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 - T15CM02190
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/21/2015 | RONALD BROWN | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS SHEETS S2.5, S2.5 AND S2.7 1. There is real confusion between the calculations and the structural drawnings concerning the sizes of the columns and foundation for the conveyer platforms in Buildings A, B and C. a. Reference to calculation sheets 61 revised and 68 revised for footing sizes that differ from the schedule sizes on the drawings. b. The typical platform column and foundation at the non-moment frame location calculate to be a 5' x 5' where as the drawings schedule shows a 6' x 6' foundation. c. The F4 reference on the key plans should be F4 on sheet 68. d. The F4 reference on the key plans should be to a 5 x 5 footing on the plan but they are scheduled on the drawings to be a 6 x 6. e. Please reconcile problems here. PANEL REINFORCING ELEVATIONS AND SCEHULES 2. In checking panel W1 (ppg 138) in the calcs to panel 1 on the schedule, no problems were encountered. a. However, when referencing panel 15 (also ppg 138) as directed by the calcs, the schedule did not match the reinforcing and fenestration requirements. 3. Going further to the next panel W2, the opening configuration is not the same as scheduled nor is the reinforcing the same as per the referenced panel 8 on the drawings (sht S4.6). a. The reference similar panel does not have similar fenestrations and the reinforcement differs. 4. Please review all the panels scheduled on the drawings and insure that all calculation references coinside. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/21/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Indicate which of the three options from footnote (d) of the Envelope Compliance Certificate has been selected for the specified roof construction. Clarify the location of the walls that have been furred-in. [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 and C401.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2012.] 2. Provide the supporting NFRC fenestration product ratings for the U-factor and the SHGC values for the proposed fenestration as described in footnote (b) of the Envelope Compliance Certificate. [Initial comment: Provide NFRC fenestration product ratings for the U-factor and the SHGC values for the energy code compliance calculations (e.g. COMcheck) or use the appropriate default U-factor and SHGC values from Tables C303.1.3 (1), C303.1.3 (2) and C303.1.3.(3), IECC 2012. Reference: Section C303.1.3, IECC 2012.] 3. Running the exhaust fans whenever the restroom is occupied (using an occupancy sensor) is not the same as exhausting the room whenever air is being supplied to the restroom. [Initial comment: Clarify the sequence of operation for the restroom exhaust fans, EF-6, EF-7, and EF-8, to verify that all of the air supplied to the restrooms will be exhausted. Reference: Section 403.2.1 (4), IMC 2012.] |
| 05/22/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. There are no tables in the IPC for determining the size of scuppers; they are rectangular weirs. [Initial comment: Provide roof drainage and hydraulic scupper size calculations based on a minimum rainfall rate of 3" per hour (the 100-year hourly rainfall rate for Tucson). Reference: Sections 1106.1, 1106.4, and 1108.3, IPC 2012.] 2. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Provide structural calculations to show that the proposed overflow scuppers are adequate to protect the roof from the rain load. Reference: Sections 1101, 1106 and 1108, IPC 2012, and Sections 1611.1 and 1611.3, IBC 2012.] 3. Comment not resolved. Provide the model number of the Kohler mixing valve that is listed to ASSE 1070. Provide information from the tankless water heater manufacturer that shows that the use of a temperature mixing valve complies with the manufacturer's listing requirements [Initial comment: Provide tempered water for the lavatories and public hand-washing sinks in restrooms using approved devices conforming to ASSE 1070. Verify that the use of a temperature mixing valve with a tankless water heater complies with the water heater manufacturer's listing requirements. Reference: Sections 303.2, 416.5 and 607.1.2, IPC 2012.] 4. Provide the civil RPBP specifications. [Initial comment: Provide listing information for the proposed reduced pressure backflow preventer that shows that the pressure drop for the assembly is only 8 PSI. Reference: Section 604.1, IPC 2012.] 5. Show the water and sewer services for the proposed modular guard house. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 05/27/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/27/2015 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please readdress the plan review comment #2c. "(c). Indicate all fuses, main circuit breakers sizes, types, GFI equipped where required, for all the service equipment". The 4000 amp main circuit breakers in service equipment 'MSA' and 'MSB' should be indicated as GFI protected. Ref: NEC art. 230.95. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2015 | AROMERO4 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 06/01/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/01/2015 | AROMERO4 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |