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 - T14CM03541
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/16/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/16/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Based on a total developed length of 188 feet, the 200-foot column of Table 402.4 (2) must be used for the main pipe run. At a total load of 752 CFH, a 2" pipe is required. Similarly, the pipe serving both existing rooftop units (180 CFH) needs to be 1-1/4" and the main pipe section between the water heater and the kitchen appliances (553 CFH) is to be 2". [Original comment: Correct the gas pipe sizing calculations, demonstrating conformance to Section 402.1 and 402.3, IFGC 2012.] 2. One room with two water closet compartments does not equal separate facilities. [Original comment: Section 2902.2, IBC 2012 requires that separate toilet facilities be provided for each sex in occupancies with 15 or more occupants. In addition, for public toilet facilities, the required lavatory shall be located in the same room as the water closet. Revise the design of the toilet facilities. Reference: Section 405.3.2, IPC 2012.] 3. A Watts model LF909 (the 909 is an obsolete product) is a reduced pressure zone assembly (ASSE 1013), not a double check valve assembly (ASSE 1015) and the pressure drop is typically over 10 PSI. [Original comment: Verify the pressure drop due to the reduced pressure backflow preventer and revise the water pressure calculations as required. Reference: Section 604.1, IPC 2012.] 4. A Watts LF909 is certainly adequate for the misting system but the IPC requires the use of a device that conforms to ASSE 1022 for beverage dispensers. [Original comment: The direct-connection of water to an appliance (e.g. beverage dispenser, coffee brewer, tea brewer, misting system, etc.) shall be protected against backflow. Specify the device to be used for the appliance connection. Reference: Sections 608.1 through 608.16, IPC 2012.] 5. Provide a record copy of the letter from the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department allowing the six fixtures to be connected to a hydromechanical grease interceptor. [Original comment: The drawings indicate that six fixtures (4 floor sinks, 1 hand sink, and 1 mop sink) are connected to the hydromechanical grease interceptor. Verify that the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department will allow this. Reference: Section 1003.3, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.] 6. Provide a detail showing how the external flow control device is to be accessed. [Original comment: Show how the external flow control device for the hydromechanical grease separator is to be installed below the floor level and accessible in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Reference: Section 1003.4.2, IPC 2012.] 7. Verify that the vent will not be run horizontally unless it is at least 6" above the flood rim of the grease interceptor (i.e. floor level). Reference: Section 905.4, IPC 2012. [Original comment: Provide a vent downstream of the hydromechanical grease separator to protect the seal for the grease separator. Reference: Section 1003.9, IPC 2012.] |
| 07/16/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The letter from the structural engineer included specific directions for the installation of the hood; provide a detail on the drawing that shows how to install the hood supports. [Original comment: Provide structural calculations and details to show that the Type I hood is supported from the building structure in accordance with Section 507.6, IMC 2012 (the hood hanging weight plus the weight of personnel working in or on the hood). Reference: Section 302.1, IMC 2012.] 2. The wall behind the hood is not an issue but the structure above the hood is questionable. Detail 5/M3.0 displays an incorrect attempt to address the presence of combustibles above the hood. [Original comment: Show that the hood installation complies with Section 507.9, IMC 2012 for clearances. The installation of a 1-hour fire-rated assembly between combustible construction and a Type I hood does not reduce the separation requirement to 3".] |
| 07/17/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Resubmittal comments from architect indicate that all references to sprinkler systems have been removed form pp a.02. That is not the case. Do not clutter plans by providing useless code information about systems that are not being installed. (ref: IBC107.2.1) |
| 07/17/2014 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed |