Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T13CM06259
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/10/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not resolved; on the shell drawings, only a short (about ten feet) section of the building sewer was installed. Show the size, route, and slope of the building sewer. Note that the shell drawings show the stub for the building sewer located about 28 feet north of the location shown on your plumbing drawing. [Initial comment: Provide a site drawing showing the size, route, and slope of the building sewer and the location of its connection to the public sewer. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 2. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Provide water supply isometrics and waste and vent isometrics. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 3. Comment not resolved, nothing on the plumbing drawings shows the specification or type of shower valve to be used. [Initial comment: Provide a shower control valve that complies with the requirements of Section 424.3, IPC 2012.] 4. The booster pump is no longer scheduled on the plumbing drawings but the water pressure calculations are based on the presence of a booster pump. Note that water distribution pipe sizing is to be done using the minimum available pressure and if the pressure within the building exceeds 80 PSI, a pressure reducing valve is required. Reference: Sections 604.5 and 604.6, IPC 2012. [Initial comment: Clarify the purpose for the installation of a well tank and pump rated for 30 GPM considering the demand for the building water supply is approximately 60 GPM. Reference: Section 602.1, IPC 2012.] 5. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Verify that the pipe sizes called out for the flush valves will not result in water velocities greater than that recommended by the pipe manufacturer (e.g. limit the water velocity to less than 8 FPS for copper or CPVC piping). At a minimum design flow rate of 25 GPM for a siphonic, flush-valve water closet, a 1" Type L copper pipe has a flow velocity of 9.7 FPS. Reference: Table 604.3, IPC 2012.] |
| 01/10/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The envelope compliance certificate shown on sheet G-001 is incorrect. It is based on a building located in Phoenix, Arizona that does not appear to be the same construction as the building at this address. The building area is incorrect, no continuous insulation has been used, the subject building does not have a basement, and the wrong energy code has been used. Section C406, IECC 2012 is also applicable to this activity. Complete the Envelope Compliance Certificate by checking the appropriate line items in Section 3, the Air Leakage, Component Certification, and Vapor Retarder Requirements. Provide the additional information requested in the initial comment. [Initial comment: The building shell being modified in this activity does not appear to have been conditioned. Section C101.4.5, IECC 2012 requires the space to be brought into full compliance with the current energy code. Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for Tucson. Provide sufficient detail on the drawings to evaluate the energy compliance of the building envelope. The information shall, as a minimum, include U-factors of the envelope systems and fenestration components, along with the R-values of the insulation and the SHGC for the fenestration. Reference: Sections C103.2 and C401.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] 2. The exterior design conditions were revised on sheet M100 but the load calculations have not been revised. [Initial comment: Revise the HVAC load calculations, using the exterior design conditions specified by Section C302.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] |
| 01/10/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/27/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/31/2013 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/31/2013 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 1; SHEET G-001; PROJECT DATA (GOVERNING CODES): VERIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2012 EDITION OF THE IBC, AND ALL CITY OF TUCSON AMENDMENTS ARE SATISFIED. 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT 2; SHEET G-001; PROJECT DATA (GOVERNING CODES): REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO THE 2010 ADAAG. 3. PREVIOUS COMMENT 3; SHEET G-001: THE TEXT HEIGHT (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) WAS NOT REVISED FOR THE SHEET INDEX, PROJECT GENERAL NOTES, CODE GENERAL NOTES, INDEX, AND PROJECT DATA. 4. PREVIOUS COMMENT 5; SHEET G-001; WALL TYPE DETAILS: EXPLANATIONS FOR THE WALL TYPES INDICATED BY F/06, F/07, S/24, AND S/04 WERE NOT PROVIDED. THE WALL TYPE LEGEND INDICATES 'C' AS A FULL HEIGHT WALL AND 'E' AS A WALL TO 6" ABOVE THE CEILING. WALL TYPES F AND S WERE NOT REPRESENTED. IN ADDITION, FOR WALLS TERMINATING JUST ABOVE THE CEILING, PROVIDE A DETAIL INDICATING HOW THE TOP OF THE WALL IS BRACED, INCLUDING BRACING SIZE AND SPACING, AND THE CONNECTION OF THE BRACING TO THE STRUCTURE ABOVE AND TO THE TOP OF THE WALL. THIS BRACING IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE 5 PSF HORIZONTAL FORCE INDICATED IN THE IBC SECTION 1607.14. 5. PREVIOUS COMMENT 8; SHEET A-101; ACCESSIBLE DETAILS: A DIMENSIONED ELEVATION INDICATING THE CONTROL/HANDSHOWER LOCATIONS IN THE SHOWER PER THE ICC/ANSI A117.1, SECTION 608, WAS NOT PROVIDED. 6. PREVIOUS COMMENT 9; SHEET A-101: THE TEXT HEIGHT (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) WAS NOT REVISED FOR THE PLAN GENERAL NOTES, THE FLOOR PLAN ROOM IDENTIFICATION NAMES, KEYNOTES, ACCESSIBLE DETAILS NOTES, AND ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS. 7. PREVIOUS COMMENT 11; SHEET A-102: THE TEXT HEIGHT (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) WAS NOT REVISED FOR THE SITE PLAN NOTES, KEYNOTES, REFLECTED CEILING GENERAL NOTES, FLOOR PLAN ROOM IDENTIFICATION NAMES, ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS, AND EQUIPMENT PLAN NOTES. 8. SHEET A-102: ON THE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN KEYNOTES, REFERENCE DETAIL 5A/A-102 IN NOTE 6. 9. PREVIOUS COMMENT 13; SHEET A-102; REFLECTED CEILING PLAN KEYNOTES: THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CEILING SYSTEMS 1 AND 2 WAS NOT PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS. 10. PREVIOUS COMMENT 14; SHEET A-104: THE TEXT HEIGHT (UPPER AND LOWER CASE) WAS NOT REVISED FOR THE CASEWORK GENERAL NOTES, CASEWORK NOMENCLATURE, AND DETAIL 1 AND 2 KEYNOTE REFERENCES. 11. PREVIOUS COMMENT 15; SHEET A-104; BREAK ROOM ELEVATION: THE HEIGHT OF THE CABINET/SINK WAS NOT INDICATED ON THE ELEVATION. 12. PREVIOUS COMMENT 16; GENERAL: A COPY OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SETS. 13. PREVIOUS COMMENT 17: WRITTEN RESPONSES WERE NOT PROVIDED FOR ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/24/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |
| 01/13/2014 | CPIERCE1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |