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: DP18-0225
Parcel: 14025008A

Address:
5761 S PARK AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP18-0225
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/23/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/26/2018 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Please indicate on plan if new fire hydrant is "public" or "private".
Your response letter states no sprinklers will be installed. Fire sprinklers are required per section 903 of the IBC and IFC. Please indicate on plan proposed location of fire sprinkler underground piping.
12/11/2018 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved DP18-0225 RIO MERCADO PARK APTS/ 2ND SUBMITTAL (now known as Rio Del Sol Apartments) is Approved by Pima County Addressing.
Thank you,

Robin Freiman, Addressing Official
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV - 4th Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
12/14/2018 SBEASLE1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Reqs Change **PDF Attachment can be viewed in Documents table in PRO**

December 13, 2018

Alexandra Hines
Lead Planner
City of Tucson
Public Works Buildings - 201 North Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ. 85701

RE: DP18-0225 Rio Mercado Park Apts / 2nd Submittal, Received November 23, 2018

Dear Ms. Hines,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP18-0225, Rio Mercado Park Apts; 2nd Submittal, a development package application for an approximately 5.04 acre site, located northeast of the intersection of East Milton Road and South Park Avenue. The land use is commercial with the proposed development being multifamily dwelling units.
This site is within the Tucson International Airport avigation easement requirements and public disclosure area, FAA traffic pattern airspace, and FAA Part 77 airspace.
The Tucson Airport Authority has reviewed the applicant's response letter to the City of Tucson, dated October 20, 2018. The applicant has indicated that they do not believe the project they are proposing would trigger having to comply with filing FAA Form 7460. The Tucson Airport Authority disagrees with the applicant's assessment. I have attached results from the FAA Notice Criteria Tool, selecting the approximate location of one of the proposed structures and utilizing the submitted plan set as the inputs for the FAA Notice Criteria Tool. The results of the FAA Notice Criteria Tool demonstrate that the applicant shall comply with filing FAA Form 7460. The requirement to file FAA Form 7460 is identified by the following two responses generated from the FAA Notice Criteria Tool;
1) Your proposed structure is in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception. The FAA, in accordance with 77.9, requests that you file.
2) The FAA requests that you file
The FAA has communicated that all projects which trigger the requirement to file FAA Form 7460 shall complete this form to have the FAA conduct the review of the project. This FAA review is important since the FAA could potentially require modifications to proposed project to respond to concerns which are identified by the FAA. Some examples of these potential project modifications could range from modifying or shifting the proposed building footprint, modifying the proposed structure height, or installing structure marking lights.
The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following condition of approval, as noted below. This condition shall be identified in the general notes of the revised development plan.

Condition of approval:
1. "According to the FAA Notice Criteria Tool, this project is located in proximity to a navigation facility and could impact navigation signal reception. The applicant shall file Form 7460 with the FAA at least 45 days before construction activities begin for the project. It is highly recommended that the applicant file earlier than 45 days to provide the applicant with sufficient time to respond to any concerns which are identified by the FAA. Any cranes used which are used must also be identified with Form 7460. Please file Form 7460 at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp"
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520-573-4811.

Respectfully,
Scott Robidoux,
Senior Airport Planner
cc file
12/17/2018 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The site is within a balanced basin per the MapTucson layers and the latest map in the Standards Manual. Please revise the report to indicate the site is within a balanced basin.
2. Provide curb and sidewalk along the Milton Road frontage. (TS 10-01.3.2 and TS 10-01.3.3.B) This comment will remain until the issue with TDOT is resolved.
3. Justify connection to street storm drain system. TDOT usually requires a manhole at the property line for these types of connections. Contact Richard Leigh in TDOT Permits and Codes. ) This comment will remain until the issue with TDOT is resolved.
12/17/2018 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data

A. All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any relevant case numbers for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

Street Landscape Borders

To enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape, a street landscape border is required in accordance with Table 7.6.4-1 along the all street frontages of a site.

Minimum Width
Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border must be measured from the future MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Section 5.4.4.

Portions of the Landscape Buffer along Drexel Rd are not 10' wide.

Located on Site

Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets.

Provide written approval for use of the ROW on Jeanette Bl.

4.3 Streetscape Landscape Border - Maximum Width
In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten foot standard, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the 50% vegetative coverage standard. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line.

Provide actual width of landscape buffers on Park Ave and appropriate calculations.

Ensure that all Engineering and Zoning comments and concerns are addressed.
Additional comments may apply.
12/18/2018 DAVID RIVERA ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
12/18/2018 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
PDSD Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: Rio Mercado-Park Apartments - 5761 S. Park Avenue
Development Package (1st Review) - Multi-Family Development
DP18-0225 - C-1/C-2

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 18, 2018
DUE DATE: December 18, 2018

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is September 10, 2019.


***Please address the remaining Follow Up Comments.


1. Follow up to previous Comment 3: The number of units per building was not listed as requested per the previous comment. List the number of units per building i.e., Bldg. 1- 10 units, Bldg. 2 - 12 Units, Bldg. 4 - 6 units and Clubhouse etc.

Also list the square footage of the clubhouse separately i.e. Bldg. 4 911, 887 SF (Including Clubhouse x,xxx SF)

2-06.4.7.A.5 - On residential projects, list the total number of units/lots proposed.

PREVIOUS COMMENT 3: List the total number of units per building. Clarify if there is a Clubhouse for the tenants use and if so list the structure and square footage of the structure.


2. Follow up to previous Comment 4: See follow up to comment 3 above.

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

PREVIOUS COMMENT 4: If there is a clubhouse list the square footage and building number as a general note or include it in general note 5.


3. Follow up to Previous Comment 6: Comment is applicable until there is a response or clarification from the TDOT / City Engineer Fred Felix.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

PREVIOUS COMMENT 6: Include any curb and sidewalk information and dimensions along Milton Road if required by the PDSD Engineering reviewer.



4. Follow up to Previous Comment 7: The response does not address the zoning comments.

2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.
Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

PREVIOUS COMMENT 7: Whether street dedication is required or proposed the project drawing appears to include detail drawings of the future right of way conditions along the Drexel Road and Park Avenue frontages. If right of way dedication is not required or proposed at this time, an additional site drawing that represents the future conditions of the development site as it relates to Drexel and Park frontages including landscape requirements must be included in the package and a recorded MS&R Covenant will be required or the site can be designed to meet the future right of way conditions.


5. Follow up to previous Comment 9: The details noted in your response comments do not have the future building setbacks drawn and labeled.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

PREVIOUS COMMENT 9: For setback reference draw and label the future curb location for Drexel and Park on sheets 2 and 3.


6. Follow up to previous Comment 10: It's not clear where the clubhouse is located in Bldg. 4 or if the height of the clubhouse is the same height as the rest of Bldg. 4. Clearly delineate the clubhouse area and label the height.

Clarify if 1 story Bldg. 4 is 25 feet in height or less? The 2 story buildings are labeled as 25 feet in height.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

PREVIOUS COMMENT 10: Label the Clubhouse building, square footage and height within the footprint.

Label the heights of the 1 story structures. (If available include as reference building plan elevations with height dimensions.)


7. COMMENT: The sheet index on the cover sheet needs to be corrected. Sheet 3 has been listed 3 times.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields any time during the week at (520) 837-4956 or email Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
12/18/2018 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. The apartments in building #1 with a first floor elevation of 34.0 or higher are not to have a backwater valve.
2. The apartments in building #2 with a first floor elevation of 34.5 or higher are not to have a backwater valve.
3. The apartments in building #4 with a first floor elevation lower than 35.3 require a backwater valve (e.g. the clubhouse).
12/19/2018 SBEASLE1 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/19/2018 SBEASLE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed