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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T22CM03209
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2022 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/10/2022 | DBENOIT1 | 2ND PARTY REVIEW | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Activity Number: T22CM03209 GENERAL: Provide written responses to all review comments. Provide a complete plan set. Provide additional documents as requested by review staff. STRUCTURAL REVIEW COMMENTS: Approved 1. Since the ground water condition is unknown in the absence of a site specific soils report, default position is to assume that foundations needs to be relieved of the ground water pressure. Hence provide foundation drainage details or else provide an evaluation letter from a geotechnical engineer stating that ground water pressure on foundations system is not a concern or issue for this project. - Based on May 12, 2022 geotech report by Ninyo & Moore, ground water is not a concern, it was observed at 80' bgs. Item Closed. 2. General notes in S-drawings states the seismic design category as "B" whereas SDC of "C" is used in the calculations. Please provide the correct SDC reference on the S-drawings general notes. - Both documents states the same SDC "B", Item Closed. 3. Some structural drawings are marked "not for construction" and are not stamped and signed by the structural engineer responsible for the design. Please provide revised drawing documents with that note removed and the drawings stamped and signed by the engineer in charge of the design. - Since S-drawings are signed and sealed by the design engineer, they are good for construction per note on drawing S1.0. Item Closed. 4. Drawing details shown on S-pages are not consistent with the structural calculations, specially as it relates to foundation and footing layouts. Some changes in red color have been marked in the calcs. but they have not been incorporated in the drawing details to reflect the correct situation. Please co-ordinate the two documents and provide revised foundation plan and corresponding calculations.- Item Closed 5. Existing exterior wall footing adjacent to the proposed addition is shown as L-shaped, please provide a verification from the design engineer in-charge this to be true based on his evaluation and investigation of the existing building/ site conditions.- Item Closed 6. On detail 102, it states that a gap of 2 inch is required between the existing building and additions exterior faces of the footings, please provide calculations for story drift under the governing design lateral loads in support of this number and also provide corresponding architectural cross-sectional detail to show a gap of two inches between footings exterior faces. - A gap of 4" is shown which is more than required drift. Item Closed 7. If the new footings and the existing footings are combined together in revised calculations, the existing structure would then need to be evaluated for adequate structural capacity available for the combined loads of the new imposed and existing building loads per the 2018 IBC code provisions. - Item Closed BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS: Approved MECHANICAL REVIEW COMMENTS: Denied Provide a written response along with revised plans for mechanical comments ELECTRICAL REVIEW COMMENTS Approved PLUMBING REVIEW COMMENTS: Approved Second Plumbing Review: 1 thru 7 OK If you require additional clarification regarding these comments, please contact Doris Benoit at doris.benoit@tucsonaz.gov |