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 - T17CM00309
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2017 | ANDREW CONNOR | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/05/2017 | ACONNOR1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/05/2017 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/05/2017 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. SHEET TS1; CODE REVIEW: THE ADDITION OF A NEW STRUCTURE MUST BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE THE AREA OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE PLUS THE AREA OF THE NEW STRUCTURE DO NO EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE AREA FOR THE LISTED USE (A-2) AS INDICATED IN THE IBC TABLE 503. IF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE NEW STRUCTURES AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES (ALL THAT ARE ADJACENT) IS LESS THAN THE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCES LISTED IN THE IBC TABLE 602, THE NEW STRUCTURES MUST BE SEPARATED FROM THOSE EXISTING STRUCTURES WITH A FIRE RESISTANCE RATING PER TABLE 602, OR, THE NEW STRUCTURES MUST BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE COMBINED AREAS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IBC TABLE 503. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS ANALYSIS ON THE DRAWINGS. 2. SHEET TS1; CODE REVIEW: IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO CONSIDER THE CANOPIES AS UTILITY OCCUPANCY TYPES (U), THEREFORE NO OCCUPANT LOAD WOULD BE REQUIRED, NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WOULD BE REQUIRED, NO FIRE SPRINKLERS/ALARMS WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, AND NO IMPACT FEES WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE 77 NEW OCCUPANTS WOULD BE ADDED TO THE OCCUPANT LOADS OF THE ADJACENT EXISTING RESTAURANTS. THIS COULD AFFECT ADDITIONAL FIRE SPRINKLER/ALARM REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE ADJACENT STRUCTURES, DEPENDING HOW THE NEW OCCUPANT LOAD IS DISTRIBUTED TO THOSE STRUCTURES. THE OTHER NEGATIVE ISSUE WOULD BE THAT THE ALLOWABLE AREA FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES PLUS THE NEW STRUCTURES WOULD BE LIMITED TO 5500 SF FOR THE U OCCUPANCY AS OPPOSED TO THE 6000 SF FOR THE A-2 OCCUPANCY. SEE THE IBC SECTION 508.3.2 FOR NON-SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES. 3. SHEET S1.0; FOUNDATION PLAN: THE FOOTING F-4 AT GRID LINES 5 AND E INTERFERES WITH THE FOOTING F-3 AT GRID LINES 6 AND E. PLEASE INDICATE HOW THESE FOOTINGS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED SINCE BOTH ARE 24" DEEP. 4. SHEET S2.0; METAL ROOF DECK: IS THERE METAL DECK ON THE ROOF OF THIS CANOPY? IF SO, PLEASE INDICATE THE BRAND NAME OF THE DECK, LOAD CAPACITIES, AND THE DECK THICKNESS. 5. SHEET A1.0; FLOOR PLAN; REFERENCE SITE PLAN: THE SITE PLAN INDICATES AN ENTIRE RECTANGLE FOR THIS PROJECT (SHADED), WHILE THE FLOOR PLAN AND THE STRUCTURAL ROOF FRAMING PLAN DO NOT SHOW THE CANOPY EXTENDING EAST OF GRID 4. PLEASE CLARIFY. 6. SHEET S2.0; ROOF FRAMING PLAN: PLEASE INDICATE BEAM B-1 ON THE PLAN. 7. SHEET S3.0; GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES (MASONRY): IS MASONRY INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT? PLEASE VERIFY. 8. GENERAL: PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 06/05/2017 | ERIC NEWCOMB | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Needs Review | |
| 06/06/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/06/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/06/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/06/2017 | RSHERRY1 | WWM | REVIEW | Passed | No plumbing |
| 06/06/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Passed |