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: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/WWM
Permit Number - T05CM00740
Review Name: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/WWM
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/11/2005 | BROWN & ASSOCIATES | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Denied | March 11, 2005 Leslie R. Shipley 5133 S. Zenith Way Tucson, Arizona 85747 RE: SHIPLEY RESIDENCE, 5125 S. ZENITH WAY CITY OF TUCSON – PERMIT #: T05CM00740 BROWN & ASSOCIATES PLAN CHECK NO: 85701-5008 The first review comments in this letter require that the applicant respond with a detailed written response to each comment indicating actions taken to resolve the comment issue. We request that you provide reviewed and coordinated construction documents as applicable, highlighting each change with a clouded or delta and a revision number on each drawing revised. Third and subsequent reviews are charged additionally at the current hourly rate for administration and plans examinations. Occupancy Occupant Load Construction Area Sq. Ft. Sprinklered Alarms R-3 n/a III-B no smoke Special Inspection Certificate Provided Required Type no yes Masonry Construction Soil Compaction Deferred Submittals Required Type yes yes Roof Trusses GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The plans and documents have been reviewed under the 2003 IRC, the 2003 IBC, the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code, the Tucson Sustainable Energy Standard and the 1994 UPC with State of Arizona amendments. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS Cover Sheet 1. Identify the type of insulated panel system with regard to those types described in the IRC. Section R611. 2. Identify which section of the IRC is applicable for placing of concrete in proprietary panel cores. Reference IRC Section 106.1.1. 3. The applicable codes are the 2003 edition, the City of Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code, the 1994 UPC with State of Arizona amendments and for buildings within the Civano Development, the City of Tucson Sustainable Energy Standard. Identify all applicable codes on the drawings. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. Sheet C1 1. The site plan does not identify existing contours, finish grades, drainage patterns or the direction for north. Review and clarify site design. Sections R106, R401.3. 2. The walkway to the main entrance is shown encroaching upon the adjacent property. All construction for the proposed building shall be site entirely upon its specifically designated building lot. Review and coordinate design. Sections R106, R302. 3. Projections extending into the fire separation distance shall have not less than 1-hour fire resistive construction on the underside. Review and clarify the distance from the property lot line to the nearest edge of the roof overhang. Sections R302.1. 4. The front entrance to the house is designated as having a 4-feet yard setback. However, the project data identifies the front as requiring a 15-feet setback. Review and clarify proposed setbacks for the buildings. Sections R106. 5. Identify the location for the masonry site walls from the property lines and provide a site grade cross section from the public street to side yard setback. Section R106.1.1. 6. Identify that approved numbers for address shall be provided in such a position so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street. Section R321. 7. Identify the elevation of manhole cover for the next upstream sanitary manhole and coordinate any need for a backwater valve. Reference UPC Section 710. 8. The name for the abutting street identified as North Zenith Way is incorrect. The street shall be identified as, South Zenith Way. Section R106.1.1. 9. Provide calculations to show that the masonry wall and foundation design is adequate for design wind utilizing exposure C. Section R106.1.1. Sheet A1 1. Identify and appropriately label all rooms and spaces. Reference IRC 106.1.1. 2. Details 2 & 3 identify structural details which are not appropriate. Delete specific structural specificity and reference the structural drawings for structural construction details. Section R106.1.1. 3. The covered porch area appears to be understated. It should be the projected area beneath the roof. The listing of the area for the unconditioned space is not understood. Review and clarify design. Section R106.3.3, IBC Section 502. 4. The building cross-sections are referenced incorrectly to S-series drawings. Review and coordinate. Section R106.1.1. 5. Identify the dimensions for locating the edge of roof overhangs. Section R106.1.1. Sheet A-2 1. Identify requirements and locations for installing safety glazing. Section R308.4. 2. Provide on the drawing the City of Tucson approved construction details for an unvented attic. Section R106.1.1. 3. Identify on the drawing the thermal characteristics for the proposed proprietary Rastra wall construction and show it is in compliance with the required energy code for the Civano Development. Section R106.1.1, IECC Section 104.2. ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS Not applicable to single family residence. Section R322. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS General Comment The structural calculations and documents have been specifically noted by the structural engineer to be in accord with the 2000 IBC and not in accord with the 2003 IBC. Structural plans and calculations shall be revisited by the structural engineer and adjusted as needed for compliance with the 2003 IBC. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. Sheet S1 / Sheet S5 1. The concrete foundation design is predicated on an allowable design native soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf located 1.5 feet below finish grade. IRC Section R403.1 requires that footings shall be supported on undisturbed natural soils or engineered fill as determined from the character of the soil. However, on sheet S5 the structural notes call for the sub grade to be compacted to 95% of ASTM Standard. The ASTM Standard is not identified. A foundation site soils investigation report has not been submitted for the proposed building construction site and the character of the site soil is not identified on the drawing. The nature of backfill soils has not been identified. The proposed site is about 1,500 feet from a major wash and a site drawing showing existing site contour grades and the proposed new finish site grades and drainage has not been submitted. The structural engineer’s scope limitation note on the drawings and Brown & Associates have no responsibility for site determination of acceptable subsurface foundation soil characteristics. See comment #2 below. Sections R401.4, R401.5, R403.1, IBC Sections 1802, 1804. 2. Based upon local field exploration and laboratory compression testing of shallow natural occurring soils in the climatic arid region of Tucson has shown that naturally occurring soils in this region do have varying degrees of susceptibility to collapse and may settle a significant amount, very quickly, when the susceptible naturally occurring native soil is wetted while supporting an imposed bearing load. Local naturally occurring native soils in the Tucson area may also exhibit expansive (soil swelling) characteristics depending upon the naturally occurring soil plasticity characteristics. In keeping with local geotechnical engineering practice, site soil investigations are aimed at reducing the owner’s risk associated with the potential for structural damage from unknown soil conditions which may settle or expand under changing degrees of moisture which may not be acceptable or tolerable by constructed building elements. Visual inspection alone is not enough to determine specifically whether or not an existing naturally occurring native soil is suitable for supporting permanent building foundations or for supporting surcharge soil fill loads or what remedial sub-grade soil preparation may be required to safely support permanent soil bearing loads. In lieu of complete geotechnical evaluation the load bearing values in IRC Table R401.4.1 shall be assumed. However, if a bearing capacity of less than 1,500 psf is likely to be present at the site and in areas likely to have expansive, compressive, shifting or other unknown soil characteristics, the building official shall determine whether to require a soil test to determine the soil’s characteristics at a particular building site. The owner or applicant may also independently call for soil testing. The building official need not require a foundation or soils investigation where satisfactory data from adjacent areas is available that demonstrates an investigation is not necessary for any of the conditions in IBC Sections 1802.2.1 through 1802.2.6. Review and clarify foundation soil design. Sections R401.4, R401.4.1, R401.5, IBC Section 1802.2. 3. The structural notes identify the existence of specifications which separate from what is shown on the drawings and as taking precedence. Provide two copies of specifications with your resubmittal. Section R106. 4. The structural notes mention “architect” however, the drawings have not been sealed by an architect. Review and clarify. Section R106. 5. A building site without a soils report shall be declared to be Site Class D. Review and coordinate design calculations and construction plans. Section R301.2.2.1.1, IBC Section 1615.1.1. 6. Due to the specific conditions surrounding the proposed building site, the wind exposure for building design is Exposure C. See enclosed Pima County local map and look at the photograph of applicable suburban wind exposure C on page 281 of ASCE-7-02. Review and coordinate design calculations and construction plans. Section R301.2.1.4 Item 3; IBC Section 1609.4 Item C. 7. Provide applicable City of Tucson special inspection documents. Section R106. 8. Provide owner and engineer endorsements for approval of deferred design submittal for roof trusses. Form letter enclosed. Section R106.3.3. Sheet S3 1. The typical exterior footing detail-1, does not identify the location for vertical rebar within the Rastra cell. Review and clarify proposed design. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. 2. Identify and dimension the location of the finish grade next to the patio toe-down slab. Coordinate detail porch post footing and site drainage. Reference IBC Section 106.1.1. 3. A compacted base course is identified beneath the slab on grade. However, its soil characteristics, compaction requirements and thickness are not identified. Review and clarify proposed design. Section R506.2.1. 4. Identify the dimension for the separation of exterior finish grade and the bottom elevation of wood sill and required separation for the proprietary EIFS. Section R404.1.6. 5. Identify decay and termite protective provisions for wood sills. Section R319, R320. 6. Identify what soil treatment is proposed for termite protection. Section R320. PLUMBING COMMENTS Sheet P1 1. Plumbing construction is noted for compliance with the 1994 UPC. However, Arizona State amendments are also in effect. Review and enhance plumbing code designation. See MEC comments below. Reference UPC Section 103.2.3, A.R.S. 9-805. 2. Plumbing data is overprinted upon room designation. Review and coordinate legible plan notes. Section R106.1.1. 3. Four hose bibs are shown on the plan but only three are identified in the water fixture schedule. Review and coordinate design. Reference UPC Section 103.2.3. 4. Identify water conservation plumbing fixture requirements. Reference UPC Section 103.2.3, A.R.S. 45-312. MECHANICAL COMMENTS 1. Update code compliance note to the 2003 IRC. See MEC comments below. Reference IRC Section 106.1.1. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS 1. Update code compliance to the 2003 IRC. See MEC comments below. Section R106.1.1. 2. Identify all locations for smoke detectors and provide dedicated power source with battery back-up. Section R313. 3. Identify exterior lighting luminaires and provide fixture cuts to show compliance with Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code. Section R106.1.1. 4. Identify on the drawing the service and circuit conductor material, size, type and rating. Sections E3306, E3502, E3503, E3605. 5. Identify a receptacle for the island counter space. Section E3801.4.2. 6. Identify arc-fault for receptacles in sleeping areas. Section E3802.11. MODEL ENERGY COMMENTS Sheet 00 / M1 1. The design conditions declared on the drawing are not in compliance. The building MEC calculations are incomplete and the HVAC equipment calculations have not been provided. Review and coordinate MEC design conditions, calculations and show that all applicable building service equipment components and installations are in compliance with the Civano Sustainable Energy Standard (Tucson Amendments to 2000 IECC) for the Civano community and clearly identify design methodology. Tucson Amendment Section 101.4. 2. Identify U-factor, SHGC and construction compliance for all applicable windows and doors. Identify derivation of R-value for proprietary wall construction. Sustainable Energy Standard, Tucson Amendment. Sections 102.5.2, 104.2. 3. Identify requirement for verification of proper installation. Sustainable Energy Standard, Tucson Amendment. Section 102.4. Sincerely, BROWN & ASSOCIATES for CITY OF TUCSON Michael J. Brown, C.B.O. President MB:rd TU 5008.1st Rvw |
| 03/16/2005 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/18/2005 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/18/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |