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-0823-02101
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2024 | Site Engineering | APPROVED | |||
| 06/04/2024 | Site Zoning | APPROVED | |||
| 06/05/2024 | Bldg Permits - Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 05/17/2024 | External Reviewers - SAFEBuilt | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Structural(S) Reviewer Madeline Nelson mnelson@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 5/15/2024 4:20:00 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. S1.1 - MISSING INFORMATION: The structural general notes, Section "Cold-Formed Steel Framing", Notes 2 & 3 clearly identify the minimum yield strength for cold-formed studs and joists when cold-formed members are 12, 14 or 16 gage thickness (-54, -68 and -97 mils). Please update these notes to provide a minimum yield strength for the more common 18 and 20 gage members, bearing in mind that the structural calculation package uses 50 ksi steel for all sizes. 3. S2.2 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: Structural Sheet S2.2 conflicts with the Architectural Sheet A1.2 regarding the interior cold-formed steel stud walls separating the Open Office 103, Offices 107-110 and the Reception area. Where Sheet S2.2 calls out a partition wall at the Reception area, no wall occurs on A1.2. Further, A1.2 specifies Wall Type "WL-G" for the north-south partition walls, which conflict in both stud gage and stud spacing with Sheet S2.2, Plan Note 7. Please coordinate the structural and architectural plans to resolve these conflicts. 4. S2.2 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: The Canopy Framing Plan on S2.2 calls for tube framing by the preengineered metal building manufacturer to support the proposed canopy. Refer to Detail 229 for more information. However, no tube framing appears on the sidewall framing at Frame Lines E or 6 in Metal Building drawings "Mtl Bldg23022R SEALED APPROVALS-HArev_v1.pdf", Pages 9 & 11. Please coordinate with the metal building manufacturer to confirm that proper backing has been provided for the canopy framing. 5. S4.2 - CONFLICTING INFORMATION: Detail 232, Note 2, calls out a beam size that conflicts with the beam schedule on Sheet S2.3 and Detail 231. Please confirm which note will control and resubmit to resolve this conflict. 6. S4.2/S4.3 - MISSING INFORMATION: Details 237 and 240 show a cold-formed steel pony wall supporting the mezzanine roof joists above Steel Beam "B7" along Frame Line E. Please provide a minimum stud size and spacing for this pony wall. 7. Supplemental Calculation Package - ENGINEER'S SEAL: The structural calculations by Babbitt Smith Engineering dated April 29, 2024 were submitted without an engineer's seal. Please resubmit the calculations signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Arizona. Building(B) Reviewer Andrew Bevis abevis@safebuilt.com Approved Reason: Date Completed : 5/8/2024 2:49:53 PM Mechanical N/A Electrical N/A Plumbing N/A Fire N/A Building Approved Mechanical N/A Electrical N/A Plumbing N/A |
||
| 05/28/2024 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 05/08/2024 | PDSD Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED |