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 - T03CM00662
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/23/2003 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide natural gas pipe sizing calculations. Include gas pressures and developed pipe lengths for natural gas pipe sizing calculations on plans. Detail 5/M9 is incomplete. Reference Section 1217.0, UPC with AZ State amendments. 2. Provide water supply system calculations (on plans) including water pressure, demand load, and permissible friction loss in accordance with Appendix A, UPC with AZ State amendments. 3. Hot water Circulating Pump Piping Detail, 3/M5, does not indicate any circulation of the hot water, just a booster pump for 140 degree water going to SCRB-1. Provide sequence of control for SCRB-1 that indicates how the unit is to operate. Add a flow control device to the drain outlet of SCRB-1 and resize grease trap to comply with Sections 1011.3 and 1011.4, UPC with AZ State amendments. Modify Detail 2/M9 to coordinate with the floor plan. 4. All storage-type water heaters require a listed expansion tank. Please show expansion tanks for WH-2 and WH-6 on plans. Reference Section 608.3, UPC with AZ State amendments. |
| 05/23/2003 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify nature of HVAC return in rooms 120, 123, and 124. 2. Provide listing for scrubber SCRB-1. 3. Provide calculations demonstrating compliance to Section 403, IMC. |
| 06/09/2003 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/11/2003 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/21/2003 | LINDA BUCZYNSKI | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Sheet E1 1. Provide ground fault protection per NEC 230-95. Response: Drawing has been modified to show ground fault protection. Note (added 6/11/03) NEC 230-95 requires ground fault protection for each service disconnect rated 1000 amperes or more. We designed this project using the "six disconnect rule" and do not have a service disconnect rated at 1000 amperes or more. We modified the drawing in our resubmittal to show a 1600 ampere main switch with ground fault protection however, upon review I don't believe it is required by code. If you agree (Linda Buczynski) I will remove the main switch and ground fault protection in a revision to the project. Agreed. Looking forward to your revision. 2. Show available fault current and calculations, as appropriate, at various levels of the system. Response: Sheet E1 has been modified to show available fault current at various levels of the system. The calculations were based upon a "worse case" value of 32,600 amps received from the utility. The fault calculation for HP-1 uses a "c" value of 10638. "c" value for 500 kcmil Conduit 12 is 22185. This calculation also does not take into account the fact that there are two parallel sets of conductors in this conduit run. Furthermore, the fault calculations do not show the AFC for all pertinent parts of the system. In the interest of expediting this project, I ran such calcs to determine if there was a concern with equipment ratings. See the discussion below. Using the Utility AFC of 32,600A, and 57' from the Utility to MDS, AFC @ MDS appears to be 30,760, within its rating of 65,000. @ HP-1: 17,373A, within its rating of 22,000 @ T-2 primary: 16,895A @ T-2 secondary: 22, 945A @ LD-2: 21,997A, within its rating of 22,000 and, @ LP-3, 16,790A, which exceeds its 10,000A rating. This also applies to LP-5, LP-6, LP-8, and LP-11. Please show calculations for this sequence, and upgrade the rating of the above panelboards as necessary. @LP-7: 2468A, which is OK, and which also applies to LP-5A. Please show fault calculations to the closest of these panels. @LP-10: 13,398A, which exceeds its rating of 10,000A. This also applies to LP-9. Please show calculations, and upgrade the rating of the above panelboards as necessary. From above, 17,373A @ HP-1 @ HL-3, 16564A @HL-4, 15,410A AFC within the 18,000A rating of these panels. Please show fault calculations. From above, 17,373A @ HP-1 @ RTU-1 2,857A @RTU-22 2,164A @RTU-6 5389A @RTU-7 4,235A Please show fault calculations and rating of terminals of these RTUs. Did not find such ratings in the specs, and occasionally we run across equipment that cannot withstand more than 5,000AFC. The above RTUs were chosen because they appeared to be the closest ones to HP-1 for their conductor gauge. From above, 30,760 @ MDS. 21,101 @ ATS, which is within their rating, but I get a higher number than the calcs on the plans. I did not see how there could be a 80' distance of conductor between the MDS and ATS since they are both to be installed so close together in a room about 8' X 19'. @HLE-1: 8,210A, within its 18,000A rating. @TE-1 primary: 1,339A @TE-1 secondary: 3,025A Please document proper fault currents. From above, 30,760 @ MDS. Could not find Rm 136, so I assumed a very conservative 50' for the distance to MDP-1 and MDP-2. @ MDP-1 and MDP-2: 26,866A, within their rating of 65,000. Assumed 50' distance to RTUs on these busses, as they are in a room that could not be located in plan view. Ran a calc for each wire gauge. @ RTU-6: 13,316A @ RTU-13, -14, -18, -23: 11,820A @ RTU-16, -15: 8,960A @ RTU-19: 4,523 A Please show fault calculations and rating of terminals of these RTUs. Did not find such ratings in the specs, and occasionally we run across equipment that cannot withstand more than 5,000AFC. The above RTUs were chosen because they appeared to be the closest ones to HP-1 for their conductor gauge. From above, 26,866A @ MDP-2. @ T-1 primary: 24,133A @ T-1 secondary: 20, 007A @ LD-1: 18, 609A, with its rating of 22,000 @ LP-1 and LP-2: 14,741A, above their 10,000A rating @LP-4, 8,049A, within its 10,000A rating. Please show fault currents, and upgrade the panelboards as necessary. From above, 26,866A @ MDP-1. @ HL-1 and HL-2: 24,980A, above their 18,000A rating. Please show fault currents, and upgrade the panelboards as necessary. 3. Specify whether conductors in parallel on Feeder Schedule are in conduit which is paralleled as well, for example, that for (2) sets of conductors there are (2) conduits as well. If not, some feeders may have to be evaluated for conduit fill and temperature derate. Response: Drawing has been modified to include note stating that for every set of conductors there is an equal number of conduit. This is still not quite clear. Please change the wording in Revision A037523 "For all paralled sets, provide equal sets of conductors as circuits." to "For all parallel circuits, provide equal number of circuits." Sheet E2 1. Provide catalogue for Fixture G2 and all other outdoor fixtures. Note that any light source over 50 watts shall be fully shielded, per the Lighting Ordinance. Response: Exterior wall pack fixtures have been changed to fixture type "G4" which is a fully shielded wall mounted down light. Fixture cut sheet attached. Unable to find such fixture cut sheet in the documents. Please fax to (520) 791-8010. 2. Provide calculation for Interior Lighting Power per the IECC. Response: Calculations attached. Unable to find such Lighting Power Budget calculations in the documents. Please fax to (520) 791-8010. Sheet E3 1. It is hard to distinguish how many fixtures N1 are on HL-2/25. By linear foot and by counting fixtures this circuit appears overloaded. Please check this and similar branch circuits, such as HL-2/23,27,29. Response: Circuits 23,25,27,29 were rechecked and updated. Changes to Sheet E10. No changes of this sort were found . Please verify that these circuits were checked, and modify as necessary. Sheet E6 1. PRV-7 is on the roof and Panel LP-9/21 but it is not listed on the Mechanical Schedule Sheet M11 or Equipment Schedule Sheet E11. Please clarify. Response: PRV-7 is no longer used. Changed Panel LP-9/21 to spare. Original Sheet E6 was submitted without modification. Please remove the equipment from this plan view as well as just the panel schedule. Sheet E9 1. UH-3 is not listed on the Equipment Schedule, Sheet E11. Please clarify. Response: UH-3 is no longer used. Drawing E10 revised to show panelboard LP-2 change. Original Sheet E9 was submitted without modification. Please remove the equipment from this plan view. On the panel schedule, UH-2 was eliminated instead of UH-3. Please correct. Sheet E10 1. Phase A is overloaded on Panel LPE-1. suggest move the UPS to one of the spares on Phase C. |
| 07/02/2003 | DOUG LAAKSO | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | .. T03CM00662 .. 3699 E BROADWAY BLVD .. 7/2/03 .. DGL SEE PRIOR COMMENTS: #2,#3,#4.1,#4.2,#5,#6.2,#6.3.1, #6.3.2, #6.3.3,#6.3.3,#6.3.4,#6.3.4, #6.3.5, #6.3.6, #14, #17, #19, #23, #24, #25, # 26 ADD SPECIAL DOORS, #27, #29. AS DISCUSSED WITH TOD MILLER AIA AND CHRISTY LONGLEY OF RSP ARCHITECTS 7/2/03. |
| 07/03/2003 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/03/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/03/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | REJECT SHELF | Completed |