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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T20CM03401
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/08/2020 | JGARCIA1 | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | RIO DEL SOL - 3rd Review BUILDING 1. For the next submittal please submit two complete construction drawing sets as you did for submittal 2; one set for Rio Del Sol and one set for Rio Madera. Do not submit drawing sheets as separate pdf files as was done for the 1st and 3rd submittals. 2. Per C. Trevillyan's earlier instruction to the Architect, please submit for a clubhouse/well room/storage building permit separate from the Building 4 permit since it will receive a separate certificate of occupancy. Add this permit number to the drawing list on sheet C0.0 as was done with the separate buildings. 3. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 1, you are combining the Durango units at the ends of buildng 1 and building 2 into a single building to avoid fire-rating the exterior walls of each due to close proximity and for calculating allowable building area. This is allowable by the IBC 503.1.2, and you are creating three separate but contiguous buildings. And each building shall be designed within the limitations of IBC Sections 504 for building height and 506 for allowable area. However the 2-hour fire separations between units are not "fire walls" but are fire-rated assemblies in accordance with the 2018 IRC R302.3 as was allowed by the Building Official in the Appeal submitted by the Architect. That Appeal was specific to fire sprinklers and not applicable to fire-ratings between buildings on the same lot. Per 2018 IBC Table 602 "party walls" are to be used to separate buildings closer to each other 5-feet, and per 706.1.1 they shall be constructed as "fire walls" per IBC Section 706. Therefore previous review comments 10-16 apply to the fire walls separating buildings and will affect the dwelling units on each side of these walls. All other fire-separation walls in these buildings can be constructed in accordance with the IRC. 4. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 2, the adopted accessibility Code edition is 2009. Please revise. 5. Regarding Architect's response to building review comments 3 and 4 you must revise G0.1 sheets to include a plan showing the extents of the three buildings within the two apartment buildings, locations of fire walls between them and actual areas for each (which should include porches because the roof extends over them - see IBC Chapter 2 definition for "Area, Building"). Then, if the actual building areas are less than or equal to 7,000 SF allowed by Table 506.2 no frontage increases are needed and the masonry walls enclosed back yards are not an issue for determining allowable area. However, if frontage increase is needed for one or more buildings the fire walls defining building ends can't be used in the calculations, and, 6. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comments 5 and 6, lengths of rear walls with masonry enclosed yards that fill the rear courtyard between buildings or that back up to property lines cannot be included as "frontage" for calculating frontage increase per my previous comment without approval from the Building Official. 7. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 11, the intent is to avoid confusion for builders and inspectors. The response seems to put the responsibility on the contractor to know if the "local code" requires gypsum sheathing and to submit a structural revision for the sheathing/shear wall change. The Architect shall clarify this condition and modify the drawings to show only what is intended to be built and inspected. That said, see review comment 1, second to last sentence, for whether or not detail SP1.2 is needed at the fire walls. If so, the SE shall also make revisions to his drawings. 8. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 17, the revised details shall comply with this City allowance in the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance for weep screed clearance at accessible entries: "a recessed channel in the exterior slab a minimum of 2 inches deep under the weep screed at the most shallow point, sloped to drain, and with a horizontal width projecting a minimum of one inch beyond the edge of the finished wall." Please revise these details per this directive. 9. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 20, please add a clear note in these documents that the the storage tank, system design and structural calculations for underground tank/building foundations will be by deferred submittal. 10. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 21, please remove the site walls and site electrical sheets from the Development Plan list and add them to the drawing list for this construction package on sheet C0.0. PLUMBING 1. Regarding Architect's response to previous plumbing review comment 9 (shown as item 38 in the Architect's responses), while the well system may be reviewed and approved by PDEQ electrical and plumbing connecting to it are reviewed and inspected by City of Tucson DSD. What is currently shown on Clubhouse sheet P1.1 is not clear without additional information and possible modification to the plan and schematics as requested by the previous comment. What portion of what is shown on this sheet is PDEQ's responsibility for review and inspection and what is City of Tucson DSD's responsibility? |
| 12/08/2020 | JGARCIA1 | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | RIO DEL SOL - 3rd Review BUILDING 1. For the next submittal please submit two complete construction drawing sets as you did for submittal 2; one set for Rio Del Sol and one set for Rio Madera. Do not submit drawing sheets as separate pdf files as was done for the 1st and 3rd submittals. 2. Per C. Trevillyan's earlier instruction to the Architect, please submit for a clubhouse/well room/storage building permit separate from the Building 4 permit since it will receive a separate certificate of occupancy. Add this permit number to the drawing list on sheet C0.0 as was done with the separate buildings. 3. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 1, you are combining the Durango units at the ends of buildng 1 and building 2 into a single building to avoid fire-rating the exterior walls of each due to close proximity and for calculating allowable building area. This is allowable by the IBC 503.1.2, and you are creating three separate but contiguous buildings. And each building shall be designed within the limitations of IBC Sections 504 for building height and 506 for allowable area. However the 2-hour fire separations between units are not "fire walls" but are fire-rated assemblies in accordance with the 2018 IRC R302.3 as was allowed by the Building Official in the Appeal submitted by the Architect. That Appeal was specific to fire sprinklers and not applicable to fire-ratings between buildings on the same lot. Per 2018 IBC Table 602 "party walls" are to be used to separate buildings closer to each other 5-feet, and per 706.1.1 they shall be constructed as "fire walls" per IBC Section 706. Therefore previous review comments 10-16 apply to the fire walls separating buildings and will affect the dwelling units on each side of these walls. All other fire-separation walls in these buildings can be constructed in accordance with the IRC. 4. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 2, the adopted accessibility Code edition is 2009. Please revise. 5. Regarding Architect's response to building review comments 3 and 4 you must revise G0.1 sheets to include a plan showing the extents of the three buildings within the two apartment buildings, locations of fire walls between them and actual areas for each (which should include porches because the roof extends over them - see IBC Chapter 2 definition for "Area, Building"). Then, if the actual building areas are less than or equal to 7,000 SF allowed by Table 506.2 no frontage increases are needed and the masonry walls enclosed back yards are not an issue for determining allowable area. However, if frontage increase is needed for one or more buildings the fire walls defining building ends can't be used in the calculations, and, 6. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comments 5 and 6, lengths of rear walls with masonry enclosed yards that fill the rear courtyard between buildings or that back up to property lines cannot be included as "frontage" for calculating frontage increase per my previous comment without approval from the Building Official. 7. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 11, the intent is to avoid confusion for builders and inspectors. The response seems to put the responsibility on the contractor to know if the "local code" requires gypsum sheathing and to submit a structural revision for the sheathing/shear wall change. The Architect shall clarify this condition and modify the drawings to show only what is intended to be built and inspected. That said, see review comment 1, second to last sentence, for whether or not detail SP1.2 is needed at the fire walls. If so, the SE shall also make revisions to his drawings. 8. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 17, the revised details shall comply with this City allowance in the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance for weep screed clearance at accessible entries: "a recessed channel in the exterior slab a minimum of 2 inches deep under the weep screed at the most shallow point, sloped to drain, and with a horizontal width projecting a minimum of one inch beyond the edge of the finished wall." Please revise these details per this directive. 9. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 20, please add a clear note in these documents that the the storage tank, system design and structural calculations for underground tank/building foundations will be by deferred submittal. 10. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 21, please remove the site walls and site electrical sheets from the Development Plan list and add them to the drawing list for this construction package on sheet C0.0. PLUMBING 1. Regarding Architect's response to previous plumbing review comment 9 (shown as item 38 in the Architect's responses), while the well system may be reviewed and approved by PDEQ electrical and plumbing connecting to it are reviewed and inspected by City of Tucson DSD. What is currently shown on Clubhouse sheet P1.1 is not clear without additional information and possible modification to the plan and schematics as requested by the previous comment. What portion of what is shown on this sheet is PDEQ's responsibility for review and inspection and what is City of Tucson DSD's responsibility? |
| 12/08/2020 | JGARCIA1 | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | RIO DEL SOL - 3rd Review BUILDING 1. For the next submittal please submit two complete construction drawing sets as you did for submittal 2; one set for Rio Del Sol and one set for Rio Madera. Do not submit drawing sheets as separate pdf files as was done for the 1st and 3rd submittals. 2. Per C. Trevillyan's earlier instruction to the Architect, please submit for a clubhouse/well room/storage building permit separate from the Building 4 permit since it will receive a separate certificate of occupancy. Add this permit number to the drawing list on sheet C0.0 as was done with the separate buildings. 3. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 1, you are combining the Durango units at the ends of buildng 1 and building 2 into a single building to avoid fire-rating the exterior walls of each due to close proximity and for calculating allowable building area. This is allowable by the IBC 503.1.2, and you are creating three separate but contiguous buildings. And each building shall be designed within the limitations of IBC Sections 504 for building height and 506 for allowable area. However the 2-hour fire separations between units are not "fire walls" but are fire-rated assemblies in accordance with the 2018 IRC R302.3 as was allowed by the Building Official in the Appeal submitted by the Architect. That Appeal was specific to fire sprinklers and not applicable to fire-ratings between buildings on the same lot. Per 2018 IBC Table 602 "party walls" are to be used to separate buildings closer to each other 5-feet, and per 706.1.1 they shall be constructed as "fire walls" per IBC Section 706. Therefore previous review comments 10-16 apply to the fire walls separating buildings and will affect the dwelling units on each side of these walls. All other fire-separation walls in these buildings can be constructed in accordance with the IRC. 4. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 2, the adopted accessibility Code edition is 2009. Please revise. 5. Regarding Architect's response to building review comments 3 and 4 you must revise G0.1 sheets to include a plan showing the extents of the three buildings within the two apartment buildings, locations of fire walls between them and actual areas for each (which should include porches because the roof extends over them - see IBC Chapter 2 definition for "Area, Building"). Then, if the actual building areas are less than or equal to 7,000 SF allowed by Table 506.2 no frontage increases are needed and the masonry walls enclosed back yards are not an issue for determining allowable area. However, if frontage increase is needed for one or more buildings the fire walls defining building ends can't be used in the calculations, and, 6. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comments 5 and 6, lengths of rear walls with masonry enclosed yards that fill the rear courtyard between buildings or that back up to property lines cannot be included as "frontage" for calculating frontage increase per my previous comment without approval from the Building Official. 7. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 11, the intent is to avoid confusion for builders and inspectors. The response seems to put the responsibility on the contractor to know if the "local code" requires gypsum sheathing and to submit a structural revision for the sheathing/shear wall change. The Architect shall clarify this condition and modify the drawings to show only what is intended to be built and inspected. That said, see review comment 1, second to last sentence, for whether or not detail SP1.2 is needed at the fire walls. If so, the SE shall also make revisions to his drawings. 8. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 17, the revised details shall comply with this City allowance in the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance for weep screed clearance at accessible entries: "a recessed channel in the exterior slab a minimum of 2 inches deep under the weep screed at the most shallow point, sloped to drain, and with a horizontal width projecting a minimum of one inch beyond the edge of the finished wall." Please revise these details per this directive. 9. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 20, please add a clear note in these documents that the the storage tank, system design and structural calculations for underground tank/building foundations will be by deferred submittal. 10. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 21, please remove the site walls and site electrical sheets from the Development Plan list and add them to the drawing list for this construction package on sheet C0.0. PLUMBING 1. Regarding Architect's response to previous plumbing review comment 9 (shown as item 38 in the Architect's responses), while the well system may be reviewed and approved by PDEQ electrical and plumbing connecting to it are reviewed and inspected by City of Tucson DSD. What is currently shown on Clubhouse sheet P1.1 is not clear without additional information and possible modification to the plan and schematics as requested by the previous comment. What portion of what is shown on this sheet is PDEQ's responsibility for review and inspection and what is City of Tucson DSD's responsibility? |
| 12/08/2020 | JGARCIA1 | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | RIO DEL SOL - 3rd Review BUILDING 1. For the next submittal please submit two complete construction drawing sets as you did for submittal 2; one set for Rio Del Sol and one set for Rio Madera. Do not submit drawing sheets as separate pdf files as was done for the 1st and 3rd submittals. 2. Per C. Trevillyan's earlier instruction to the Architect, please submit for a clubhouse/well room/storage building permit separate from the Building 4 permit since it will receive a separate certificate of occupancy. Add this permit number to the drawing list on sheet C0.0 as was done with the separate buildings. 3. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 1, you are combining the Durango units at the ends of buildng 1 and building 2 into a single building to avoid fire-rating the exterior walls of each due to close proximity and for calculating allowable building area. This is allowable by the IBC 503.1.2, and you are creating three separate but contiguous buildings. And each building shall be designed within the limitations of IBC Sections 504 for building height and 506 for allowable area. However the 2-hour fire separations between units are not "fire walls" but are fire-rated assemblies in accordance with the 2018 IRC R302.3 as was allowed by the Building Official in the Appeal submitted by the Architect. That Appeal was specific to fire sprinklers and not applicable to fire-ratings between buildings on the same lot. Per 2018 IBC Table 602 "party walls" are to be used to separate buildings closer to each other 5-feet, and per 706.1.1 they shall be constructed as "fire walls" per IBC Section 706. Therefore previous review comments 10-16 apply to the fire walls separating buildings and will affect the dwelling units on each side of these walls. All other fire-separation walls in these buildings can be constructed in accordance with the IRC. 4. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 2, the adopted accessibility Code edition is 2009. Please revise. 5. Regarding Architect's response to building review comments 3 and 4 you must revise G0.1 sheets to include a plan showing the extents of the three buildings within the two apartment buildings, locations of fire walls between them and actual areas for each (which should include porches because the roof extends over them - see IBC Chapter 2 definition for "Area, Building"). Then, if the actual building areas are less than or equal to 7,000 SF allowed by Table 506.2 no frontage increases are needed and the masonry walls enclosed back yards are not an issue for determining allowable area. However, if frontage increase is needed for one or more buildings the fire walls defining building ends can't be used in the calculations, and, 6. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comments 5 and 6, lengths of rear walls with masonry enclosed yards that fill the rear courtyard between buildings or that back up to property lines cannot be included as "frontage" for calculating frontage increase per my previous comment without approval from the Building Official. 7. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 11, the intent is to avoid confusion for builders and inspectors. The response seems to put the responsibility on the contractor to know if the "local code" requires gypsum sheathing and to submit a structural revision for the sheathing/shear wall change. The Architect shall clarify this condition and modify the drawings to show only what is intended to be built and inspected. That said, see review comment 1, second to last sentence, for whether or not detail SP1.2 is needed at the fire walls. If so, the SE shall also make revisions to his drawings. 8. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 17, the revised details shall comply with this City allowance in the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance for weep screed clearance at accessible entries: "a recessed channel in the exterior slab a minimum of 2 inches deep under the weep screed at the most shallow point, sloped to drain, and with a horizontal width projecting a minimum of one inch beyond the edge of the finished wall." Please revise these details per this directive. 9. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 20, please add a clear note in these documents that the the storage tank, system design and structural calculations for underground tank/building foundations will be by deferred submittal. 10. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 21, please remove the site walls and site electrical sheets from the Development Plan list and add them to the drawing list for this construction package on sheet C0.0. PLUMBING 1. Regarding Architect's response to previous plumbing review comment 9 (shown as item 38 in the Architect's responses), while the well system may be reviewed and approved by PDEQ electrical and plumbing connecting to it are reviewed and inspected by City of Tucson DSD. What is currently shown on Clubhouse sheet P1.1 is not clear without additional information and possible modification to the plan and schematics as requested by the previous comment. What portion of what is shown on this sheet is PDEQ's responsibility for review and inspection and what is City of Tucson DSD's responsibility? |
| 12/08/2020 | JGARCIA1 | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | RIO DEL SOL - 3rd Review BUILDING 1. For the next submittal please submit two complete construction drawing sets as you did for submittal 2; one set for Rio Del Sol and one set for Rio Madera. Do not submit drawing sheets as separate pdf files as was done for the 1st and 3rd submittals. 2. Per C. Trevillyan's earlier instruction to the Architect, please submit for a clubhouse/well room/storage building permit separate from the Building 4 permit since it will receive a separate certificate of occupancy. Add this permit number to the drawing list on sheet C0.0 as was done with the separate buildings. 3. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 1, you are combining the Durango units at the ends of buildng 1 and building 2 into a single building to avoid fire-rating the exterior walls of each due to close proximity and for calculating allowable building area. This is allowable by the IBC 503.1.2, and you are creating three separate but contiguous buildings. And each building shall be designed within the limitations of IBC Sections 504 for building height and 506 for allowable area. However the 2-hour fire separations between units are not "fire walls" but are fire-rated assemblies in accordance with the 2018 IRC R302.3 as was allowed by the Building Official in the Appeal submitted by the Architect. That Appeal was specific to fire sprinklers and not applicable to fire-ratings between buildings on the same lot. Per 2018 IBC Table 602 "party walls" are to be used to separate buildings closer to each other 5-feet, and per 706.1.1 they shall be constructed as "fire walls" per IBC Section 706. Therefore previous review comments 10-16 apply to the fire walls separating buildings and will affect the dwelling units on each side of these walls. All other fire-separation walls in these buildings can be constructed in accordance with the IRC. 4. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 2, the adopted accessibility Code edition is 2009. Please revise. 5. Regarding Architect's response to building review comments 3 and 4 you must revise G0.1 sheets to include a plan showing the extents of the three buildings within the two apartment buildings, locations of fire walls between them and actual areas for each (which should include porches because the roof extends over them - see IBC Chapter 2 definition for "Area, Building"). Then, if the actual building areas are less than or equal to 7,000 SF allowed by Table 506.2 no frontage increases are needed and the masonry walls enclosed back yards are not an issue for determining allowable area. However, if frontage increase is needed for one or more buildings the fire walls defining building ends can't be used in the calculations, and, 6. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comments 5 and 6, lengths of rear walls with masonry enclosed yards that fill the rear courtyard between buildings or that back up to property lines cannot be included as "frontage" for calculating frontage increase per my previous comment without approval from the Building Official. 7. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 11, the intent is to avoid confusion for builders and inspectors. The response seems to put the responsibility on the contractor to know if the "local code" requires gypsum sheathing and to submit a structural revision for the sheathing/shear wall change. The Architect shall clarify this condition and modify the drawings to show only what is intended to be built and inspected. That said, see review comment 1, second to last sentence, for whether or not detail SP1.2 is needed at the fire walls. If so, the SE shall also make revisions to his drawings. 8. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 17, the revised details shall comply with this City allowance in the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance for weep screed clearance at accessible entries: "a recessed channel in the exterior slab a minimum of 2 inches deep under the weep screed at the most shallow point, sloped to drain, and with a horizontal width projecting a minimum of one inch beyond the edge of the finished wall." Please revise these details per this directive. 9. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 20, please add a clear note in these documents that the the storage tank, system design and structural calculations for underground tank/building foundations will be by deferred submittal. 10. Regarding Architect's response to previous building review comment 21, please remove the site walls and site electrical sheets from the Development Plan list and add them to the drawing list for this construction package on sheet C0.0. PLUMBING 1. Regarding Architect's response to previous plumbing review comment 9 (shown as item 38 in the Architect's responses), while the well system may be reviewed and approved by PDEQ electrical and plumbing connecting to it are reviewed and inspected by City of Tucson DSD. What is currently shown on Clubhouse sheet P1.1 is not clear without additional information and possible modification to the plan and schematics as requested by the previous comment. What portion of what is shown on this sheet is PDEQ's responsibility for review and inspection and what is City of Tucson DSD's responsibility? |
| 12/11/2020 | EHAMBLI1 | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed | |
| 12/11/2020 | ELISA HAMBLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Elisa Hamblin, AICP PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: T20CM03330, 3399, 3400, 3401, 3402, 3403 Building Plans (3rd Review) 5469 S Park Av – C-1/C-2 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 11, 2020 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review comments were addressed. 1. Zoning has reviewed the building plans for compliance with the approved development package DP18-0225. Buildings 1-6 indicate a total square footage on sheet G0.0 that differs from the approved DP. Additionally, the footprint of Building 4 does not match the approved DP. A revision to the DP or correction to the building plans is required. 2. Zoning cannot approve the building plans until PDSD Commercial Plans reviewers have approved the building plans. 3. The entire plan/drawing set (180+ pages) shall be submitted as a single multi-page PDF file upon resubmittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: corrected building plans and/or revised development package. |