Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T18CM06259
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/02/2019 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Previous Comments 5 and 6; Sheet T1; Code Review: Number 7b indicates an allowable area of 16,000 SF and two stories which includes an increase for automatic sprinklers. Please remove that allowable area and stories since there is no sprinkler system. 2. Sheet T1: Please provide the seal, signature, and date of the design professional on this sheet. 3. Sheet A.1 (Floor Plan); Sheet E.1 (Electrical Plan): Several exit locations and door swings indicated on Sheet A.1 do not match those shown on Sheet E.1. Please coordinate. 4. Sheet A.1; Floor Plan: Is the exit door in the northwest portion of the Gathering Room moved from its original location? Please verify (Sheet E.1 indicates a different location). 5. Previous Comment 11; Sheet A.1; Floor Plan: No note was found for the counter/sink height area in the Break Room. All sinks and counters on Sheet A.1.1 reference the restroom. Please provide this information on the Floor Plan. 6. Sheet A.1.1; Door Schedule: Where is Door 109 located on the Floor Plan (Sheet A.1)? Please verify. 7. Sheet S.1 (Foundation Plan); Structural Calculations: The calculations indicate the footing at the porch edge as 24" x 24" x 12" deep with 3-#4 each way, while the plan indicates a 16" x 16" x 16" deep foundation. Please coordinate. 8. Previous Comment 16; Sheet S.1 (Foundation Plan); Structural Calculations: Please provide structural calculations for all new footings (F-1 and F-2 calculations were not located). 9. Sheet S.1 (General Structural Notes); Footing Schedule: The City of Tucson requires a footing depth of 1'-6" minimum below finish grade or the finish floor to use 1500 psf allowable soil bearing pressure. Please revise the schedule. 10. Sheet S.2; Framing Plan: The new porch (Area #6 on Sheet A.1) does not indicate roof framing (beams, joists, and columns) on this sheet. Please provide along with structural calculations. 11. Sheet S.2 (Framing Plan); Structural Calculations: The calculations indicate a 6" x 12" beam for the header at a new door, while the Framing Plan indicates a 6" x 10" header. Please coordinate. 12. Sheet S.2; Framing Plan: A lintel at the double door in the southeast part of the Gathering Room references Detail 1/S.2. There is no Detail 1/S.2. Please clarify. 13. Sheet S.2; Framing Plan: Please design and indicate all new headers at interior openings on this sheet. 14. Structural Calculations: A beam at the Kitchen interior indicates a 5 1/8" x 13 1/2" GLB. Please indicate this beam along with the required columns on Sheet S.2 Framing Plan. 15. General: Please provide written responses to all review comments. |
| 12/05/2019 | IMONSHI1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Iman Monshizadeh PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM06259 Building Plans (2nd Review), Iglesia De Cristo 841 E Bantam Rd TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 5th, 2019 DUE DATE: December 19th, 2019 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 reviewed the building plans but cannot approve them at this time. An approved development package (DP) is needed for comparison at the time of the building plan review by zoning. 2. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal as it relates to the zoning review purview and compare the building plan footprint, building height, and square footage and location to ensure consistency with the DP. (Include a copy of the revised and approved DP (with PDSD stamp) with the next building submittal.) The PDSD approved and signed copy of the DP shall not be incorporated into the building plans unless it is a PDSD approved and stamped copy. 3. COMMENT: If any changes are necessary, due to the PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewer's comments that affect or change the building footprint, height, or square footage, the DP will need to be updated prior to approval of the building plans by Zoning. 4. COMMENT: Once the plans have been reviewed and approved by the Commercial Plan Reviewers and zoning has verified consistency with the PDSD approved and signed copy of the DP, the building plans can be approved by zoning. 5. COMMENT: The Development Package for this site needs to be resubmitted and approved prior to approval of Building Plans If you have any questions please contact me at Iman.monshizadeh@tucsonaz.gov or at (520) 837-4082 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Building plans and revised and approved version of the DP as reference. |
| 12/13/2019 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/18/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Coordinate the equipment tags used for the heating/cooling calculations with the equipment tags shown on the drawings. [Initial comment: Provide heating and cooling load calculations, using the exterior design conditions shown in Section 302.2, IECC 2012, as modified by the City of Tucson. Reference: Section C403.2.1, IMC 2012.] 2. No calculations refer to the support of the HVAC units. [Initial comment: Provide structural calculations to verify that the roof-mounted equipment will be safely supported by the roof structure. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2012.] 3. No service platforms are shown for the support of the HVAC units. [Initial comment: Provide service space for roof mounted equipment (roof slope 4:12 on initial drawings, not 3:12). Reference: Section 306.5.1 IMC 2012.] 4. No specifications or justifying documents were included in the submittal. [Initial comment: Provide the specifications range and the residential-style hood located in the breakroom. Provide justification for the installation of a residential-style hood. Reference: Sections 507.2.1 and 507.2.3, IMC 2012.] |
| 12/18/2019 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T19CM06259 1) DP17-0239 is required to be approved prior to approval of T19CM06259 2) Coordinate with DP17-0239 to ensure that any roof drains scupper underneath sidewalks |
| 12/18/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. No spout height notes were found in the architectural drawings. [Initial comment: Provide the spout height for each drinking fountain. Reference: Section410.2, IPC 2012 and Section 602.4, ICC A117.1-2009.] 2. No roof drainage calculations were found. Two different types of roof scupper were found: 4" diameter clay pipe with no down spout on sheet A1.1 and 4" x 8" with a dimensionless downspout on sheet S2.1. [Initial comment: Provide roof drainage and overflow drainage for the addition and for other roofs with new parapets. Reference: Sections 1101,1106, and 1108, IPC 2012.] |
| 12/19/2019 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/19/2019 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments. Also provide a written response. 1. Ref; Previous review comment and response #4. There are still 2 exhaust fans marked EF-2. 2. Ref; Previous review comment and response #6. The panel schedule for 'B' shows WH#2 on circuit 22. Should be WH#3. Plan sheet E.4 shows WH#1 on circuits L 5,7,9,11. Is it also on 10, 12? Please indicate this on the plan. 3. Ref; Plan E.5, Line Diagram. Please clarify the feeder conduit and conductors quantity and sizes and OCPD for the "WATER HEATER LOADS". Shows #8 and also #2- 1/0 on the same run. Does not correlate with the panel schedule for 'L'. 4. Ref; Plan Sheet E1 Specification note #4 calls out that type NM, NMC, UF, SE cable not allowed. This is correct per NEC because the use is A Occupancy with a total occupant load of 258, (no non- metallic sheath cable allowed per NEC arts 334 and 518. However, per plan sheet E.2 shows existing receptacles. Because this building is a change of use from residential to commercial now falling under A Occupancy with occupant load over 100, the concern that there may be type NM, or other non-compliant cables installed in the building that may be incorporated along with the new construction… Please add a note to address this. Ref; 2018 IBC 107.2.1, 2018 NEC, City of Tucson Commercial Plan Submittal Requirements, 2012 Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code (can be printed or downloaded from www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd). |