Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T09CM00508
Parcel: 10705126B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL TI

Permit Number - T09CM00508
Review Name: COMMERCIAL TI
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/06/2009 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROJECT
03/09/2009 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Passed WWM review upon TI permit
03/09/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Denied Any increase in units or square footage requires the building to have automatic fire sprinklers.
03/09/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. 3/32" LETTERING REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING.
2. CALCULATIONS PAGE 20: WOOD POST AND FOOTING DESIGNS USE AN AXIAL LOAD INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS SHOWN ON PAGE 18 OF THE CALCULATIONS. SHOULD THE LOAD BE 10,500 POUNDS RATHER THAN 1050 POUNDS? VERIFY AND REVISE THE COLUMN AND FOOTING CALCULATIONS AS REQUIRED.
3. CALCULATIONS PAGE 21; SHEET S-1: CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 4X6 COLUMN, WHILE SHEET S-1 INDICATES 3-2X4. CLARIFY.
4. CALCULATIONS PAGES 29-35: RAFTERS SHOWN ON SHEET S-1 ARE 4X6 AT 24" OC, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE 2X10. CLARIFY.
5. CALCULATIONS PAGE 36: THE RIDGE BEAM CALCULATIONS INDICATE 6.75" X 18" GLU LAM BEAM, WHILE SHEET S-1 INDICATES A 6 3/4 X 16 GLU LAM BEAM. CLARIFY.
6. CALCULATIONS PAGE 39: THE RIDGE BEAM HEADER (R2B) INDICATES 4"X6" IN THE CALCULATIONS, WHILE SHEET S-1 INDICATES 6"X8". CLARIFY.
7. SHEET S-1: INDICATE THE 36" SQUARE SPREAD FOOTINGS AT ALL NEW COLUMN LOCATIONS ON THE PLAN.
8. SHEET D-1; SECTION 1: WHAT IS THE VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT SIZE AND SPACING IN THE CONCRETE STEM WALL? PROVIDE.
9. SHEET S-2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: SHOULD THE EXISTING RAFTERS NOTED AS 4X6 AT 28" OC BE NOTED AT 24" OC (PER THE CALCULATIONS)? VERIFY.
10. CALCULATIONS PAGE 76; SHEET S-2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE CALCULATIONS SHOW THE EXISTING 2 X 7 1/2 (2X8) RIDGE BEAM IS OVERSTRESSED IN BENDING AND SHEAR. THERE IS NO REVISION ON S-2 TO THAT BEAM. THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 3 1/8 X 9 GLU LAM BEAM IS REQUIRED. CHANGE THE PLAN AND ADD DETAILS AS REQUIRED.
11. SHEET S-2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING WOOD BEAM AT EACH END IS LISTED AS A 6 X 5 1/2 (6X6) BEAM, WHILE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 6X8 BEAM. CLARIFY.
12. CALCULATIONS PAGE 66; SHEET S-2: CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 4X6 WOOD POST WHILE THE ROOF FRAMING PLAN INDICATES 3-2X4. CLARIFY.
13. CALCULATIONS PAGE 73; SHEET S-2: THE REINFORCEMENT INDICATED ON SHEET S-2 AT F-1 (3-#4 EACH WAY) DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE CALCULATIONS OF 5-#4 EACH WAY. CLARIFY.
14. SHEET S-2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE RAFTERS AT EACH END DENOTED AS EXISTING 2X6 AT 24" OC ARE CONSIDERED AS ADEQUATE BY THE CALCULATIONS ON PAGE 77, PROVIDED THERE IS A 2X6 COLLAR TIE TO EACH EXISTING RAFTER. PROVIDE DETAILS AS REQUIRED FOR THE COLLAR TIE RAFTERS.
15. GENERAL: DO THE CALCULATIONS ON PAGE 52 FOR UNITS B AND C DIFFER FROM THE CALCULATIONS ON PAGE 81? CLARIFY.
16. CALCULATIONS: IT APPEARS IN THE CALCULATIONS PAGE 77 THAT THE NEW 2X6 COLLAR TIE IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 2X6 RAFTERS IS REQUIRED. BUT PAGES 82-86 OF THE CALCULATIONS APPEAR TO INDICATE THE EXISTING 2X6 IS ADEQUATE. CLARIFY.
17. CALCULATIONS PAGE 88; SHEET S-2; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE THAT THE EXISTING 2 X 7 1/2 (2X8) BEAM IN THE NEW ADDITION AT EACH END IS INADEQUATE, BUT THE BEAM ON SHEET S-2 IS NOT CHANGED. CLARIFY.
18. SHEET S-3; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING BEAMS IN THE NEW ADDITION AREA DENOTED AS 6 X 5 1/2 (6X6) AND AS 2 X 7 1/2 (2X8) SHOULD BE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS PER THE CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY.
19. SHEET S-3; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING JOISTS IN THE NEW ADDITION AREA DENOTED AS 2 X 6 WITH COLLAR TIES AT 28" OC SHOULD BE CHANGED TO 24" OC PER THE CALCULATIONS. VERIFY.
20. SHEET S-3; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE NEW WOOD POSTS IN THE EXISTING AREAS DENOTE 3-2X4 , WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 4X6. CLARIFY.
21. SHEET S-4; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING BEAMS IN THE NEW ADDITION AREA DENOTED AS 6 X 5 1/2 (6X6) AND AS 2 X 7 1/2 (2X8) SHOULD BE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS PER THE CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY.
22. SHEET S-4; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING JOISTS IN THE NEW ADDITION AREA DENOTED AS 2 X 6 WITH COLLAR TIES AT 28" OC SHOULD BE CHANGED TO 24" OC PER THE CALCULATIONS. VERIFY.
23. SHEET S-4; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE NEW WOOD POSTS IN THE EXISTING AREA DENOTE 3-2X4, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 4X6. CLARIFY.
24. SHEET S-2; FOUNDATION PLAN: THE SECTION CUT AT THE COVERED PORCH (RIGHT SIDE OF THE PLAN) SHOULD BE 24/D-1 RATHER THAN 1/D-1. VERIFY.
25. SHEET S-5; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING BEAMS IN THE NEW ADDITION AREA DENOTED AS 6 X 5 1/2 (6X6) AND AS 2 X 7 1/2 (2X8) SHOULD BE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS PER THE CALCULATIONS. CLARIFY.
26. SHEET S-5; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE EXISTING JOISTS IN THE NEW ADDITION AREA DENOTED AS 2 X 6 WITH COLLAR TIES AT 28" OC SHOULD BE CHANGED TO 24" OC PER THE CALCULATIONS. VERIFY.
27. SHEET S-5; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: THE NEW WOOD POSTS IN THE EXISTING AREA DENOTE 3-2X4, WHILE THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 4X6. CLARIFY.
03/11/2009 ENEWCOM1 WATER REVIEW Passed WATER REVIEW ON TI PERMIT
03/11/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed ELECTRICAL REVIEW ON TI PERMIT
03/11/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed MECHANICAL REVIEW ON TI PERMIT
03/11/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Passed PLUMBING REVIEW ON TI PERMIT
03/11/2009 ERIC NEWCOMB ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Approved
03/16/2009 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Needs Review
03/16/2009 SREEVES1 ZONING REVIEW Needs Review
03/16/2009 BETH GRANT COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Needs Review

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/16/2009 SUE REEVES OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed