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: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T10CM01795
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2010 | RONALD BROWN | HC | REVIEW | Denied | Reference Building Comments |
| 08/30/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | STRUCTURAL REVIEW COMMENTS ERIC NEWCOMB 1. SHEET S201BB; NOTES: REVISE THE SHEET REFERENCES IN NOTE 1 (THERE ARE NO SHEETS S010 OR S011). 2. SHEET S201BB; LEGEND: COMPLETE THE SHEET REFERENCE FOR CAISSONS (NOTE 1). 3. SHEET S201BT; NOTES: REVISE THE SHEET REFERENCES IN NOTE 1 (THERE ARE NO SHEETS S010 OR S011). 4. SHEET S201BT; LEGEND: COMPLETE THE SHEET REFERENCE FOR CAISSONS (NOTE 1). 5. SHEET S202B; FRAMING PLAN: DOES THIS PLAN REQUIRE INDICATIONS ABOVE GRID 12 (PER THE FIRST SYMBOL UNDER 'P.T. LEGEND') OF THE SPACING OF EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED TENDONS? VERIFY. 6. SHEET S203; FRAMING PLAN: THERE ARE SEVERAL DETAILS BETWEEN GRIDS C THROUGH E AND GRIDS 7 THROUGH 9 THAT HAVE NUMBERS THAT ARE LESS THAN 3/32" IN HEIGHT AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS. REVISE. 7. SHEET S204; FRAMING PLAN: THERE ARE DETAILS BETWEEN GRIDS B THROUGH D AND GRIDS 4 THROUGH 8 THAT HAVE NUMBERS THAT ARE LESS THAN 3/32" IN HEIGHT AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF TUCSON STANDARDS. REVISE. 8. SHEET S204A; FRAMING PLAN: DOES THIS PLAN REQUIRE INDICATIONS (PER THE FIRST SYMBOL UNDER 'P.T. LEGEND' ON SHEET S204B) OF THE SPACING OF EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED TENDONS? VERIFY. 9. SHEET S204B; BUILDING PLAN: REVISE THE BOXED NOTE BELOW GRID 16 AND ON GRID I TO MAKE IT LEGIBLE. 10. SHEET S204B; FRAMING PLAN: COMPLETE THE DETAIL REFERENCE AT THE TERMINATION PIT (ABOVE GRID 14 AND BETWEEN GRIDS G AND H). 11. SHEET S204B; FRAMING PLAN: THERE ARE TWO INDICATIONS (PER THE FIRST SYMBOL UNDER 'P.T. LEGEND') BETWEEN GRIDS 15 AND 16 AND GRIDS B AND C AND GRIDS 15 AND 16 AND GRIDS H AND I THAT DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION FOR THE SPACING OF EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED TENDONS INDICATED. PROVIDE. 12. SHEET S207B; P.T. NOTES: THE SHEAR WALL REFERENCE NOTE SHOULD BE ADDED. VERIFY. 13. SHEET S207B: IT APPEARS THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THIS SHEET HAS BEEN CUT OFF. REVISE. 14. SHEET S208; FRAMING PLAN: THE BOXED NOTE AT GRIDS E AND 8 CONCERNING 125 PSF LIVE LOAD REFERENCES LEVELS 4 THROUGH 9. THIS NOTE IS NOT INCLUDED ON LEVEL 4 (SHEET S207A). VERIFY IF REQUIRED. 15. SHEET S208; P.T. LEGEND: THE STUD RAIL REFERENCE (095) DOES NOT EXIST ON SHEET S009. REVISE. 16. SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES: THE SHEAR WALL REFERENCE NOTE SHOULD BE ADDED. VERIFY. 17. SHEET S208: IT APPEARS SOME OF THE ITEMS IN THE P.T. LEGEND ARE MISSING. VERIFY. 18. SHEET S208; SLAB REBAR SCHEDULE: ADD DETAIL REFERENCES. 19. SHEET S208: ADD BOX NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE PER OTHER SHEETS. 20. PREVIOUS COMMENT 183; SHEET S208; MILD STEEL REINFORCING NOTES (NOTE 1): THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 21. PREVIOUS COMMENT 184; SHEET S208; MILD STEEL REINFORCING NOTES (NOTE 3): THE DETAIL REFERENCE HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 22. PREVIOUS COMMENT 171; SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES (NOTE 1): THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 23. PREVIOUS COMMENT 172; SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES (NOTE 2): THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 24. PREVIOUS COMMENT 174; SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES (NOTE 5): THE REFERENCE DETAIL NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 25. PREVIOUS COMMENT 175; SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES (NOTE 6): THE REFERENCE DETAIL NUMBER HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 26. PREVIOUS COMMENT 176; SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES (NOTE 7): THE REFERENCE DETAIL NUMBER HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 27. PREVIOUS COMMENT 177; SHEET S208; P.T. NOTES (NOTE 8): THE REFERENCE DETAIL NUMBER HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 28. PREVIOUS COMMENT 179; SHEET S208; REBAR NOTES (NOTE 1): THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 29. PREVIOUS COMMENT 180; SHEET S208; REBAR NOTES (NOTE 3): THE REFERENCE SHEET NUMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 30. PREVIOUS COMMENT 181; SHEET S208; REBAR NOTES (NOTE 5): THE REFERENCE DETAIL NUMBER HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 31. PREVIOUS COMMENT 182; SHEET S208; REBAR NOTES (NOTE 11): THE REFERENCE DETAIL NUMBER HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 32. PREVIOUS COMMENT 185; SHEET S208; MILD STEEL LEGEND: THE REFERENCE DETAIL 103 HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 33. SHEET S210; FRAMING PLAN: THE GRID SYSTEM IS MISSING FROM THIS SHEET. REVISE. 34. SHEET S501 (DETAIL 511); SHEET S502 (DETAIL 511): DETAIL 511 SHOWS UP ON BOTH OF THESE SHEETS, BUT IS A DIFFERENT DETAIL. REVISE. 35. PREVIOUS COMMENT 244; SHEET S501; DETAIL 511: THE REFERENCE DETAIL 105 HAS NOT BEEN REVISED. VERIFY. 36. SHEET S602; DETAIL 615: CLEAR UP THE TITLE VERBIAGE. 37. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMENTS RON BROWN RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 1. Comment 269(b): The following door swings need to be corrected to swing in the direction of travel: a. On Sheets LS201, LS201 and LS203, Door at Stair 1 b. On Sheet A209 and all other sheets showing the 9th floor balcony, Doors 918 A and B. The occupancy load is shown as 166, these doors must swing in. c. On sheet A205, please reverse the door swing of all exit doors for the Auditorium 2. Comment 270: Non Responsive. Add also detail number 17/A106. 3. Comment 278: There are some stairs that are not identified throughout all sections of the documents. It would be nice and a lot easier to identify locations if one system of stair identification was utilized and incorporated for all drawings. 4. Comment 279: Reference comment 269 above. 5. Comment 281: Some where during this review we will need to see a wall section through the rated wall assemblies surrounding the third floor atrium. If there are already wall sections detailed for this area, please reference the location. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 6. Please insure panic hardware on all exit doors of the auditorium as per the 2006 IBC, Section 1008.1.9 7. Please show the accessible route markings all the accessible parking spaces and aisle for all 1st floor drawings. 8. On sheets LS207 and LS209, the calculated occupancy loads shown for the balconies is incorrect. Please recalculate the square footages and as agreed, recalculate the occupancy load for the balconies as per a "B" occupancy load of 1/100. 9. On sheet A509, a. Detail 3, please show a handrail on the down side of the stairs. b. Detail 2, please make the handrail at the landing continuous. 10. Sheet A610: Generic accessible details are not acceptable. Please include all accessible code requirement details and dimensions on the actual toilet floor plans and interior elevations. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/30/2010 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Unisorce T10CM01795 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 30, 2010 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section and the plans appear to be approvable but due to the amount of comments by other PDSD agencies Zoning will not stamp and approve the plans at this time. 2. Once an approvable set of drawings is submitted Zoning will approve the plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t10cm01795.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 08/30/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/30/2010 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Needs Review | |
| 08/31/2010 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/31/2010 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire Comments: Please provide a response letter with your reply to all the comments. Include the location in the plans for all corrections. Provide copies of the appeals when approved. Sheets LS207 and LS209 1. The calculated occupancy loads shown for the balconies is incorrect. Please recalculate the square footages and as agreed, recalculate the occupancy load for the balconies as per a "B" occupancy load of 1/100. 2. Occupancy load signs shall be posted for these areas on the 4th and 9th floors. Sheet A001 1. There is no mention of Type M occupancy on this sheet but several on other plans. This same detail on the electrical plans shows 8730 square feet of retail. The Fire and Life Safety Report also says Group M is a possible use. Sheet A205 1. The doors from the pre-function area should swing out of the assembly room. The pre-function area was given a very light occupant load. These doors are shown swinging the other (correct) way on the exiting page LS205 and some other pages. They should swing the correct way on all pages. 2. Insure panic hardware on all exit doors of the auditorium as per the IFC, Section 1008.1.9 Sheet A206A 1. The third floor must be cut off from the second or all the atrium provisions of IBC 404 must be followed. 2. The auditorium projection to this floor is 2 hour rated. The lobby is only protected one hour. The Fire and Life Safety Report has some inconsistencies about the rating as to matching the floor rating or just the one hour. 3. No fire rated details were provided for the intersection between the curved and straight walls on the lobby. See comments on the 600 sheets. Sheets A209 and A207A 1. Provide the appeal for the in swing doors and the appeal and hardware cut sheets for the doors from the outdoor balconies per the April 19 meeting. Sheet A603A 1. The sprinklers in the Fire and Life Safety Report are not for ceiling coverage. They need to be on the windows on both sides of the corridor. Perhaps they would be better shown and called out on the window elevation or plumbing pages. Sheet A611 1. The gypsum board in Detail 17 must be continuous in the raised floor area in the areas requiring fire rating. 2. Detail 17 shows plywood in areas that the other details show gypsum board. The wall can contain the treated wood but a UL or other approved assembly must be used. 3. If the openings into the raised floor and plywood are left on the first and second floors a horizontal fire barrier must be placed at the third floor level. Sheet 701 1. Recheck the doors and hardware on this sheet to comply with the corrections in the fire and building comments. |
| 08/31/2010 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | ADDRESS COMMENT 4 FROM 8/27/10 NEED TO CLARIFY USE OF SANITARY ROOF DRAIN. NOTES FROM PIMA COUNTY REVIEWER CHUCK HOWARD: PER CONVERSATION WITH KEN CAWTHORNE AT KC MECHANICAL, FLOOR SINK TO COOLING TO W@V ON ROOF IS TO BE REDIRECTED TO DAYLIGHT OR CUT SHEETS SUPPLIED TO ENSURE RAIN WILL NOT BE DIRECTED INTO SANITARY SEWER. 8/31/10 |
| 09/01/2010 | STANTEC | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | September 2, 2010 To: Ernie Duarte, Acting Building Official City of Tucson Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue, First Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 Re: Unisource Energy Corporation - Shell Office Building (ELECTRICAL REVIEW ONLY) City of Tucson No. T10CM01795 Stantec Project No. 852-10009 (10-004) Plan review for the above-referenced project has been completed, per the 2005 NEC with local amendments, and the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code. This letter reflects comments to be addressed with a written response to each of the noted items indicating the action taken. In order to facilitate a shorter back-check time, we request that you please provide revised plans and calculations, clouding any changes that have been made. SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review covers Electrical Review Only. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittal provided. All portions of the project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions and concerns before permit approval. GENERAL: " There are no general comments to be addressed. ELECTRICAL: " The following previously made comment has been partially addressed. Those items presented in Meade Engineering's in-house review letter dated 7/27/2010 are to be addressed on the plans. {This comment is meant to incorporate the items noted in the Meade Engineering in-house review letter into this comment letter. Rather than "copy" the items from the in-house review letter into this document, the comments within the in-house review letter are a part of this document by reference.} All of the items within the in-house review letter were addressed; however two minor issues were noted. " On Sheet E204AP, There is a home run to Panel P1WA for Circuits 13, 15, and 17; Circuit 17 is noted as a spare on the panel schedule and should be eliminated from this homerun based on the written response. " On Sheet E210P, the Equipment Schedule lists a #6 bond on AH-10.1, Circuit #3; this should be a #2 bond based on the written response. " The following previously made comment has been partially addressed. Based on the outdoor lighting calculation a special inspection certificate needs to be provided for outdoor lighting [COT outdoor Lighting Code Sec. 16]. The lighting code calculation provided on Sheet E102 indicates that 488,840 lumens of outdoor lighting is being provided on 2.34 acres of land, therefore 208,905 lumens are being provided per acre. When the lighting density is greater than 100,000 lumens per acre ion Areas E3 and E3a then special inspection is required. Please provide a certificate and note on the plans the requirement. We received a copy of the special inspection certificate via email, however there are two issues. The special inspectors are not on the "approved" list of special inspectors and the owner or their legal representative did not sign the document. Regarding the "approved" list of special inspectors, this should be discussed with the City. It is possible to get "approved"; however you will need to submit information on qualifications, past experience with this type of inspection and how you plan on performing the tests for the City's approval. -End of Review- If you have any questions, please call (520) 750-7474. Sincerely, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Joel Svoboda Associate JES:jes Attachments: none |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2010 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/08/2010 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |