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 - T20CM03404
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2020 | JPEELDA1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T20CM03404 and 03405 - BUILDINGS 1 and 2- RIO MADERA Revisions required to RIO MADERA COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows: 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." |
| 11/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | WATER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T20CM03404 and 03405 - BUILDINGS 1 and 2- RIO MADERA Revisions required to RIO MADERA COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows: 1. See Plumbing review comments for comments pertinent to Water. |
| 11/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T20CM03404 and 03405 - BUILDINGS 1 and 2- RIO MADERA Revisions required to RIO MADERA COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows: 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 a single 1.5" meter for both 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 Mercado development to show that the 1.5-inch meter is sized appropriately per Tucson Water's most current Water Meter Sizing Guidelines. Also revise the plumbing schedule for Durango and El Dorado to show a 1.5" meter instead of a 3" meter. |
| 11/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T20CM03404 and 03405 - BUILDINGS 1 and 2- RIO MADERA Revisions required to RIO MADERA COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows: 1. For Buildings 1 - 2 the Code edition shown in the Summary of Governing Regulations and the zoning code jurisdiction, sheets G0.0 for ICC/ANSI A117.1, is incorrect. Please revise to the 2009 edition, as adopted by the City of Tucson. 2. In the Building 1 Code Analysis, sheet G0.0, the allowable area per 2018 Table 506.2 is 7,000 SF per floor without area increases for frontage or sprinklers. 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 6,864 SF. This is less than 7,000 SF and therefore complies. However, please revise the actual area in this Table on G0.0 to show 6,864 and not 6,318. 3. In the Building 2 Code Analysis, sheet G0.0, the allowable area per 2018 Table 506.2 is 7,000 SF per floor without area increases for frontage or sprinklers. 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 5,545 SF. This is less than 7,000 SF and therefore complies. However, please revise the actual area in this Table on G0.0 to show 5,545 and not 5,412 4. For Buildings 1 and 2 please provide the floor areas for both the ground and 2nd floors in the General Building Summary on sheets G0.0. 5. 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 sheet A5.4 for the Durango unit 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. 6. 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, 7. 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. 8. 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 on Durango sheet 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Sections A2/A5.1 for Buildings 1 and 2 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. 12. Details D5/A3.1 for Building 1 and C5/A3.1 for Building 2 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. |
| 11/30/2020 | PIMA COUNTY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | T20CM03404 and 03405 - BUILDINGS 1 and 2- RIO MADERA Revisions required to RIO MADERA COMPLETE SET, Durango HG and Eldorado HG, as follows: 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. |
| 12/10/2020 | ELISA HAMBLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Elisa Hamblin, AICP PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: T20CM03404, 3405; Rio Madera Building Plans (1st Review) 5489 S Park Av – C-2 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 10, 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 in comparison with the approved development package (DP18-0229). Items that have been reviewed include building plan footprint, building height, and square footage and location. The building footprint and square footage for both building 1 and 2 do not match the approved DP. A revision to the DP or correction to the building plans is required. 2. Any changes related to building footprint, height, or square footage which are necessitated by comments from PDSD Commercial Plan Reviewers will require additional review by Zoning review staff. 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. |
| 12/10/2020 | EHAMBLI1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/10/2020 | EHAMBLI1 | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Completed |