Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Permit Number - T03CM03060
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/13/2003 | STANTEC | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this review covers Architectural, Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical. 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. GENERAL: q The electrical drawings submitted are blueline drawings. This is acceptable, however the copies we received are very light and lack contrast and are therefore very difficult to read. Please provide a clearer set of electrical drawings. q On Sheet C1.1 there is a footing detail for a light pole (Detail 21). The detail does not specify the pole height. On Sheet E0.1, Note #2 under the luminaire schedule has an "XX" where the height of the pole should be. Detail 2 on Sheet E1.0 shows the pole height and indicates that the footing should be designed for 100 m.p.h. wind and local soil conditions. Has Detail 21 on Sheet C1.1 been designed for the pole to be supplied? Provide calculations for this footing design to clarify. ARCHITECTURAL: q The area calculations on Sheet G0.1 contain an error. The minimum width of the public way (the value "W") cannot exceed 30 by code [2000 IBC Sec. 506.2.1]. The allowable area (Aa) is 28,500 s.f. and not the 29,025 s.f. indicated on the plans. The actual building is still with the allowable area with increases so there is no impact, however the area calculation needs to be changed to accurately reflect the situation. q On Sheet A2.1, there is a critical clearance dimension at Door 170B that is not legible [ANSI A117.1-1998 Fig 404.2.4.1(b)]. Please clarify. Also the door number is difficult to read. q Door 111B requires clearance at the lobby side adjacent to the strike of 18" [ANSI A117.1-1998 Fig 404.2.4.1(a)]. q At Detail 10 on Sheet A4.3, what is the size of the over flow opening in the scupper? Please provide a dimension. Does the bottom of this opening start at 2" from the invert of the downspout? Also, is the downspout 6" x 6" or 6" x 4"? Please clarify. q What is the height of the guard shown in Detail 22 on Sheet A3.1 [2000 IBC Sec. 1003.2.12.1]? Please clarify. The dimension string appears to be off the sheet. STRUCTURAL: q Provide City of Tucson Special Inspection Certificates for the following: · Engineered Fill (depending on how the "top of footing" issue is addressed). · Field Welding q Provide a note on the plans to indicate that the manufacturer's calculations and data for pre-fabricated steel trusses shall be submitted as a deferred submittal. Further, truss calculations must be signed, dated and wet-sealed by an engineer who is registered in Arizona. A layout drawing shall also be provided with the truss drawing submittal. And last, the Engineer of Record shall review and provide a "shop drawing" stamp noting acceptance of the submittal. q Check the footing depths specified. The "top of footing" elevations are specified on the foundation plan on Sheet S2.0. The structural calculations are based on a soil bearing capacity of 2,500 p.s.f. The geotechnical report on Page 4 indicates that that footings must be 2.5 feet deep for footings on native material or 2.0 feet deep for footings on engineered fill to provide 2,500 p.s.f. capacity. Some of the footings fall short of these required depths based on the "top of footing" elevations specified (e.g. the base of interior column footing "F" at grid D4 is 1.5 feet below the finished floor). Please coordinate. If depths are specified to be less than 2.5 feet, then engineered fill needs to be noted as a requirement on the plans and footings then need to be minimally 2.0 feet deep. q Some of the details on Sheet S3.0 also need to be modified in light of the previous comment. Details 2, 3, and 5 all tie the top of the footing to grade, making the bottom of footing less than 2.0 feet below grade or top of slab as specified in the geotechnical report for engineered fill and 2.5 feet for native material. q The footing at Grid "F6" as shown on Sheet S2.0 is noted as a 3'-0" square footing (Footing "D"). The calculations indicate that this footing is to be a 3'-6" square footing. Please coordinate. q The roof framing key plan on Page 2 of the structural calculations indicates a wall brace along Grid Line "6" between Grid Lines "C" and "D". However this brace does not show on the plans. Please clarify. It appears that the kick braces along Grid Line "A" at either end replaced the typical perimeter brace shown on the roof key plan in this instance (and there are calculations for these kick braces). MECHANICAL: q Provide calculations to justify that the minimum outside air requirement is being met [2000 IMC Table 403.3]. Outside air has been specified on Sheet M1.0 in the roof top unit schedule table, however what requirement has been assumed by the engineer through the table in the IMC? PLUMBING: q There is a note on Sheet P1.0 that references the 1997 UPC. Please correct the reference to the 1994 UPC as amended by the State of Arizona. q The main gas line shown on Sheet P2.0 between RTU-9 and the branch to RTU-10 needs to be 2" diameter (344 c.f.h. being served at a developmental length under 300 feet)[1994 UPC Table 12-3]. It is shown as 1½" diameter. q Provide water pipe sizes at each bathroom group location (i.e. a "water header" detail?). The pipe size notations elsewhere in the plans are adequate. ELECTRICAL: q Means of egress illumination needs to be provided in Classrooms 174 and 178, because these spaces are designed to be flexibly combined into a room which requires more than 1 exit [2000 IBC Sec. 1003.2.11.2, Item 1]. q Sheet E2.4 has a general note that indicates to connect all roof top receptacles to Circuit 42 on Panel "PM". According to Panel Schedule "PM" on Sheet E0.4 this circuit is one leg of the 3-pole 30-amp breaker that serves Condenser Unit CU-1. The wires for these receptacles are #12's and the receptacles are rated for 20 amps only. Please correct. q The NEC Article references on Detail D on Sheet E0.4 are incorrect (NEC 250-81 and NEC 250-83). The correct references should be the 1999 NEC Art. 250-50 and 250-52 respectfully. Please update the references. Also, where in the plans is a reference to compliance with Art. 250-104 (b)? -End of Review- |
| 08/14/2003 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/15/2003 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/15/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/15/2003 | EROSE1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/15/2003 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/14/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |