Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Permit Number - T03CM05641
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/22/2003 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/22/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/22/2003 | 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 The prefinished metal diverters shown on the roof plan on Sheet A7 adjacent to the restrooms are incorrectly drawn. The diverters as drawn create a pocket that traps roof runoff. STRUCTURAL: q Provide a City of Tucson special inspection certificate for engineered fill. q The structural calculations need to reference the geotechnical report submitted (Western Technologies Job No. 2923JX065 dated June 5, 2003). In two places the soil bearing is indicated as 1,500 (and engineered fill is not noted). q Page 30 of the structural calculations indicates that footing F2 is to be 6'-6" square, while the F2 footing in the footing schedule on Sheet S4 is indicated as 6'-0" square. Please coordinate. q Where do the masonry piers occur which are described on Pages 31 and 32 of the structural calculations? Please clarify. The only masonry in the drawing set found with a vertical reinforcing spacing of 16" o.c. was described in Details 109 and 110 on Sheet S7 (for the elevator pit stem walls). Are these piers the same ones described on Page 53 of the calculations noted along line "R1"? Could these piers be the "masonry columns" described in the schedule on Sheet S4 as "MC1" and MC2". q The lateral key plan on Page 37 of the structural calculations indicates 6 drag members. Page 56 of the structural calculations details how these drag members tie into the masonry wall that they align with (and is shown in Detail 305 on Sheet S10). The roof framing plan on Sheet S6 shows Detail 305 only occurring twice. Two of the other locations do not have the detail referenced and the other two locations show the drag member not in alignment with the masonry wall. Please clarify. MECHANICAL: q The mechanical systems for the men's and women's restrooms cannot provide recirculated air [2000 IMC Sec. 403.2.1 and Table 403.3]. The air provided to these rooms must be completely exhausted. PLUMBING: q There are no plumbing comments to be addressed. ELECTRICAL: q There are no electrical comments to be addressed. -End of Review- |
| 12/22/2003 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/22/2003 | EROSE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/22/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |