Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T17CM06525
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2017 | FRODRIG2 | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | WATER – COMMERCIAL In regards to previous plumbing comment 2, no changes to plumbing or civil drawings have been made. You state in your comment response “2” water meter, 2” RPBP, & 2” water line to building” however the plumbing calculations still show a 1” water meter and the civil drawing still shows a ¾” water meter and 1” water service line on the opposite side of the building from what the plumbing drawings show. Coordinate with the Architect to resolve these conflicts. |
| 10/03/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review | APPROVED INCORRECTLY |
| 10/03/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T17CM06525 - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS – 2nd review (REVISED) Reviewer: Chris Anderson, October 3, 2017 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL In regards to your response to previous building comment 2, the allowable floor area for egress purposes per 2012 IBC Table 1004.1.2 is equated to the overall building type nor exceptions such as 303.1.2 regarding small assembly spaces. Rather, Table 1004.1.2 evaluates the maximum square foot per person for a space within a larger occupancy based on the actual use of that space. The exiting plans on sheet T1.1 indicate occupancy for each room adequately with exception of Conference 103, Break Room 107, and Conference Room 202 which should use 15 SF per person to calculate occupancy load. Changing the occupant load for these rooms results in 59 occupants for the 1st floor and 30 occupants for the 2nd floor, totaling 89 occupants for the building. Revise the Code Analysis on sheet T1.0 and the Egress Plans on sheet T1.1. In regards to the plumbing fixture calculations on sheet T1.0 that was included with the last submittal, fixtures are to be based on the revised occupant load (see comment 1 above) of 45 men and 44 women. Therefore each restroom shall have 2 lavatories rather than 1 lavatory each. The 2nd floor restroom shall not reduce this requirement for 1st floor restrooms since the 2nd floor restroom is a private restroom. Regarding previous building comment 5, a tube steel post was placed as part of the last resubmittal in the northeast corner of Printing Room 104. However the structural Foundation Plan does not show this post and, instead, shows an I-shape column at the junction of two glazed walls for Conference Room 103 and Office 2. Revise either the structural sheet(s) or the architectural sheet(s) so that they correspond. In regards to previous building comment 9, you state that the “1-hour wall is no longer required to proposed building pad is not 10’-2” from the east property line.” However, the reference sheets included with this resubmittal show no such revision to the development plan and I could not find one in the City of Tucson records. Please submit proof of approved development plan revision that would eliminate this fire-rating requirement. In regards to previous building comment 11, you state “refer to attached COMcheck.” No COMcheck was included with this resubmittal. In regards to previous mechanical comment 1 regarding how the 20-foot tall sections of vertical mechanical ductwork will be supported, the ME states “See architectural and structural drawings.” Please respond to this comment. |
| 10/03/2017 | FRODRIG2 | WWM | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/03/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/16/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Principle Planner PROJECT: Onyx Creative Design New Building T17CM06525 Building Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 16, 2017 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. Sheet T1.0 the building area listed under "CODE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY" does not match the building area listed on DP16-0014. Clarify the difference and a DP revision may be required. 3. Sheet A1.0 floor plan and sheets A2.0 & A2.1 elevations do not match the elevations submitted for the Design Development Option (DDO). These plans will need to be approved and stamped by the DDO section prior to approval of the building plans. 4. 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 |