Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-REVISION/OTHER
Permit Number - T03CM01903
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-REVISION/OTHER
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/24/2003 | STANTEC | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review covers Architectural and Structural only for a foundation only permit, along with the plumbing and electrical underground work that will be covered over by this foundation work. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittal provided. All portions of the project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions and concerns before permit approval. The project was reviewed under the City of Tucson's local amendments to UBC Chapter 11. All accessibility requirements must be identified and detailed on the plans according to those rules and guidelines. GENERAL: q For this phase of the project we have 3 copies of the plans, 3 copies of the calculations, and 3 copies of the development plan. We need 1 additional set of all documents (plans, calculations, and development plan) for the resubmittal. We require 1 set for our records and the City of Tucson is requiring 3 sets which are to be distributed as follows: · 1 copy stays with the City for their records. · 1 copy is the permit set that the applicant receives and maintains in the field. · 1 copy goes to Pima County as part of the City's annexation agreement with the County. q For Phases V and VI, 3 sets of plans and calculation have been submitted. For Phase VII 3 sets of plans have been submitted. One (1) additional set of all documents (plans and calculations) will need to be submitted for these phases after we have completed our initial review (i.e. not at this time). However, I would like to mention that we do not have any development plans to submit to the City for any of these phases. We will need to receive for Phases V, VI, and VII a combined total of 9 copies of the development plan (i.e. 3 development plans for each Phase to go with the sets to the City). This comment does not need to be satisfied as a part of this review, but it will need to be satisfied in the near future. We have one set of the development plan that will suffice for our records. q Sheets have been included in this submittal which have previously been approved as part of the earlier "foundation only" permit. Do these sheets reflect in any way revisions to the design? If they do, then those revisions need to be clouded and a delta revision mark placed in the cloud. It is our intention to mark those sheets which have previously been approved as "for reference only" if the sheet has not been clearly revised. ARCHITECTURAL: q There are no architectural comments to be addressed. STRUCTURAL: q Page 9 of the structural calculations indicate that steel beam RB8 is to be a W21 x 44. However in the three locations this member is shown on Sheet S2.25 (based on the layout drawing in the structural calculation on Page 1) these steel beams are indicated as W16 x 31's. Please correct. q Page 10 of the structural calculations indicate that steel beam RB9 is to be a W27 x 84. However this member is shown on Sheet S2.25 (based on the layout drawing in the structural calculation on Page 1) as a W24 x 84. Please correct. q The beam sizes are missing along Grid "JJ" between Grids "25" and "27". Please provide. q Page 17 of the structural calculations indicate that steel beam RB16 is to be a W24 x 62. However this member is shown on Sheet S2.25 (based on the layout drawing in the structural calculation on Page 1) in two locations differently. At Grid "QQ" between Grids "27" and "28" this member is shown as a W24 x 55. At Grid "JJ" between Grids "27" and "28" this member is shown as a W18 x 35. Please correct. q Page 22 of the structural calculations indicate that steel beam RB21 is to be a W24 x 76. However this member is shown on Sheet S2.25 (based on the layout drawing in the structural calculation on Page 1) as a W21 x 44. Please correct. It appears that the span has been decreased from the calculated with the difference being made up by a braced frame which is not shown on the layout drawing in the calculations. q Where is the calculation for the low beam at Grid "UU" between Grids 25.1 and 27.3? This beam does not appear on the layout drawing in the calculations (Page 1). Please provide. q The beam size is missing along Grid "27.5" between Grids "XX" and "YY". Please provide. q Sheets S3.04, S3.05, and S3.06 have several detail keys that are incorrect. Check the following: · Detail 10 on Sheet S3.04 (should be Sheet S3.07?). · Detail 3 on Sheet S2.07 (should be Sheet S3.07 as well?). -End of Review- |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/24/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |