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: COMMERCIAL - TI
Permit Number - T12CM01718
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/11/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/13/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/13/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/13/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/13/2012 | RSHERRY1 | WWM | REVIEW | Passed | No new plumbing fixures. |
| 04/16/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Guadalarjara Grill - Outdoor Patio Expansion T12CM01718 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 16, 2012 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning can not approve the building plan until the development package has been approved. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 04/17/2012 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/23/2012 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. SHEET TS.1; EXISTING SITE PLAN: IS THE EXISTING RESTAURANT SPRINKLERED? THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING EXCEEDS 5000 SF, THEREFORE REQUIRING SPRINKLERS. VERIFY AND INDICATE ON PLAN. 2. SHEET A.1; FLOOR PLAN: THE OCCUPANCY LOAD FOR THE PATIO IS LISTED AS 100. THIS WOULD REQUIRE TWO EXITS FROM THE PATIO. THE DOORS INTO THE EXISTING RESTAURANT (TWO THUS) DO NOT MEET THE SEPARATION DISTANCE REQUIRED (FROM THE NEW WALL GATE) BY THE 2006 IBC, SECTION 1015.2.1. PROVIDE A SECOND EXIT FROM THE PATIO. 3. SHEET A.2 (PATIO WALL DETAIL 6); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEETS 3, 4, AND 5): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE AN 8" CMU WALL WITH #4 AT 16" O.C., WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES A DIFFERENT DESIGN. CLARIFY AND REVISE THE CALCULATIONS OR THE DRAWINGS. 4. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 04/23/2012 | BETH GRANT | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Approved | |
| 05/01/2012 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/01/2012 | FRODRIG2 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | Fire Code Administrator is asking ICC their interpretation of Fire Area and Occupant Load calculations as it relates to this improvement. Following the receipt of the opinion the Fire Code Administrator will make comments on this project. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/01/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |