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: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-REVISION/OTHER
Permit Number - T03CM00557
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-REVISION/OTHER
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/02/2003 | WILDAN | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This project has been reviewed for conformance with the 2000 IBC, 1997 UAC, 2000 IMC, 1998 IECC, 1999 NEC codes with local modifications and the 1994 UPC with State of Arizona amendments. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan. 1. The original submittal documents did not delineate the work with the clarity as now presented. The work now is presented as being On-Site and Off-Site. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: 1. Engineering calculations and construction drawings have not been presented for the design of the proposed screen walls shown on the Detailed Site Wall Grades Plan. Please review and clarify. Reference IBC 106.1.1. 2. The minimum setback distance as shown on the structural wall construction drawings is not coordinated with the grade contours shown on the site plan depicting the location of the walls. Please review and correct. Reference IBC 106.1.1. 3. The length of screen walls by screen wall height is required to be reported per City of Tucson permit procedure. Please coordinate and provide. Reference IBC 106.1.1. 4. The AASHTO design truck criteria has not been identified in the calculations or on the drawing. Please clarify the full roadway design criteria, especially the full depth of fill materials and maximum design roadway loading possible on the underpass have been appropriately analyzed. Reference IBC 1604.4. 5. Some screen walls are noted to by Target. It is therefore evident that the Target screen walls are either a deferred design submittal under the current permit or perhaps the Target screen walls are to be provided under a separate permit. Please clarify intent and note that on the drawings. Deferred design submittals require a letter requesting the building official to authorize that. Reference IBC 106. 6. For the retaining wall designs that abut drainage basins, please identify on the drawings the maximum depth of water per the storm water calculations, and coordinate that with the design structural design calculations for the retaining walls. Reference IBC 1604.4. 7. The retaining wall soil design criteria and backfill shall be identified on the construction drawings. Reference IBC 1604.4. 8. The seismic design criteria (Sds & Sd1) and seismic design category has not been identified in the calculations or on the construction drawings. Please provide using the seismic design parameters computer disc that is provided with each 2000 IBC. Reference IBC 1603, 1605, and 1606. 9. The special inspections are not denoted on the drawings in accordance with the requirements of IBC 1704. To avoid confusion, please identify the appropriate special inspections required per the appropriate IBC code section. Provisions for reinforcement are covered within the respective concrete and masonry requirements for special inspections. Concrete IBC Table 1704.4, Structural Masonry IBC Table 1704.5.1, Level I. 10. Special inspections for soils are required including confirmation of allowable soil bearing pressures as applicable with Soils Report Addendum #4. Please review and identify on the drawings. Reference IBC 1704.7. 11. Please identify maximum grout pour height. Reference ACI 530.1, Section 3.5C. 12. Soils Report Addendum #4 and other soils report addendums to the soils report are not identified on the construction drawings. Please identify all soils report addenda on the construction drawings and provide two copies of all addenda. Reference IBC 106. 13. Only one copy of the soils report has been submitted. Two copies are required per City of Tucson procedure. Please provide. Reference IBC 106. 14. The lapping of reinforcement for masonry construction is not the same as that for concrete construction. Please review and provide masonry reinforcing laps that are in compliance. Reference IBC 21. 15. The weight of masonry shown on the calculations is declared as medium weight. However, the masonry walls are not grouted for the full height of the wall. Further, the construction drawings call for lightweight masonry. Please review and coordinate these discrepancies. The sliding safety factor must be maintained at not less that 1.5 considering the true weight of installed construction materials and full magnitude of imposed loads. Reference IBC 1604.4. 16. A lighting plan is not shown for the extent of ceiling recessed fixtures proposed within the reinforced concrete underpass. Please review and clarify. Reference IBC 106.1.1. 17. The new soils report addendum #4 does not address the specification for the installation of the backfill against retaining wall structures. However, compaction of backfill utilizing mechanized methods can impose high lateral loads upon retaining walls that exceed at rest pressures. Please review and clarify limitation for use of mechanized compaction equipment in the vicinity of retaining wall structures. Coordinate with structural engineer. Reference IBC 1604.4. 18. The revised structural calculations include wind for the height of the wall above the high grade. However, the full extent of design wind on the proposed retaining walls includes the wind pressure above the high grade and wind suction for the full height of the wall from the low grade without any reduction for shielding. Please review and correct. Reference IBC 1609. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/02/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |