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: REVISION - - 2ND
Permit Number - T12CM00498
Review Name: REVISION - - 2ND
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/10/2012 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET A2.0 AND A2.1 1. Being the only floor plans presented to show the architectural changes, the dimensions overide the design below in a text block that does not allow us to read the changes. There are three different architrectural plans originally approved that needs to be changed and included in your revision submittal. 2. The revision set is not complete. Please issue a revision sheet for each sheet that was submitted and approved for permit showing all the changes in a delta, numbered cloud. This includes all the architectural, mechanical and electrical sheets shown on the original approved set listed in the index on the front cover sheet. 3. The metal building structural design review is forthcoming. 4. Please provide structural calculations for the two heat pumps mounted of the existing roof framing plan. 9-11-12 STRUCTURAL REVIEW FOR COMPASS HIGH SCHOOL T12CM00498 METAL BUILDING DRAWINGS 4. DRAWING E04; FLOOR FRAMING PLAN: THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE FLOOR FRAMING MEMBERS WERE NOT FOUND. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR THE MEZZANINE FLOOR JOISTS AND BEAMS, INDICATING MEMBER SIZES AND LOCATIONS. ALL CALCULATIONS ON THE DRAWINGS INDICATE REACTIONS ONLY. 5. DRAWING E04: PROVIDE A NOTE ON THE DRAWINGS THAT REFERENCES THE STEEL STAIR AS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. 6. DRAWING E04; NOTE: THE 'IMPORTANT NOTE' INDICATES THE ENGINEER FOR GENERAL STEEL CORPORATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN OF THE MEZZANINE SLAB (CONCRETE AND DECK). PROVIDE AN ENGINEERED DESIGN, SEALED AND SIGNED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL, FOR THE FLOOR. 7. GENERAL: THE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR THE RIGID FRAMES WERE NOT FOUND. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR THE RIGID FRAMES AND LATERAL BRACING, INDICATING MEMBER SIZES, LOCATIONS, AND CONNECTIONS. ALL CALCULATIONS ON THE DRAWINGS INDICATE REACTIONS ONLY. 8. GENERAL: THERE ARE NO STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS OR DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR BUILDING 'B'. VERIFY. 9. GENERAL: ALL DEFERRED SUBMITTALS MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY RON BOOSE (BUILDING OFFICIAL) BEFORE THOSE SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED. RON.BOOSE@TUCSONAZ.GOV. FOUNDATION DRAWINGS 10. SHEET S2.1: REFERENCES ARE MADE IN THE KEYNOTES AND IN THE ANCHOR BOLT/BASE PLATE DETAILS TO THE METAL BUILDING MANUFACTURER (MBM), ALTHOUGH NO DRAWINGS OR CALCULATIONS WERE PROVIDED FOR BUILDING 'B'. VERIFY. 11. SHEET S2.2; FOUNDATION PLAN: DETAILS CUT AT GRIDS E AND 1, GRIDS B AND 8, AND GRIDS A AND 7 INDICATE 1/S2.1 AT THE EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDATION. REVISE THE DETAIL REFERENCE. 12. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS; SHEET A2: THE STATEMENT OF WORK INDICATES THE BUILDING DESIGN HAS CHANGED, THEREFORE A NEW FOUNDATION DESIGN WAS REQUIRED. EXPLAIN. 13. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/17/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The plumbing plan for the annex building, 1/P1.3, shows two ½" water lines extending out from the building to serve the evaporative coolers that have been deleted from the drawing. If these water lines are to be retained, how will they be terminated? Reference: Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006. 2. Correct the call-out for a detail of what appears to be a dry well serving the ductless air conditioner, IU-2; the call-out on sheet P1.1 is for detail 1/P1.3 which shows the plumbing plan for the annex building. Detail 9/P4.1 is for a dry well. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006. |
| 09/18/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide updated energy code compliance calculations for the revised building envelope. Reference: Section 101.4, International Energy Conservation Code 2006. 2. Provide structural calculations to verify that the existing roof is capable of supporting the additional dead load due to the installation of the two new heat pump units. Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2006. 3. Clarify the routing and termination of the condensate drain serving HP -1, HP 2, and FC 2-1. On the second floor plan the 1-1/2" condensate drain drops down near column G-4; it seems to reappear on the first floor near column F.5-4. The 2" continuation of the condensate drain then appears to terminate in a storage room having no indirect waste receptor. Reference: Section 307.2, IMC 2006 as amended by the City of Tucson. 4. Provide calculations demonstrating adequate ventilation for the annex building containing an office and the Da Vinci Studio. Reference: Section 403.3, IMC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 5. Clarify the airflow for two HP-3 units; they are scheduled as having a capacity of 1,600 CFM each but on drawing M1.3, they are shown delivering 2,000 CFM each. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 6. Where is HP-4 located? Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. 7. Correct the call-out for a detail of what appears to be a dry well serving the two HP-3 units (and another for IU-2); the call-out on sheet M1.3 is for detail 1/P1.3 which shows the plumbing plan for the annex building. Detail 9/P4.1 is for a dry well. Reference: Section 106.3.1, IMC 2006. |
| 09/27/2012 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2012 | CINDY AGUILAR | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 10/03/2012 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |