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 - T12CM03657
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/28/2012 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | As per comment 8, foundation calculations were requested. No calculations was included in this submittal package. However, there was a strange two sheet, hand written foundation calculation found in the amenity submittal package, activity number T12CM3655. It is hard to determine if these calculations belong to the Clubhouse and Cabana foundation plans as there is no key plan, no identification and the size of the foundations are not the same as the foundation details. The calculations call for 2'-6" deep footings both isolated and continous. The details range from 2'-2" deep to 1'5". a. Please provide a set of foundation calculations that have a key plan, match the drawings details or change the drawing details to match the calculations. END OF REVIEW |
| 10/08/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Comment not resolved; the electrical plans do not show the tankless water heater located in the men's restroom. [Second comment: The revised hot water distribution system now shows two tankless water heaters which is one more than shown on the electrical plans.] [Original comment: The developed length of the hot water supply piping from the storage-type water heater appears to be greater than one-hundred feet; provide a method for maintaining the temperature of the hot water supply system. Reference: Section 607.2, IPC 2006.] |
| 10/08/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/09/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not addressed. Revise the envelope energy calculations to accurately reflect the buildings that are depicted in the architectural drawings with regard to the insulation R-values, doors (quantities), and fenestration inputs. [Original comment: Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for Pima County < 4,000 feet. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include construction of the fenestration components and the projection factors for the fenestration. Reference: Sections 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.] 2. Provide the make and model of the dryer that will be installed along with a copy of the manufacturer's installation instructions for the exhaust duct. Reference: Section 504.6.1 (exception), IMC 2006. [Second comment: The dryer exhaust duct appears to be far in excess of the maximum length of 25-feet specified in Section 504.6.1, IMC 2006 even without including the equivalent duct length due to 45-degree and 90-degree bends. Clarify how this design is allowable under the mechanical code.] [Original comment: Show the size, route, and termination of the dryer exhaust duct. Reference: Sections 504.1, 504.2, and 504.4, IMC 2006.] |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2012 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |