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 - TI ALL
Permit Number - T14CM07283
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TI ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/04/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/05/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/08/2014 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/11/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the size of the meter to accommodate the demand from the three buildings on site. [Initial comment: Provide calculations to show the appropriate meter size to serve the water demand for the plumbing fixtures served by this meter. Show the location of the meter and its associated backflow preventer on the site plan. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012 and 603.1, IPC 2012.] |
| 12/11/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Revise the plans based on a corrected water pressure calculation. [Initial comment: Coordinate the size of the water service pipe with the site plan. The site plan shows a 3/4" meter and reduced pressure backflow preventer that appears to serve all three buildings with a ½" water service pipe but the plumbing plan is based on a 1" meter, a 1-1/4" reduced pressure backflow preventer, and a 1-1/4" water service pipe to just this building. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012 and 603.1, IPC 2012. 2. Calculations not corrected. [Initial comment: Correct the arithmetic in the water pressure calculations and determine the required pipe sizes based on accepted engineering practices. Reference: Sections 604.1 and 604.3, IPC 2012.] |
| 12/11/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Clarify basis of the envelope compliance certificate; the design of the single office (plus one restroom?) does not correspond to the values shown in the COMcheck Envelope Assemblies section. There are two types of "exterior" walls: the metal building wall and the walls that are inside of the un-conditioned warehouse (the wall between the two suites can be ignored because there is no temperature difference from one side to the other). The drawings show no continuous insulation on the walls. The drawings show no projection over the window but a PF-value of 2.0 on COMcheck would correspond to a structure that extends at least 4-feet from the building. Provide NFRC certification of the U-value for the insulated metal door or use the default U-value of 0.60 for an insulated metal door. Reference: Section 303.1 and 303.1.3 and, C402.3.3, IECC 2012.] 2. Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Revise the mechanical compliance certificate to apply to just one suite.] |