HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.216 S Monarch St.0055.2019 (8).ACBK 0055-2019-ACBK_216 S Monarch_BuildingComment2
190808_Permit Set_Arch_Stamped.pdf(5)
=„ ✓ Subject: PlanCheck
Page Label:A0.00 After further discussion with
.a„.,r - Author:justinh inspection staff and the building
File Name: 190808_Permit Set_Arch_Stamped.pdf official it has been determined
Color: • that a mechanical plan will be
required demonstrating the
°_°- BMA Response - Understood. Thank you for scope of work outlined in the
your flexibility. letters submitted by AEC and
AVMM. As this requirement is
being brought up late during the
review process we are willing to
take it as a deferred submittal
and issue the building permit
without it, but it will be required
to be submitted for
review/approval prior to any
mechanical inspections taking
place. Inspection staff wants to
be able to reference an actual
plan that shows what is required
and where so that there are no
issues with the contractor during
construction and inspection.
Mechanical inspections will not
be provided until this plan has
been reviewed and issued and is
part of the field set of
construction documents.
�■; a Subject: PlanCheck
®f, � __ �'m `� ✓ Page Label:A2.00
Author:justinh IBC 1010.1.2 does not allow a
pocket type door in this location
m ___ - �,�� �
=� - - `°°`" - File Name: 190808_Permit Set_Arch_Stamped.pdf
with an occupant load greater
`''� Color: • than 10 within the room, it would
7,°,o).,�b need to be a pivoted/side hinged
BMA Response - Door replaced with swing swinging type door or be
-— . - -— door. See revised sheet A2.00. removed entirely. Please revise,
b rc I I apologize for not catching this
during my initial review.
—,. � =- I Subject: PlanCheck
Page Label: A2.00 Please show the accessible seat
Author:justinh
along the long side of the table
mI .{'jam. - 1 _ File Name: 190808_Permit Set_Arch_Stamped.pdf at a different location so that it is
in r`;, 1: Color: • not overlapping into the
�� �� accessible route.
BMA Response - Pathways revised to show an
I; ;; o alternate accessible pathway to another ►
11.__ -
accessible seating location should one pathway
be blocked. See revised sheet A2.00.
i/ Subject: PlanCheck
Page Label:A2.01 I do not see why the rotisserie
o o 0 o would not be required to be
gem Author:justinh under your hood per the spec
File Name: 190808_Permit Set_Arch_Stamped.pdf submitted for the rotisserie.
MIIIIIIII-- Color: • Please clarify why this would not
iiprl BMA Response - Hood extended to cover be required or revise as needed.
En rotisserie. See revised sheet A3.01.
Ilin H i
o a' a y ,Subject: PlanCheck Page Label:A2.01 Please revise to show the
4
Author:justinh accessible route and required
■ I' C °. clearances at the accessible
'l�'i,r-� ® , , File Name: 190808 Permit Set Arch Stamped.pdf
rr m 190808_Permit — seats not overlapping. The clear
■.. ■.■ 1= m.7.: :. � Color: •
� ,�, f space at the tables should be
Li ■�c' . - 1 dm„_ Ma. a BMA Response - Clear space was previously shown tucked up to 17" into the
■m+ ■�■ o e ' shown under the table at 8". Increasing this to table demonstrating the required
_� knee and toe clearance, and you
44 I' mm .F 17" provided enough space without changing
...�P ®T -�..- �-, table layouts. Spacing between tables remains have some space to work with
at 3'-8". See revised sheet A2.01. between tables down the middle
aisle as only 38"is required
between adjacent tables per IBC
1029.12.1. Between those two
items you should be able to get
the clear space out of the route.