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: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Permit Number - T19CM01180
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/11/2019 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Occupant load appears to be calculated incorrectly. Viewing areas cannot be calculated at square footage/50. Be advised, if the corrected occupant load exceeds 300, a fire alarm system will be required, and should be added to the list of deferred submittals. |
| 03/13/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL Please confirm with Tucson Water that a 1” water meter is adequate for this project. Per Tucson Water’s Water Meter Sizing Guidelines a 1 ½” water meter is required for a 41.0 GPM capacity. Revise the water calculations table on sheet P-3 to show 1 ½” meter if required. Ref. 2018 IPC 106.3.1. |
| 03/13/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ELECTRICAL – COMMERCIAL Single pole light switches are shown for restroom exhaust fans and this is confirmed by General Note H on sheet E2B. However, per mechanical for compliance with the 2018 IMC, these exhaust fans are to be continuously running when the building is occupied. Revise the control system of restroom exhaust fans to comply. Add receptacle outlet symbol in men’s restroom on second floor. See building review comment 2 above for instructions regarding exit sign revision. What is the purpose of Communications sheet E4? There is no information shown on it. On the first floor lighting plan, sheet E3A, provide occupancy sensors (keynote 1) in Storage #2, custodial closet, multi-use room #1 and both restrooms. Ref. 2018 IECC C405.2.1. On the second floor lighting plan, sheet E3B, provide occupancy sensors (keynote 1) in Storage #1, custodial closet, multi-use room #2 and both restrooms. Ref. 2018 IECC C405.2.1. On the single line diagram, sheet E-5, panel ‘A’ is shown 400A while the feeder sizes and panel schedule on sheet E6 show this to be a 225A panel. Please explain. On the single line diagram, sheet E-5, panel ‘C’ is shown to be 400A while the panel schedule on sheet E6 shows this to be a 225A panel. Please explain. The electrical COMcheck on sheet E8 was performed using the 2012 IECC. Please revise using the 2018 IECC COMcheck. |
| 03/13/2019 | KROBLES1 | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | WATER – COMMERCIAL Please confirm with Tucson Water that a 1” water meter is adequate for this project. Per Tucson Water’s Water Meter Sizing Guidelines a 1 ½” water meter is required for a 41.0 GPM capacity. |
| 03/13/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | BUILDING – COMMERCIAL Occupancy for egress purposes in the occupancy load calculations on sheet C1 Code Review was not calculated in accordance with 2018 IBC 1004.5. The occupant load of a building is not the area in square feet of the entire building divided by the load factor in Table 1004.5 that correlates to the Chapter 3 use and occupancy designation. Instead, the occupant load for each space (i.e. “multi-use room”) and area (i.e. “business area”) shall be calculated using the load factor in Table 1004.5 for the function of the space or area. For example, on the second floor occupancy for the Dance room would be calculated at the room’s area in SF divided by 50, while the storage room would be calculated at the room area divided by 300, the viewing area would be calculated at either the actual seat count if the chairs are bolted to the floor or the square foot area of the space divided by 7, and so on. The occupancy for all rooms and spaces calculated by this method added together is the total occupant load. Please revise the occupancy load calculation. Two means of egress are required for this facility. Doors 101 and 119A are the exit doors. To accommodate exiting from the gymnasium floor door 110 swings in the direction of egress toward exit 101. This is problematic for exiting out of the two-story office/viewing/dance/ etc. portion of the building as the occupancy of this portion of the building is more than 50 and doors must swing in the direction of travel. Therefore, doors 118A and 118B from the children’s gymnastics room 118 to the gymnastics training room 119 must be exit access doors in this portion of the building’s second means of egress. Have the electrical engineer revise his exit signs to have the directional arrows of the exit sign facing stair #2 pointing to door 118A, move the exit sign from the inside of room 118 to the corridor sign above door 118, and move the exit sign over door 118B from the gymnasium side of the wall to the room 118 side. Also, change the swing of door 118B to open into the gymnasium and please ensure that the door hardware for doors 118A and 118B are such that these doors cannot be locked. Ref. 2018 IBC 1010.1.2.1, 1013.1 and 1016.2(3). The wall finish for restrooms 105, 106, 203 and 205 and custodial rooms 103 and 204 shown in the Finish Schedule, sheet A1, is “semi-gloss enamel.” Per 2018 IBC walls and partitions within 2-feet of service sinks, urinals and water closets shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface to a height of not less than 4-feet. To use semi-gloss enamel in these locations you must submit product data from the proposed manufacturer showing that the paint is non-absorbent and listed for use in these areas. No hardware for doors is indicated on the door schedule sheet A4. Submit a door hardware schedule for review. Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. Add dimension to threshold detail 3/A4 showing maximum ½” threshold height with a bevel of 1:2. Ref. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 303.2 and 303.3. On restrooms interior elevations on sheet A5 provide urinal and accessories heights in accordance with the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009. On building sections, sheet A6, indicate that the top tracks for stud partitions on the 2nd floor are deflection tracks. The exterior envelope insulation shown on the building sections, sheet A6, are not what is shown in Building Envelope Requirements, sheet M-1. The architectural and mechanical envelope schedule must match. The Building Envelope Requirements on sheet M-1 are the prescriptive insulation requirements for metal buildings in Table C402.1.3 of the 2018 IECC; however to use the prescriptive R-value compliance method of this Table thermal spacer blocks must be provided between the metal roof panels and metal purlins. Please confirm that the pre-engineered metal building that will be used provides the required thermal spacers. If thermal spacers will not be provided, the R-value compliance method can’t be used and instead, a building envelope COMcheck showing U-factor compliance of the thermal envelope assemblies must be submitted. The envelope assemblies in the COMcheck must be specifically for metal buildings and not for “metal-framed” buildings, and all assemblies must match the architectural drawings. Ref. 2018 IECC Table C402.1.3 footnote b. Note on sheet A4 that the coiling garage door shall have a minimum R-value of 4.75, windows shall have a maximum U-factor of 0.65 and entry doors shall have a maximum U-factor or 0.83; and all glazed fenestrations with a maximum SHGC of 0.25. If, in lieu of the prescriptive envelope requirements shown above, a COMcheck is submitted per building review comment 9 above, indicate the COMcheck values for the fenestration listed on this sheet instead of the prescriptive values. Ref. 2018 IECC Tables C402.1.3 and C402.4. Per note on the floor plan, sheet A1, and per keynotes on the building sections, sheet A6, all framing for interior walls will be metal. However, the structural details show all new interior walls and floor system to be constructed of wood. Coordinate the architectural drawings with the structural drawings so that they match. Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. The structural drawings, details 405 and 409 show a ½” standoff between the metal building girts and the wood wall framing presumably to allow for movement of the metal building under wind loads. Please show how this will be accomplished at the top of walls and roof structure. Keynote 5 on sheet A6 states “metal stud track @ top and bottom.” Is this note adequate for the top of walls? Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. No purlins are shown spanning between “bent” frames at the roof in building sections, sheet A6. Interior partitions are shown extending only to the bottom of major “bent” frames rather than to bottom of purlins between the bent frames. Please revise to show actual conditions and how the partitions will terminate at roof. Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. The structural calculations refer to Pattison Engineering geotechnical report 18-041. Please submit a copy of this soils report. Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. |
| 03/13/2019 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | MECHANICAL - COMMERCIAL Coordinate with the Architect regarding the IECC building envelope requirements shown on sheet M1.0. See building review comments 9 and 10 above. If a building envelope COMcheck is run using the envelope variables shown on the architectural plan, rerun the heating and cooling load calculations per the COMcheck assemblies and remove the prescriptive tables from sheet M1.0. Ref. 2018 IMC 106.3.1. Please justify the selection of heat pumps (HP-1 and HP-2) that will provide a total cooling capacity of 96 MBH when the cooling load calculations indicate that only 76.2 MBH is required. Per 2018 IECC C403.3.1 the output capacity of heating and cooling equipment shall not be greater than the smallest available equipment size that exceeds the calculated loads. Please justify the selection of heat pumps (HP-3 and HP-4) that will provide a total cooling capacity of 120 MBH when the cooling load calculations indicate that only 87.6 MBH is required. Per 2018 IECC C403.3.1 the output capacity of heating and cooling equipment shall not be greater than the smallest available equipment size that exceeds the calculated loads. Please justify the selection of heat pumps (PHP-1, PHP-2 and PHP-3) that will provide a total cooling capacity of 450 MBH when the cooling load calculations indicate that only 359.7 MBH is required. Per 2018 IECC C403.3.1 the output capacity of heating and cooling equipment shall not be greater than the smallest available equipment size that exceeds the calculated loads. |
| 03/20/2019 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T19CM01180 - New Building (Commercial - Recreation) Building Plan Review (1st Review) Radiant Gymnastics 8825 E. Golf Links Road - C-1 Zoning / Related to DP18-0082 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 20, 2019 DUE DATE: March 19, 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 building plans for compliance with the approved development package. While the building plans are consistent with the approved DP (with the exception of the building square footage) as it relates to the zoning review purview of the Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc., zoning cannot approve the building plans until the 2nd Commercial Plans reviewers have approved the building plans. As noted above the building plans are consistent with the approved DP with the exception of the number of stories and building square footage. The DP makes no mention of a second floor or additional square footage. The building plan clearly shows a 3,200 SF second story. Prior to approval of the building plans the DP will have to be revised to include the additional information related to the second story. If the second building on this site is also a 2 story structure with additional square footage that was not accounted for on the DP, the Engineer should be provided with the necessary information from the Architect to correctly update the DP before submittal for review. 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 revised DP. (Include a copy of the revised PDSD approved and stamped version of the DP with the next building submittal.) 3. COMMENT: If any changes are necessary, due to the 2nd Party 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 2nd Party 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 revised DP |
| 03/27/2019 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/04/2019 | AVAUGHN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |