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

Permit Number: T15CM06499
Parcel: 122124120

Address:
1647 N SWAN RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T15CM06499
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/21/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: TOCCO Financial Services
T15CM06499
Building Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 24, 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. As the proposed building will cross existing property lines a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form with your next submittal.

3. Until the above comments have been addressed and all other PDSD review agencies have approved the building plans zoning cannot approve.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956
09/22/2015 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
10/01/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 2, 2015
DUE DATE: October 13, 2015
SUBJECT: Proposed Commercial Center
TO: Venture West Construction
LOCATION: 1647 N Swan Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: T15CM06499
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The concern appears to be generated by the supplemental geotechnical recommendations, the location of the underground retention and the utilities being routed in a way not recommended by the geotechnical report. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please list the relative case numbers, such as the development plan package number for the overall site in the title block area on each sheet.
2) Per AM 2-06.4.8F please show the location of the underground retention basin on sheet ASP1 that the Geotechnical report mentions is planned for the parking lot.
3) Per TSM 2-01.4.1D a soils report has been prepared with recommendations, including a recommendation that utilities not be routed from the same side of the building as the underground retention basin. There is concern that the backfill usually used in utility trenches, such as chat or bedding sand may act as a conduit to convey subsurface drainage from the underground retention basin to the structural foundation of the proposed buildings. After the location of the retention basin is shown in comparison to the proposed utility routing for building services, a determination should be made as to whether a specialized set of backfill requirements is needed for utility backfill. Please note that per page 2 of the 2006 original soils report that "this site lies within an area of Tucson that has a well-documented history of foundation settlement. Our field and laboratory tests confirm the presence of highly compressible soils in the upper five to ten feet." Please note that per page 14 of the Soils report it may be appropriate to compact utility trenches to 95% density. Please add a general note outlining any appropriate requirements to sheet ASP1.
4) Per TSM 7-01.4.3E roof drainage must be conveyed beneath the sidewalk for the 10-year storm. Page A2.1 has keynote 7.7 calling out a S.M. Scupper with a reference to see 6/A2.1. This detail does not show this drainage being conveyed under the adjacent existing or proposed sidewalks south of the proposed buildings. Please call out these S.M. Scuppers on sheet ASP1 with the appropriate conveyance structure, PC/COT type 1 sidewalk scupper, added as required under the sidewalks for the 10-year storm.
5) Per TSM 2-01.4.1D a soils report has been prepared with recommendations. Per page 12 of the soils report and given the compressible nature of the soils, the 3 roof drains on the north side of the building must be extended to discharge/outlet storm water at least 5 feet away from the structure. Please include detail of this 5 foot horizontal extension of the roof drainage system in the next submittal.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
10/02/2015 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (ALLOWABLE AREA): THE DRAWING INDICATES AN ALLOWABLE AREA OF 4500 SF PER THE IBC TABLE 503. PLEASE REVISE THAT AREA.
2. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (ALLOWABLE AREA): THE DRAWING INDICATES AN ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASE OF 13,500 SF. PLEASE REVISE. THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA IS THE SUM OF THE TABLE 503 VALUE AND THE ALLOWABLE INCREASE DUE TO AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM. PLEASE INDICATE ON THE DRAWING.
3. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION): THE CONSTRUCTION TYPE REFERENCES TABLE 503. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE.
4. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (SPRINKLERS): THE DRAWING REFERENCES SECTIONS 1016.1 AND 1017.1 FOR SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCES.
5. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (OCCUPANT LOADS): THE DRAWING REFERENCES TABLE 1004.1.1 FOR OCCUPANT LOADS. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE.
6. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (NUMBER OF EXITS AND EXIT WIDTHS): THE DRAWING REFERENCES 1019.1 FOR EXITS. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCE.
7. SHEET TS1: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. PLEASE REVISE THE CODE STUDY.
8. SHEET TS1; CODE ANALYSIS DATA: PLEASE REVISE THE ICC/ANSI TO THE 2009 EDITION.
9. SHEET TS1; CODE ANALYSIS DATA: THE GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY TABLE REFERENCES 503 FOR TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND 1004.3.2.1 FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM. PLEASE REVISE THE REFERENCES.
10. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY: PLEASE INDICATE ON THE DRAWINGS THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED IN THIS SPACE PER THE IBC SECTION 903.3.
11. SHEET TS1; CODE ANALYSIS DATA (ALLOWABLE AREA): THE DRAWING INDICATES N/A FOR AREA INCREASE FOR SPRINKLERS. PLEASE REVIEW SECTION 506.3 FOR AREA INCREASES FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, AND REVISE THE ALLOWABLE AREA AS REQUIRED.
12. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY (SPRINKLERS); CODE ANALYSIS (GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY): THE CODE STUDY INDICATES AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS PROVIDED, WHILE THE CODE ANALYSIS INDICATES NO SPRINKLER SYSTEM. PLEASE COORDINATE.
13. SHEET TS1; CODE STUDY: PLEASE PROVIDE ON THE DRAWINGS AN ANALYSIS FOR THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PLUMBING FIXTURES PER THE IBC TABLE 2902.1.
14. SHEET ASP1; KEYNOTES: NOTE 10 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. PLEASE VERIFY.
15. SHEET ASP1; SITE PLAN: THE WEST WALL OF THE NEW BUILDING INDICATES IT VARIES IN DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FROM 4'-3" TO 5'-5". PER THE IBC TABLE 602, THE EXTERIOR WALL MUST HAVE A FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF ONE HOUR. THAT WALL ON SHEET A1 (TYPE 6A) IS NOT A RATED WALL. PLEASE VERIFY AND REVISE AS REQUIRED. IF THIS WALL IS TO BE A FUTURE SEPARATION WALL FROM ANOTHER BUILDING, THIS MAY REQUIRE A FIRE WALL PER THE IBC SECTION 706. PLEASE VERIFY ON THE DRAWINGS.
16. SHEET A1; PARTITION TYPES: TYPES 4A AND 4B REFERENCE A SECTION 2/A1. PLEASE REVISE THAT SECTION REFERENCE.
17. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: ENTERING RESTROOM T-3, THE MANEUVERING CLEARANCE REQUIREMENT INDICATED IN THE ICC/ANSI FIGURE 404.2.3.2(b) DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE MET. PLEASE VERIFY.
18. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: IT APPEARS THE DOOR IN STORAGE ROOM 122, WHEN FULLY OPEN, DOES NOT MEET THE ENCROACHMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC SECTION 1005.7.1 (REDUCES THE REQUIRED EGRESS WIDTH BY MORE THAN ONE-HALF). PLEASE VERIFY (MINIMUM CORRIDOR WIDTH PER THE IBC TABLE 1018.2).
19. SHEET A1; FLOOR PLAN: AT THE RECEPTION COUNTER ELEVATION 6B/A7, IT DOES NOT APPEAR AN ACCESSIBLE AREA IS PROVIDED PER SECTION 902.4 OF THE ICC/ANSI, AND SECTION 1109.12.3 OF THE IBC. PLEASE VERIFY AND REVISE AS REQUIRED.
20. SHEETS A1, A2.1, A3, AND A4; KEY NOTES: NOTE 7.7 REFERENCES DETAIL 6/A2.1. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
21. SHEETS A1, A2.1, A3, AND A4; KEY NOTES: NOTE 7.4 REFERENCES DETAIL 5/A2.1. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
22. SHEETS A1, A2.1, A3, AND A4; KEY NOTES: NOTE 7.5 REFERENCES DETAIL 4/A2.1. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
23. SHEETS A1, A2.1, A3, AND A4; KEY NOTES: NOTE 10.1 REFERENCES THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES. PLEASE REVISE TO THE ICC/ANSI REFERENCE.
24. SHEETS A1, A2.1, A3, AND A4; KEY NOTES: NOTE 15.1 REFERENCES A MECHANICAL UNIT DETAIL. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
25. SHEET A4; SECTION B: THE ENLARGED DETAIL ON THE RIGHT SIDE REFERENCES 4/A6.1. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
26. SHEET A4; SECTION C: THE ENLARGED DETAIL ON THE RIGHT SIDE REFERENCES 1/A6.1. PLEASE REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE.
27. SHEET A5: IF THE WEST BUILDING WALL IS REQUIRED TO BE A RATED WALL, REVISE THE WINDOWS IN THAT WALL TO BE RATED. PLEASE VERIFY.
28. SHEET A6; SECTIONS 1 AND 2: CONTINUE THE DIAGONAL BRACES TO THE TOP CHORD OF THE ROOF JOISTS.
29. SHEET S3.0 (FRAMING PLAN-NOTE 9); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 102): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE DSB1 AND DSB2 ARE 8X2X1/4 STEEL TUBES, WHILE DETAIL 212 INDICATES 8X2X3/16 STEEL TUBES. PLEASE CLARIFY.
30. SHEET S4.0; DETAIL 103: INDICATE ON THE ¼" DOWELS THE LENGTH OF THE DOWEL AND THE EMBEDMENT LENGTH INTO THE NEW SLAB.
31. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
10/02/2015 ERIC NEWCOMB COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Approved
10/08/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The use of Table 1106.2, IPC 2012 is not an appropriate method for determining the size of a scupper. The table is for determining the size of vertical conductor and leaders; scuppers are weirs, not pipes and their sizes are hydraulically calculated. Provide calculations to determine the size of roof scuppers that are adequate to protect the roof from the rain load. Provide overflow protection for the roof. Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012, and Sections 1611.1 and 1611.3, IBC 2012.
10/08/2015 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The NFRC certification numbers (CPD#) have not been included in this submittal. Factory-manufactured windows are required to have certificates attesting to their compliance to NFRC Standards 100 and 200 and can be provided by the manufacturer or found at www.nfrc.org. For site assembled commercial products, the NFRC component modeling approach program enables commercial window manufacturers to produce bid reports to prove energy performance prior to being awarded a job and provide finalized label certificates once the product has been installed. Fenestration performance reports based on AAMA 507 are based on energy simulations only (no actual testing) and are not acceptable. Specify the required U-factors and Solar Heat Gain Coefficients (SHGC) for the fenestration and doors on the architectural drawings. Reference: Section C103.2, IECC 2012.
2. Provide heating and cooling load calculations that justify the capacities of the heating and cooling equipment specified for the project. Reference: Sections C403.2.1 and C403.2.2, IECC 2012, and Section 312.1, IMC 2012.
10/08/2015 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Reqs Change Clarify the existing arrangement for the water service. On sheet P1, an existing ¾" meter serves the building but the water pressure calculations on sheet P3 shows two ¾" water meters (in parallel?) serving the building. An existing 5/8" meter is shown the architectural site plan, ASP1.
10/12/2015 DAN SANTA CRUZ ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied While the electrical review for the current submittal is approved, due to the potential modifications necessary to address comments associated with the reviews of other disciplines the electrical workflow is denoted as denied in order to verify that those modifications will not adversely impact the electrical review.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/15/2015 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed