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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Permit Number - TC-COM-0123-00503
Review Name: COMMERCIAL REVIEW - FULL v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/27/2024 | Bldg Permits - Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 11/22/2024 | Commercial Structural | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | November 22, 2024 1st Review DESA Architecture Attn: David Lovato 1202 E. Broadway Blvd., Unit 112 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Re: UGLY BUT HONEST PIZZERIA TENANT IMPROVEMENT (REVISIONS) City of Tucson Permit Number: TC-COM-0123-00503 Stantec Project Number: 185215066 Stantec File Number: TUC-24-148 Plan review for the above referenced project has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. PLEASE send all response to comments back to the City through the permit portal! Responses sent directly to Stantec will be ignored. Also, please submit complete copies of all permit documents (i.e. plans, calculations, reports, etc.) even if they have not been changed. Please cloud and delta all changes and provide a letter with a written response to each of the comments indicating the action taken. The scope of this review covers the architectural and structural designs as they relate to the codes adopted by the jurisdiction. All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions, and concerns before permit approval. Occupancy Group Construction Type Area (Square feet) Occupant Load Automatic Fire Sprinklers Fire Alarms A-2 V-B 656 44 No No Separate Permits: None. Deferred Submittals: None. Special Inspections: Epoxy and expansion anchors, structural steel and field welding. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS General 1. The revision narrative indicates the use of an in-situ test in lieu of the requirements for special inspection of welding and post-installed anchors on the canopy. In-situ loads test are not intended to be used in place of required special inspections. To use the in-situ test in-lieu of the required special inspections an appeal to the building official must be applied for and approved. {In speaking with the City of Tucson Building Department regarding this request, the field welding special inspection will most likely still be required due to the welding being exposed and visible for inspection. The post-installed anchors will not be able to be special inspected so the appeal will pertain more to this.} STRUCTURAL COMMENTS Testing Report 1. The structural testing report provided indicated a pressure imposed on a column of the canopy structure. The intent of the test should be to ensure the post-installed anchors were installed properly by testing the uplift strength of the anchors since special inspection was not completed. The test conducted does not test the uplift of the anchors. It tests more shear strength of the anchors and adequacy of welds. In summary the following will need to be completed and submitted for review upon approval of an appeal: a. Please provide a test of the adequacy of the anchors for uplift in compliance with section 1708.2.2. b. The welds do not need to be tested since they are visible and must be inspected by special inspection for compliance. 2. The testing report is indicating compliance with section 1708.2.2 of the 2018 International Building Code. However, the report indicates the pressure test was done for 5 minutes, but section 1708.2.2 requires the test to be done for 24 hours. This test is not in compliance with this section of the code. MECHANICAL COMMENTS There are no comments. PLUMBING COMMENTS There are no comments. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS There are no comments. Should you have any questions regarding the plan review comments, please contact the plan reviewer listed for the appropriate discipline. Plans reviewed by: Trevor Bies, Senior Plan Reviewer 602-338-9922 trevor.bies@stantec.com |
||
| 11/27/2024 | Design Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please refer to the Design Professional's review, which states: "The canopy roof cover has been changed from tensile canopies to corrigated metal deck panels. The shape should match the square-wave rooftop panels or S-wave as shown on the approved IID Application Package Material samples and colors (page 23, IID-22-01/HPZ-22-059 Delta 2 Revision). PDF file of his review is available in your TDC account. If you have any questions, please let me and Gabriel Sleighter know (maria.gayosso@tucsonaz.gov and gabriel.sleighter@tucsonaz.gov). Thank you. | ||
| 11/27/2024 | Historic | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please refer to the Design Professional's review, which states: "The canopy roof cover has been changed from tensile canopies to corrigated metal deck panels. The shape should match the square-wave rooftop panels or S-wave as shown on the approved IID Application Package Material samples and colors (page 23, IID-22-01/HPZ-22-059 Delta 2 Revision). PDF file of his review is available in your TDC account. If you have any questions, please let me and Gabriel Sleighter know (maria.gayosso@tucsonaz.gov and gabriel.sleighter@tucsonaz.gov). Thank you. | ||
| 11/20/2024 | PDSD Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED |