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: Active
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T18CM10042
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2019 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/15/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL - COMMERCIAL 1. Please confirm that exterior light fixture DA has a maximum color temperature rating of 3500 K per 2012 Outdoor Lighting Code 401.2. 2. Add "Exhaust fans to run continuously while building is occupied." To Keynote 10 on sheet E2.1. Ref. 2012 IMC 403.2.1. b |
| 01/15/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | BUILDING - COMMERCIAL Reviewer: Chris Anderson 1. Please provide a completed Special Inspection Certificate - Building & Grading that can be found on the City of Tucson Planning & Development Services website under the link "All Application Forms & Submittal Requirements." 2. The 2012 IBC Table 503 provides allowable building heights and areas. The Code & Life Safety Plan on sheet G1.0 shows that this proposed building has an area that exceeds the allowable floor area for H-2 occupancy per Table 503 even with a frontage increase (a sprinkler increase is not allowed for H-2 occupancy per 506.3, exception 2). Therefore this structure must be designed as two separate connected buildings ("building A" with the H-2 occupancy and "building B" with the B and M occupancies) separated by a "fire wall" per 706.1. 3. However, the 2012 IBC 415.7 states that H-2 occupancies containing quantities of hazardous materials in excess of those set forth in table 415.5.2 shall be in detached buildings. Submit a thorough evaluation of hazardous materials stored and processed in this facility showing materials, class, proposed quantity versus "maximum allowable quantity" of each in accordance with Table 415.5.2. Do not submit MSDS sheets for hazardous materials with no analysis. Your analysis must clearly show whether or not the H-2 portion of this facility must be a building detached and separated from the other occupancies. If a detached building is necessary, comply with 415.5.1.3 and 415.5.2. 4. Assuming that a single structure consisting of "building A" and "building B" is allowed after doing the analysis required by review comment 3, the following comments are pertinent: 5. 2012 IBC 706.1.1 designates the fire wall as a "party wall". Two doors are shown on the life safety plan from the H-2 portion to the B-portion through the party wall. 2012 IBC 706.1.1 prohibits openings in party walls. 6. Per 2012 IBC Table 706.4 the fire-resistance rating of this party wall shall be 4-hours. Please change "2 hour fire rated partition" in the Egress Legend on sheet G1.0 to "4-hour party wall". Be aware that sub-note b for Table 706.4 refers the designer also to Sections 415.6 and 415.7. 7. The 2012 IBC 415.5.1.2 states that H-2 occupancies shall be set back to a minimum fire separation distance of 30-feet. For purposes of determining fire-resistance ratings of exterior walls, buildings on the same lot shall be assumed to have an imaginary line between them per 705.3. This is problematic because the walls of the modular buildings located to the east and west of the existing CABOP pavilion are only 20-feet from the pavilion's roof edges. The original permit (T13CM06296) indicates that the CABOP Pavilion was an S-1 occupancy requiring zero fire-resistance-rating for exterior walls located 10-feet or greater from the imaginary line. The use of this structure has changed to H-2 requiring a fire-separation distance of 30-feet. With the imaginary line located 10-feet from the modular buildings per Table 602 so that the modular buildings walls need no fire-rating, a minimum of 40-feet is required between the modular buildings and the Pavilion roof edge. 8. When detached buildings are required for H-2 occupancies, these buildings shall be set back from assumed lot lines (and imaginary lines per 705.3) a minimum of 50-feet. Ref. 2012 IBC 415.5.1.3. 9. The same rule regarding imaginary line applies to fire-separation distance between modular buildings. For zero fire-resistance rating of the modular building walls, they shall be located a minimum of 20-feet apart. Refer to 2012 IBC Table 602 for fire-resistance of walls and Table 716.5 for fire-resistance ratings for openings. 10. Regarding the calculation submitted for determining allowable floor area for the "building A" (H-2) shown in the Code Review on sheet G1.0, the area modification for frontage shows a 1/1 ratio for lineal feet of building fronting on an open space minimum 20' wide (F) and the lineal feet for entire building perimeter (P); meaning that F and P are the same lineal feet. Also, the submitted calculation uses 30' for the width of open space (W). The 30' open area width (W) is fine assuming that the modular will be relocated in compliance with review comment 7 above; however the 1/1 ratio is inaccurate. Since the "building A" portion of the structure on the west side is bordered by the "building B" portion, this 86'-4" length of wall cannot be included in the calculation as having open space adjacent to it. Please revise the building area modification calculation to see if the resulting area is at least equal to the proposed H-2 area of 12,134 SF. 11. Regarding the proposed compressor enclosure to the east of the new building, the same rule regarding imaginary line applies, however it is possible that the compressor enclosure could be considered as part of the "building A" and it's floor area included in the H-2 proposed floor area total if, by doing so, the revised H-2 area total does not exceed the allowable area calculated per review comment 10 above. Ref. 2012 IBC 503.1.2. Provide calculations. 12. In addition to the overall allowable area calculation for H-2 occupancy in review comment 5, there are size restrictions for the canopies covering the outdoor hazardous material storage/processing areas. The 2012 IBC 414.6.1.3 limits the maximum allowable area for each canopy to 1,500 SF; however this area may be increased using the area modification for frontage at each canopy in accordance with 506.2. Provide calculations. 13. The canopies shall also be noncombustible. Please show that the existing CABOP canopy structure is of noncombustible materials. Ref. 2012 IBC 414.6.1.3. 14. On sheet G1.0, delete the plumbing calculations note as replace with "There is an existing approved Petition of Appeal to the Building Official for project T13CM06296 (Case #13-10-02), dated October 17, 2013, that encompasses restroom availability/reduced plumbing fixture count for the existing buildings, including the CABOP Pavilion that will be incorporated into the new household hazardous waste facility. Since the change of use of this pavilion will not require a change in plumbing fixture ratios per 2012 IBC Table 2902.1, this Petition is still valid for the CABOP Pavilion. Required plumbing fixtures for the new portion of the HHW facility have been calculated below in accordance with 2902.1.1. " 15. On sheet A3.1 provide rainwater gutter and downspout sizing per 2012 IPC Tables 1106.2 and 1106.3 for 3"rainfall rate. Ref. City of Tucson amendment to the 2012 IPC Appendix B. 16. Keynote 13 on sheet A5.1 identifies exterior wall insulation as R-19 batts for this pre-engineered metal building and keynote 12 identifies roof insulation as R-50 batts. Neither R-19 nor R-50 batt cavity insulation complies with the prescriptive wall and roof insulation for metal buildings per 2012 IECC Table C402.2 and the following comments apply: a. The "building A" portion of the facility may be exempt from the building thermal envelope provisions of the 2012 IECC if it can be shown that the H-2 portion of the facility is Low Energy in accordance with the C101.5.2. If this portion of the building can be shown to be low energy, the R-19 exterior wall insulation and R-50 roof insulation is acceptable; however the party wall between "building A" and "building B" shall be insulated with continuous R-5.7 insulation per Table C402.2. Make sure that the insulation spans from floor to roof insulation (wall section 4/A5.1 shows insulation only to just above the suspended ceiling plane). b. If the "building A" portion cannot be shown to be low energy per C101.5.2, the exterior walls and roof must either be insulated prescriptively per 2012 IECC Table C402.2 for climate zone 2, metal building, or submit a thermal envelope COMcheck showing compliance with the Energy Code. The COMcheck must be populated with "pre-engineered metal building" assemblies rather than "metal building" assemblies. c. The exterior walls and roof insulation for the "building B" portion of the facility shall either use the prescriptive insulation shown in Table C402.2 or submit a building thermal envelope COMcheck showing compliance with the Energy Code. If the metal building roof system will not utilize R-5 thermal blocks, a COMcheck is required for the thermal envelope. 17. Keynotes 2 and 3 on sheet A5.1 to be revised to provide the required prescriptive values for fenestration per 2012 IECC Table 402.3. Fixed fenestration shall have a maximum U-0.50, operable fenestration shall have a maximum U-0.65 and entrance doors shall have a maximum U-0.83. All shall have a maximum SHGC of 0.25. Skylights shall have a maximum U-0.65 and maximum SHGC-0.35. Per Table C402.2 opaque swinging exterior doors shall have a maximum U-0.61. If a building envelope COMcheck is used in lieu of the prescriptive values, add the U-factor and SHGC values from the COMcheck to these notes. 18. Wall section 4/A5.1 must be revised to show a 4-hour party wall per 2012 IRC 706.1.1. Provide UL or other listed design for the 4-hour assembly. 19. This fire wall is problematic for the proposed design of this building because the Code intends that the collapse of a building on one side of the fire wall during fire condition shall not cause the collapse of either the fire wall or the building on the other side of the fire wall. Effectively this means that the buildings are structurally independent of each other. In the proposed building design four structural "bents" will span E-W through the party wall. These combination columns/roof beams support the roof and exterior walls of both buildings. For the design to remain as shown you must provide empirical, published evidence that the masonry fire wall and building on one side of the wall will be able to resist the forces caused by the collapse of the building on the opposite fire-exposed side of the fire wall. 20. Per 2012 IBC 706.6, exception 2, the 4-hour fire wall may terminate at the underside of the non-combustible metal roofing panels. On section 4/A5.1 show and specify a UL-rated firestop for this head joint. 21. Per 2012 IBC 706.6, exception 2, openings in the roof cannot be closer to the fire wall than 4-feet. Please add that dimension to the building section 2/A5.1 for the skylight located in the Drop and Swap room. 22. On sheet A6.1 the ramps leading to exit doors in details 3, 4 and 7 do not comply with the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. Accessible ramps shall be sloped 1-inch vertical to 12-inches horizontal per 405.2. For a 3.625-inch elevation difference the ramps must be minimum 43.5-inches (3'-7 ½") long. Also, the landings must sized at the doors in accordance with the maneuvering clearances shown in Fig. 404.2.3.2. 23. On sheet A7.1 please specify the "wall protection" indicated by keynote 24. The wall protection shall be a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface that is minimum 4-feet high and extend to within 24-inches of the service sinks. Add dimensions to elevation 3/A7.1. Ref. 2012 IBC 1210.2.2. 24. In the Typical Mounting Heights schedule, sheet A7.1, add the vertical grab bar required at the water closet side wall per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 Fig. 609.4.2. 25. Structural detail 201/S3.0 is not appropriate for a 4-hour fire wall. Fire wall must extend to the underside of the metal roof panels. See building review comment 18 and 19 above. Coordinate with the Architect. 26. The structural calculations do not appear to include the metal building foundations. Please revise. Ref. 2012 IBC 107.2.1. 27. On sheet G1.0 Summary of Governing Regulations change ADAAG 2010 to ICC/ANSI A117.1 2009. 28. On sheet G1.0 Summary of Governing Regulations change COT Land Use Code 1995 to Tucson Unified Development Code 2012. |
| 01/15/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL - COMMERCIAL 1. The mechanical COMcheck states that the heating and cooling units require economizer, however this requirement is not shown in the Split System Heat Pump Unit Schedule on sheet M2.1. Ref. 2012 IMC 106.3.1. 2. Per Exhaust Fan Schedule, sheet M2.1, the total exhaust from the H-2 portion of the building is 18,500 CFM, while, according to the Evaporative Cooler Schedule the total air from these units is 26,000 CFM. Per 2012 IMC 510.5.5 the makeup air rate shall be approximately equal to the rate that the air is exhausted by the hazardous exhaust system. Please explain the variance. |
| 01/31/2019 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T18CM10042 - Related to DP17-0144 Building Plan Review (1st Review) 5300 E. Los Reales Road - Pad 14 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 31, 2019 DUE DATE: February 4, 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 Shell Building plans for compliance with the approved development package. While the building footprint is consistent with the DP as it relates to the zoning review purview Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc., zoning cannot approve the building plans until the 2nd Party and PDSD Plans reviewers have approved the building plans. 2. COMMENT: Zoning reviewed the building site plan included in the building package for consistency with the approved DP. It appears that the building package site plan does not appear to match the approved site plan (specifically the striped pedestrian path along the south of the building). The site plan in the building package should be revised to match the DP site plan or vice versa. 3. 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, location, and the building package site plan to ensure consistency with the DP. 4. COMMENT: Once the plans have been reviewed and approved by the 2nd Party and PDSD Plan Reviewers and zoning has verified consistency with the DP, the building plans can be approved by zoning. 5. COMMENT: As of this building plan review the approved Development Package has not been issued. PDSD approved and signed the DP in March 2018 and must be issued prior release or issuance of the building permits. 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 - Revised building package site plan |
| 02/06/2019 | JOHN VAN WINKLE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T18CM10042 1) Sheet A1.2 does not match the approved Development Plan (DP17-0144) a. Location of accessible parking space b. DP shows only one access gate on the eastern side the proposed building. The building site plan shows two swing gates and what appears to be an additional loading area c. Modular unit identified by keynote 22 has a 7" concrete sidewalk in the DP. In the building plans this sidewalk is not identified d. DP shows a north-south running sidewalk in the south-east corner of the site. This is not shown on the building plans 2) Update the building package to contain the approved version of DP17-0144 for reference 3) Update numbering at the bottom right corner of all sheets to reflect the presented in the sheet index 4) Coordinate with Development Package DP18-0298 to ensure that roof drains scupper underneath sidewalks. Reference City of Tucson Technical Standards Manual (TSM) section 7-01.4.1.E 5) Engineering can review the building plans over the counter once the above comments and any outstanding commercial reviews have been completed John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov 520-837-5007 |
| 04/01/2019 | JGARCIA1 | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/02/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2019 | ANY | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |