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-1123-02681
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2023 | Water - PDSD | APPROVED | |||
| 12/15/2023 | Bldg Permits - Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 12/08/2023 | External Reviewers - SAFEBuilt | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Structural(S) Reviewer Madeline Nelson mnelson@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 12/5/2023 9:27:55 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. S100A - SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: Special inspections listed on the structural general notes, Sheet S-100A do not specify any inspections for typical concrete or steel construction. Per the 2018 IBC Section 1704.3, construction documents must include a statement listing all required inspections, their extent and frequency in accordance with IBC Chapter 17 and AISC 360, Chapter N5. Please update the general notes to include all required inspections and resubmit. 4. For this project, the authority having jurisdiction is the City of Tucson and the currently adopted building code is the 2018 International Building Code. Please update the structural general notes to remove references to other jurisdictions (refer to Wood Truss Construction Note 1, S-100) and outdated versions of the code (refer to the Required Special Inspections Table and Note 3, S-100A). 5. S100 - TYPICAL WOOD SHEATHING: In the structural general notes, Wood Construction Note 8, exterior wall sheathing shall be 5/8" APA rated sheathing. This conflicts with the Shear Wall Elevation Schedule, Note 10 on Sheet S-103 and the "Shear Wall Notes", Note 3 on Sheet S-301 which specify 15/32" sheathing. Please confirm which notes will control and revise the conflicting sheets accordingly. 6. S-103 - TYPICAL TOP PLATE TENSION TIE: The Roof Framing Plan, S-102, refers to a tension strap per Sheet S103 at multiple locations. Detail 10/S-103 shows typical tension strapping around steel columns, but does not indicate a strap size. Please provide the minimum strap gage and number of fasteners required to transfer force around columns and plumbing penetrations. 7. S-301 - SHEAR WALL SILL PLATE ANCHORAGE: Detail 7/S-301 is titled "Typical Exterior Shearwall Nailing Pattern". However, the sill plate anchorage called out in the detail is typical of non-shear walls. Please revise this detail in order to not conflict with the shear wall schedule on Sheet S-103. 8. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: On Page 58 of 148 of the structural calculation package, shear wall calculations for SW1 indicate 10d fasteners at 4" on center, which conflicts with the fastener spacing called out in the Shearwall Schedule on Sheet S-103. Please confirm which fastener spacing controls and resubmit calculations that match the construction documents. 9. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: Pages 62 thru 65 and 72 thru 83 of the structural calculation package refer to shear walls types "SW6", "SWB" and "SWE" which do not match any entries in the Shearwall schedule on S-103. Please confirm if/where these calculations apply so design of the lateral system can be verified. Building(B) Reviewer Keith Miller kmiller@safebuilt.com Approved Reason: Date Completed : 11/30/2023 5:24:07 PM The building review is approved. Subject to the field inspector's approval. Mechanical(M) Reviewer Jorge Valido jvalido@safebuilt.com Approved Reason: Date Completed : 12/4/2023 4:53:17 PM Electrical(E) Reviewer Ron Ross rross@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 12/4/2023 10:45:46 AM Electrical Review of The Learning Experience By: Ron Ross PE E-100: Two sheets are labeled E-100. E-110: No Main Circuit Breaker called out for MDP panel as shown by One Line on sheet E-111. E-200: Keynote 16 seems to show 3 backboards when Keynote calls out for two. Review and correct Keynote 24 if circuit is 120V vs called out as 12V. If it is 12V, suggest to use some other type of plug. Could not locate Keynotes 20, and 21. E-220: Sheet mislabeled as E-210. E-230: Sheet mislabeled as E-220. E-300: Keynote 2 is missing. Could not locate Keynote 3. Plumbing(P) Reviewer Perry Hendershott phendershott@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 12/7/2023 6:06:29 AM First Plumbing Review: 1). Plan pages P400 & P500 missing secondary roof drains & secondary conductor illustrations as required & shown on plan page A-033 detail 6 -IPC 1108 |
||
| 12/15/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | See zoning comment | ||
| 11/30/2023 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | ZONING REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: TC-COM-1123-02681 7396 S. Nexus Rd – C-1 Day Care (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL: November 30, 2023 Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This site is located in the C-1 zone (UDC 4.7.20). Day Care is a allowed use in the zone (UDC Table 4.8-4), subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.O. 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with Development Package (DP) TD-DEV-1023-00413, but until the following comment has been addressed and the DP is approved by all review agencies Zoning cannot approve the building plans. 2. Perimeter yard setbacks are based on a wall height measurement from design grade to the highest point of the exterior wall, top of parapet (UDC Article 6.4.5.B & Figure 6.4.5-A). Heights were not provided from design grade to top of parapet. Also the DP shows a height of 18’ but the building plans show features up to 24’ which will affect required perimeter yard setbacks. Coordinate with you Civil and ensure the correct height is shown on the DP. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 12/14/2023 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 11/20/2023 | PDSD Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED |