Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T20CM01563
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/09/2020 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/10/2020 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Steve Shields Section Manager PROJECT: The Station T20CM01197, T.I. T20CM01562 and T20CM01563 Building Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2020 1. As there are 3 different buildings in the plan set two (2) additional permits will be required. 2. The development package sheets will either need to be the stamped approved development package sheets, removed from the building plan or marked as reference only. 3. Zoning cannot approve the building set until all other PDSD review agencies have approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 03/13/2020 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/13/2020 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide a full-open valve for the water service at the building entrance. Reference: Section 606.1(2), IPC 2018. 2. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (9891-10, 2408.63') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2409.15'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. Provide calculations to show that the specified roof scupper is adequate to protect the roof from the rain load. Reference: Sections 1101.7, 1106.1, 1106.4 and 1106.5, IPC 2018. 4. Provide secondary (overflow) roof drainage. Reference: Sections 1108.1, 1108.2 and 1108.3, IPC 2018. |
| 03/13/2020 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 03/24/2020 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The development package sheets will either need to be the stamped approved development package sheets, removed from the building plan or marked as reference only. |
| 05/13/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | BUILDING – COMMERCIAL - Reviewer: Chris Anderson 1. Please respond to all review comments in writing. 2. Per 2018 IBC Table 602 for Type VB buildings on the same lot not to have fire-rated exterior wall assemblies, the fire-separation distance between them must be at least 20-feet, assuming an imaginary line located equidistant between the buildings. Scaling the distances between buildings 1 and 3 and between 2 and 3 on sheet A0.1, the buildings are less than 20-feet apart. To avoid fire-rating exterior walls, the buildings can be considered as a single building as long as the aggregate floor area for all three buildings combined is less than or equal to the allowable area for A-2, the most restrictive occupancy, per Table 506. Since the aggregate area is 3,151 SF which is less than the allowed 6,000 SF these three buildings can be considered as a single building by Code. Add to Project Information on sheet TS that the buildings are to be considered a single building per 2018 IBC 503.1.2. 3. Add note in Project Information, sheet TS, that these buildings will be nonsprinklered. Ref. 2018 IBC 903.2.1.2. 4. Please label the areas in Building 2 (East Building) on sheet A0.1 as you have done with Building 1 (West Building). Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. 5. The Occupant Load for building 1 (West Building) shown on sheet TS is based on general SF occupant load factors per 2018 Table 1004.5; however the proposed plan, sheet A0.1, shows more seats than the calculations show. Please adjust the calculations accordingly: a. The layout plan, sheet A0.1, clearly shows that 36 occupants can be accommodated within the building. The Occupant Load calculations on sheet TS only show 31 occupants in the seating/dining area. Please calculate the bar area separately from the dining/seating area and adjust the NSF in the Occupant Load calculation to match the plan. See item b below. b. The bar area is set up for public congregation therefore occupancy should be calculated per the number of actual bar stools shown (at 18 –inches seating length per person) per 1004.6 if fixed in place, or at 7 SF/occupant for concentrated, chairs only area per Table 1004.5. c. The patio seating on the plan, sheet A0.1, shows that 56 occupants can easily be seated in this area. However, the Occupant Load calculation on sheet TS only shows 31 occupants for this area. Please revise the NSF for the calculation on sheet TS to accommodate 56 occupants and match the plan. 6. The Occupant Load for building 2 (East Building) shown on sheet TS is based on general SF occupant load factors per 2018 Table 1004.5; however the proposed plan, sheet A0.1, does not match what the Plumbing Requirements show. Please review the following comments and adjust the calculations accordingly: a. While the spaces in the East Building are not labeled, dining/seating area is shown as 15 SF/person which is correct occupant load factor generally, however: b. The bar area is set up for public congregation therefore occupancy should be calculated per the number of actual bar stools shown (at 18 –inches seating length per person) per 1004.6 if fixed in place, or at 7 SF/occupant for concentrated, chairs only area per Table 1004.5. c. What is the area to the west of the wall separating the main space and what appears to be the brewing room? Are these booths? If so, calculate the occupant load for this area per 1004.6 pertaining to booths at 24-inches of seating length per occupant. d. Will the open space between the bar and the ?booths? area be open with tables and chairs or will there be standing area(s)? No tables and chairs are shown here although they are elsewhere in the plan. If there are standing area(s), use 5 SF per occupant instead of 15 for them. e. Also, the occupant load factor for “kitchen” is incorrect, and should be changed to 200 GSF with associated change to number of occupants. I presume that the eastern-most room is the “kitchen”. Is this correct? Or is this room the “micro-brewery” shown in the Plumbing Requirements on sheet TS? Even so, 200 GSF/occupant is appropriate for “manufacturing” areas in Table 1004.5. f. The plan on sheet A0.1 shows that 56 occupants can easily be accommodated in the patio area. However, the Occupant Load calculation on sheet TS only shows 50 occupants. Please revise the NSF for the calculation on sheet TS to accommodate 56 occupants and match the plan. 7. Recalculate the required plumbing fixture count per sex based on building review comments 5 and 6 above. Be aware that the “Bar” in these calculations indicate only 2 occupants. This occupant load is too low. While there may be 2 bartenders, the public side of the bar has a much higher occupant load. Use the revised occupant load calculations for the bar areas per building review comments 5b and 6b above. The plumbing fixture ratios for the public bar area are 1/40 for toilets and 1/75 for lavatories per Table 2902.1. The bartenders could be included in the kitchen count. 8. The floor plan for the new restroom building on sheet A1.0 shows more plumbing fixtures than the floor plan for this building on sheet A1.5. After recalculating the required plumbing fixtures per building notes 5 and 6 above please revise one or both of the plans for this building on these sheets so that they show that the required amounts of fixtures are accommodated and so that these plans match. Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. 9. The Site Plan, sheet A1.0, indicates that the new building 3 is to be located 4’-5” from the south property line. Per 2018 IBC Table 602, a U-structure of any construction classification with a fire-separation-distance of 10-feet or less shall have a fire-resistance rating of 1-hour. Provide a tested assembly for Wall type W1, shown on sheet A1.5, showing that it is 1-hour fire-rated. Include printout of the selected assembly including all fasteners, proprietary materials, etc. in this drawing set for reviewer’s and contractor’s review. 10. The Site Plan, sheet A1.0, indicates that a new storage shed is to be located south of Building 2 and 4’-5” from the south property line. Per 2018 IBC Table 602, a U-structure of any construction classification with a fire-separation-distance of 10-feet or less shall have a fire-resistance rating of 1-hour. Provide a tested assembly for Wall type W1, shown on sheet A1.5, showing that it is 1-hour fire-rated. Include printout of the selected assembly including all fasteners, proprietary materials, etc. in this drawing set for reviewer’s and contractor’s review, or, relocate the storage shed. 11. Per 2018 Table 705.8 unprotected, non-sprinklered openings with a fire-separation-distance less than 5-feet are not allowed. The site plan, sheet A1.0, indicates two door openings in building 3 south wall that is located 4’-5” from the south property line. 12. Building review comment 11 also applies to the storage shed south of Building 2. Ref. 2018 IBC 107.2.1. 13. Plans on sheet A1.5 show a roof overhang on the south side of Building 3 that is 24-inches deep. While the roof projections appear to constructed of steel purlins and roof panels, the 2018 IBC Section 705.2 and Table 705.2 allows projections no closer than “24-inches plus 8-inches for every foot of FSD beyond 3-feet or fraction thereof.” For a 4’-5” FSD, the projection can extend only to 3’-4” from the south property line, meaning the overhang can only be 1’-1” deep on the south side of Building 3. 14. On sheet A2.2 provide a profile with vertical dimensions for elevation 7 showing that the proposed lavatories and accessories conform to the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 for accessibility. 15. Either replace the Development Plan sheets with approved DP sheets in the set or mark each sheet “For Reference Only.” |
| 05/13/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |