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 - T17CM07765
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/20/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T17CM07765 - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Reviewer: Chris Anderson, October 17, 2017 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL On the site plan, sheet C1.S09, is it intended that there be a wrought iron fence along the north side of the mechanical equipment yard? None shown. Also, the wrought iron fence location on the site plan is different from what is shown on building elevation 4/A3.10. On the Code Review floor plan, sheet A0.0, show the common path of egress travel from the most remote point to the point where separate distinct paths of egress travel to two exits begins. The common path of travel shall start at the southwest corner of IT Room No. 1, travel along the center of aisles around the equipment located in the center portion of the room (based on equipment plan, including future, sheet Q1.1), out the door to the center of the corridor and south to the centerline of exit door A0200. See penciled markup on returned plan set. It appears that the length of the common path of egress travel is approximately 113’ which exceeds the allowable length of 100’. Ref. 2012 IBC Table 1014.3. Submit structural calculations for the 8’ high steel fence shown on elevations sheet A3.10. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2. Indicate R-values for wall and roof insulation on the building sections, sheets A3.11 and A3.12. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2. Details 9 & 10/A5.1 note “BATT INSULATION PER MTL BUILDING MFR,” however no information that I can find in the technical specifications, building envelope COMcheck, or Metallic Building Company shop drawings submitted specify insulation for the exterior envelope. Submit the Metallic specifications. The insulation for this metal building must comply with the energy Code. Either Metallic Building Company must specify in their documents ceiling and wall insulation prescriptively, exactly according to 2012 IECC Table C402.2 for climate zone 2, or, the COMcheck must show a passing grade using the Metallic specification. If a COMcheck is used to show compliance with Code rather than the Table C402.2 prescriptive method, the components in the COMcheck must match what is shown on the architectural drawings and Metallic specification. If a COMcheck is not used to show energy Code compliance, do not resubmit. If exterior doors, including swing and roll-up doors, are to be provided by Metallic Building Company, submit the Metallic specification. There are exterior metal doors included in Technical Specification 081113; however no technical specification for a roll-up door is included. Whether supplied by Metallic or by another vendor, the exterior doors must be insulated to comply with the energy Code as part of the thermal envelope. Building comment 5 applies to doors as well. Provide structural calculations for the concrete retaining wall with fence on top. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. |
| 10/20/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL Please confirm that the lavatory faucet specified in the P-Fixture Schedule, sheet M3.1, will deliver no more than 0.25 gallon per metering cycle. Ref. City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IPC. |
| 10/20/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/20/2017 | FRODRIG2 | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/20/2017 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL Change keynote 6 on sheet M1.1 so that the restroom exhaust fan operates during occupied hours. For example, there is a 7-day programmable wall timer switch available for this purpose. Ref. 2012 IMC 403.2.1. On the mechanical piping floor plan, sheet M2.1, a keynote 14 marker is shown; however no keynote 14 exists in the list. U-values calculation sheets are provided with the heating and cooling load calculations as a basis for design. Please revise this sheet and the load calculations if required based on Architect’s revisions per building notes 4 - 7 above. |
| 10/25/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T17CM07765 - New Data Center Building 918 Building Plan Review (1st Review) 1151 E Hermans Road TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 25, 2017 DUE DATE: October 31, 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: Provide a building height dimension from design grade (ground adjacent to building) to the mid point of the gable roof or an overall height from design grade to the top of the ridge of the roof. 2. COMMENT: As part of the DP review zoning also reviewed the Data Center building plans concurrently. Per the revised DP the building square footage of the Data Center is listed as 17,365 SF. Per the building plans the dimensions of the Data Center building are labeled as 100' x 160' which equals 16,000 SF. This is a substantial discrepancy and must be addressed. Clarify which SF is correct or proposed. 3, COMMENT: Zoning cannot approve the building plans until the two items above have been addressed and the building plans have been approved by all PDSD or 3rd Party commercial plans review agencies. Zoning will 4. COMMENT: Zoning will do review of the building plans on the next submittal and compare them to the DP as it relates to the zoning review purview, such as SF, Building Height and building location etc. 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 any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised Building Plans |
| 10/26/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/31/2017 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/01/2017 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/13/2017 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |