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

Permit Number: T18CM08485
Parcel: 141366820

Address:
7401 S WILMOT RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW

Permit Number - T18CM08485
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/25/2018 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Please provide Hazardous Material Inventory Statement.
Please clearly indicate where controlled egress hardware is located.
Unable to determine from plans if Med Gas room door and ventilation meets all the requirements of section 5306 of the 2018 International Fire Code. please clarify on plans.
11/20/2018 PIMA COUNTY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL
Reviewer: Charlie Bard, November 16, 2018
1. Please verify whether or not a sewage backwater valve is required. Per the 2012 IPC 715.1 a backwater valve is required where the finished floor elevation is below the manhole cover of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer.
2. On sheet P-200B, is Kitchen GW 21 a floor cleanout?
3. Grease Interceptors shall be designed per Pima County’s amendment to the 2012 IPC section 1003.3. According to the plumbing drawings there will be 16 drainage fixture units connected to the interceptor. Therefore the flow rate (0.8 x 16 DFU) = 12.8. The minimum size grease interceptor is 12.8x 30 = 480 gallons and the interceptor specified on sheet P-200B, keynote 22, is 1,250 gallons. Oversizing grease interceptors can produce a corrosive environment which can damage the structural integrity of the interceptor and may generate odor problems. Please contact Steve Valencia (Steven.Valencia@pima.gov) at the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department’s Industrial Wastewater Control Section for review of the proposed grease interceptor. Include correspondence/approval from Mr. Valencia with your next submittal.
4. Please contact Steve Valencia (Steven.Valencia@pima.gov) at the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department’s Industrial Wastewater Control Section for review of the decontamination tank shown on sheet P-200B. Steve requests that the decontamination sinks in room NU208 be routed to this tank. Include correspondence/approval from Mr. Valencia with your next submittal.
5. Show detail of connection to sterilizer. The 2012 IPC 713.10 has special requirements for sterilizers.
6. Public lavatory faucets shall deliver no more than .25 gallon per watering cycle per City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IPC. Please verify that the selected faucets are in compliance.
7. In accordance with the intent of 2012 IPC 801.2, provide a detail showing that the 3-compartments sinks have 3-separate drains lines to the floor sink
11/20/2018 PIMA COUNTY ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL
Reviewer: Charlie Bard, November 16, 2018
1. On sheets E001 and E101 regarding light fixture type F3, the 2012 City of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code 402.1 requires that all exterior light fixtures shall have a maximum color temperature of 3500K. However, this fixture is specified 4000K. Please provide a fixture with maximum of 3500K color temperature.
2. Provide outdoor lumen calculations per Table 401.1 of the City of Tucson/Pima County Outdoor Lighting Code. The photometric site plan, sheet E-101P, does not give us the required information in a form that we can readily use. Please select an exterior lighting option in Outdoor Lighting Code Table 401.1 and multiply the maximum total lumens and maximum allowable unshielded lumens associated with the selected option for lighting area E3 by the “developed area” in acreage (see definition of “developed area” in the OLC) to arrive at the maximum lumens (both fully shielded + unshielded) allowed and the maximum allowable unshielded lumens. Identify each outdoor fixture in the light fixture schedule as being either “fully shielded” or “unshielded” (see definitions in the OLC) and multiply the rated lumens by the number of each fixture to calculate the proposed total lumens and proposed unshielded lumens for comparison with the allowable total lumens and allowable unshielded lumens previously calculated above. The proposed lumen counts shall not exceed the allowable.
3. On sheet E-301A, room MEDS (NU-205) shall comply with NEC 517.33(A)(3)b and be on critical power.
4. On sheet E-301B, how will room BIOMED(CP300) be used and is this a critical service?
5. On sheets E-202A and B show roof convenience receptacles on the roof plan.
6. On sheets E-201A, E-201B, and E-501 the trauma unit (ER114 & ER115) should be considered a wet procedure location and per 2011 NEC 517.17 should have GFCI and/or isolation of receptacles. Otherwise, submit justification for why this area should not be considered a wet procedure location.
11/20/2018 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change FROM: David Rivera
PDSD Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: T18CM08485 - New Micro Hospital Building - Commercial Use
Building Plans (1st Review) - In patient and out Patient Medical Service Use
7401 S. Wilmot Road - PAD 7 Zone Related to DP18-0247

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 20, 2017

DUE DATE: November 23, 2017

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. The development package related to this development was not available for comparison with the building plans as it relates to the zoning review purview, which includes the building square footage, building height, building footprint, and location on the site.

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 most current or the approved and PDSD stamped version of the DP with the next building submittal.)

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 DP, the building plans can be approved by zoning.

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 and current or approved version of the DP as reference.
11/20/2018 PIMA COUNTY BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change BUILDING – COMMERCIAL
Reviewer: Chris Anderson, November 16, 2018
1. On sheet G-001, Plan Review Data, change “Maricopa County” under International Energy Code Classification to “Pima County”. The climate zone stays the same. Ref. 2012 IECC Table C301.1.
2. On sheet G-102, Fig. 29 Side Walls elevations at toilets, add the vertical grab bar required by ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Fig. 604.5.1.
3. On sheet G-102, transfer shower stall, a vertical grab bar is required per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Fig. 608.3.1.
4. Information on sheets G-101 through G-105 is redundant. Please go thru these sheets and cross out duplicate material to avoid the possibility of conflicting information presented to the builder. . Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
5. On sheet G-105, Figure 604.7, show the vertical grab bar. As shown in 607.7(b) the dispenser is located where the vertical grab bar should be.
1. Provide plumbing fixture calculations per 2012 IBC P2902.1.1. Plumbing fixture calculations must be done for each function shown in Occupant Load Calculations, sheet A-001, using the lines in Table 2902.1 with descriptions that most closely coincide with each function. 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; then show parity with what is presented in the floor plan.
6. Footings note F9 on sheet S-000 allows bottom of footings to be located at 1.5-feet below ground surface if 2-sack ABC/Cement is located below footings. The note references a specification for the ABC/Cement slurry below note F9; however this specification does not exist on the sheet. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
7. Please verify that the 2-sack ABC/Cement base will provide 1500 PSF bearing capacity as required by the Geotechnical Report Table 9, sheet 12. It is assumed that this cement mix will extend to undisturbed soil at 3’-0” below ground surface. Is this correct? Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
8. The footing at 5.0-K.6 on the foundation plan, sheet S-101B, is shown as footing type F6; however the structural calculations show specs for footing type F5. Is this intentional? Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
9. The footing schedule on sheet S-300 shows footing type F6 with 8-#6 transverse reinforcing bars; however the structural calculations for this footing type at 4.2-H.0, 5.0-K.6, 5.0-H.0 show 12-#5 bars. Please confirm that the scheduled footing in the structural drawings is adequate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
10. The footing schedule on sheet S-300 shows footing type F5 with 12-#5 reinforcing bars each way; however the structural calculations for this footing type at 7.0-G.0 and 7.0-H.0 show 10-#7 bars. Please confirm that the scheduled footing in the structural drawings is adequate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
11. The footing schedule on sheet S-300 shows footing type F5 with 12-#5 reinforcing bars each way; however the structural calculations for this footing type at 7.0-G.0 and 7.0-H.0 show 10-#7 bars. Please confirm that the scheduled footing in the structural drawings is adequate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
12. The footing schedule on sheet S-300 shows footing type F2 with 10-#4 reinforcing bars each way; however the structural calculations for this footing type at 4.1-A.0 and 4.3-A.0 show 10-#7 bars. Please confirm that the scheduled footing in the structural drawings is adequate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
13. The footing schedule on sheet S-300 shows footing type F6 with 8-#6 reinforcing bars each way; however the structural calculations for this footing type at 4.2-B.0 shows 10-#7 bars. Please confirm that the scheduled footing in the structural drawings is adequate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
14. The structural calculations show single footings for GL 7.1-H.5 and 7.1-H.6 while the Footing Schedule on sheet S-300 shows a single footing F9 for both columns. The combined footing size, number of bars and sizes of bars do not correspond to the structural calculations. Please explain. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
15. The footing schedule on sheet S-300 shows footing type F2 with 10-#4 reinforcing bars each way; however the structural calculations for this footing type at 7.6-J.2 show 7-#5 bars each way. Please confirm that the scheduled footing in the structural drawings is adequate. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
16. There appears to be no structural calculations for footings at GL’s 4.1-A.0, 4.3-A.0, 7.0-G.0, 1.0-K.0 or 1.5-L.0. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
17. Structural calculations show column J.0-7.5 as W8x31; however the Foundation Plan, sheet S-101A, identifies this column as W14x74. Is this correct? Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
18. There appears to be no structural calculations for columns in GL G.0. Also, some of the columns in the structural calculations are identified other than by letter to number GL’s (i.e. J.1-1.0) and it is impossible to tell which columns the calculations reference. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
19. On framing plan 3/S-104 the entry canopy beams are shown as W8x15; however the structural calculations specify W12x14. Please confirm that the smaller beams are adequate for the imposed canopy loads. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
20. Column Base page 66 of the structural calculations shows an 18” x 18” x 1” base plate for a W8x24 column. This base plate is not included in the Base Plate Schedule, sheet S-500. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
21. Column Base pages 89, 97, 105, and 113 of the structural calculations shows an 18” x 18” x 1 ½” BP that is not included in the Base Plate Schedule, sheet S-500. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
22. Column Base pages 250 and 257 of the structural calculations shows a 16” x 16” x 1 ½” BP that is not included in the Base Plate Schedule, sheet S-500. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
23. Column base plate page 276 shows a 26” x 20” x 2” BP for column W 8x35; however neither of the W 8x35 base plates in the Base Plate Schedule, sheet S-500 are 2” thick. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
24. The Structural Engineer shall provide a special inspections schedule tailored to this project per 2012 IBC 1705. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
25. The City of Tucson requires that a Special Inspection Certificate be submitted prior to building permit issuance. The Special Inspection Certificate blank form can be downloaded from the City of Tucson website. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
26. On the Life Safety Plan, sheet A-001, indicate refuge area(s) in each smoke compartment in accordance with 2012 IBC 407.5.1
27. On the Life Safety Plan, sheet A-001, there are corridor walls labeled “1F.” Since these walls must also be smoke partitions, change “1F” to “1FS.” Ref. 2012 IBC 407.3.
28. The Life Safety Plan on sheet A-001 identifies eight “suites. Is it intended that these suites be “care suites” as defined in the 2012 IBC Section 202 and 407.4.3? If so, please label “care suite”. Perimeter walls of care suites shall be smoke partitions. See also previous comment 27 where partitions that are both fire partitions and smoke partitions should be labeled “1FS”. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
29. Will the clean and soiled utility rooms shown on the Life Safety Plan, sheet A-001 be used as collection rooms for waste and linens? If so, these rooms must be 1-hour fire-rated per 2012 IBC Table 509.
30. Section detail 10/A-322 shows the exterior stucco weep screed at the foundation plate line per Code. Please add note “stucco weep screed to be located at or below the foundation plate line and minimum 2” above paving and minimum 4” above earth.” Ref. 2012 IBC 2512.1.2.
31. The 2012 IBC 1404.2 requires a water-resistive barrier be installed on exterior walls, with flashing, “in such a manner as to provide a continuous water-resistive barrier behind the exterior wall veneer.” The enlarged sill detail 07/A-323 shows the moisture barrier installed on the face of the gypsum sheathing while the vertical leg of base flashing is installed on the back side of the gypsum sheathing thereby leaving the bottom edge of the sheathing potentially exposed to weather. Although sealant is shown at the underside of the sheathing it is unclear that it can be adequately installed as shown given the depth and narrow width of the joint. It is suggested that to limit exposure of the gypsum sheathing to water infiltration damage the base flashing should be carried up the face of the sheathing with the moisture barrier lapped over the vertical flashing. This note also applies to detail 04/A-325 and any other similar conditions.
32. Specification Section 07 54 19 paragraph 2.05 identifies allowable roof insulation manufacturers and products. Nowhere in this Specification is the R-value per inch of insulation shown or that the installation must provide a minimum R-value of 30 for this roof. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
33. Exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) is shown for canopies and mechanical equipment screens however there is no product and installation specification in the project manual for the proposed finish system. Please provide. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
34. There are Toilet Accessory Mounting Heights on sheet A-500. Are they different than what is shown in sheets G-101 – G105? Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
35. On the Door Schedule, sheet A-610, door PU167B is shown as fire-rated. This door is not in a fire-rated partition. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
36. In the dividing wall between smoke compartments that you have made 1-hour fire-rated, the majority of doors are ¾-hour fire-rated. However, some of the doors are shown in the Door Schedule, sheet A-610, as 20-minute fire-rated (DT229, DT230, CP295, CP302A). Please explain why. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1.
37. Please respond to all review comments in writing.
11/20/2018 KROBLES1 WATER REVIEW Reqs Change WATER – COMMERCIAL
Reviewer: Charlie Bard, November 16, 2018Xx
1. Please explain why there are four 2” domestic water meters shown on the Utility Plan, sheet C11.
11/20/2018 PIMA COUNTY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL
Reviewer: Chris Anderson, November 16, 2018
1. It is assumed that restrooms will be utilized when heating and cooling units are both running and not running. Please explain how exhaust fan note 5 in the Fan Schedule, sheet M-701, will meet the intent of 2012 IMC 403.2.1(4) for non-recirculation of air from the public restrooms without the associated RTU fan set to run continuously.
2. It appears that fire dampers are missing at Janitor Closet DX141, sheet M-201 A, and Dietary Jan DT238. Please confirm. Ref. 2012 IMC 106.3.1.
3. Submit heating and cooling load calculations summary sheets to justify the capacities of the selected equipment. The load calculations and equipment selections shall be based on a summer db design temperature of 104-degrees F and design wb temperature is 66-degrees F, and for 32-degrees F winter db outdoor design temperature, per City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IECC. The total capacities of the cooling equipment selected shall be the smallest available total capacity required to accommodate the calculated cooling load. Ref. 2012 IECC C403.2.2
11/20/2018 JOHN VAN WINKLE ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change T18CM08485

1) Engineering has reviewed the building plans and they appear to be in conformance with the unapproved development package (DP18-0247)
2) 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
3) Once the DP has been approved and any outstanding commercial review comments have been addressed, Engineering can conduct an over the counter review of the building plans. Call or Email to Schedule

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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/20/2018 QJONES1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
12/20/2018 QJONES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/20/2018 QJONES1 REJECT SHELF Completed