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 - T18CM09904
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Regarding response to previous building review comment 3, “see revised exiting plan,” no revised occupancy calculations are presented for review on sheet TS1.1 to verify compliance with the intent of 2012 IBC 1004.1.2. Please provide your calculations based on Table 1004.1.2 to show how 264 was arrived at as the occupant load. Regarding response to previous building review comment 5, an unapproved Appeal to the Building Official was included with review comment responses. Please submit an Appeal that has been approved by the Building Official. Without it no building permit may be issued. In response to previous building review comment 7, the exterior west wall of building “B” is now noted “2 Hr Wall” on the Exiting Plan, sheet TS1.1. However the Floor Plan, sheet A1.0 shows it differently. On this plan, the exterior west wall of building “B” is shown as wall type E1 that is described in the Partition Schedule on this sheet as an existing frame and stucco wall, presumably non-fire-rated. This wall is “bumped out” in the location of the new roof connection from building “C” and the bump out is noted as wall type 6B2. There is no wall type 6B2 in the partition schedule so it is assumed that this bumped out portion of wall is intended to be 6A2 which is a 2-hour fire-rated assembly. It is not clear why the wall is shown bumped out as assembly 6A2 does not include additional wall framing. There are two issues: One: Because the fire separation distance of the existing exterior west wall of building “B” (labeled E1) to the imaginary line is less than 5 feet, this wall must be fire-resistance rated and the exterior wall assembly must be also be rated for exposure from fire on both sides. In other words, the addition of 5/8” Type X drywall on the interior side will not suffice to protect the wall assembly from a fire load on the exterior side. Ref. 2012 IBC Table 602 and 705.5. Two: The 2-hour bumped out area shown on the Floor Plan, sheet A1.0, is a fire-rated party wall in response to a new “arched” structure extending to and interconnecting with it from building “C.” This is fine, but for the rest of the exterior west wall of building “B”, the fire separation distance to the imaginary line is only 4-feet. Per Table 602 this entire wall must be minimum 1-hour fire-rated. On the Floor Plan, sheet A1.0, revise the wall mark E1 to a new tested wall assembly (add to the Partition Types Schedule) that provides a 1-hour fire-rating with exposure from both sides. Wall type 6B1 (which is not shown anywhere on the Floor Plan) will not suffice as it is rated for an interior side fire load only. The IBC 721.1(1) assembly 15-1.15 would work. Since the first submittal a number of UL assemblies and IBC prescriptive fire-rated assemblies are given. Please copy each referenced assembly and add to this drawing set for the building inspector’s review during inspections. Where these assemblies are indicated on the plan or schedule, also reference the sheet in the drawing set where the full description occurs. Regarding the response to previous building review comment 8 the wall section 1/A1.3 must show the 5/8” Type X drywall on the back side of the assembly unbroken by the ceiling framing and extending across the top of the top plate under the rafters to the front wall and up the roof side of the front wall parapet to achieve a true 1-hour fire rating for this wall assembly. Regarding response to previous building review comment 15, the Floor Plan on sheet A1.0 still retains “E1” as the wall type for building “B” west exterior wall. It is assumed that new wall type “6B1” is intended for this wall. However wall type “6B1” is not sufficient. Please see review comments 4 and 5 above. In regards to response to previous building review comment 16 while the window issue is resolved, however the 1-hour fire-rating of the north and south exterior walls of buildings “B” and “C” that intersect with and are perpendicular to the party wall has not been addressed in this response. The north exterior wall in rooms 152, 153 shall be made 1-hour fire-rated to 4-feet east and 4-feet west from the intersection of the party wall, and the south exterior wall of Corridor 104 shall be made 1-hour fire-rated to 4-feet west from the intersection of the party wall. Likewise, the north and south walls of the proposed “arch” structure perpendicular to and intersecting with the exterior wall of building “B” at the front of the courtyard shall be made 1-hour fire-rated to 4-feet west from their intersection with the party wall. Show the 4’-0” dimensions on the Floor Plan, sheet A1.0, for the existing north and south exterior walls of buildings “B” and “C” with wall type mark “6B1”, and show 4’-0” dimensions on the Reflected Ceiling Plan, sheet A2.0, for the north and south exterior walls of the proposed “arch” structure with wall type mark “6B1.”. Ref. 2012 IBC 706.5(1). New exterior wall type “6B1” in the Partition Types Schedule, sheet A1.0, references detail 1/A1.4. This section detail is not keyed to the Floor Plan nor does it seem to correspond to any condition shown on the Floor Plan. Please explain. Regarding response to previous building review comment 17 no drywall at the underside of roof sheathing supported at roof framing members with minimum 2x ledgers to 4’-0” each side of the fire wall between buildings “B” and “C” has been added to detail section 5/A1.3 and it appears that the drywall has been deleted from section detail 3/A1.3. If the intent is for the fire wall to extend above the roof in lieu of the drywall at the underside of roof deck, the two layers of 5/8” Type X drywall on each side must continue uninterrupted to the top of the parapet 30” above the upper roof. Please revise details to comply with 2012 IBC 706.6. Regarding response to previous building review comment 19 the section detail 5/A1.3 must be revised to show the fire wall assembly with 2 layers of 5/8” Type X drywall each side of studs jogging back to the fire wall shutter. Regarding response to previous building review comment 21 while exit signs were added to the Reflected Ceiling Plan on sheet A2.0 and the Lighting Plan, sheet E3.0, over the break room exterior door no directional exit signs from the interior of building “B” leading to the break room exit have been added to either plan. Unless an occupant knows of this exit door it will be hidden. Staff will likely know of it; however patients probably will not. Please add signs necessary to direct occupants to this second exit. Regarding response to previous building review comment 24 the resubmitted door schedule does not include the existing door to room 165. Please add to schedule. Also be aware that there are two rooms and doors numbered 183. One is for the restroom adjacent to the pharmacy and the other is for the janitor closet between restrooms 185 and 186. Regarding response to previous building review comment 25 the resubmitted door schedule still does not include hardware for the exit door from the break room which is an existing door and presumably not an exit door previously. Per the 2018 IBC all egress doors shall be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key. The signage exception for allowing a lock is only is allowed for main exterior door or doors. Ref. 2018 IBC 1008.1.9 and 1008.1.9.3(2). In regards to response to previous building review comment 30 “contractor will supply,” the 2012 IBC 1704.2 requires that “where application is made for construction, the owner or the registered design professional in responsible charge acting as the owner’s agent shall employ one or more approved agencies to perform inspections during construction..” The contractor shall not employ special inspectors. Please include the required Special Inspections Certificate in the next submittal. |
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 04/22/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL Regarding response to previous building review comment 21 and electrical review comment 1, while exit signs were added to the Reflected Ceiling Plan on sheet A2.0 and the Lighting Plan, sheet E3.0, over the break room exterior door no directional exit signs from the interior of building “B” leading to the break room exit have been added to either plan. Unless an occupant knows of this exit door it will be hidden. Staff will likely know of it; however patients probably will not. Coordinate with the architect to add signs necessary to direct occupants to this second exit. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/30/2019 | PMARTIN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |