Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T01CM02425
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/05/2004 | Christy Foreman | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Denied | PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT #T01CM02425-R 05/06/04 2516 E. Mabel St. Plan review for the above referenced structure has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. In order to facilitate a shorter back check time, we request that you please provide revised plans and calculations, highlighting any changes, along with a written response to each of the noted items indicating action taken. SCOPE OF REVIEW: The scope of this plan review covers revised floor and roof framing. STRUCTURAL 1) Sht. A-3 Lumber specifications. Structural calculations require grades of select structural and Glulam 24VF. Specifications contradict this on sht. A-3 and allow lower grades of wood. 2) HRC44 and EPC 44 connectors specified for (2) 4 x 14 ridge and (1) 4 x 10 beam B21 & B20 and post P30 it appears that these connectors will not work with the sizes specified. 3) B32 and B33 Sht. A3 noted incorrectly, See structural calculations. 4) Justify connector FC44 (ideal for fence connection) at post P25A. 5) P27 and similar connection specifies (2) A35. Justify that these connectors have enough uplift capacity. 6) Contradiction between Structural Engineer Calculations and Architect design for design of Beam 11. 7) 14/A11 Joist hangers? Clarify connectors. 8) Connection per note 2 on beam schedule. Justify drilling of structural members per code section R502.8.2. 9) Section B/A8 calls out detail 17/A10 for floor framing detail but is actually a footing slab detail. 10) Justify hidden beam seat connection of structural members detail 5&9 on sht. A12. 11) It appears that not all loads have been applied on beam A35. At this point review was stopped. Because of non-conventional framing details and the appearance of errors in this submittal, I have elected to require a complete full analysis and stamped approval by a Structural Engineer for the framing and connectors. See code section 302.2 Uniform Administrative Code 1997. If you have any questions, please contact your assigned plans examiner Christy Foreman at 791-5550, extension 1113. NOTE: As of 2-02-01 the City of Tucson has adopted the 2000 IRC with the exception of the plumbing portion which has been replaced with the Arizona state plumbing code. All model plans shall reference these codes. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/11/2004 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/11/2004 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |