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 - T19CM00397
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/12/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Reviewer: Chris Anderson The revised document sets submitted do not include all the drawings submitted for the first review. Please submit complete sets of drawings for each submittal. The City of Tucson will not compile approvable drawing sets for the applicant. The response to previous building comment 4 is "An appeal will be submitted to the building official." Please understand that these documents, showing plumbing facilities not yet approved by the Building Official, cannot be approved for a building permit until the Appeal is approved. Please submit the approved Appeal as proof with next submittal. On sheet G102 the revised plumbing fixture calculations in response to previous building comment 5 are confusing. In the statement above the clouded fixture calculations it is presented that the total occupant load at any given time is 400 occupants. However, in the sentence just above the clouded revised calculations it is stated "Plumbing fixtures are provided for about 925 occupants." Then, the first line of the clouded portion states "Provided fixture counts: for 650 occupants..." Which of these is the total occupancy used to calculate plumbing fixture requirements? The proposed number based on a reasoned explanation why this number is appropriate instead of the occupant load used to calculated egress components is what you must submit in your Appeal to the Building Official. The drawings must be consistent and only use the proposed number submitted in your Appeal. Also, the actual calculations do not add up. For example, for men’s fixtures it states "water closets – 1 per 125: 6 provided (includes one unisex) 750." First, this calculation should show what is required. 325 men/125 = 2.6, therefore 3 water closets. Then the calculation should show what is provided; and 6 water closets as stated does not match what is on the architectural plan. The plan shows two urinals and one water closet in the men’s restroom plus one water closet in a unisex restroom – total 4. Also, what is the "750" added at the end of the calculation and why are "required fixture counts: based on 1,200 occupants" included in the plumbing calculations if you are not going to use 1,200 occupants for calculating plumbing fixtures? Please go through these calculations and revise for clarity and for accuracy. In regards to response to previous building comments 3 and 8, please show the door in the wall between Future Mini Café 203 and Future Party G 204 as double swinging. Per 2018 IBC 1010.1.2.1 doors must swing in the direction of egress travel, and this door is located in a spot requiring egress travel in two directions based on the occupant load for the portions of mezzanine on each side of the door. In regards to response to previous building comment 20, the cold-formed steel span charts included on sheet A300 are not sufficient to show structural adequacy for the proposed tall structures in this play space as shown on sheets A304 and A305. The height to width/depth ratio for these structures is of concern in regards to overturning and it is questionable whether the angled bracing indicated in the sections is sufficient to prevent movement and racking of the structures. A framing plan for the stepped structure on sheet A305 is shall be submitted; and you must submit structural calculations sealed by an Arizona engineer to show how these concerns are accounted for in the design. In regards to response to previous building note 21, the span tables for cold form framing studs and joists added to sheet A300 do not address this comment regarding trapeze/X-swing, stunt fall, ninja, and other free-standing truss supports/features shown on sheet A500. Structural engineering sealed by an Arizona engineer is required for these elements and their foundations. |
| 04/12/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL Reviewer: Chris Anderson In regards to response to previous plumbing comment 5, Keynote 22.09 on sheet P300 says to connect the new 1 ½" water to existing line and "if existing line is smaller than shown on plans, contractor shall contact engineer." However, there is no size shown on the plan for this existing water line. How large must it be to handle all the new fixtures to be connected to it? Referring to the Domestic Water Pipe Sizing Worksheet submitted with this package it appears that this line should be 2". Is that correct? Add pipe size to plan so that contractor can verify and respond to the engineer if necessary. |
| 04/12/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL Reviewer: Charlie Bard Regarding response to previous electrical comment 2, no revised sheet E101 was included in this submittal set. No response in regards to previous electrical comment 3 was submitted. |
| 04/12/2019 | PMARTIN1 | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | PER PIMA COUNTY CANDERSON |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/25/2019 | QJONES1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 04/25/2019 | QJONES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/25/2019 | QJONES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |