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: T14CM01441
Parcel: 11504263A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T14CM01441
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/17/2015 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change SHEETS C-1 AND A-1
As per the 2012 IBC, Section 1015.1, 2 exits are required from spaces where the occupancy load exceeds 49 occupants.
As per Section 1007.1, where a space exceeds 49 or more occupants, 2 accessible means of egress shall be provided.
1. One of the three Sanctuary exits must have an accessible ramp.
2. Also, both courtyards have over 49 occupants exiting from the Sanctuary and each must have two exit gates with panic or fire hardware. Reference comments for DP14-0040
END OF REVIEW
02/20/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Based on Table 402.4 (2), IPC 2012, the section of gas pipe from the meter to the branch serving AC-4 should be 1-1/2" in size. Clarify the developed length of the pipe (e.g. it is shown as 105' where the pipe drops down to the mechanical room but only 94' at the last outlet). [Second comment: Comment not resolved; the AC units are specified as having an input of 120 MBH on sheet MP-1 but sheet P-1 calls out an input of 132 CFH for each unit. Show how the gas pipe sizes were determined (e.g. Formula 4-1, IFGC 2012 or Table 402.4 (2), IFGC 2012)]. [Initial comment: Verify the total connected gas loads for AC unit 1 through 4; each unit is shown as having an input of 132 MBH on sheet MP-1 but sheet P-1 shows AC-4 with an input of 150 CFH and two other units with a total input of 400 CFH. Coordinate the drawings and indicate all of the required pipe sizes. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.]
2. Comment not addressed [Second comment: Comment not addressed.] [Initial comment: Provide material standards for all plumbing fixtures being provided by others. Reference: Sections 303.4 and 402, IPC 2012.]
3. Comment not addressed [Second comment: Comment not addressed.] [Initial comment: If the shower does not have a pre-fabricated receptor, provide details to show that the construction of the receptor complies with the requirements of Section 417.5.2, IPC 2012.]
4. Comment not addressed [Second comment: Use the water fixture units from Table 6-5 or Table A-2, UPC 2006, including Assembly fixture units where applicable. Revise the sizes of the water distribution pipes to correspond to the water pressure calculations. Provide a cut-sheet of an approved reduced pressure backflow assembly that has a pressure drop of only 8.5 PSI. Clarify the size of the proposed water meter: it is 1-1/2" on sheet MP1 but the site plan shows a 1" meter being installed.] [Initial comment: Section 604.1, IPC 2012 allows water distribution systems to be designed using accepted engineering methods. Sizing pipes for water distribution systems using Section 610, UPC 2006 is an accepted engineering method only if it is used as presented in Sections 610.1 through 610.13, or Appendix A, UPC 2006. Use the water fixture units from Table 6-5 or Table A-2, UPC 2006, including Assembly fixture units where applicable. Provide the water pressure calculations.]
5. Revise the font size used on drawings P1 and P3 to a minimum of 3/32-inch. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
6. The new site plan, C1, shows that the rim elevation of the upstream manhole is 2385.59' while the first floor elevations of the existing building and the new building are 2386.8' and 2388.6' respectively. A backwater valve (see sheet P1 plumbing plan) shall not be installed in the building sewer.
02/25/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Tucson Chinese Christian Church - New Sanctuary Building
T14CM01441
Building Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 25, 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 but cannot approve until the development package has been approved.

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
02/25/2015 DAN SANTA CRUZ ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
02/26/2015 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Provide NFRC fenestration product ratings for the door and window U-factors and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) on COMcheck or use the appropriate default values from Tables C303.1.3 (1) C303.1.3 (2) and, C303.1.3 (3), IECC 2012. Reference: Section C303.1.3, IEC 2012. [Second comment: Comment not resolved. The architectural drawings still show multiple R-values for the roof that are different from the R-value used on the Envelope Compliance Certificate. Provide NFRC fenestration product ratings for the door and window U-factors and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) on COMcheck or use the appropriate default values from Tables C303.1.3 (1) C303.1.3 (2) and, C303.1.3 (3), IECC 2012. Reference: Section C303.1.3, IEC 2012.] [Initial comment: Coordinate the energy code analysis for the building envelope and the building components shown on the drawing. The roof cavity insulation is noted on sheets A6.0, A6.1, A6.2, and A7 as having an R-value of R-30 or R-38 but the Envelope Compliance Certificate calls out R-36 cavity insulation. The glazing and doors are noted as having a U-value of 0.40 on A6.0 but on the Envelope Compliance Certificate shows no doors and the glazing has a U-value of 0.50. Reference: Section C303.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.]
2. Coordinate the ventilation calculations with the balancing data shown for the exhaust fans serving the restrooms and the showers. [Second comment: Coordinate the ventilation calculations with the mechanical design shown on the drawings. Clarify the maximum outside air setting for units AC1, AC2 and, AC3 to 860 CFM; is that the maximum outside air for each unit?] [Initial comment: The City of Tucson did not adopt ASHRAE Standard 62.1 for ventilation calculations and the 2012 IMC only references the ASHRAE Standard for the purpose of calculating the system ventilation efficiency (Ev). Provide calculations to show that the ventilation system is sized in accordance with Section 403.3, IMC 2012; for HVAC systems serving multiple zones (e.g. AC1-2), see Section 403.3.2.3, IMC 2012.]
3. Comment not addressed. [Second comment: Comment not addressed. Include the sequence of operation for the exhaust fans serving the showers; the fans do not appear to be included in the electrical design.] [Initial comment: Provide information on the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fans to show that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted. The exhausted air from the restrooms shall be limited to no more than 10% of any subsequent supply air stream. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2012.]
03/03/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change ENG will stamp the building plan approved upon approval of the DP Package and Floodplain Use Permit. FFE requirements apply.