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 - T19CM07903
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/29/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T19CM07903 - PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Reviewer: Chris Anderson, January 29, 2020 BUILDING - COMMERCIAL 1. Please respond to all comments in writing. 2. The architect's response to previous Building review comment 2 suggests that the selected contractor will be responsible for special inspections. However, per the 2018 IBC 1704.2, "Where application is made to the building official for construction as specified in Section 105, the owner or owner's authorized agent, other than the contractor, shall employ one or more approved agencies to provide special inspections…." The City of Tucson requires that Special Inspection Certificates be provided as part of the permit review documentation for approval. 3. While a geotechnical report was submitted in response to previous Building review comment 3, all structural drawings have been eliminated from the drawing set. Please bind structural sheets back into the drawing set for the next submittal. 4. Per previous Building comment 18, "add note either on detail 1/D1 or on the wall sections, sheet A-3.0, that stucco weep screeds shall be located at or below the foundation plate line and minimum 4" above ground surface and 2" above paved surfaces. To accomplish this at accessible entries and exits and any other locations where slabs are aligned inside and outside, provide either a minimum 2" high continuous foundation curbs or trench drains along the face of the foundation and immediately under the screed. Indicate what will do to accomplish the clearance required in the plan set. Ref. 2018 IBC 2512.1.2." PLUMBING - COMMERCIAL 1. Please respond to all comments in writing. 5. The architect's response to previous Building review comment 2 suggests that the selected contractor will be responsible for special inspections. However, per the 2018 IBC 1704.2, "Where application is made to the building official for construction as specified in Section 105, the owner or owner's authorized agent, other than the contractor, shall employ one or more approved agencies to provide special inspections…." The City of Tucson requires that Special Inspection Certificates be provided as part of the permit review documentation for approval. 2. The response to previous Plumbing review comment 2 shows the medical gas storage room divided into the medical gas room and a janitor type closet with door, and entered through the medical gas room. To separate this medical gas area from the rest of the facility per 2018 IBC 427.2.1 the new wall between gas room and janitor closet shall be a 1-hour fire barrier and the door shall be a 1-hour fire-rated, smoke and draft-control assembly. MECHANICAL - COMMERCIAL 1. Please respond to all comments in writing. 2. The previous Mechanical review comment 4 question was not answered by the submitted response. Per that review comment, "CFMS and duct sizes are given on the Mechanical Plan, sheet M-1.0. Please provide justification for the duct sizes and CFM's (presumably cooling) shown." 3. The previous Mechanical review comment 6 question was not answered by the submitted response. Per that review comment, "the Mechanical Plan, sheet M-1.0, shows EF-2 in the Prep Area 120. This fan exhausts 250 CFM. How was this ventilation capacity calculated for this room?" According to the ventilation analysis on sheet M-2.0 animal areas need to have minimum 585 CFM exhaust. If the exhaust fan in the Prep Area is intended for exhausting animal areas, one 250 CFM EF-1 exhaust fan is insufficient. If the 250 CFM EF-1 shown in the laundry room is intended to supplement the EF-1 in the Prep Area for the kennel plus treatment area, the combined CFM's are still insufficient and the location of both EF-1 fans in the enclosed laundry room and enclosed Prep Area are problematic for ventilating the animal areas. Please revisit the required ventilation for specific areas per the Analysis and revise the mechanical plan and exhaust fan schedules as required. 4. The previous Mechanical review comment 7 was not answered. No changes were made to the mechanical sheets in response. The previous comments stated, "the Package Rooftop Heat Pump Schedule on sheet M-2.0 shows (4) 3-ton RTU's, (1) 2-ton RTU, and (1) 4-ton RTU; however the Roof Plan on sheet P-2.3 shows (4) 3-ton RTU's, (1) 2-ton RTU, and (1) 5-ton RTU." Also, the weights shown in the Schedule differ from what is shown on the Roof Plan. This may affect the structural framing. Please coordinate. Ref. 2018 IMC 106.3.1." In addition, the mechanical load calculations submitted in response to previous Mechanical review comment 2 show load calculations for only five RTU's and not for 6 RTU's shown in the architect's mechanical sheets. And, the heat pumps in the heating and cooling load calculations show units with different capacities for the areas served than what is shown in the Package Rooftop Heat Pump schedule on sheet M-2.0. The load calculations and mechanical sheets/schedules must match. 5. In response to previous Mechanical review comment 8, a Building Envelope COMcheck was submitted. However this was not what was requested. The previous comment was, "please submit a COMcheck for the mechanical equipment showing compliance with the 2018 IECC. Ref. 2018 IECC C103.2." 6. Per previous Mechanical review comment 12, "on the Package Rooftop Heat Pump Schedule on sheet M-2.0 change the cooling design temperature from 85-degrees F (db)/67-degrees F (wb) to 105-degrees F/66-degrees F so that the cooling unit is designed properly for Tucson summer temperature. This was not done. The equipment shall be selected based on 105-degrees db outdoor air temperature." The values presented in this Table shall match the characteristics for the equipment shown in the manufacturer's extended ratings sheets attached to the heating and cooling load calculations. 7. For the 3rd submittal either all the mechanical information on the roof plan, RTU schedule and heating & cooling load calculations, etc. shall be coordinated or a registered Arizona mechanical engineer will be required to review and seal the mechanical design and documentation sheets. |
| 01/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Reviewer: Chris Anderson, January 29, 2020 MECHANICAL – COMMERCIAL 1. Please respond to all comments in writing. 2. The previous Mechanical review comment 4 question was not answered by the submitted response. Per that review comment, “CFMS and duct sizes are given on the Mechanical Plan, sheet M-1.0. Please provide justification for the duct sizes and CFM’s (presumably cooling) shown.” 3. The previous Mechanical review comment 6 question was not answered by the submitted response. Per that review comment, “the Mechanical Plan, sheet M-1.0, shows EF-2 in the Prep Area 120. This fan exhausts 250 CFM. How was this ventilation capacity calculated for this room?” According to the ventilation analysis on sheet M-2.0 animal areas need to have minimum 585 CFM exhaust. If the exhaust fan in the Prep Area is intended for exhausting animal areas, one 250 CFM EF-1 exhaust fan is insufficient. If the 250 CFM EF-1 shown in the laundry room is intended to supplement the EF-1 in the Prep Area for the kennel plus treatment area, the combined CFM’s are still insufficient and the location of both EF-1 fans in the enclosed laundry room and enclosed Prep Area are problematic for ventilating the animal areas. Please revisit the required ventilation for specific areas per the Analysis and revise the mechanical plan and exhaust fan schedules as required. 4. The previous Mechanical review comment 7 was not answered. No changes were made to the mechanical sheets in response. The previous comments stated, “the Package Rooftop Heat Pump Schedule on sheet M-2.0 shows (4) 3-ton RTU’s, (1) 2-ton RTU, and (1) 4-ton RTU; however the Roof Plan on sheet P-2.3 shows (4) 3-ton RTU’s, (1) 2-ton RTU, and (1) 5-ton RTU.” Also, the weights shown in the Schedule differ from what is shown on the Roof Plan. This may affect the structural framing. Please coordinate. Ref. 2018 IMC 106.3.1.” In addition, the mechanical load calculations submitted in response to previous Mechanical review comment 2 show load calculations for only five RTU’s and not for 6 RTU’s shown in the architect’s mechanical sheets. And, the heat pumps in the heating and cooling load calculations show units with different capacities for the areas served than what is shown in the Package Rooftop Heat Pump schedule on sheet M-2.0. The load calculations and mechanical sheets/schedules must match. 5. In response to previous Mechanical review comment 8, a Building Envelope COMcheck was submitted. However this was not what was requested. The previous comment was, “please submit a COMcheck for the mechanical equipment showing compliance with the 2018 IECC. Ref. 2018 IECC C103.2.” 6. Per previous Mechanical review comment 12, “on the Package Rooftop Heat Pump Schedule on sheet M-2.0 change the cooling design temperature from 85-degrees F (db)/67-degrees F (wb) to 105-degrees F/66-degrees F so that the cooling unit is designed properly for Tucson summer temperature. This was not done. The equipment shall be selected based on 105-degrees db outdoor air temperature.” The values presented in this Table shall match the characteristics for the equipment shown in the manufacturer’s extended ratings sheets attached to the heating and cooling load calculations. 7. For the 3rd submittal either all the mechanical information on the roof plan, RTU schedule and heating & cooling load calculations, etc. shall be coordinated or a registered Arizona mechanical engineer will be required to review and seal the mechanical design and documentation sheets. |
| 01/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Reviewer: Chris Anderson, January 29, 2020 PLUMBING – COMMERCIAL 1. Please respond to all comments in writing. 5. The architect’s response to previous Building review comment 2 suggests that the selected contractor will be responsible for special inspections. However, per the 2018 IBC 1704.2, “Where application is made to the building official for construction as specified in Section 105, the owner or owner’s authorized agent, other than the contractor, shall employ one or more approved agencies to provide special inspections….” The City of Tucson requires that Special Inspection Certificates be provided as part of the permit review documentation for approval. 2. The response to previous Plumbing review comment 2 shows the medical gas storage room divided into the medical gas room and a janitor type closet with door, and entered through the medical gas room. To separate this medical gas area from the rest of the facility per 2018 IBC 427.2.1 the new wall between gas room and janitor closet shall be a 1-hour fire barrier and the door shall be a 1-hour fire-rated, smoke and draft-control assembly. |
| 02/10/2020 | SAMUEL ROGERS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: T19CM07903 (1st Review) Related to DP19-0254 Building Plan - Commercial Use / Animal Service Veterinary Clinic () 7231 E Valencia Road - PAD 26 Zoning TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 6, 2020 DUE DATE: February 20, 2020 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. 01. COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the building for compliance with the DP19-0254 Plans (still under review). Zoning cannot approve the building plans until the DP is approved. Please address the following comments related to the building plans package. 02. COMMENT: Revise sheet U-1.0 to match the site plan sheet in the DP. If changes to the site are made that are not consistent with the ongoing review of the current version of the DP plan sheets, one or the other must be revised accordingly. 03. COMMENT: As of this building plan review the building plans as it relates to the zoning review purview (Building footprint, Height, square footage, site conditions etc.) of the building plans has been found to be consistent with the current version of the DP. Zoning cannot approve the building plans until the DP is approved and all PDSD Commercial Plans Reviewers also have approved building plans. 04. COMMENT: Zoning will review the building plans on the next submittal to assure consistency with the approved DP and zoning comment 2 above has been addressed. 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 any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised Building Plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/18/2020 | AMARTIN1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 02/18/2020 | AMARTIN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/18/2020 | AMARTIN1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |