Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Permit Number - T14CM01996
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/13/2014 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. PREVIOUS COMMENT 22; GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS (1 THROUGH 22). IT DOES NOT APPEAR COMMENT 12 WAS REVISED, AND IT IS UNCLEAR IF COMMENT 21 WAS ADDRESSED. |
| 06/18/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/18/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Section 608.16.10, IPC 2012 at a minimum requires the use of a backflow preventer that complies with ASSE 1022 or an air gap to protect the water distribution system from backflow at beverage dispensers. The note, "ASSE listed, ¼" stainless steel double check vacuum breaker…" does not comply with the intent of Section 608.16.10, IPC 2012. [Initial comment: The specified backflow prevention device, Watts model 9BD, is not listed for ASSE 1022 as required for coffee machines or non-carbonated beverage dispensers. Reference: Section 608.16.10, IPC 2012.] 2. Information provided by the revised civil drawings indicates that the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2525.85') is higher than the first floor elevation (2521.50'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 06/18/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide the COMcheck mechanical compliance report. [Initial comment: The 2012 International Energy Compliance Code is the relevant energy code for this project. Revise the COMcheck mechanical compliance report shown on sheet M0.0 to reflect the correct code. Submit the report on 8.5" x 11" paper for legibility. Note that the mechanical design has been selected by the Architect as the method to be used to comply with the "Additional Efficiency Package Requirements" (C406, IECC 2012).] 2. Revise the cooling load calculations using the summer design conditions specified in Table C302.1, IECC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. [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.] 3. Comment not resolved; shop drawing (M5.5) still displays three separate choices for a 16" diameter factory-built, double-walled grease duct and it notes that: "Duct run shown is for an example purposes only. See mechanical plans for additional information." Indicate the type and size of grease duct that will be employed. [Initial comment: Clarify the size and type of exhaust duct for the hood served by EF-1. On sheet M1.0 it is a rectangular 24" x 24" grease duct with a field-applied grease duct enclosure but the shop drawing (M5.5) displays three separate choices for a 16" diameter factory-built, double-walled grease duct. Indicate the type and size of grease duct that will be employed. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.] |
| 06/26/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |