 6. COMMENT: Zoning cannot approve the building plans until all PDSD commercial plans reviewers have also approved the building plans. 7. Thank you for sharing signage design elements. Please note that signage is reviewed via separate permit submittal from a licensed sign contractor and signage regulations are found under 7A, Sign Standards in the Unified Development Code. Please reach out to me for assistance with any signage questions. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Heather Thrall or Nick Ross at 520-837-4961 or Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or Nicholas.Ross@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 07/22/2024 | Water - PDSD | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. The fire service for the building is not metered (See C600). 2. Provide the water demand that the proposed 2” water meter will be serving. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018. |
||
| 06/17/2024 | PDSD Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED |