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
Permit Number - T18CM08221
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL In the Plumbing Fixture Schedule, sheet P4, the demolition total and grand total at the bottom of the schedule presumably should be labeled water fixture units and not waste fixture units. Ref. 2012 IPC 106.3.1. |
| 11/07/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review | Reviewer: Chris Anderson, November 1, 2018 BUILDING – COMMERCIAL The roof plan and aerial photograph of this building show that it is attached (by roof) to a long string of classrooms that wrap around and extend past a central courtyard. In effect, this is one large, long building. The earliest aerial photograph of this parcel from Historic Aerials is 1958 and it shows the building as it is configured today; therefore, the existing structure is “legal non-conforming” or similar designation in regards to current allowable building area and fire-separations between occupancies. The sprinkler system that will be installed in this building and the sprinkler system in the connected ramada and school offices infill adds life safety benefit to the facility, therefore for the purposes of this plan review we will consider the parish hall to be a separate building from the classroom building, the large ramada, and the offices infill to the east. The 2012 IBC 705.3 requires that an imaginary line be drawn between buildings on the same site for purposes of determining the required wall and opening protection. For Type VB construction, Table 602 requires a 10’ minimum fire separation distance between non-fire-rated exterior walls and the imaginary line. To avoid modification to the existing ramada/offices infill and classroom building exterior walls, the imaginary line must be set 10’ from the exterior walls and support posts of those structures. If the proposed addition were limited to encroachment into the parish hall’s 10’ fire-separation distance the masonry exterior wall would probably provide the 1-hour fire-resistance rating required by Table 602. However, the new exterior walls encroach not only into the parish hall’s fire-separation distance but also the ramada, office infill and classroom building’s fire separation distance thereby shifting the imaginary line toward the ramada and classroom building resulting in a required fire-rating for the walls of these buildings. If the imaginary line is located 5’ from the ramada and classroom walls, the ramada, offices and classroom walls will need to be 1-hour fire-rated per Table 602 line 2 and the new addition walls within 5’ of the imaginary line will need to be party walls per Table 602 line 1 and subscript c. The new walls 5’ and further from the imaginary property line shall be 1-hour fire-rated per Table 602 line 2. Be aware that roof overhangs encroaching into the required fire separation distance must comply with Table 705.2. Ref. 2012 Table 602 (incl. subscript c), 706.1.1. Per 2012 IBC 706.1.1 portions of the new addition exterior walls that are to be party walls per Table 602 shall be constructed as fire walls per Section 706. The walls shall be 2-hour fire-rated per Table 706.4. Per 2012 IBC 705.11 and 706.6 both the 1-hour fire rated exterior walls and 2-hour rated fire (party) walls shall have parapets that extend minimum 30” above the intersection of roofing to top of parapet wall. This applies to both existing exterior walls/structure at the ramada and classroom building and exterior walls at the new addition. Currently there are no parapets at the existing buildings and a large portion of the proposed addition exterior wall has no parapet. However, there are exceptions to this rule in these Code sections for both 1-hour fire-rated exterior walls and for fire walls. Please detail the roof edge conditions for each wall type to show compliance with the appropriate Code exceptions. Details shall be fully notated, dimensioned and include Code references. No openings in party walls are allowed per 706.1.1. The proposed exterior doors for the new addition are within party walls and therefore not allowed in locations shown. Show requirements for fire-rated opening protection in the 1-hour fire-rated exterior walls per 2012 IBC Table 716.5 and/or 705.8.2, exception. This will affect existing doors in the office infill. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. Please add to the plan a UL or other accepted testing service number for the fire-rated exterior wall assemblies. As an option indicate the item number (if applicable) from Table 721.1(2) showing compliance. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. Wall types 1 and 3 (exterior wall) on sheet A1 indicates masonry with 3 ½” foil-faced batt cavity insulation on the interior side. However, the building envelope COMcheck indicates R-19 cavity insulation at masonry walls. Please explain what R-19 insulation will be used in 3 ½” deep stud cavities. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. On the floor plan, sheet A1, an exterior wall type 9 is shown at the Break Room 107 but does not appear in the Key to Wall Types on this sheet. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. On the floor plan, sheet A1, keynote 27 at the parish hall west wall between column lines D and F does not apply for this location. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. There are keynote symbols at the south end of the building on sheet A1 that are not filled. Regarding the Exterior Door Schedule, sheet A2, see building review comments 6 and 7 above and make corrections. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. Sections 7, 8 and 12/A5.3 show handrails at 33” A.F.F.; however 2012 IBC 1012.1 requires handrails to be mounted 34”–38” A.F.F. Restroom elevations 4 and 5/A5.3 show mounting dimensions for handrails. Are these handrails existing or new? If new, provide additional elevations showing the handrails to the side of the water closets. If some accessories in these toilet room elevations are existing and some are new, label as existing or new. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. Show scupper sizes on the roof plan, sheet A4, along with calculations per 2012 IPC Table 1106.2(2). Show trench drain calculations on sheet A8 for the roof and sidewalk areas that will be accommodated by it per 2012 IPC Table 1106.3. The Beam Schedule, sheet S1.6, shows no camber for beams B1, B2 and B3, while the structural calculations show 1” camber for beams B1 and B2 and ¾” camber for B3. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. Structural calculations show the ¼” bent plate lintel LT3 as having an 8” minimum vertical leg and 7” minimum horizontal leg. Neither the lintel schedule on sheet S1.6 nor the referenced detail 29/S1.5 show these dimensions. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. Please provide a detail for the bearing condition referenced by keynote 5 on sheet S2.1. The tube steel beam B5 appears to be located at the top of the TJI rafters (ref. 215/S4.1) while detail 213 shows top of the masonry wall to which B5 connects below the rafters. Please confirm that detail 210 is keyed correctly on the roof framing plan, sheet S2.1. The location shown on the plan does not seem to correspond to what is shown in the detail. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. |
| 11/07/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL Submit summary sheets for heating and cooling load calculations to justify the capacities of the selected heating and cooling equipment. Calculations to be performed for 104-degrees F summer db design temperature. Ref. City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IECC. Please justify the selection for heating and cooling units based on 110-degrees F db ambient summer design temperature and not 104-degrees F design temperature required by the City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IECC. Provide mechanical COMcheck. |
| 11/07/2018 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/17/2018 | AVAUGHN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/17/2018 | AVAUGHN1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |