It appears that the only item remaining is the approval of the relocation of the fire dept connection from the west end of the building to around to the north side of the building. The forward flow test has passed.

To be rescheduled per the alarm tech

Need the forward flush performed. I need verification that the relocation of the fire dept. connection is approved. Need caps on the fdc. Need to walk through all of the rooms to look for obstructions, light fixtures, prior to final

The attic system hydro test passed.

The hangers on the hallway mains have been corrected accept at a couple of locations where the screws could use acouple of more turns. Approximately 60 pendant heads have been installed on 401 canopies so that the light fixtures are no longer a problem. Also I found 3 sprinkler pendants that are located less than the required 8' apart and will need to be relocated. I asked the fitter to verify no others had been missed.

See the city approved plans for the items needing corrected. Mike Beerman also has a list. It includes hangers, overspaced heads and painted heads.

Inspection work done by B. Johnson, with following comments. Troy, Today I spent 3.0 hours on a rough to cover inspection of the Candlewood Suites project. (FIR07-00130) I inspected the second and third floors for code compliance.
The project had several issues not limited to the following.
1. Hangers spacing and listed use through out the corridor on both second and third floors.
2. Heads in the stairwell of both floors were piped from 1" and not 1.25" CPVC as indicated on the plans. The East second floor stairwell was also missing a heads as shown on the approved set of plans. I also noted that the heads were residential heads and were not listed for that application. They should have been FRB as the plans indicated.
3. The heads in the rooms other than the corridor were taped up on the second floor, I could not verify their type.
4. EQ-Bracing was missing on both floors, which was also shown on the plans.
5. The riser piping was installed with out the nominal 2" clearance as required. Flexible couplings at + 1'-0" and -1'-0" from the concrete slab floor were also missing.
6. I did not ask the contractor to open any ceilings up to verify hanger spacing. I was concerned that the ceilings were installed in rooms other than the residential.
Please note that I recorded and dated these notes on the site plans.
And that I can not approve the second and third floors as installed. A re-inspection is required.
Bryan Johnson, Johnson Consulting

tlk to lilly ###-#### that permit are ready to be picked up

Telcon from Tom at Hospitality Builders; faxed him copy of latest spk plan review; he agrees separating into 2 permits is not necessary at this point; discussed reason for 5-working day turnaround on latest resubmittal review.

Resubmitted plans reviewed by B. Johnson over the weekend with the following comments emailed to Shiloh 7/8/07:
Randy,
Please make yourself available on Monday morning for a phone conference, I would like to discuss our options based on the results of thye 7th plan review of the project. Please find listed below, a copy of the plan review comments that are currently holding this project up.
07/07/07 Revised Scope of Work: As-Built
FP1 through FP5 & calculations have been submitted for approval.

1. FP-1 The plans do not indicate the water line size at the street. The water flow information notes that it is of a 8" circulating loop.

2. FP-2 The calculation cover sheet for area 4 incorrectly list the area per head as 224-ft/2. The correct area is 126- ft/2 as listed on the design data placard.

3. FP-2 The riser detail does not include a quick opening device as required. To be field verified.

4. FP-2 The expansion chamber shall be sized per the calc cover sheet for 2.11 gal. capacity and not as indicated on the sizing placard for 3.17 gal.

5. FP-2 The riser detail does not indicate the pipe size if the riser mains. The calculation indicates the correct size to be 3" for the 1st, 2nd & 3rd floors, and 6" for the Dry System attic riser.

6. FP-2 The wall layout is not legible. Please resubmit corrected plans.

7. FP-2 The plans do not indicate were the pipe type transition from steel to CPVC. The calculations note the transition to be at node C5. To be field verified.

8. FP-2 The dry system pipe volume is listed in the attic notes to be 537 gal. of volume. The correct system volume per the calculation summary is noted to be 712 gal. A quick opening device shall be installed as required. Please revise the as-built drawing.

9. FP-3 The wall layout is not legible. Please resubmit corrected plans.

10. FP-3 System 1 area 5 as noted in the calculation has been calculated to .10 density flowing 2 heads @ 224-ft/2 per head and not as indicated .05 at col. H & 18.

11. FP-4 The wall layout is not legible. Please resubmit corrected plans.

12. FP-4 The noted 3rd floor sprinkler spacing placard notes the spacing to be 192-ft/2 per head in the Suites, the heads have been calculated to 196-ft/2 per head.

13. FP-4 The pipe size from A6 through D1 is not noted on this sheet. The calculations indicate that the correct size is 3" thin wall.

14. FP-5 The dry system pipe volume is listed in the attic notes to be 537 gal. of volume. The correct system volume per the calculation summary is noted to be 712 gal. A quick opening device shall be installed as required. Please revise the as-built drawing.

Bryan Johnson
Johnson Consulting
###-####

Left message with Randy Knutson, of Shiloh Fire Protection, requesting a set of plans for Candlewood suites wet system for fire sprinkler plan reviewer to review and approve under new FIR permit number. This will enable the field inspector to inspect the wet system in the building and allow for the GC to cover inspected areas while the attic system is being redesigned and reviewed under the current FIR permit number.

6/28/2007 11:54:55 MWT - activity updated through activity FIRA22 from case FIR07-00565.

emailed Shiloh: "Randy, I spoke with Clarence and Sam yesterday regarding the missing data, the plans were not accurately drawn according to Clarence. The remote area information on the plans did not even match the calculation that your office failed to provide. Clarence was given an opportunity to fax a copy of the calculations over to my office for review, the fact is that the review comments would not have even matched the plans that were submitted. In this case it appears that the plans and omitted calculations do not correspond."

Need approved plan resubmittals prior to approval for cover at the attic dry system.

received 5 copies of application, Plan Review Followup, Water Flow Info, Hydraulic Calcs, Seismic Bracing Calcs, Dry System Voume Table, Anti-Freeze Volume Table, Product Data, Shop Drawing pages FP1, FP2, FP3, FP4, and four copies of page FP5 (ok per Scott A. to accept)

There are many errors including unattached hangers and inadequate tenting. Pipe sizing does not match the plans. The piping in the central first floor area does not match the plans, a loop has been installed. The anti-freeze loop shows two heads but four are actually installed and this is a remote area. Also the anti-freeze loop piping is smaller than what is shown. The revise attic piping plan was not available for inspection of the attic piping.

I started the inspection on the first floor and found the first piece of pipe I looked at was the wrong size. We went to the attic system and found that what was marked on the newest drawings as as-built was not actually installed that why. This includes heads in the remote area and in the dormers. Basically no inspection was done. I spoke to Mike Beerman and he said he would get things taken care of and the inspection called back in.

Revised plans & calculation are approved 5/7/07 by bryan Johnson

tlk to lillie ###-#### that permit and fees are ready to be picked up