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: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T14CM06286
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/02/2015 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T14CM06286 HUB AT TUCSON II (FOUNDATION ONLY) 1. SHEET S1.01; GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES (FOUNDATIONS): INDICATE IN THE NOTES THAT CAISSON CAPACITIES ARE DETERMINED PER THE DRILLED SHAFT AXIAL CAPACITY TABLE AND THE DRILLED SHAFT UPLIFT CAPACITY TABLE LOCATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 2. SHEET S1.02: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE THE SPECIAL INSPECTION TABLE. 3. SHEET S1.04 (DETAIL 23); SHEET S1.05 (DETAIL 45): ARE TWO LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAILS REQUIRED? VERIFY. 4. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (PAGE 3): THE REPORT RECOMMENDS 'EITHER PERMEABLE WALL BACKFILL ZONES AND/OR STRIP DRAINS BE INSTALLED IN THE ELEVATOR PIT WALLS TO PREVENT THE CREATION OF HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE DUE TO ANY MINOR SURFACE WATER INFILTRATION SOURCES. THE DRAINS SHOULD BE CONNECTED TO WEEP HOLES OR A SUMP DRAIN. A DRYWELL OR SUMP PUMP SHOULD BE INSTALLED TO DISPOSE OF POTENTIAL WATER THAT MAY COLLECT FROM TIME TO TIME'. WERE THESE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS SUBMITTAL? VERIFY. 5. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (PAGE 3): 'THE SWELL POTENTIAL OF THE FINE PORTION OF THE UPPER CLAYEY SOILS IS A VERY MINOR CONCERN. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS STILL RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE PROPER DRAINAGE TO LIMIT THE POTENTIAL FOR WATER INFILTRATING UNDER SLABS.' WAS THIS ISSUE ADDRESSED IN THIS SUBMITTAL? VERIFY. 6. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGE 5: FOR THE SECOND FLOOR LOADING, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THESE LOADS WERE DETERMINED: 195 PSF SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD (TYPICAL); BALCONLY DEAD LOAD OF 40 PSF; PLANTER DEAD LOAD OF 330 PSF; FITNESS DEAD LOAD OF 255 PSF; AND COURTYARD DEAD LOAD OF 100 PSF. 7. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGE 5: FOR THE SECOND FLOOR LOADING, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THESE LOADS WERE DETERMINED: TYPICAL LIVE LOADING OF 152 PSF; CORRIDOR LIVE LOAD OF 520 PSF; AMENITY LIVE LOAD OF 228 PSF; AND FITNESS LIVE LOAD OF 228 PSF. 8. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGE 5: FOR THE SECOND FLOOR LOADING, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE MEZZANINE FLOOR SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD OF 15 PSF WAS DETERMINED. 9. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGES 23 AND 42: BOTH OF THESE CALCULATIONS INDICATE COLUMN CC3. REVISE THE COLUMN REFERENCE. 10. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: ARE THE SIX CONCRETE COLUMN DESIGNS AND THE EIGHT CAISSON DESIGNS INCLUDED IN THESE CALCULATIONS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE COLUMNS AND FOOTINGS INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT? VERIFY. 11. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS: PLEASE CLARIFY IN THE CALCULATIONS THE ACCUMULATION OF THE LOADS FROM THE ROOF TO THE BEARING WALLS (ROOF TO SECOND FLOOR), AND THEN CONTINUIING FROM THE SECOND FLOOR TO THE FOUNDATION FOR THE COLUMNS AND CAISSONS SHOWN. I COULDN'T FOLLOW THE COLUMN LOADINGS ON PAGE 7 FOR THE LOADS FROM THE ROOF TO THE FOUNDATION. WAS THE POOL ON THE ROOF INCLUDED IN THIS ANALYSIS? 12. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGES 92 THROUGH 103: PROVIDE A KEY PLAN LOCATING SHEARWALLS SW1, SW2, AND SW3. THE ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION ON PAGE 68 INDICATES THESE WALLS ARE PART OF THE LATERAL SYSTEM FOR THE SECOND LEVEL PODIUM. IS THIS THE FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE, AND IS THE EXTENT OF THE SHEARWALLS THAT AFFECT THE FOUNDATION DESIGN? 13. ISSUES TO REVIEW THAT COULD POSSIBLY AFFECT THE CURRENT FOUNDATION PLAN: A) DETERMINE IF THE FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE MEETS THE AREA LIMITATIONS OF THE IBC SECTION 505.2.1 AND THE OPENNESS REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 505.2.3. IT APPEARS FROM THE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS MIGHT NOT BE MET. THIS COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF BUILDING STORIES. B) PROVIDE THE AREAS OF EACH FLOOR ON THE DRAWINGS TO INSURE TABLE 503 REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. IT APPEARS FROM THE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS MIGHT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE FOUNDATION DESIGN. C) THE OPEN AREA BETWEEN GRIDS 3 AND 3.8 ON SHEET A2.2 WOULD APPEAR TO BE CONDUCIVE TO AN ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY USE, THEREBY POSSIBLY INCREASING THE CURRENT LOADING TO THAT AREA AND ALTERING THE FOUNDATION LOADS. 14. GENERAL: CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS, ARCHITECTURAL PRELIMINARY SHEETS, AND THOSE SHEETS SUBMITTED FOR THE FOUNDATION ONLY PERMIT COULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS. 15. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 02/02/2015 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Foundation only |
| 02/05/2015 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Passed | |
| 02/09/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Hub II T14CM06286 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 9, 2015 1. The building plans have been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning has reviewed the building plans and it appears that they comply with development package DP14-0145. But due to the amount of comments by other PDSD review agencies Zoning will not approve until all PDSD review agencies have approved the foundation plan. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 02/12/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/12/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Verify that no horizontal branches connect closer than ten diameters downstream of the bases of vertical stacks (e.g. see the two vertical stacks at column G-2.8). Reference: Section 704.3, IPC 2012. 2. According to the civil plans, the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole is 2421.8'and some areas of the first floor may be lower than or less than 12" above the manhole rim elevation. Provide a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. Verify that no fixtures located on floor levels above the first floor discharge through the backwater valve. 3. The three area drains located in the first floor decks along column line H appear to be incorrectly labeled as floor drains and they ultimately discharge to the sanitary drain system. If these area drains are intended to collect rainwater, revise the design to prevent rainwater from entering the sanitary drain system. Reference: Section 1101.3, IPC 2012. 4. It appears that the area drain located in the water meter yard will be collecting rainwater. If this area drain is intended to collect rainwater, revise the design to prevent rainwater from entering the sanitary drain system. Reference: Section 1101.3, IPC 2012. |
| 02/12/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/20/2015 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2015 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/16/2015 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |