Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T09CM01636
Parcel: 10706027E

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL

Permit Number - T09CM01636
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/01/2010 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
03/01/2010 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
03/01/2010 RONALD BROWN BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
03/01/2010 BETH GRANT COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Passed
03/01/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
03/03/2010 SREEVES1 WWM REVIEW Denied need to show site plan with location & method of connection to public sewer as part of project submittal- Chad Amateau-
740-6547
need PCRWRD capacity- Kurt Stemm- 740-6607
need demo drawings showing all plumbing fixtures removed for credit if applicable- need 5th floor waste water credit evaluation for demo 740-6602 or 740-6606
03/05/2010 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
03/08/2010 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not resolved. Show how the remote chillers are being supported (I could not find any detail showing the support platform on the architectural drawings). Reference: Sections 302.1, 306.3, and 306.3.1, IMC 2006.
2. Comment not resolved. The plumbing drawings do not indicate the presence of a secondary condensate drain for any of the fan coil units. Show the size, route, and termination of the overflow drains or show how the requirements of Section 307.2.3 are being met. Reference: Sections 106.3.1 and 307.2.3 IMC 2006.
03/08/2010 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Approved
03/10/2010 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Comment not resolved. The Code specifically requires a drain for emergency eyewashes and emergency showers. Fixtures P9 and P9B are currently specified as having associated eyewashes that will drain to sanitary waste; apparently with no concerns regarding chemical contamination. Considering that an emergency shower delivers at least 20 GPM and is supposed to operate for a minimum of 15 minutes, the expressed concern over chemical contamination from the shower seems to be rather dilute. Consider also that mopping up at least 300 gallons on water in a laboratory filled with fixed furniture and equipment could be daunting. You should have a direct connection for the emergency eyewashes on the combination units (P14) and a nearby floor drain for the emergency shower on P14. Provide a connection to the drainage system of the building for the emergency eyewashes or showers. Reference: Section 304.0, UPC 2006. (Note: correct the fixture connection sizes for P14, as shown on the plumbing fixture schedule, sheet P6-8.)
2. Comment not resolved. The RPBP shown on the civil plans protects the municipal water system from the building. Provide backflow protection between the domestic water system and process water treatment systems, equipment, and to appliances that do not have listed integral backflow preventers or integral air gaps. Clearly indicate on the drawings to which pipes the appropriate identification labels shall be applied. Reference: Section 602.0, UPC 2006.
3. Comment not resolved. The island venting design shown in detail 220 does not comply with the requirements of Section 909.0, UPC 2006 for the drainage fittings used and the presence of an additional fixture upstream of the return vent.
4. Comment not resolved. How will the oil/water separator, S/O-1 (sand/oil separator in detail 232) will function properly when the inlet is subjected to a 12 FPS jet of water enters the settling basin of the separator? Show that the unit is capable of handling the required flow rate. Reference: sections 1016.3 and 1017.1, UPC 2006.
5. Comment not resolved. The oil/water separator, S/O-2, is now a holding tank, H/T-1 (sheet PL-ULE). How will the holding tank be maintained (i.e. pumped or drained) and how will the occupants of the building be notified that the tank is full?
6. Comment not resolved; the calculations erroneously assume a point load for the ponded water, not an area load and the calculations do not indicate if the water weight has been included. If the plumbing detail 228/P6-5 is retained and the architectural detail 21/A8.10 is deleted, the issue disappears. The height of the overflow weirs for the roof drainage is set at 3.5" above the low point of the roof. Provide structural calculations that verify that the roof can support the weight of water that will accumulate if the primary roof drain is blocked. Reference: Section 1101.11.2, UPC 2006 and Section 1611.1, IBC 2006.
7. Comment not resolved. The noted table in the IFGC (Table 402.4 (2)) is for gas supplies <2 PSI with a pressure drop of 0.5" WG, not 2 PSI with a pressure drop of 1" WG. Clarify the design basis for the medium pressure gas piping. The pipe sizes appear to be based on 2PSI gas with a pressure drop of 1 PSI, not 0.5 PSI. Reference: Table 402.4 (3), IFGC 2006.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/25/2010 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/25/2010 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed