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: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Permit Number - T18CM03092
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/31/2018 | MASHFOR1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please clarify whether the building currently has sprinklers or if it is unsprinklered. Deferred submittal for the sprinklers and the Ansul system are required, and shall be provided to the the Fire Department |
| 11/13/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Reviewer: Chris Anderson, November 8, 2018 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Regarding previous building review comment 3, the plumbing fixture calculations on sheet A1.0 were not done by the method outlined in the 2012 IBC 2902.1.1. There are 3 functions shown in the code review: the fellowship hall assembly space, the classrooms and the kitchen. Plumbing fixture calculations must be done for each function using the lines in Table 2902.1 with descriptions that most closely coincide with each function. For example, the Fellowship Hall function has 115 occupants. 115/2 = 52.5 men and 52.5 women. The appropriate description in Table 2902.1 is line 4 and water closets for men is calculated at 1 per 125 men. 52.5/125 = 0.46 water closet required. Lavatories for men is 1 per 200 men. 52.5/200 = 0.28 lavatory. Likewise, for the classrooms with 100 occupants (50 men and 50 women) the appropriate description is line 10 in Table 2902.1 requiring 1 water closet per 50 men. 50/50 = 1.0 water closet. Do the same for women and continue the calculations for the last function, kitchen, using the variables in line 11 of the Table. Add the amounts of each type of fixture for each function together and round fractions up to arrive at total plumbing fixtures required for each sex. There is no mention on demolition sheet A1.1 that the roof system above the new kitchen is to be removed. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. On floor plan, sheet 2.0, the diagonal distance from the most remote point in the men’s restroom (SW corner) to the NE corner of the Fellowship Hall room scales at 73’-4” and the distance between the furthest points of the two exit doors serving these spaces scales at 35’-6”. 73’-4”/2 = 36’-8”. The minimum distance between the two exit doors does not comply with the 2012 IBC 1015.2.1 for areas without a fire-sprinkler system. Show dimensions on floor plan, sheet A2.0, for layout of new walls. Also show new tube steel column in the dry storage wall with dimensions to locate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. A note on sheet M3.2 says “it is the responsibility of the architect/owner to ensure that the hood clearance from limited-combustible and combustible materials is in compliance with local code requirements,” and the 2012 IMC 507.9 requires that type I hoods shall be installed with clearance to combustibles of not less than 18-inches. Wall type 6 is shown on the floor plan, sheet A2.0, for the wall behind the type I hood and it specifies textured-surface drywall on steel studs; however drywall on steel studs behind the hood is acceptable only if a “smooth, cleanable, nonabsorbent and noncombustible material is installed between the hood and the gypsum board over an area extending not less than 18-inches in all directions from the hood.” Ref. 2012 IMC 507.9 exception. Please clarify what is going on at a portion of the south exterior wall at the restrooms. There appears to be an opening from the men’s restroom to the exterior. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. The exit light locations shown on the reflected ceiling plan, sheet A3.0, are not coordinated with the electrical engineer’s lighting plan on sheet E-3.0. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. In the revised layout, six of the new roof top mechanical equipment shown on the roof plan, sheet A4.0, are within 10’-0” of the roof edge. A note on sheet M1.1 says “minimum 42” parapets required to avoid guard rails for any equipment less than 10’-0” away from roof edge” however building sections on sheet A6.0 show low parapets. Therefore guards are required in accordance with 2012 IMC 304.11 and 2012 IBC 1013. Some of the units are behind mechanical screens shown on building elevations and sections, sheets A5.0 and A6.0. The screens may or may not comply with the referenced code sections for guards. Please review and verify. On sheet A5.0, Keynote Legend, revise keynotes 603 and 621 to include maximum U-factors and maximum SHGC to match what is shown in the building envelope COMcheck. Also revise keynote 603 to say “aluminum and glass”. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. On sheet A7.0 the sliding mall doors at the classrooms are assumed to be aluminum and glass, although the door schedule shows them as AL with no mention of glazing. Please show that the glazing is safety glass on the mall door elevations. Ref. 2406.4.1. Regarding previous building review comment 9, please indicate the vertical grab bar on elevations 4 and 6, sheet A8.0. Neither the plan of the toilet compartments nor keynote 701 make reference to a vertical grab bar at sidewalls. The schedule at the bottom of the page is a generic schedule for mounting heights but does not specifically require vertical handrails for this project. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. |
| 11/13/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL Per response to previous mechanical review comment 1, the exterior envelope components used in the revised building envelope COMchecks do not match what is shown on the architectural drawings. For example the COMcheck intended for the classrooms portion of the building do not include exterior doors, sliding aluminum and glass mall doors. No exterior wall assembly including masonry furred with R-19 cavity insulation is included. The COMcheck intended for the assembly space and the new kitchen area does not include the whole new kitchen roof area with R-38 insulation, nor does it include any of the exterior wall assemblies, some of which are furred with R-19 insulation. While this is a remodel, the exterior envelope has been significantly modified. These modifications need to be accounted for in the COMcheck calculations. No response was made for previous mechanical comment 2, “provide documentation for the new fenestration components. Reference: Section C303.1.3 IEC 2012.” The documentation must show that all the windows and doors are rated for the U-factors and SHGC factors shown in the COMchecks. |
| 11/13/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL No response was made for previous electrical comment 1. The site plan submitted does not include all the electrical information requested. No response was made for previous electrical comment 2. No response was made for previous electrical comment 3 and sub-comments (c) and (e). If an Appeal to the Building Official for two electric services to this building has been submitted to and approved by the Chief Building Official provide a copy of the approved Appeal in the next submittal. |
| 11/13/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL No response was made for previous plumbing comment 2, “verify that the dishwasher (kitchen equipment number K48) will be equipped with a tempering kit to ensure that the discharge water is 140-degrees Fahrenheit or less. Reference: Section 701.7, IPC 2012.” |
| 11/28/2018 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T18CM03092 1) Engineering has reviewed the building plans but cannot approve them at this time. Once the development plan (DP) has been reviewed and approved and any outstanding department reviews are complete, Engineering will review the building plans to ensure conformance with the approved DP 2) Show on plans that any roof drains (downspouts) scupper underneath sidewalks or pedestrian walkways. Reference City of Tucson Technical Standard (TSM) 7-01.4.1.E. Coordinate placement of scuppers with the DP 3: Engineering can conduct an over the counter review once the above comments are addressed John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
| 11/29/2018 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM03092 - New Kitchen Addition, Interior Renovation, and Site modifications. (Civic Use - Religious Service and Classrooms) Building Plan Review (2nd Review) Saguaro Christian Church (Related to DP18-0105) 8302 E. Broadway Boulevard Suite. #01 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 29, 2018 DUE DATE: November 29, 2018 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 done a cursory review of the building plans. Prior to a more comprehensive review by zoning the DP18-0105 must be reviewed and approved prior to zoning approval of the building plans. While the cursory review did not reveal any major issues with the proposal, zoning cannot verify that the building plans are consistent with what has been proposed and drawn on the DP. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans and exterior work and compare it to the DP as it relates to the zoning review purview such as building footprint, height, square footage, site conditions etc. However zoning cannot approve the building plans until the Commercial Plans reviewer(s) have approved the building plans. 3. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to assure consistency with the DP. If any changes are necessary to the building plans due to plan review comments that affect zoning requirements the DP will have to be revised to reflect the changes. Once the DP is approved by all reviewers and the building plans are approved by the Commercial Plans reviewers zoning can approve the building plans. 4. COMMENT: It does not appear that the DP has been submitted for review. It appears that the DP is in "Applied" status as of May 2018 with only an Engineering review done. 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: building plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/23/2019 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 01/23/2019 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/23/2019 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |