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 - T03CM05891
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2004 | EROSE1 | WWM | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 01/16/2004 | 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 Sheet C1 indicates in Note 13 that a backwater valve is required. The plumbing drawings do not indicate the backwater valve. However based on the lowest finished floor elevation (61.94') and the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole (61.63') a backwater valve does not appear to be required [1994 AzUPC Sec. 710.1]. Please clarify. ARCHITECTURAL: q It is not clear on the enlarged restroom plans on Sheet A7.1 that there is 60" clear between the lavatory and the sidewall next to the toilet [ANSI A117.1-1998 Sec. 604.3]. The plan does scale correct, however please clarify this required clearance on the plans. q The ceiling height on the left half of Detail 6 on Sheet A3.3 is incorrect (it should be 8'-0" over the bathroom). STRUCTURAL: q Provide a City of Tucson special inspection certificate(s) for the following items: · Engineered Fill · Concrete · Masonry · Field Welding · Epoxy Anchors q There are several sheets within the structural calculations that are not legible (handwritten text is very light and did not copy well). Please provide cleaner copies. q The column footing for the column placed in the demising wall between Suites 12 and 14 (referencing Sheet A2.2) appears to be too small. The layout drawing on Page F1 of the calculations shows this to be an F4 footing. The F4 footing on Page F2 appears to be a 5'-6" x 5'-6" footing (even when considering all of the "correction" arrows). At 34.80 kips this footing should be the largest on this page. Sheet S2.2 shows that this footing is an F1 footing (4'-6" x 4'-6"). Please clarify. MECHANICAL: q The calculation for outside air on Sheet M2.1 for Suites 1, 2, and 3 indicates that 600 c.f.m. of air is required. The mechanical schedule on Sheet M3.1 indicates that the mechanical unit for these 3 suites is to provide 420 c.f.m. of outside air. Please clarify on the plans (this type of discrepancy appears to be typical for all of the suites). The calculations provided do not follow Table 403.3 in the 2000 IMC. The outside air appears adequate based on 0.30 c.f.m. per sq. ft. of space for a street level retail store. q Sheet M2.1 appears to have some electrical information presented (light fixtures "C" and "WB" at the entry canopies). Please clarify. PLUMBING: q There are no plumbing comments to be addressed. ELECTRICAL: q There is fault current information presented on the one-line diagram on Sheet E3.2 (i.e. 75,100 A.I.C. at the service entrance). The panel schedules on Sheet E3.1 all indicate a fault current rating of 10,000 A.I.C. Please provide on the plans the fault current calculations to justify the reduction at the panels. The one-line diagram implies that a calculation has been done and values have been derived (i.e. X 'F1', X 'F2', etc.). -End of Review- |
| 01/16/2004 | EROSE1 | WATER | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2004 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |