Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T17CM08833
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T17CM08833 - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Reviewer Chris Anderson, January 5, 2018 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL The Special Memorandum from J. Maher dated December 15, 2017, and included with this submittal identifies various items, including but not limited to aerial photos a C of O, site and building plans for a previous addition, a code check, and calculations. While the letter justifying this project was included as part of this submittal, none of the backup material was included. Please submit all backup material to support your case. Also include in writing the results of any previous discussions/meetings you have had regarding this with City of Tucson staff. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon review of this material. The boxed information at the top right area of sheet SP-1 does not comply with the City of Tucson’s minimum text size requirement of 3/32” for both upper and lower case text. The boxed information on sheet AE-1 does not comply with the City of Tucson’s minimum text size requirement of 3/32” for both upper and lower case text. The text in the “New Steeple Schematic Shop Drawings Information” on sheet A-3 does not comply with the City of Tucson’s minimum text size requirement of 3/32” for both upper and lower case text. A new landing with concrete steps is shown on the building plan, sheet A-1, and restroom addition elevation, sheet A-4. A note on sheet A-1 seems to state that the total rise for this stair is 3’-6”. Per 2012 IBC 1009.7.2 the maximum riser height is 7”; therefore six risers minimum are required. However the note could state that there are three, 6” risers. Either way, the riser count shown on the plan does not match what is shown on the elevation. The plan shows four risers and the elevation shows five risers. Please clarify. Handrails will be required on each side of the stair with accessible extensions at top and bottom in the direction of stair travel. Ref. 2012 IBC 1009.15 and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 505.10.2 and 505.10.3. If any portion of the stair landing is more than 3’-6” above grade guards will be required for that portion. Ref. 2012 IBC 1009.15, 1012, and 1013. The insulation specification on sheet AN-1 calls for R-19 and R-11 insulation for exterior walls and R-30 insulation for roof/ceiling. This does not match what is shown on the wall legend, sheet A-2, the wall sections 1 and 2/A-4 nor do any of these items comply with the minimum prescriptive requirement of the energy Code. Per 2012 IECC Table C402.2 the minimum roof/ceiling insulation R-value is 38 and the minimum wall R-value is 20 for cavity insulation (between studs). However if the stucco system shown on details 1 and 2/A-4 has a 1-inch layer of continuous rigid insulation as backer, the cavity insulation between studs may be minimum R-13 while the rigid insulation must be minimum R-3.8. Please coordinate so that all information is the same and at least the minimum requirements of the energy Code are met for the new addition. Ref. 2012 IECC C101.4.3. Detail 102/S3.0 shows the line of finish grade or concrete (keynote 3) flush with top of foundation. This detail as shown and details 1 and 2/A-4 as shown will not work for a stucco exterior finish system at the new restroom addition wrapped with a concrete landing. Per 2012 IBC 2512.1.2 stucco weep screeds shall be located at or below the foundation plate line and minimum 2” above paving and 4” above ground surface. A foundation curb or trench drain along the foundation beneath the weep screed will be required. A note on detail 1/A-4 implies that a foundation curb may be required but no information as to why or where is given. Clarify with a new curbed foundation detail on sheet S3.0 and revise the detail markers on the foundation plan, sheet S2.1. Detail 101/S3.0 shows top of foundation at 6” minimum from ground surface and details 102/S3.0 shows a lesser distance. Per 2012 IBC 2304.11.2.2 all wood framing, including sheathing that is located less than 8” from exposed earth shall be naturally durable or pressure-preservative –treated wood. Delete the 4’-0” vertical dimension from the structural stair detail 103/S3.0 as this does not appear to match the architectural dimension. If this is meant to be a maximum vertical dimension allowed for this detail, add “maximum” to the 4’-0”. |
| 01/08/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL The new restroom/vestibule addition shall have active or passive space heating capable of maintaining an indoor temperature of not less than 68-degrees F at a point 36” above the floor. Ref. 2012 IBC 1204.1. There is no specification for the new restroom exhaust fan shown on sheet E2.0. Also the fan appears to be connected to the bathroom switched light fixture. How will this arrangement comply with 2012 IMC 403.2.1 regarding recirculation of air? |
| 01/08/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL Add an exit sign over the door to the exterior in the new vestibule. Ref. 2012 IBC 1011.1. Provide a means for illuminating the means of egress from the new vestibule exit door on the exterior side. The means of egress, including exit discharge shall be illuminated at all times the building is occupied. It is not clear that the “emergency path of egress light” shown on electrical plan E2.0 meets the above requirement or will only be illuminated during power outage. Ref. 2012 IBC 1006.1. On the electrical plan, sheet E2.0, keynote 1 is used in the remodeled choir/altar area. This note does not seem to apply. Please comment. No power is shown for the evaporative cooler in the electric panel schedule or the electrical plan. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. |
| 01/08/2018 | FRODRIG2 | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/08/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL Per the Plumbing Schedule, sheet P-3 the mop sink will be removed but not replaced. Per 2012 IBC Table 2902.1 a service sink is required in this building. On sheet SP-1 a new 4” sanitary sewer is shown extending westward from new restroom to existing utility sewer in South Fremont Avenue. Provide the floor elevation and manhole cover elevation for the nearest upstream manhole. If the floor elevation is less than 12” above the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover a backwater valve is required in the building drain. Ref. 2012 IPC 715.1 amendment. No water supply is shown for the evaporative cooler. Ref. 2012 IPC 106.3.1. |
| 01/10/2018 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Addition of restroom adds to occupant load. Any addition to occupant load requires upgrading to current code. Therefore, fire sprinklers and fire alarms are required. P.S. Upon conferring with the building code official, no occupants are assigned to bathrooms. Therefore, plans are approvable with next review. |
| 01/23/2018 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Principle Planner PROJECT: Iglesia Ni Cristo - Addition T17CM08833 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 23, 2018 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. Until development package DP17-0283 is approved the building plans cannot be approved. 3. The development package sheets provided in the building set either need to be the approved and signed plans, marked as "FOR REFERENCE ONLY" or removed from the building set. 4. The building plans do not match the development package. The building plans sheet A-3 show the steeple height as 30'-0' measured from finish floor. The development package lists the steeple as 29'-8" and considers measured from finish grade. The elevations should show the height of the steeple measured from finish grade and the height listed on the development should match this dimension. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.B the perimeter yard setbacks are based on the highest point of the wall as measured from finish grade. 5. 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 |
| 01/31/2018 | BLARSON1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | PER JOE OKAY TO CLOSE WILL GET ENG |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2018 | BLARSON1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |