Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Permit Number - TC-COM-0523-01415
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/14/2024 | Site Zoning | APPROVED | |||
| 05/13/2024 | Water - PDSD | APPROVED | |||
| 05/14/2024 | Bldg Permits - Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 05/10/2024 | External Reviewers - SAFEBuilt | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Structural(S) Reviewer Madeline Nelson mnelson@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 5/6/2024 8:43:45 PM 1. GENERAL - UPDATES: For project updates, please submit sheets with all changes clearly marked in revision clouds. Please provide a written response to each comment; updates without a clear response to all comments may not be reviewed. If you have any questions regarding the comments, you may contact me directly. Updates may result in additional comments. 2. GENERAL - COORDINATION REQUIRED: Architectural Roof Plan, A1.4, and Mechanical Roof Plan, M1.1, are not coordinated with the Structural Roof Framing Plan, S3.0. The Architectural and Mechanical Plans do not show a second mechanical platform east of Gridline 2, and the mechanical schedules have been modified to remove mechanical unit "DOAS-2". Please revise the structural drawings to reflect the latest architectural plans and edit the structural calculations to remove sheets that are not relevant to the final project scope. 3. S1.0 - SEISMIC DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS: The seismic ground accelerations listed on structural general notes, Sheet S1.0, do not match the minimum values required by ASCE 7-16 for a Risk Category II building on Soil Site Class D. According to the online ASCE Hazard Tool, this project falls under Seismic Design Category C. Please revise the general notes and update the structural calculation package to verify the chosen design for the increased loads. Refer to the ASCE Online Hazard Tool for more information: https://ascehazardtool.org/ 4. S1.0 - SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM: The Seismic-Force Resisting System (SFRS) listed on the structural general notes ("Ordinary Steel Cantilevered Columns") does not match the structural calculations. The calculations show the mechanical platforms and oil tank are supported by steel moment frames in both directions, with columns pinned at the foundation rather than fixed. This system has a redundancy factor that does not match the general notes or the calculations. Please revise the general notes and update the structural calculation package to verify the chosen design for the correct loads. 5. S2.0 - OIL TANK SUPPORT: The reviewer was unable to find relevant design information in the plumbing or mechanical drawings to verify the maximum weight of the oil tank supported between Gridlines 2 & 3. Please indicate where this information can be located. Depending on the results, additional calculations may be requested to show that the existing slab is capable of supporting the proposed tank without modifications to the foundation. 6. S3.0 - TRELLIS SUPPORT: The Roof Framing Plan shows an open trellis suspended below the existing roof framing at approximately Gridlines A / 2-3. Detail callouts on both the north and south end of the trellis shows the HSS framing shall be supported by a proposed 2x6 wood wall. [See Detail 240 for more information.] However, the Foundation Plan, S2.0, does not show a wall to support the trellis on the north side. Please confirm how the trellis is being supported away from Gridline A. 7. S4.0 - FOUNDATION DETAILS: Typical foundation Details 107 and 108 call for 12" minimum embedment of proposed grade beams into existing grade. This conflicts with the general notes, Sheet S1.0, Section F: "Foundations", which specifies an 18" minimum embedment. Please confirm which note controls and revise. 8. S4.0 - CONFIRM DESIGN: Please confirm that no modification to the existing foundation is required to support the steel stair stringers leading up to the mechanical platform (Detail 113). Where a similar condition occurs at Gridline 1/B, Detail 112 is called out on the Foundation Plan. This detail calls for a thickened concrete element to support the stringer, despite the run of these stairs being significantly shorter. Calculations may be requested to confirm the existing slab is sufficient to support the point load shown in Detail 113. 9. S5.2 - ROOF FRAMING DETAILS: Typical Roof Framing Details 230 and 235 are called out on the Roof Framing Plan, S3.0, along Gridline A. According to Framing Plan Note 9, south of Gridline A, the roof shall be sheathed with 2x tongue and groove decking. This decking does not appear in either detail. Please revise the details to show the decking installed as intended. 10. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS - STEEL YIELD STRENGTH: In the structural calculations, Page 31 of 128, Platform Beam "PB2" (called out as Beam "B7" on the Roof Framing Plan) has been designed using a steel yield strength of 50.0 ksi. Per the structural general notes, a beam of this size (C8x11.5) shall be constructed of A36 steel, with a yield strength of 36.0 ksi. Please revise the calculations showing that the beam strength is sufficient using the weaker yield strength. 11. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS - CONFIRM DESIGN: Pages 49 through 55 of the structural calculation package describe Moment Frame "MF2" below the main mechanical platform. Due to this frame being perpendicular to adjacent Moment Frame "MF1", the columns in Moment Frame "MF2" are loaded in the weak direction. Reviewer was unable to find any indication on the submitted calculations that the columns are oriented in the weak direction. Please indicate where this information is shown to verify the design. 12. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS - OIL TANK SUPPORT: Page 61 of the structural calculations indicates that the lateral force that controls design of the oil tank is wind rather than seismic. However, the 2-D Frame analysis on Pages 62 and 67 do not show any wind forces being applied. Please confirm the design of lateral support of the oil tank for the controlling load case. [Note that when seismic forces are recalculated per Comment 3, the controlling load case may change.] 13. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS - BEAM SIZE NOT FOUND: Some beam calculations submitted with the structural calculations package could not be verified because the selected beam size does not appear in the structural drawings. Please review the calculations on Pages 83, 87 and 93 and confirm where these calculations are meant to apply. 14. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS - GENERAL: Pages marked "VOID" in the calculation package were not reviewed. For the resubmittal, please remove all sheets that are not relevant to the final project scope, including any calculations referring to items that have not been coordinated. See Comment #2. Building(B) Reviewer Andrew Bevis abevis@safebuilt.com Approved Reason: Date Completed : 5/1/2024 1:57:22 PM Mechanical(M) Reviewer Jorge Valido jvalido@safebuilt.com Approved Reason: Date Completed : 5/2/2024 12:42:05 PM Electrical(E) Reviewer Ron Ross rross@safebuilt.com Approved with Comments Reason: Date Completed : 5/1/2024 4:58:41 PM Comment only for E3 ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAM. Revised Transformer T1 size of 175 KVA is not a standard transformer size and will likely require a special order and longer lead time. It is also not listed in the transformer grounding detail. Plumbing(P) Reviewer Perry Hendershott phendershott@safebuilt.com Denied Reason: Date Completed : 5/5/2024 10:33:55 PM Plumbing Plan Revision Review #1: 1). Plan page P0.1: The added #51A Chemical Dispenser needs an ASSE 1055 Backflow device. Update the plan page with a backflow device in accordance with -2018 IPC 608.14.8 |
||
| 05/09/2024 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/29/2024 | PDSD Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED |