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

Permit Number: T20CM03401
Parcel: 14025008A

Address:
5761 S PARK AV 4

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - T20CM03401
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/19/2020 JPEELDA1 FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/20/2020 PIMA COUNTY ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change T20CM03330, T20CM03399, T20CM03400, T20CM03401, T20CM03402, T20CM03403 - RIO DEL SOL

Revisions required to RIO DEL SOL COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows. Please respond to each review comment in writing.

1. Note under the electric panel schedules for the Durango and El Dorado units added in response to previous review comment is unfinished. Please complete the sentence to read..."tamper resistant type."
11/20/2020 PIMA COUNTY WATER REVIEW Reqs Change T20CM03330, T20CM03399, T20CM03400, T20CM03401, T20CM03402, T20CM03403 - RIO DEL SOL

Revisions required to RIO DEL SOL COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows. Please respond to each review comment in writing.

1. Refer to Plumbing review comments for comments pertinent to water.
11/20/2020 PIMA COUNTY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change T20CM03330, T20CM03399, T20CM03400, T20CM03401, T20CM03402, T20CM03403 - RIO DEL SOL

Revisions required to RIO DEL SOL COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows. Please respond to each review comment in writing.

1. On sheet P1.1 for Durango unit and P0.1 for El Dorado unit change "UPC Table 6-5" in the "Water Calculation" Table to reference the correct Table in the 2018 IPC.
2. In the Water Calculation on sheet P1.1 for Durango unit the combined water fixture units for tub and shower P-4 seems to not have populated the COMB FU TOTAL column and has not been included in the Combined FU Total calculation for this unit. This will revise your fixture unit totals.
3. In the Water Calculation on sheet P0.1 for El Dorado unit the combined water fixture units for tub and shower P-4 seems to not have populated the COMB FU TOTAL column and has not been included in the Combined FU Total calculation for this unit. Also check the number of each type of plumbing fixture. This schedule only shows one of each and for the lavatories, toilets and tubs there are more than that. This will revise your fixture unit totals.
4. On sheet P1.1 for Durango unit and P0.1 for El Dorado unit a 3-inch water meter is noted in the "Water Calculation" Table. The Site Utility Plan shows that this 3" meter is for all buildings on the parcel. Now that buildings have been designed and the WFU calculated (see review comments 2 and 3 above), please provide an overall calculation for the Rio Del Sol development to show that the 3-inch meter is sized appropriately per Tucson Water's most current Water Meter Sizing Guidelines.
5. Add 12 clothes washing machines to the New Plumbing Fixture Schedule on Clubhouse sheet P0.1 and revise the fixture units.
6. Add a note to the New Plumbing Fixture Schedle on Clubhouse sheet P0.1 that lavatories shall have faucets that deliver no more than 0.25 gallon per metering cycle. Ref. City of Tucson amendment to the 2018 IPC.
7. On the Stack Diagram A3/P1.1 for the Clubhouse, show the building drain after the junction of the two 3" sanitary lines as 4", assuming pipe slope of 1/8" per foot. Ref. 2018 IPC Tables 709.1 and 710.1(1).
8. Develope the Plumbing Plan for the Clubhouse on sheet P1.1 to show fixture callouts as shown in the Plumbing Fixture Schedule, show locations for cleanouts, locations for water shutoff valves, etc. Ref. 2018 IPC 106.3.1.
9. There is insufficient information in the Clubouse plumbing sheets for the well and underground tank system shown on the plumbing plan, sheet P1.1 and nothing is shown on the development plan utility sheets. Provide specification and develop the well room plan. It is unclear what the (unlabeled) pipes and ?drops? are. Also, the Water Supply Manifold D3/P1.1 is shown floating by itself. Where is this located in/on the building? Please develop a narrative and schematic drawing to describe how this system is intended to work, and make sure pipes are connected to something on plan and schematics and that all are labeled.
11/20/2020 PIMA COUNTY BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change T20CM03330, T20CM03399, T20CM03400, T20CM03401, T20CM03402, T20CM03403 - RIO DEL SOL

Revisions required to RIO DEL SOL COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows. Please respond to each review comment in writing.

1. Per 2018 IBC 705.3 for fire separation distance purposes imaginary lines shall be placed between Buildings 1 and 2 and Buildings 5 and 6. Scaling the site plans in the development package it appears that exterior walls and roofs of the Durango units at each end of Buildings 1 and 2 are located 6-feet apart which is less than 20-feet. The distance scales at 18-feet between Buildings 5 and 6. For VB buildings with exterior walls located less than 10-feet from the imaginary line (assumed located equidistant from each building) the exterior walls shall be 1-hour fire-rated per 2018 IBC Table 602. Show how this requirement will be accomplished in the drawing set.
2. For Buildings 1 - 6 the Code editions shown in the Summary of Governing Regulations and the zoning code jurisdiction, sheets G0.0, are incorrect. Please revise.
3. In the Buildings 1 and 2 Code Analysis, sheet G0.0, the allowable area is calculated with all allowable increases as 10,500 SF per floor. And, the actual building area is shown in this same table as 11,522 SF for Building 1 and 11,516 SF for Building 2. However by Bluebeam electronic area takeoff and in accordance with the definition of Area, Building in Chapter 2 of the IBC, the building footprint for the ground floor within exterior walls and including areas under covered porches, utility rooms, etc. is actually 12,811 SF. Please revise the actual area in this Table. The development plan, which shows the building areas as 11,510 SF and 11,500 SF, does not require a specific construction type so the allowable areas of building 1 and buildling 2 depend on the construction type(s) selected by the Architect and using the 2018 IBC Table 506.2 with allowed increases. Per the area increases calculations shown on sheet G0.0 for construction type VB, the proposed buildings area exceeds what is allowed by 2,311 SF (12,811 - 10,500 = 2,311).
4. In the Buildings 1, 2, 5 and 6 allowable area analysis, sheet G0.0, the building perimeter is shown as 706 feet for Building 1, 702 feet for Building 2, 550 feet for Building 5 and 550 feet for Building 6. These lengths are shown for both building perimeter that fronts on a public way or open space having a width of 20-feet or more (F), and total length of building permieter (P). However, based on the dimensioned plans provided, Building 1 has a perimeter of 722 feet, Building 2 has a perimeter of 710 feet, Building 5 has a perimeter of 548 feet and Building 6 has a perimeter of 549 feet. Please revise the Tables on sheets G0.0 to show the actual "Entire Building Perimeter (P)" lengths for these buildings.
5. Regarding "Building Perimeter Public Way (F)" in this table on sheets G0.0, the lengths of only three sides (one long and two short) of Buildings 1, 2, 5 and 6 can be used in the calculation because according to the "Site Walls", sheet 13, the area between buildings will be completely fenced in with 6-foot tall masonry walls to create an individual back yard for each living unit and therefore inaccessible to the Fire Department. Revise (F) in these Tables for each building per the dimensioned plans. Ref. 2018 IBC 506.3.
6. Likewise, only three sides can be used for the "Building Perimeter Public Way (F)" for Buildings 3 and 4 as the inaccessible fenced back yards back up to the south and north property lines providing no 20-foot access for the fire department to the back side of these buildings. 2018 IBC Section 506.3.1 specifically states that all open space used for calculating frontage increase shall be on the same property as the building.
7. Please recalculate the amount of increase for frontage (If) using the equations in 2018 IBC 506.3.2 and 505.3.3 based on review comments 4 and 5 above and recalculate allowable areas for Buildings 1, 2, 5 and 6 according to 506.2.3. Please include these calculations for each building on sheets G0.0.
8. For Buildings 1 - 6 please provide the floor areas for both the ground and 2nd floors in the General Building Summary on sheets G0.0. Please re-check allowable floor areas using the IBC definition to do the area takeoff and verify that all buildings are less than or equal to the allowable floor areas for each. See review comments above.
9. The General Building Summary for Buildings 1, 2 on sheets G0.0 shows them to be 1-story buildings, whereas they are 2-story buildings. Revise.
10. The approved Appeal to the Building Official allows individual units to be separated from each other by 2-hour fire walls in lieu of an automatic sprinkler system for the building. On sheets A5.4 for Durango and El Dorado units there are details C1, C2, C3 and D1 for when the firewalls intersect the exterior walls. The sheathing is shown as combustible (OSB), therefore Exception 1 of the 2018 IBC 706.5 applies. This Section requires that the exterior wall be 1-hour fire-rated for a horizontal distance of not less less than 4'-0" on both sides of the fire wall. How this is to be accomplished shall be shown in these details.
11. Drawing detail shown on sheet SP1.2 for this same condition contradicts details C1 - C3 and D1 on sheet A5.4 regarding sheathing material. This detail shows Type X gypsum sheathing. Please coordinate to avoid confusion. If gypusm sheathing is used for these locations the structural engineer must revise his shear wall design/schedule on sheet A1.1 to accommodate the change from wood to drywall panels. Also,
12. Provide a fire-rated exterior wall assembly (for review comment 5 above) that is listed in the U.L. Directory, directory of other acceptible testing company, or is included in the prescriptive 2018 IBC Table 721.1. Please include a printout for the selected system showing acceptible component manufacturers, fasteners, etc. in the drawing set.
13. 2018 IBC 706.5, exception 1, requires that openings in the exterior wall within 4'-0" of the fire wall intersection shall be protected with opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than 3/4-hour. Details C2 and C3 on sheets A5.4 indicate that there will be windows and doors within 4'-0" of fire wall intersections with exterior walls. These assemblies shall be 3/4-hour fire-rated. Indicate required fire ratings in door and window schedules, sheets A6.1 for Durango and El Dorado units.
14. Typical detail for fire wall to roof sheathing connection on sheet SP1.2 shows roof sheathing either side of the fire wall protected by a layer of Type X drywall at the underside of sheathing. This is consistent with 2018 IBC 706.6 exception 4.3 however, wall sections on sheets A5.1 and building sections on sheets A3.1 for Buildings 1 and 2 show a different system for protection of roof - which is T&G fire-retardent-treated sheathing. Please coordinate to avoid confusion.
15. In accordance with 2018 IBC 706.6 exception 4.2 the roofing system must be Class B. Please include specification(s) for roofing on sheet SP1.2 that verify that the proposed roofing systems are Class B.
16. Sections A2/A5.1 for Buildings 1, 2, 5 and 6, Section A4/A5.1 for Building 3 and Section A3/A5.1 for Building 4 show a condition at the fire wall where the roof on one side is lower than the roof on the other sice of the wall. 2018 IBC 706.6.1 exception 1 requires that the lower roof within 10-feet of the wall have not less than a 1-hour fire-resistance rating. Please provide proof that the proposed fire-retardant treated sheathing will provide a 1-hour barrier to the lower roof framing.
17. Detail B5/A5.1 for Building 1, detail C5/A3.1 for Building 2, details D5/A5.1 for Buildings 3 and 4, and details D5/A3.1 for Buildings 5 and 6 show a casing bead instead of a weep screed at the base of stucco finish system. A weep screed is required per 2018 IRC R703.7.2.1/ 2018 IBC 2512.1.2 located at or below the foundation plate line and minimum 2" above paved surfaces. Because this detail is not compliant with the prescriptive Code, submit an Appeal to the Building Official for this change sealed by the Architect. In lieu of an Appeal, provide a continuous curb (structural foundation detail 110) at these porch/slab locations or a 2" deep trench drain directly under the weep screed and tight to the foundation wall. Both are prescriptive solutions at no-step entries acceptible to the City of Tucson. If the curb is used please show this at pertinent locations on the PT foundation plan, sheet S0.2 for Building 1 and Building 2, and if the trench drain is to be used please show extents on the Architectural Foundation Plan, sheets A1.2 for both buildings.
18. Building section C1/A3.1 for Building 4 shows that the roof access hatch above the well room is less than 10-feet from the roof edge. Either raise the parapet (top scales 2'-0" above roof) to 3'-6" or provide a guard complying with 2018 IBC Section 1015. Ref. 2018 IBC 1011.13 and 1015.2 and .3.
19. On Clubhouse sheet A1.1 the Occupancy Tabulation does not use occupant load factors for calculating occupant load in accordance with 2018 IBC Table 1004.5. A portion (75 SF) of the lobby can be used for waiting with tables and chairs. Use 15 SF per occupant for this area. The rest of the space (925 SF) in this portion of the building to the wall separating it from the storage room 19 and the laundry room is business use at 150 SF per occupant. The storage room has an occupant load factor of 300 SF per occupant rounded to the next highest whole number, and the laundry room has an occupant load of at least 12 since there are 12 appliances in this room. Please revise the Occupancy Tabulation based on these occupant load factors.
20. What appears to be a large storage tank associated with the well is shown on building section C4/A3.1 for the Clubhouse package directly underneath building foundations. It is also shown on the plumbing plan, sheet P1.1. Provide structural calculations sealed by an Arizona registrant showing that neither foundations and tank walls will be compromised with this arrangement.
21. The drawing list on sheet C0.0 lists sheet 13 Site Wall Plan and five site electrical sheets under "DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DP18-0225)". However these sheets are not part of the development plan package approved on 4/03/2019 or its revisions.
11/20/2020 PIMA COUNTY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change T20CM03330, T20CM03399, T20CM03400, T20CM03401, T20CM03402, T20CM03403 - RIO DEL SOL

Revisions required to RIO DEL SOL COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows. Please respond to each review comment in writing.

1. For the next submittal include in the Manual J the Wrightsoft Constructions Components pages to verify that the thermal envelope assemblies match what the architectural sheets show, and submit the Wrightsoft Manual S and Manual D pages. The cooling CFM's on the mechanical plans shall be within 10% of the cooling CFM's calculated by the Manual D.
2. The Durango Manual J calculates a total cooling load of 9,547 btuh while the equipment schedule on Durango sheet M1.1 shows a unit with total cooling capacity of 24,000 btuh. Per ACCA Manual S, the selected unit shall have a capacity that should not exceed the the calculated total cooling load by more than 15%. 9,547 x 1.15 = 10,979 btuh. 24000 x .98 derating factor for elevation = 23520 btuh. Even with capacity derated the selected unit is oversized according to the Manual J and Manual S. Please reselect the heating and cooling unit and revise the equipment schedule.
3. The El Dorado Manual J calculates a total cooling load of 19,275 btuh while the equipment schedule on El Dorado sheet M1.1 shows a unit with total cooling capacity of 28,800 btuh. Per ACCA Manual S, the selected unit shall have a capacity that should not exceed the the calculated total cooling load by more than 15%. 19,275 x 1.15 = 22,166 btuh. 28800 x .98 derating factor for elevation = 28224 btuh. Even with capacity derated the selected unit is oversized according to the Manual J and Manual S. Please reselect the heating and cooling unit and revise the equipment schedule.
4. Submit commercial Heating and Cooling load calculations for the clubhouse/laundry building to justify the capacities of heating and cooling units specified in the schedule on sheet M0.1. Per 2018 IECC C403.3.1 capacities of cooling equipment shall be not greater than that of the smallest available equipment size that exceeds the calculated loads. Ref. 2018 IMC 106.3.1 and 2018 IECC C403.
5. Please remove the underground tank from the Clubhouse mechanical plan on sheet M1.1.
6. Specify exhaust fans for restrooms in the Clubhouse. Ref. 2018 IMC 403.2.1(4).
7. Add mechanical notes for the Clubhouse/laundry building on sheet M0.1 showing compliance with mandatory heating and cooling controls as specified in 2018 IECC C403.4.
11/23/2020 SBLOOD1 ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
12/08/2020 JGARCIA1 ZONING REVIEW Needs Review
12/08/2020 JGARCIA1 COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING Needs Review

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/08/2020 JGARCIA1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
12/08/2020 JGARCIA1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/08/2020 JGARCIA1 REJECT SHELF Completed