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: BILLBOARD - BLDG30days
Permit Number - T11BU01159
Review Name: BILLBOARD - BLDG30days
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/12/2011 | LEERAY HANLY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review | needs review by BRC before structural review is done. accident report does not appear to support scope of work being suggested. (car ran into leg, but leg not being replaced...just upper trim and supports) |
| 10/03/2011 | GLENN MOYER | ADMINISTRATIVE | ADMIN REVIEW | Denied | BRC Comments Below are comments for the authorized repair submittal for COT ID# 61 at 851 East Speedway Boulevard (T11BU01159). Sheet 1 1. Conform Stipulation references to Stipulation terminology; it appears that what was intended was Exhibit 9, Sections 2(b), 2(i), 2(s), 2(v) and 5. Sheet 2A 1. Conform Stipulation references to Stipulation terminology; it appears that what was intended was Exhibit 9, Sections 2(b), 2(i), 2(s), 2(v) and 5. 2. Clarify in detail how the accident on February 19, 2008 specifically damaged each of the uprights. 3. Explain in detail why replacement of the uprights is proposed instead of repair as indicated in the original repair application (May 13, 2008). 4. Clarify whether the overall ledger dimension shown (8'0") is from ledger end to ledger end or catwalk edge to catwalk edge; if the latter, also provide the end to end dimension; in either case show full design dimensions, including catwalk edge to ledger end. 5. Provide the metal panel section depth (in addition to height, width & gauge). 6. Add notation that support I-beams to remain in current plumb without any straightening or footing work (alternatively indicate how any such work is proposed) Sheet 2B 1. Add the seal and signature of the professional engineer. 2. Clarify in detail how the accident on February 19, 2008 damaged each of the uprights. 3. Explain in detail why replacement of the uprights is proposed instead of the repairs indicated in the original repair application (May 18, 2008). Note: The catwalks, ledgers and associated hardware were all removed from the site in 2008; nonetheless, reinstallation is not being denied on the basis of: a) the original (May 13, 2008) application sought to replace such parts; b) the Stipulation specifically provides an allowance for processing the backlog of such pending applications (Exhibit 12, Section 2(c)); and the provisions of Exhibit 9, Section 5. Removal of parts from the site other than when specified by an approved permit, particularly for any length of time, should result in denial of any proposed reinstallation or replacement. |