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 - T03CM04440
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/02/2003 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/02/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/02/2003 | 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 There are no general comments to be addressed. ARCHITECTURAL: q There are no architectural comments to be addressed. STRUCTURAL: q Provide additional analysis to support the lateral design indicated on the plans. The calculations submitted are 6 pages long. Where is the analysis of the roof diaphragm and the load that it must transfer into the various shear walls? Is the information on Sheet SD-1 included in the analysis? Sheet S-2 shows Type "D" and Type "C" shear walls at the interior and exterior, however Page 4 of the calculations only covers Type "D" for exterior walls and Type "C" for interior walls. Also the hold-down anchor information indicated on the plans does not correlate with the calculation information provided. This previous comment has been partially addressed. Revised calculations have been submitted however the registrants seal, signature, and date sealed have been omitted from the submittal. q Provide additional analysis for beams and joists indicated on plans. Again, there is only one beam sized (on Page 5 of 6 of the calculations), yet there are 5 different beams on the plans. Where is the calculation for Beam "5" which spans 8.5 feet? This previous comment has been partially addressed. Revised calculations have been submitted however the registrants seal, signature, and date sealed have been omitted form the submittal. Further, a calculation for Beam "5" which is 8.5 feet long still has not been provided. There are now 5 different beam calculations, but the last beam calculation on the last page (beam calculations are un-marked with no page numbers to distinguish) in the calculations does not correlate with any of the beams on the Sheet S-2. Please provide. MECHANICAL: q Provide on the plans a demonstration that outside air is being provided in quantities required by code [2000 IMC Table 403.1]. This previous comment was not addressed. The written response asks the reviewer to refer the response letter by MEP Engineer, Kerr Greulich Engineers Inc., dated 11-18-2003. We did not receive this letter with the resubmittal. Please provide. PLUMBING: q There are no plumbing comments to be addressed. ELECTRICAL: q Light fixture F-8 shown in the schedule on Sheet E-4 needs to be "fully shielded" and the lamp must be "filtered" [City of Tucson 1993 Outdoor Lighting Code, Table 5 and Sec. 6]. This previous comment was not addressed. The written response asks the reviewer to refer the response letter by MEP Engineer, Kerr Greulich Engineers Inc., dated 11-18-2003. We did not receive this letter with the resubmittal. Please provide. -End of Review- |
| 12/02/2003 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/02/2003 | EROSE1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/02/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |