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 - T12CM03255
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the roof insulation. It is shown as R-36 on sheet A2, R38 on sheet A-4, and on the energy calculations the roof has R-36 cavity insulation plus R-2 continuous insulation. The energy calculation shall be signed. [Second comment: The submitted calculations appear to be for a different building with completely different construction materials. The building location is not in the Town of Pima, which is in Graham County.] [Original comment: Provide energy code compliance calculations for the building envelope; use the climate zone for Pima County < 4,000 feet. 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 101.4 and 104.2, International Energy Conservation Code 2006.] 2. Comment not resolved; note 28 on sheet A2 calls for the ladder rungs to be 3" x ΒΌ". Show how this complies with the requirements of Section 306.5 (1) - minimum of 0.75" rungs capable of supporting 300 pounds. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; the architectural drawings show the location of a roof hatch but no ladder or hatch details are shown. In addition, a supply diffuser and a 10" flex duct are shown in the same space as the roof hatch.] [Original comment: Show that the design of the roof access complies with Section 306.5, IMC 2006.] 3. Comment not addressed; the corridors may not be used as part of the duct system. Reference: Section 601.2, IMC 2006. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; a transfer duct linking the office and the storage room does not provide a return air path.] [Original comment: Show how ventilation is being provided to the office and to the storage room with no return air path. Reference: section 403.3, IMC 2006.] 4. Comment not addressed. Correct the notes for the Kitchen Hood Schedule. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; restating the comment as part of the general notes on sheet M-2 but without an answer is not acceptable and the notes on sheet MP-1 have only fragments of sentences.] [Original comment: Provide sufficient information on the sealed drawings to clearly show that the proposed installation of a Type I grease hood exhaust system complies with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, and 508, IMC 2006.] |
| 08/06/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Specify the backflow devices to be used for the ice machine if it does not have an integral air gap. Specify the backflow devices for the tea maker and the coffer brewer. The water connection to a soda dispenser requires a reduced pressure backflow preventer per Section 608.16.1, IPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. [Second comment: Comment not resolved; specify the type of backflow preventer to be installed for each appliance.] [Original comment: Appliances (e.g. soda dispensers, ice makers, etc) to be directly connected to the water supply system that do not have listed, integral backflow preventers or integral air gaps conforming to Section 608.13.1, IPC require backflow prevention. Specify the type of backflow prevention device required for each water connection. Reference: Sections 608.1 and 608.3, IPC 2006.] |
| 08/14/2012 | CPIERCE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review |