Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T20CM05267
Parcel: 120090800

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL

Permit Number - T20CM05267
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
12/17/2020 PIMA COUNTY BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Previous building review comment 4 correctly shows this to be an M (retail) occupancy based on the Project Data on sheet T1.0 and not a B occupancy as shown in the Code Review on that sheet. Please revise the Code Review to reflect M occupancy rather than B occupancy. This affects a number of things as outlined below that must be corrected in the Code Review:
2. In regards to previous building review comment 1, the Max. Occupant Load is shown as 3659/150 GSF = 24.3. Since the occupancy will be "M" the correct occupant load factor per Table 1004.5 is 60 GSF per occupant. And since this building is remodeled to create 3 white boxes for future retail tenants please delete everything following the title OCCUPANT LOAD to the Section MEANS OF EGRESS: PER CHAPTER 10 in the Code Review and show a separate occupant load for each of the three proposed white boxes. For Unit #1: 660 SF/60 GSF = 11 max. occupants. For Unit #2: 778 SF/60 GSF = 13 max. occupants. And for Unit #3: 1812 SF/60 GSF = 31 max. occupants.
3. The response to previous building review comment 4 is incorrect. The IBC Table that dictates exit access travel distance is 1017.2 and not 1006.2.1. The note in the Code Review under "Means of Egress: Per Chapter 10" regarding exit access travel distance still shows 'B' occupancy with 75' distance. Correct this to 'M' occupancy with 200-feet EATD for non-sprinkled buildings.
4. The response to previous building review comment 5 is incorrect. Calling these units "B" occupancy and using 150 GSF per occupant is not per Code since the referenced 2018 IBC Section 303.1.1 only pertains to small "A" assembly spaces and not "M" retail spaces. Therefore revise also "Shell Building '1' per 2018 IBC Chapter 3 Section 303 303.1.1 Group 'B' Occupancy" to "Shell Building '1' per 2018 IBC Chapter 3 Section 309 Group 'M' Occupancy".
5. Regarding previous building review comment 6 not all fire-rating requirements are shown in the Code Review Table generated from IBC Table 601. The Title shall be revised. Delete "occupancy 'B'" from the title of this Section as it does not apply to Table 601 and add add "1" to "interior bearing walls". Also, "0" for "exterior non-bearing walls" is not accurate. The east wall, located 18'-4" from the property line is 1-hour fire-rated for Type VA buildings per IBC Table 602. However if this building were changed from Type VA to Type VB construction since the floor area is less than 9,000 SF allowed by Table 506.2 for unsprinkled, type VB, 'M' occupancies, then "0" fire-rating would be required for all of the walls, structure, floors and ceilings according to Table 602.
6. The response to previous building review comment 8 shows an incorrect code reference. There is no Table 803.1.1 in the 2018 IBC.
7. In regards to the response to previous building review comment 9, R-9 cavity insulation (sprayed between furring studs) for exterior CMU walls does not comply with 2018 IECC Table C402.1.3. Minimum R-5.7 continuous insulation is required. After spraying the inside walls of the CMU furring studs could be installed at the face of the insulation instead of tight against the CMU.
8. Regarding response to previous building review comment 11, the added side wall grab bar at water closet elevation is missing the vertical grab bar required by ANSI A117.1-2009. Add this grab bar with dimensions and show the toilet paper dispenser with dimensions on this elevation. Also, elevation B below is missing the vertical grab bar.
9. The building grid lines added to the plan on sheet A2.0 in response to previous building review comment 13 are missing callouts (numbers and letters). Please add.
10. The building grid lines added to the plan on sheet A6.0 in response to previous building review comment 24 are missing callouts (numbers and letters). Please add.
11. Shift the common(west) accessible restroom door to the east to provide 18-inches wall on the strike side in compliance with ANSI A117.1-2009 Figure 404.2.3..2(a). Add 18-inches dimensions to both restroom doors on the A3.0 layout dimension plan (even though noted on the plumbing plan) and correct the door location for the west restroom as it seems to have shifted north within the door opening.
12/17/2020 PIMA COUNTY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. A service sink and drinking fountain have been added in the foyer outside common restroom in response to previous plumbing review comment 1. Per ANSI A117.1-2009 305.3 the clear space in front of the drinking fountain is 30" x 48" and per 603.2.2 doors shall not swing into the clear space for any required accessible plumbing fixture. As shown on the floor plans, the bathroom door will swing into the clear floor space. Switch locations of the mop sink and drinking fountain to correct this situation.
2. Show sanitary pipes and water service to the two drinking fountains and the mop sink in the foyer on the plumbing plan, sheet P1.0.
3. Regarding response to previous plumbing review comment 6, paint (as shown by note on int. elev. north on sheet P1.0 is not a non-absorbent wall finish suitable for use behind water closets, service sinks, urinal, etc. unless you can provide manufacturer's product information for a specific paint that states that it is non-absorbent and that the product is suitable for uses in accordance with 2018 IBC 1209.2.2.
4. Revise the required plumbing fixture calculation on sheet P1.0 to be for MERCANTILE. This is not a BUSINESS occupancy. See building review comments, both previous and current.
5. The revised Fixture Connection Schedule requires change. First, there are no half bath groups in the 2018 IPC Table 709.1, therefore show drainage and water fixture units for individual plumbing fixtures pertaining to the bathrooms. Revise the schedule as follows. Single lavatories shall have a DFU of 1 with a total DFU count of 2 for two lavatories. Single water closets shall have a DFU of 4 with a total DFU count of 8 for 2 water closets. Individual mop (service) sinks have a DFU of 2 with a total DFU count of 4 for 2 mop sinks. Individual drinking fountains have a DFU of .5 with a total DFU of 1 for 2 drinking fountains. The waste total is 15, not 10. Do the same modifications for water fixture units using 2018 IPC Table E103.3(2).
6. On the plumbing plan and waste isometric, sheet P1.0, show venting for the mop sinks and drinking fountains. Also show a cleanout for the new mop sink and drinking fountain lateral in the foyer. Ref. 2018 IPC 106.3.1.
12/17/2020 PIMA COUNTY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Regarding the mechanical consultant's response 1)a to previous mechanical review comment 3, load calculations using the Manual J Wrightsoft module and not the commercial module were again submitted as evidenced by the note at the bottom of the Wrightsoft summary sheets "Calculations approved by ACCA to meet all requirements of Manual J 8th Ed.". Also, the submittal includes Manual S Compliance Reports. The ACCA Manual S is used to select residential heating and cooling equipment. And the Manual J program is a residential load calculation program that, according to the ACCA, is not appropriate for calculating heating and cooling loads for commercial projects. Please submit heating and cooling load calculations summary sheets from an ACCA approved commercial module.
2. With loads recalculated per mechanical review comment 1 above, the heating and cooling equipment shown in the equipment schedule on sheet M1.0 shall have output capacities that are not greater than that of the smallest available equipment that exceeds the calculated loads shown in the heating and cooling summary sheets. Ref. 2018 IECC C403.3.1.
3. Regarding previous mechanical review comment 9, no mechanical COMcheck was submitted in the 2nd review package. The new sheet M2.0 includes building envelope COMchecks; and these are not mechanical equipment COMchecks. Similarly, the information on new sheet M3.0 appear to be Wrightsoft Manual D calculations for sizing ducts. If so, the Manual D is also a residential program and not appropriate for commercial projects.
4. In regards to previous mechanical review comment 10, ducts and text on the mechanical plan, sheet M1.0, is still illegible and needs to be corrected.
5. The mechanical consultant's response to previous mechanical review comment 13 is that it is the installing contractor's responsibility to install a fresh air system per all local codes. While that is true, it is the designer's responsiblity to show in these drawings how much outside air is required in each tenant space as calculated in accordance with the 2018 IMC Section 403 and also to show how that will be accomplished in each space. Since ductless mini-split systems do not provide fresh air to spaces the solution for Units 1 and 3 will be accomplished by other means. This information is required for obtaining a building permit.
12/18/2020 PIMA COUNTY ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Regarding previous electrical review comment 2, there are circuits for 6 outdoor mechanical units in the three panel schedules; however the mechanical plan shows a total of 4 outdoor mechanical units.
2. Regarding previous electrical review comment 4 the occupancy sensors shown on the electric plan are at doors to the restrooms foyer and restrooms but not in the restrooms or foyer. Please explain how this works. Normally OC are inside the served rooms. Also, please label B19 circuit in panel B "occupancy sensor" and change the circuit on the plan from B18 to B19. Also change circuit on plan from A18 to A19 to match panel schedule.
3. In regards to previous electrical review comment 6, no change. "Provide a note on the electrical plan, sheet M1.0, indicating conduit type and size for fixture home runs."
4. Regarding response to previous electrical review comment 7, exit lights added to the electrical plan for Units 1 and 2 are shown as receptacles. Provide emergency lights are shown in Units 1 - 3, the restroom foyer and restrooms. Revise with a symbol for exit signs.
5. Regarding previous electrical review comments 9 - 15 check again and revise the schedule to ensure that circuits shown on the plan are the same as shown in the electric panels.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/18/2020 PC_CANDERS1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Reqs Change
12/18/2020 PC_CANDERS1 REJECT SHELF Reqs Change
12/18/2020 PC_CANDERS1 APPROVAL SHELF Reqs Change