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 - TI ALL
Permit Number - T14CM06131
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/03/2014 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 4; SHEET A0.2; HARDSCAPE DEMOLITION KEYNOTES: NOTE 64 WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE PLAN. VERIFY. 2. PREVIOUS COMMENT 10; SHEET A0.4; SECTION 04: THE SECTION CUT AT THE WALL OPENING ON THE RIGHT REFERENCES 18/A0.4. REVISE THE SECTION REFERENCE. 3. SHEET A3.0; SECTION D: THERE ARE TWO SECTION D'S ON THIS SHEET. REVISE. 4. SHEET A3.0; SECTION D (LEFT): THE DETAIL AT THE TOP OF THE WALL REFERENCES 18/A4.2. REVISE THAT DETAIL REFERENCE. 5. PREVIOUS COMMENT 47: THE SOIL REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2014 (AS REFERENCED IN THE GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES) WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR REVIEW AS REQUESTED. AN ADDENDUM 1 FROM SPEEDIE AND ASSOCIATES (DATED AUGUST 8, 2014) WAS SUBMITTED. THIS ADDENDUM ADDRESSES ONLY RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 6. PREVIOUS COMMENT 52; SHEET S3.1; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE PLAN NOTE 13 IN QUESTION IS NOT THE NOTE ALONG THE DRAG STRUT BETWEEN GRIDS A AND B AND NORTH OF GRID 3, BUT RATHER THE NOTE NORTH OF GRID 2 AND EAST OF GRID 3 (INDICATED IN THE EXISTING BUILDING). IS THAT NOTE 13 CORRECT AT THAT LOCATION? 7. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 11/06/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 11/07/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide NFRC fenestration product ratings for the U-factor and the SHGC values on COMcheck or use the appropriate default U-factor and SHGC values from Tables C303.1.3 (1) and C303.1.3.(2), IECC 2012. Reference: Section C303.1.3, IEC 2012. [Initial comment: 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, C401.2, and C406.1, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] 2. Coordinate the mechanical systems used in the COMcheck analysis with the HVAC units scheduled on sheet M1. Verify the cooling capacity and air flow data for RTU-7 is correct. [Initial comment: Show that the mechanical systems for the building comply with the current energy code (e.g. provide the COMcheck Mechanical Compliance Certificate). Reference: Sections C103.2 and C403.1, IECC 2012.] 3. Explain how the cooling loads shown on sheet M1 justify the unit selections for RTU-5, RTU-6, and RTU-8; the loads seem much smaller than the unit capacities. RTU-7 seems to have a cooling load that exceeds the capacity of the unit. The temperatures used for the cooling load calculations are unusual for Tucson; see SectionC302.2, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson for the exterior design conditions. [Initial comment: Provide heating and cooling load calculations that justify the capacities of the heating and cooling equipment specified for the project. Reference: Sections C403.2.1 and C403.2.2, IECC 2012.] 4. Exhaust fan EF-3 is now scheduled for 400 CFM but on the plans, it is also shown to exhaust 50 CFM from the janitor's room. [Initial comment: Clarify the balancing data for EF-3. The mechanical floor plan shows 200 CFM of exhaust for each restroom but the exhaust fan is scheduled for only 300 CFM. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] 5. Clarify the ventilation for the janitor's room. The room now shows 200 CFM of supply but has no return. It also shows 50 CFM of exhaust on the plans but EF-3 does not include the 50 CFM in the fan schedule. [Initial comment: The janitor's room appears to be occupiable and contains an indirect waste receptor (the service sink, see Section 802.3, IPC 2012). Explain why the room has no ventilation. Reference: Section 401.1, IMC 2012.] 6. Sheets M1 and E1.1 now both show that EF-3 is controlled by occupancy sensors for the two restrooms and the janitor's room. The restrooms are each continuously supplied with 150 CFM during operating hours which means that the exhaust fan must operate on the same schedule so that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2012. [Initial comment: Clarify the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fan, EF-3. On sheet M1 it is scheduled both as being controlled by a wall switch and with being interlocked with the restroom lights. On sheet E1.1, keynote 30 and detail 03/E1.1 indicate that EF-3 is controlled by occupancy sensors for the two restrooms and the janitor's room (note that the janitor's room is not served by EF-3). The restrooms are each continuously supplied with 150 CFM during operating hours which means that the exhaust fan must operate on the same schedule so that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2012.] 7. The fan schedule on M1 no longer indicates how EF-1 is to be controlled; the fan is scheduled for 200 CFM but the drawing shows 250 CFM of exhaust; and the men's fitting room and both ADA fitting rooms have no exhaust. [Initial comment: Clarify the sequence of operation for exhaust fans EF-1 and EF-5. Both provide exhaust for dressing rooms but EF-1 is "on with lights" and EF-5 is controlled by a wall switch. Coordinate with the electrical power plan. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] |
| 11/19/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/25/2014 | KEN VAN KARSEN | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |