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 - NEW
Permit Number - T14CM02300
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/24/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/29/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/02/2014 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET A1.1 1. As per the 2012 IBC, Section 1108.2.8, provide an accessible route connection from the assembly area directly to: a. The Alter b. The Band Area 2. Provide an accessible Baptistry. 3. Provide accessible seating as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1108.2. 4. There is a steel column shown just North West of the center of the Alter on most all architectutral plans. Neither the structural foundation nor the steel building anchor bolt plans show this steel column. Please reconcile. 5. Provide a legend defining partitions that have poche' and partitions that do not have poche'. SHEET A7.2 6. At details 5 and 6 the dimensions lines have shifted. 7. Provide one 3'-0" clear wide urinal stall at detail 1. 8. At detail 8 provide a 38" to 43" dimension for the higher fountain spout. T14CM02300 STRUCTURAL REVIEW 9. SHEET C1.0: THE CITY OF TUCSON REQUIRES ALL LETTERING (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3/32" IN HEIGHT. REVISE PLAN 3 VERBIAGE. 10. SHEET S1.1; STRUCTURAL NOTES (STEEL DECK): NOTE 2 INDICATES THE ROOF DECK (BY MANUFACTURER) SHALL BE ATTACHED FOR A MINIMUM DIAPHRAGM SHEAR CAPACITY OF 598 PLF. WAS THIS REQUIREMENT MET IN THE METAL BUILDING SUBMITTAL? VERIFY. 11. SHEET S1.3; DETAIL 20: THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS WERE NOT LOCATED IN THE CALCULATIONS SUBMITTAL. VERIFY. 12. SHEET S1.4; DETAIL 38: NOTE 1 INDICATES TO SEE THE CMU WALL REINFORCING SCHEDULE FOR REINFORCING. IS THIS FOR SITE WALLS ONLY? VERIFY. 13. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 205): IN THE CALCULATIONS, FOOTING DFA (AT GRID LINE 10.9 AND BELOW GRID LINE C) IS DESIGNED AS A 6' X 6' X 1'-6" FOOTING, WHILE THE PLAN INDICATES A FOOTING F3 (5'-0" SQUARE X 18"). CLARIFY. 14. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 203): IT APPEARS THERE ARE MORE COLUMN FOOTINGS INDICATED ON THE PLAN (GRID DELTA, GRID OMEGA, GRID C.9, GRID 11.2, ETC.) THAN IN THE CALCULATIONS. VERIFY ALL FOOTINGS INDICATED ON SHEET S2.0 HAVE CALCULATIONS PROVIDED. 15. SHEET S2.0 (FOUNDATION PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (PAGE 141): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THE COLUMNS IN THIS FRAME TO BE W8X31, WHILE THE COLUMN ON THE DRAWINGS AT GRIDS 5.9 AND C.9 IS CALLED OUT AS A HSS6X6X3/8 (C1). CLARIFY. 16. SHEET S3.0; FLOOR FRAMING PLAN NOTES: NOTE 8 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE DRAWINGS. VERIFY. 17. SHEET S3.0; MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN: A DETAIL CUT REFERENCES 220 IS LOCATED ON THE PLAN AT GRIDS 7.4 AND C.7. REVISE THE REFERENCE (NO DETAIL 220). 18. SHEET S4.0; DETAIL 111: WHERE IS THE VERTICAL REINFORCING IN THE CMU WALLS CALLED OUT? 19. SHEET S4.0; DETAILS 118 AND 119: PROVIDE THE ANCHOR SIZE AND SPACING AT THE CONNECTION OF THE STUDS TO THE FLOOR. 20. SHEET S5.0; DETAIL 202: A NOTE INDICATES TO REFERENCE DETAIL 44 FOR THE TYPICAL BOLT SCHEDULE. REVISE THE DETAIL NUMBER. 21. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGES 6 THROUGH 102: THESE SHEETS PROVIDE THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR THE MEZZANINE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE LATERAL ANALYSIS. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO NOTE ON EACH BEAM IN THE CALCULATIONS IF THE BEAM (FRAME) IS DESIGNED AND SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS FOR THE LATERAL ANALYSIS. 22. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; PAGES 203 THROUGH 226: IT IS NOT CLEAR IN THE CALCULATIONS THAT ALL OF THE FOOTINGS LOCATED AT THE FRAMES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR THE VERTICAL AND LATERAL LOADS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOOTINGS AT FRAME 10 ARE DESIGNED AS DFC FOOTINGS (PAGE 204), AND INDICATE DL+LL, AND A FOOTING SIZE OF 3' X 3' X 18" MINIMUM. THE FOUNDATION PLAN INDICATES THOSE FOOTINGS ARE 7'-0" SQUARE X 18". PROVIDE THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE FRAME FOOTINGS. 23. GENERAL: THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL OF THE PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC SECTION 107.3.4.1. THESE MUST BE REVIEWED AND STAMPED BY THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE BEFORE SUBMITTING TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW. PROVIDE TWO SETS. 24. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/12/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Submit documentation from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality showing that the proposed gray water collection system has been approved for construction under a General Permit for the collection and use of gray water by a non-residential entity producing in excess of 400 Gallons per day. Reference: Section R18-9-17, Arizona Administrative Code. 2. Two different water pressure calculations are presented; one for CPVC and Type L copper and a second for PEX. Clarify which pipe sizes are shown on the water supply riser diagrams. Note that at the allowable pressure drops, a urinal would require a 1" Type L copper supply whereas a 1-1/4" PEX supply would be needed (minimum flow rate 12 GPM). Reference: Section 604.3, IPC 2012. 3. Provide roof drainage calculations based on the 100-year hourly rainfall rate for Tucson, 3" per hour. Show the dimensions of the gutters. Reference: Sections 1106.1 and1106.6, IPC 2012. 4. Detail 14/A8.0 shows a downspout connected directly to a building storm sewer. Provide a cleanout at the base of the downspout. Reference: Sections 708.3.4 and 1101.8, IPC 2012. 5. Clarify the routes of the building storm sewers. 6. Verify that the routing of the building sanitary sewers will not adversely effect the percolation of the retention basin. |
| 05/12/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/13/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The COMcheck envelope compliance certification calls for the metal building roof to have a double layer of insulation with R-38 in the cavity, R-3.5 thermal blocks, and continuous R-8 insulation. Provide shop drawings to show how this level of insulation is to be accomplished. 2. Revise the drawings to show the properties of the windows that are listed in the COMcheck envelope compliance certification (e.g. tint, thermal breaks, maximum U-Value, and maximum SHGF). 3. Revise the COMcheck envelope compliance certification to include the exterior doors for the building. Show the door properties (e.g. U-values and, in the case of doors with more than 50% glazing, the SHGF) on the drawings. 4. 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. 5. Revise the ventilation calculations for the "locker/dressing" rooms (rooms 112 and 113) so that all of the air supplied to the dressing rooms will be exhausted. The exhausted air from the locker/dressing rooms shall be limited to no more than 10% of any subsequent supply air stream. (If you feel that the description of the rooms is more appropriately "Retail Stores; Dressing rooms" rather than "Education; Locker/dressing rooms", the required exhaust rates will the same but footnote g of Table 403.3 will no longer apply.) Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4) and footnote g of Table 403.3, IMC 2012. |
| 05/20/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/21/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |