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 - T03CM04905
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/29/2003 | TACHONG1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 10/29/2003 | WILDAN | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | The second review of the above-referenced project has been completed. The following items reflect original comments which remain unaddressed and require a written response indicating any action to be taken. In order to facilitate a shorter back-check time, we request that you provide two (2) sets revised plans and calculations, which highlight any changes made to the previous submittal. Please return comment drawings with your resubmittal. Also, please note that per paragraph V-C third party contract, third and subsequent reviews will be charged at the current hourly rate in addition to the base contract amount. Occupancy Occup. Load Construction Area S.F. Sprinklered Alarms M U 582 N/A III-B, A.S. III-B, A.S. 20,484 2,055 Yes Yes Yes Yes GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. This project has been reviewed for conformance with the 2000 IBC, 1997 UAC, 2000 IMC, 1998 IECC, 1999 NEC codes with local modifications, and the 1994 UPC with State of Arizona amendments. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan. 2. The special inspection documentation required by the City of Tucson was not included with the submittal. Please provide. Reference IBC Section 106. 3. The structural engineer references project specifications for details. However, the project specifications have not been submitted. Provide project specifications. Reference IBC Section 106. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: Sheet A1.0 1. The area depicted for tenant improvement of the existing canopy is now shown to include the canopy in front of the vacant space. The floor area under the canopy to be included in the tenant improvement is not identified. Review, coordinate, and clarify. Reference IBC Section 502.1. Sheet A3.0 1. The suspended ceiling is noted to be duty class C. That is not understood since ASTM classifies ceilings per light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty. Please clarify. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. Sheet A7.0 1. The comment response letter characterizes the existing leaf-swing exit door 102A as being a roll-up door. Review and clarify exit door hardware for door 102A. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: 1. Response letter leaves weight of CMU to the discretion of the contractor. That may be okay for a non-structural wall. However, the dead load of a structural masonry wall is germane to the load combination calculations. Masonry weight used for design load combinations shall be specified by the structural engineer on the construction drawing. Reference IBC Section 2103.1, ASTM C-90, and IBC Section 1605. 2. The response letter references, "see revised drawings" for the placement rebar clearances for masonry. However, the specific drawing and detail was not identified. Review and clarify. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. 3. The building official has requested not to use "latest edition" as a reference to codes and standards since specific editions are specifically required by the adopted building code. Review and clarify. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. 4. The existing 5-inch floor slab on grade is not an acceptable foundation for the relocated replacement of an existing exterior building wall. The existing building foundation drawings show a minimum 16-inch wide by 10-inch thick footing placed at a depth of 2-feet below finish floor elevation with an 8-inch turned down stem wall. The new exterior building wall shall be shown to have a footing that is not less than that used for the existing building perimeter wall footing. Reference IBC Sections 1805 and 3402.2. PLUMBING COMMENTS: The plumbing portion has been reviewed and accepted. MECHANICAL COMMENTS: The mechanical portion has been reviewed and accepted. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: The electrical portion has been reviewed and accepted. ENERGY CODE COMMENTS: Sheet E2.0 1. The comment response letter references the specifications for support of electrical lighting fixtures, but it was not clarified as to where that specification is. Review and clarify support conditions and weights of electrical fixtures in the suspended ceiling. Reference City of Tucson Amendment NEC 410-16(c ). ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS: The accessibility portion has been reviewed and accepted. |
| 10/29/2003 | TACHONG1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 10/29/2003 | TACHONG1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/04/2003 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | APPROVED | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/29/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |