Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T18CM02702
Parcel: 12416103A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL

Permit Number - T18CM02702
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/05/2018 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The occupancy classification for the storage would be S-2 (low hazard), please specify this occupancy classification on the Code Review. IBC 311.3
2. Specify the fire wall between the M and S-2 occupancy as a fire barrier. IBC Table 508.4 requires a minimum 2-hour occupancy separation and IBC 707.3.9 requires fire barriers for this type of separation.
3. The door assemblies in the fire barrier are required to have a fire resistance rating of not less than 2-hours. Provide UL listed specifications for the hinge and roll-up doors. IBC TABLE 716.1. This comment is carried over from 1st review.
4. Submit calculations for the slab, footings and concentrated bearing footings where metal building girder frame occurs. Show all loading conditions and combinations in structural calculations. IBC 1603.1. This comment is carried over from 1st review.
5. Provide soils report and coordinate footing/foundation and slab with report recommendations. IBC 1603.1
6. Please provide written responses to all plan review comments.
06/06/2018 ERIC NEWCOMB ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
06/15/2018 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Passed
06/15/2018 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Site Section Manager

PROJECT: 1301 S. Tyndall Ave,
T18CM02702
Building Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 15, 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. Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with Development Package (DP) DP18-0011 but until the DP has been approved to building plans cannot be approved.

3. Until all other PDSD review agencies have approved the building plans zoning cannot approve.

Once the above comments are addressed Zoning will provide an over-the-counter review. Please call or email to schedule an appointment for this review.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956
06/22/2018 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Site plan not provided. [Initial comment: Provide the site plan referenced on sheet P-1.0. The site plan is to show the location and size of the water meter and of the associated backflow prevention assembly. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.]
2. The water demand shown on P-1 does not include the existing plumbing fixtures or the evaporative coolers. Section E103.3 (2.1) of Appendix E, IPC 2012 states that fixture units cannot be used for constant use items such as hose bibbs. Add a separate demand value for hose bibbs and evaporative coolers to the demand determined using fixture units. The total demand for the water is about 32 GPM, which will require a 1" water meter. [Initial comment: Calculate the total water demand that will be served by the existing water meter. Include the service sink, hose bibbs, and the required water dispenser in addition to the water closets and lavatories. Verify that the size of the existing water meter is adequate for the new load. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.]
06/25/2018 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The plumbing page calls for a 75,000 BTUH input for the unit heaters but the mechanical schedule shows a 76,000 BTUH input. [Initial comment: Clarify the connected loads or input ratings for each appliance. Southwest Gas, the local gas utility provides natural gas with an energy content of approximately 1,000 BTU per cubic foot. The manufacturer's listing for the proposed unit heaters calls for an input of 75,000 BTUH. Reference: Section 402.1, IFGC 2012.]
2. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: If the manufacturer does not incorporate a sediment trap within the gas-fired equipment, provide a sediment trap downstream of the appliance shut off valve, as close to the equipment as possible. Reference: Section 408.4, IFGC 2012.]
3. A 10-second cycle at 5 GPM will not dispense 0.25 gallons per cycle [Initial comment: Verify that the specified metering faucets for the lavatories will dispense a maximum of 0.25 gallons per metering cycle and that each cycle will last for a minimum time of 10-seconds. Reference: Section 416.6, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson and Section 606.4, ICC/ANSI A117.1-09.]
4. Provide a detail of the water heater installation, including the excess pressure relief, expansion tank, vacuum relief or other anti-siphon device, safety pan, and valves. Reference: Sections 503, 504, 606.1, and 607.3, IPC 2012. [Initial comment: Identify the source of the tempered water for the lavatories and the hot water for the required service sink - a source of hot and tempered water is not optional. Reference: Sections 607.1 and 607.2, IPC 2012.]
5. The specified mixing valve is not listed to ASSE 1070. [Initial comment: Provide tempered water for the public restroom lavatories using approved devices conforming to ASSE 1070. Reference: Sections 416.5 and 607.1.2, IPC 2012.]
6. The service sink requires a minimum 2" trap, the specified mop basin would not have the same supplies as a lavatory, and the deck-mounted faucet probably will not fit on the mop basin. [Initial comment: Finish specifying the plumbing fixtures, e.g. the service sink and the water closet (tank or flush valve?). Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.]
7. Elevation 3/A2.0 shows two downspouts on the east side of the addition but elevation 4/A2.0 shows three downspouts on the west side of the addition. [Initial comment: Provide the dimensions of the rain gutters, the slopes, and the size of the downspouts. Reference: Section 1106.6, IPC 2012.]
06/25/2018 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The COMcheck report shows that the building fails (18% worse than code requirements). In addition, using the High Efficiency HVAC additional efficiency package (Section C406, IECC 2012), will require that the unit heaters have a combustion efficiency of 90% or greater. [Initial comment: Demonstrate energy code compliance for the addition to the building envelope using calculations based on the current code. Reference: Sections C101.4.3, C101.5, C103.2, C303, and C401.2.1, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.]
2. The heating load calculations show a heating load that is about half of the stated heating capacity of the two unit heaters. Note that mechanical ventilation will be required when the evaporative coolers are not operating. [Initial comment: Provide heating load calculations that justify the capacities of the heating equipment specified for the project and provide sufficient heat to maintain a minimum temperature of 68 F on a design-heating day (32 F). Reference: Sections C302.2, C403.2.1, and C403.2.2, IECC 2012 as amended by the City of Tucson, and Section 312.1, IMC 2012 and Section 309.1, IMC 2012.]
3. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Revise the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fan so that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted (i.e. all of the air supplied to each restroom is to be exhausted during the hours of operation even if the lights are off). Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2012.]
4. The specified unit heaters are Category III units with power vents (i.e. intake air plus a separate exhaust vent) and the exhaust vent will require a thimble for the roof penetration. [Initial comment: Specify the type of venting systems and the venting materials to be used for the proposed unit heaters. Reference: Section 503.1, IFGC 2012].
06/28/2018 JOHN VAN WINKLE ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change T18CM02702

1) Previous comment 1. Coordinate with Development Package (DP) to ensure that roof drains scupper underneath sidewalks. Reference City of Tucson Technical Standards Manual (TSM) section 7-01.4.1.E. Current plans show roof drains discharging onto sidewalk. Add a note or detail showing that the roof drains will scupper underneath the sidewalk. Engineering can conduct an over the counter review when this comment has been addressed.

John Van Winkle, P.E.
John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov
520-837-5007