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 - T17CM01284
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/18/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Sheets SE01 - SE103, SE131, and SE132 must be sealed by an Arizona registrant. 2. On floor plan 1/SE101 if appears that detail marker 10/SE112 is pointing to the wrong location. This detail refers to the short jamb between two openings just to the north. 3. Roof framing plan on page 4 of the structural calculations shows an existing 3 ½" x 18" GLB marked as item "2" that requires reinforcing at center of beam with a 3 ½" x 3 ½" x 3/16" per calculations on page 8. There is no reference or detail in the structural drawings to this work. Also, be aware that the plan in the calculations identifies this existing beam as 3 ½" x 18" while the calculations on page 8 refer to this beam as 5.125 x 18". If the beam is actually 3 ½" wide it may require additional reinforcing. 4. The structural calculations identify a post as item "3" on sheet 4, the foundation plan. Calculations for this post on sheets 9-11 indicate that it is to be 3 ½" x 3 ½" x 3/16". Detail 1/SE111 shows this post but notes "Column. Refer to Plan/Sched." There is no column schedule in the plan set that I can find and the foundation and framing plans do not identify the post size. Add to drawings. 5. At the bottom of sheet 9 in the structural calculations there is a note "Add 3 ½ x 3 ½ x 3/16 @ middle of beam." Does this refer to an existing beam other than item "2" in comment 2 above? 6. Canopy section 3/SE103 correctly shows rafters as HSS6 x 2 x 1/8 in accordance with the structural calculations, page 17. However, framing plan 2/SE132 shows rafters as HSS8 x 2 x 3/16. Neither plan nor section in the drawing set indicate 3'-6" spacing per the structural calculations. 7. Note on detail 1/SE111 says "Base Pl. -Refer to Sched." There is no column/plate schedule in the drawing set. 8. The structural calculations, sheet 20, indicates that the canopy support columns shall have 12" x 14" x 5/8" base plates. Detail 5/SE111 shows the base plates as 1'-0" x 12" x ¾". Revise detail and add note "1/4" fillet weld all around" per structural calculations. 9. The structural calculations for the canopy columns footings specify #4 rebar @ 10" o.c. top & bot. Is it the intent that the rebar be at both the top and bottom faces of the footing or as shown in detail 5/SE111 at the bottom face with #4 each way? 10. Page 8 of the structural calculations shows requirements for a "pop out" bracing. According to the location for this "pop out" shown on the framing key plan, page 4, this corresponds to detail 3/SE101. However this detail and the structural calculations description and detail seem to have no relation to each other. Also, the note and detail callout on 3/SE101 do not make sense. What does "provide #4L 6" x 20" w/ 6" epoxy embed into center face of the existing foundation" mean? Please clarify with revised/additional notation and additional detail(s). 11. Detail 1/SE112 refers to plan for a column. Neither the foundation nor the framing plans provide any information regarding this detail. 12. Revise note for 1/SE112 "Add (1) #4 vert x 6'-8" in grouted cell ea. side". 13. On detail 1/SE112, delete detail reference 4/SE112 at bottom jamb. This is a header detail and there are no steel jamb reinforcing angles according to the structural calculations. 14. Detail 10/SE112 references detail 5/SE112 for both lintels; however the upper lintel should reference detail 6/SE112 and the lower lintel reference detail 5/SE112. Indicate the lintel size per the structural calculations on each of these details. 15. Provide structural calculations pertaining to detail 10/SE112. 16. Provide structural calculations to justify details on sheet S103 for the tall cantilevered "blade" wall in addition to the connection to existing foundation (item 8 in the structural calculations). Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. 17. Where does jamb detail 3/SE112 refer to? A reference to this detail is shown on detail 10/SE112 but the two details do not match. 18. On framing plan 1/SE131 there is a note "add (3) 1 ¾" x 11" LVL @ joist @ unit" in two locations. At these locations (HVAC locations) there is a detail callout 2/SE134 that seems to conflict with the note. Are the (3) additional rafters an alternate to beefing up the existing LVL's shown in detail 2/SE131? 19. Regarding this note, where are the (3) additional LVLS to be located? If located between the existing LVLs, how will this work with an opening for ducts under the HVAC unit? Whether beefed up existing LVL's or existing plus additional LVL's are used to support the HVAC units, what size headers are required at duct openings to support cut rafters and the HVAC units? Detail 1/SE133 does not identify. 20. On detail 4/SE132, remove detail marker 9/SE133. 21. The demolition floor plan, demolition east elevation, the new floor plan, and the new east exterior elevation do not show all the work that will be required to accomplish what is shown in structural detail 10/SE112. The window adjacent to the new ambulance entry sliding door assembly is shown as untouched existing; however the structural detail shown a new lintel for this opening. This window will have to be removed and either reinstalled or replaced. And, with a 6" x 6" steel column in the mullion between the door and window, how will the mullion be finished? Provide an architectural detail on sheet AE604 showing how weather will be kept from interior spaces at this location. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. 22. On sheet AE601, add a boxed note at the door and window elevations, "Per 2012 IECC Tables C402.2 and C402.3, fixed glazed fenestration shall have a maximum U-value of 0.50, operable glazed fenestration shall have a maximum U-value of 0.65, glazed entrance doors shall have a maximum U-value of 0.83, and all shall have a maximum SHGC of 0.25. Swinging opaque exterior doors shall have a maximum U-value of 0.61, and roll-up doors shall have a minimum R-value of 4.75." If specifications identify U and R values for these assemblies, revise as needed to comply. 23. Confirm that exit doors 140 and 142 comply with IBC 1008.1.9, where "egress doors shall be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort." |
| 02/18/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide outside air calculations in accordance with 2012 IMC Table 403.3, and calculation method. 2. Provide heating and cooling calculations summary sheets to justify the capacity of selected equipment. Ref. 2012 IECC C403.2.1 and C403.2.2. Use 104-degrees F summer DB outdoor design temperature with 66-degrees F design wet bulb temperature, and 32-degrees F winter DB outside design temperature per City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IECC. 3. Submit mechanical COMcheck showing equipment compliance with the 2012 IECC. 4. Show all mechanical units including relocated units on the mechanical roof plan, sheet M102. |
| 02/18/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Add occupancy sensors to rooms 101-womens' toilet, 107-medical gas, 108-vacuum/mech, and 109-electrical room or, provide reasonable argument for not doing so. 2. On sheet E402 all text (upper and lower case) shall be minimum 3/32" per City of Tucson standard. Revise. 3. Submit outdoor lighting lumen calculations for the parcel using Table 401.1 of the 2012 City of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code. 4. Show on the Light Fixture Schedule that no selected exterior light fixture has a rated color temperature rating greater than 3500K per Outdoor Lighting Code 402.1. 5. Submit interior light fixture watts calculations to show compliance with 2012 IECC C405.5.2. |
| 02/18/2017 | KROBLES1 | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide water calculations to justify new 2" water meter and service line. 2. On sheet P101 water appears to enter the building from the north side; however the civil utility plan shows that it enters from the west side. Revise civil utility sheet. |
| 02/18/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Lavatory faucets shall be automatic and dispense no more than 0.25 gallon per metering cycle per City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IPC. Verify that specified faucets comply. |
| 02/28/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T17CM01284 Building Plan Review (1st Review) 7285 E Tanque Verde Road - New emergency Center (Outpatient Use) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 28, 2017 DUE DATE: March 16, 2017 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the Approved development package. While the building footprint and the site revisions are consistent with the approved DP as it relates the zoning review purview (Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc) zoning cannot approve the building plans until the Commercial Plans reviewers have approved the building plans. 2. COMMENT: Assure that an approved and signed copy of the DP is included in the next submittal of the building plans or remove the DP plan set from the building plan s set and reference the DP case number on the Architectural site plan. 3. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to assure that any revisions made to the building plans do not affect zoning requirements. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 03/02/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | It appears the Fire Department Connection will be much more difficult for responders to access after completion of this project. Please indicate on plans how compliance will section 912 of the 2012 International Fire Code will be achieved. Also, please provide cut sheets and details regarding new generator, specifically how the fuel will supplied. |
| 03/03/2017 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The following is needed for Sewer Connection Fee Application Approval: Need Type III Capacity review - Kurt Stem 520-724-6607 (kurt.stemm@pima.gov) – (RWRDCapacityResponse@pima.gov) *Fees will be calculated on the basis of a new 2” water meter - $69,790.00 per DP17-0010 sheet #2. You may want to review your water meter size. (1- 1/2” water meter = $27,030.00). Using the existing 1” water meter would incur no additional PCRWRD sewer connection fees. ($8,480.00 credit will be given for replacing the existing 1” domestic water meter #10667512 - user fees per map guide). Currently being evaluated: May need PDEQ or PCRWRD/Industrial Wastewater Control (IWC) review of 1000 Gallon holding Tank not connected to sewer. (Steven Valencia 520-724-6200 (steven.valencia@pima.gov). (Rene Gomez 520-724-7365 (rene.gomez@pima.gov) |