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 - T03CM04859
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2003 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 11/19/2003 | EROSE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 11/19/2003 | 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 Professional seals (architects and engineers) need to have the "date signed" documented on the seal [Arizona Admin. Code R4-30-304, Paragraphs D and E]. ARCHITECTURAL: q The data information on the cover sheet has several errors as follows: · The Building Code should be noted as the 2000 IBC (not the 2000 ICBO). · The Construction Classification (should be labeled as "Construction Type") should be noted as "V-B" (and not "V-N"). · The Use Group (should be labeled as "Occupancy Type") should be an "A-2 Restaurant" (and not "A-3"). · The Seismic Zone (should be "Seismic Design Category") should be "B" (and not "N/A"). q Please indicate the proper accessible turning radius in the Employee Toilet Room 127 [1998 ICC/ANSI A117.1 - 1998 Sec. 304.3.1]. q Please clarify that the width clearance between the lavatory and the sidewall next to the toilet is a minimum of 60 inches at the Employee Toilet Room 127. The lavatory cannot be placed within the toilet clearance space [1998 ICC/ANSI A117.1 - 1998 Sec. 604.3]. This clearance currently appears to be only 52" as scaled on the plans. STRUCTURAL: q Provide a City of Tucson special inspection form for engineered fill per the geotechnical report prepared by Profession Services Industries, Inc. (Project 878-35011) and dated February 12, 2003 [2000 IBC Sec. 1704.7]. q The footings for the Tower (under the tube steel columns) shown on Sheet S2 are noted as "F4" footings, however there is no F4 footing in the footing schedule on Sheet S1, nor has a calculation been provided for these two footings. Detail 10 on Sheet S4 has been referenced but it point to the foundation plan for the footing dimensions. Please correct. MECHANICAL: q Provide calculation(s) demonstrating that the required level of outdoor ventilation is being provided throughout the facility [2000 IMC Sec. 403.3 Table 403.3]. PLUMBING: q Trap primes have been indicated for the bathroom floor drains on Sheet P-3. Trap primers also need to be provided for the two floor drains in Mechanical Room 118 do to the probability of infrequent use at these locations [1994 AzUPC Sec. 1007]. The fixture schedule on Sheet P-1, the water piping plan on Sheet P-3, and the water isometric on Sheet P-6 need to be addressed. q There is a sewer sweep shown on Sheet P-2 that is going the wrong direction. Reference Sheet A-1 at the intersection of grid lines 4.2 and A2 for the location. Please correct. q At the location where the gas piping exits the building and travels underground to the two space heaters, the piping must leave the building first before going underground [1994 AzUPC Sec. 1211.3]. This is not clear on Sheet P-4 or P-7. q Provide gas pipe size on Sheet P-7 for the main pipe between the branch to the to pole type patio heaters and the first hung patio heater. q Plan Note "A" on Sheets P-4 and P-7 indicates that these a/c units require 125 c.f.h. However the plan and isometric views indicate that 78 c.f.h. is required at each outlet. Please correct (based on mechanical drawings 78 c.f.h. appears correct). q Also on Sheet P-4, Unit AC-7 is indicated in the plan as a Plan Note "B" requiring 78 c.f.h. Plan Note "B" on Sheets P-4 and P-7 indicates 180 c.f.h. The isometric on Sheet P-7 indicates 130 c.f.h. (and shows Plan Note "A") The mechanical schedule on Sheet AC-1 indicates 130 c.f.h. Please coordinate. ELECTRICAL: q The code references on the single-line diagram regarding grounding and bonding are to the 1996 NEC. The City of Tucson is under the 1999 NEC. Please correct the references. Also note that the gas pipe is to be included in the bonding references [1999 NEC Art. 250-104]. q The roof top receptacles on Circuit R-14 need to be GFCI protected [1999 NEC Art. 210-8(b)]. Neither the panel schedule nor the circuit as shown on the roof electrical plan indicates this to be the case. -End of Review- |
| 11/19/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 11/19/2003 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 11/19/2003 | EROSE1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |