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-COMMERCIAL
Permit Number - T03CM03753
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/18/2003 | 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 Detail 7 on Sheet SP-4, Detail 2 on Sheet E9.0, and Detail 110 on Sheet S3.1 all address the same concrete light pole footing. Please coordinate these details. The amount of steel and steel clearance differs between the details. Also, provide a calculation to justify the design of this footing. q Detail 11 on Sheet SP-3 is for a site retaining wall. What is the maximum grade differential? No dimension has been provided. The structural calculations performed by the engineer for the building calculate for a 6'-0" tall site wall with a grade differential of only 1'-0". Please clarify. ARCHITECTURAL: q On Sheet CVR-1, the Applicable Codes and Regulations section references the CABO ANSI A117.1-1992 document for accessibility. The correct reference should be to the ICC ANSI A117.1-1998 Version. q On Sheet CVR-1, the Applicable Codes and Regulations section indicates that the building is to be sprinkled per Sec. 904.2.8. This code section does not exist in the 2000 IBC (or in the 2000 IFC). Please correct. Also, General Note #2 on Sheet FP1.1 references that the sprinkler system shall be an NFPA 13 System per the 1994 Standard. It should be to the 1996 Standard. Please correct. q Sheet A2.1 has a note in the upper right corner of the sheet that indicates that draft stops are to be installed per the latest version of the Uniform Building Code. Draft stops when provided are to be installed per the 2000 International Building Code as adopted by the City of Tucson and not the Uniform Building Code. Further, if the building is to be equipped throughout with a fully automatic sprinkler system then the draft stop requirement is exempted [2000 IBC Sec. 716.4.3 Exception]. Please revise or remove all draft stop notations. q How is the roof drain overflow being accommodated at the scuppers and down spouts? Detail 3 on Sheet A2.2 shows a scupper with no provision for over flow [1994 AzUPC Appendix D, Sec. D1.1 (d)]. Also, where does Detail 4 on Sheet A4.5 (roof drains) fit into the picture? This detail is referenced as part of the drive through canopy (Detail 2 on Sheet A4.5), however the canopy has a 4 in 12 pitched tile roof. Please clarify. STRUCTURAL: q Provide a City of Tucson special inspection certificate(s) for the following: · Engineered Fill · Field Welding · Masonry q The calculations for the girder trusses on Page 3 differ from the girder trusses on Sheet S2.2. Girder Truss G1 in the calculations is indicated as a 54G 8N 9.24K while on the plans the loads specified vary (from 8.26K to 9.24K). Girder Truss G2 in the calculations is indicated as a 36G 6N 8.4K while the plans indicate a 7N with loads again differing. Please clarify. q The calculations on Page 7 indicate that the drive through canopy joists are to be a thicker gauge than the other steel framing members (0.097 inches thick). The framing plan indicates at the drive through canopy to reference the General Structural Notes (G.S.N.) for these 6" steel joists. The General Structural Notes indicate that joists are to be 0.068 inches thick. Please clarify. q Pages ii and 8 of the structural calculations indicate that the beam along Grid "N" and between Grids "8" and "10" is to be a W10x15, however the plans indicate a W8x15. Please clarify. The same is true for the beams along Grid "11" between Grids "C" and "F". q Page 9 of the structural calculations indicates that the two hip members of the drive through canopy are to be 6x6x½ tube steel sections while on the Framing Plan on Sheet S2.2 this member is indicated as a 6x6x¼. Please correct. q Where is the calculation for the two B1 beams between Grids "1" and "3" which support the B6 beams which cantilever over the loading canopy? Please clarify. q Where are the joist properties specified for the mezzanine floor joists? The mezzanine framing plan on Sheet S2.2 indicates that the joists are 12" deep and at 16" o.c. however what gauge are they? The calculations on Page 33 again specify these members to be 0.097 inches thick. Please clarify on the plans. q Page 33 of the structural calculation has a calculation for a 3'-0" wide opening. Where is this opening? Please clarify. What does this calculation represent? q Page 39 of the structural calculations has 2 calculations for 2'-0" wide masonry piers which have the same load (51.85 p.s.f.). One pier is to have #5's @ 8" o.c. while the other pier is to have #5's at 48" o.c. Also, the pier noted as 48" o.c. is noted on the plan as 24" o.c. Please correct. q Is Detail 11 on Sheet SP-3 the detail that represents the calculation on Pages 73 and 74 of the calculations? Please clarify. MECHANICAL: q Show how the condensate system on the roof takes into account the remote condensers for the refrigerated cases. These condensers are shown on the architectural and electrical sheets, however the condensate that they will generate has not been addressed. PLUMBING: q There are no plumbing comments to be addressed. ELECTRICAL: q The wiring and conduit schedule on Sheet E5.1 for Panel MDP indicates that the available fault current for this panel is 65,000 amps per Arizona Public Service. Should this not be Tucson Electric Power Company? Has the fault current been verified with the utility company? Please clarify. -End of Review- |
| 08/20/2003 | EROSE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/20/2003 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/20/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/20/2003 | EROSE1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 08/20/2003 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |