Reviewed by: Bolen, Wayne A.                                                  Permit #: C12-2967

Phone: 343-8072                                                                        Date: 8/13/2014

Fax: 249-7393

Email: BolenWA@muni.org

Permit Manager: Tony Barganier

Phone: 343-8339

Email: BarganierTA@muni.org

Project: Desert Air

Review Number: 336476

____________________________________________________________________________________

PERMIT STATUS

12/19/2012 – Review complete. Comments issued.

6/17/2013 – Responses reviewed. Comments issued.

8/2/2013 – Responses reviewed. Comment issued.

8/13/2014 - Response reviewed. Comment issued.

Advisory Comment (no response required):  This review is based on the requirements of the Anchorage Administrative Code (AAC), 2009 International Building Code (IBC), 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and all adopted references thereto as amended by MOA. The following comments must be addressed before a permit can be issued. The approval of plans and specifications does not permit the violation of the codes, or any federal, state or local regulations.

1. GLOBAL OVERTURNING

Reference the drawing and calculations. Please provide global overturning check on the structure for both wind and seismic and verify there is sufficient dead load to resisting the overturning forces. Anchoring of the structure must match the existing anchoring at a minimum. For wind please remember there is both uplift on the roof as well as lateral loads.

Comment remains. The dead loads used for the roof and walls could not be verified. It is not clear what the roof and walls sections are, but currently the sections make it appear that the roof is plywood  sheathing with trusses, and the walls are plywood sheathing and studs. This would make for extremely light sections (much lighter than the 15-psf roof weight and 8-psf wall weight used). Please verify the weights used. Please note that based on reviewer check the footings would all need to be 24” wide.

Comment resolved. The footings have been changed. WAB – 8/2/2013

2. ROOF FRAMING PLAN

Reference the drawings. If this structure is just being moved please clarify why additional requirements have been added to the roof framing plan. There should be no modifications being made to the structure. Where modifications are made they must be current code requirements.

Comment resolved. This is not a moved structure. Only a small portion is moved. Most of the square footage is new structure and they are reusing the roof trusses. WAB – 6/17/2013

3. EXISTING STRUCTURE

Please clarify the elevation difference between the existing structure to remain, and the structure being moved adjacent to it. If the elevation difference is more than 2’ snow drift will need to be considered on the lower structure.

Comment remains. Per the response the elevation difference is less than 2’. Please indicate this on the drawings. WAB – 6/17/2013

Comment resolved. This has been indicated on sheet S2.1. WAB – 8/2/2013

4. FENCE ANCHORING

Reference the calculations. There is design provided for fence anchoring, but no detail or plan has been provided for a fence. Please clarify. It is also not clear what the calculation is even showing. Is this a triangular shaped fence that 14’ tall and 5.67’ wide? Is that a plan view of the fence? Please clarify. It is highly recommended that the wind velocity used to design the fence takes into consideration that there appears to be a taxiway adjacent to this lot. Fences generally can not just set on top of grade because the foundation likely would not be able to support the overturning loads. Please clarify.

Comment resolved. This is a relocated fence that is installed exactly as it was before per the response. WAB – 6/17/2013

5. ALTERNATE MEANS AND METHODS

Please note that the alternate meands and methods has not been approved, and will not be considered until a cody study for the structure is provided in accordance with the architectural review.

Comment remains. The code study still has not been provided. The alternate means and methods can not be considered without the code study. WAB – 6/17/2013

Comment resolved. This has been approved by Ross Noffsinger. WAB – 8/2/2013

6. DESIGN OF FOUNDATION AT HOLD DOWNS

Reference sheet S1.1 of the drawings and the calculations. Please provide design of the foundation at the hold downs. These footings must be designed as grade beams, and will likely require reinforcement top and bottom, and may require ties at the HDU11 hold downs. WAB – 6/17/2013

Comment remains. No design has been provided. The footing may needs shear ties. The comment was not for ties around the anchor bolt. WAB – 8/2/2013

Comment remains. The response to this comment still does not address this comment. The foundations must be designed as grade beams and may need shear reinforcement especially at the locations of the HDU11 hold downs. This can simply be done using the beam on elastic foundation function of Enercalc (may want to bracket the design for a high and low value of the sub grade modulus) to determine the moments and shears and then designing the concrete for these loads. Please remember to use strength level forces for concrete design. The beam on elastic foundation will give bearing pressure as well, but a separate analysis may need to be done using ASD loads for this. WAB - 8/13/2014

Comment resolved. Response accepted. WAB - 8/6/2015

Please provide a written response to the comments and include one copy of additional or revise calculations, and two copies of additional or revise drawings. While not required it is extremely helpful to the reviewer if the response indicates where in the submittal each comments has been addressed.

All submittals should be sent to the permit manager.