Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T16CM07581
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/18/2017 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/18/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/18/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/24/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Fire has the same concerns as building and will wait for resubmittal. |
| 01/24/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T16CM07581 - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS – 2nd REVIEW Reviewer: Chris Anderson, January 23, 2017 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Per previous comment 4, delete OCCUPANT CALCULATION since occupancy is shown in GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY. Per previous comment 5, “Code Analysis on sheet A0: There is a heading Occupant Load/Exit Plan, but none is provided. Include an exiting plan in the document set showing egress doors, path of travel and occupant loading for each path to an egress door.” The OCCUPANCY PER AREAS shown in the GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY do not comply with IBC 1004.1. It appears that the occupancy was initially determined as 7,033 SF/200 to arrive at 35 persons and this number made to “fit” into separate occupancy areas. Based on Table 1004.1.2 my calculation indicates 128 occupants for this building (84 for kitchen/gathering/side assembly rooms/offices portion + 37 for dormitory/laundry portion + 7 for storage and mechanical rooms). A second means of egress must be provided for the kitchen/gathering/side assembly rooms/offices portion of this building. Per IBC 1014.4 a means of egress shall not pass through the kitchen. Provide exiting plan for corrected number of occupants per item 2 above. In the GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY you have checked both “Separated Uses” and “Non Separated Uses.” IBC 508.3 allows portions of buildings to be considered non separated occupancies, so in this case, the S and R-1 are considered separated (by fire barriers – IBC 707) occupancies; and the dormitory, assembly and business occupancies are considered non separated occupancies. Add this distinction to the GENERAL BUILDING SUMMARY. In reference to previous note 6, revise PLUMBING CALCULATIONS based on the revised occupancies, occupancy loads and IBC Table 2902.1. An additional lavatory is required in the women’s bathroom. In regards to previous comment 10 and making the R-1 portion a non separated use, the Allowable building area calculation on sheet SP1 is incorrect. Per IBC 508.3.2 the most restrictive use for the non-separated occupancies must be used to calculate allowable area modifications. In this case A-2 occupancy is the most restrictive. So, instead of 9000 SF, use 6,000 SF per Table 503. The result will be “Total Allowable Area 6,000 + 4,500 = 10,500 SF.” This is larger than the actual 9,153 SF building area, so we are ok. Regardless, change the calculation for an accurate record. This is important should an addition to the building be proposed at a later date. On sheet A1, Door Schedule, doors D14, D16 and D20 shall be 20-minute self-closing, fire-rated. Per previous comment 11, add W-5 wall finish to janitor closet 114. Per previous comment 12, provide elevations for kitchen service counter and lobby check-in counter to show compliance with ICC/ANSI A117.1 Section 904 for accessibility. The added elevations for restroom vanities must have vertical dimension to show compliance. Enlarge details 1, 2 and 8 added to sheet A3. They are very small and per City of Tucson standard, the text must be no smaller than 3/32-inch. In regards to previous comment 16, the revised Building Envelope Insulation and Floor Plan Wall Types on sheet A1 do not match previous agreement with C. Trevillyan (see attached email dated 12/7/16). Revise. Also add wall types to plan. |
| 01/26/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T16CM07581 Sister Jose's Women Center Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 27, 2016 COMMENT 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. COMMENT: The LUC references were not removed. Revise all the LUC references with the current UDC reference sections. The new use should be listed as Residential Care Services: Shelter Care - Subject to Use Specific Standards 4.9.7.J.1, 3.d, .4, .5, .6, and 4.9.13.Q and the existing use should be listed as Construction Service subject to Use Specific Standards 4.9.13.Q. The number of residents proposed must also be listed. Clarify if the storage area is for the Shelter use or a separate principal use. Previous Comment 2: Sheet SP1, remove all references to the Land Use Code (LUC) as it is no longer applicable. Provide all applicable Unified Development Code (UDC) references. The Proposed use should be listed as Rehabilitation Service or Shelter Care subject to Use Specific Standards 4.9.7.J.1, 3.d, .4, .5, .6, and 4.9.13.Q. The existing use should be listed as Construction Service subject to Use Specific Standards 4.9.13.Q. 3. COMMENT 3: The vehicle parking calculation was added as requested but the total number of residents proposed was not listed. List the number of beds that are proposed for this use and revise the parking calculation accordingly. Previous Comment 3: Provide a vehicle parking space calculation on the plan for both the Rehabilitation Service and Shelter Care & Construction Service. The calculation should include the ratio used, number required and provided and the number of accessible vehicle parking spaces required and provided. The ratio shown for the construction services is not correct. Review UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED. 4. COMMENT 4: Part of the information requested in the previous comment was listed on Sheet SP1. The additional information that must be added is modification that was requested. See the copy of the Board of Adjustment variance number 1 and list it verbatim on Sheet SP1. A copy of the B of A decision letter is attached to the plans for your convenience. Previous Comment 4: As a Board of Adjustment (B of A) was applied for and approved provide a general note on the plan stating the B of A case number, date of approval, what was varied and if applicable any conditions of approval. 6. COMMENT: Truncated domes are not required on private property anymore. Any ADA requirements are applicable to Public Right of ways or Government facilities. General note can be removed. 7. COMMENT: See redlines on Sheet SP1 for reference. 8. COMMENT: 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 |
| 02/02/2017 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The following is needed for Sewer Connection Fee Application Approval: Need PCRWRD/IWC/Steven Valencia review of 500 gallon grease interceptor – 520-724-6200 (steven.valencia@pima.gov). Need Type III Capacity review for 71.5 WSFU’s – Kurt Stem 520-724-6607 (kurt.stemm@pima.gov) – (RWRDCapacityResponse@pima.gov) *Fees will be calculated on the basis of a new 1-1/2” water meter - $27,30.00 – per plumbing drawing #P6. ($4,066.00 credit will be given for changing the existing 5/8” domestic water meter #14153804 to irrigation per drawing #P0 – *user fees per mapguide). |