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: DP16-0084
Parcel: 11620636B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP16-0084
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/01/2016 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/08/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
08/11/2016 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change See letter in Documents folder under Associated Documents and Ploans button on PRO.

DP16-0084 Mercado San Agustin Annex is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. Please see my sticky notes in the attached pdf.

The only comment is to correct the address to “267 S Avenida Del Convento” on the cover and in the border of each sheet.

Thank you,

Robin Freiman
Addressing Specialist
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
08/15/2016 CLAURIE1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Denied Date: August 15, 2016
To: IID Design Review Committee
c/o Carolyn Laurie, Principal Planner
Planning & Development Services
City of Tucson
201 N Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
From: Scott Neeley, AIA,
City of Tucson Design Professional
Re: Mercado San Agustin Annex
267 S Avenida del Convento
Tucson, AZ 85745
I have reviewed the Design Submittal for the Mercado San Agustin Annex, dated July 1,
2016, and Application Addendum dated July 25, 2016, for compliance with the UDC
Infill Incentive District (IID), UDC Section 5.12, as noted herewith.
PHASE OF REVIEW:
Review by Design Professional for Minor Design Review, pursuant UDC Section
5.12.6.C.2.b.
MATERIAL REVIEWED:
1) Design Submittal from applicant, dated July 1, 2016, consisting of 58 pages.
Materials as indicated by and organized according to applicant's "Table of Contents,"
as follows:
• Project Introduction
• IID Application Form
• IID Neighborhood Meeting
• UDC Compliance Review
• Pima County Assessor
• Aerial Photographs of Subject Property
• Photographs of Existing Conditions
• Precedents
• Site Plans
• Shade Study Analysis
• Elevations
• Material Samples
2) Addendum dated July 25, 2016, containing pages 59 to 63 of the Design Submittal.
IID STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROJECT:
• UDC Section 5.12.8 General IID Zoning Option Design Standards
• UDC Section 5.12.10 Downtown Core Subdistrict (DCS)
RELIEF SOUGHT FROM IID STANDARDS, WITH COMMENTS:
• Parking, UDC Section 5.12.8.E
Development within IID is allowed to be “off-site within ¼ mile of the project
site under a shared parking agreement that is approved by the City.”
Applicant notes “existing offsite parking lot northeast of the project on Block 5a
of the Mission District” with 204 spaces, under the same ownership as the
project site, and states that the parking lot is not currently in use. The required
parking calculated by the applicant is 183 spaces. The proposed offsite parking
is adjacent to an existing senior living facility.
Proposed parking is a surface parking lot, not in a parking structure with the
ground floor of the parking structure screened from view as required by
Section 5.12.8.E.4.
It is not clear that the surface parking lot otherwise complies with the
standards of Section 7.4.6.C and D (Section 5.12.8.E.3).
Applicant notes “ADA parking exists along the Avenida [del Convento] and
additional ADA spots along the street will be added with this project to be in
close proximity to the major entrances off of Avenida del Convento.”
However, applicant does not indicate the number of ADA spaces that will be
required nor how his requirement is met with existing and proposed spaces.
The three streets bounding this project have streetcar tracks, complicating
accessibility.
No crosswalk is proposed between the existing parking lot and the project site.
• Building Setbacks (Perimeter Yards),
Applicant requests relief from perimeter yard standard. Development within
the DCS is exempt from this standard unless the PDSD Director makes a
finding that public safety and health would be jeopardized. Relief is
appropriate for this project as it allows building walls close to the sidewalks,
consistent with the intentions of the IID for active streetscape design.
• Street Landscape Borders
Applicant requests that requirements for street landscape borders along the
three adjacent streets be waived. Development within the DCS is exempt from
this standard unless the PDSD Director makes a finding that public safety and
health would be jeopardized. Relief is appropriate for this project as it allows
building walls close to the sidewalks, consistent with the intentions of the IID
for active streetscape design.
• Shade, UDC Section 5.8.
Applicant requests relief from the IID requirement for providing shade on
sidewalks and pedestrian access paths (5.12.8.A.2).
The PDSD Director may allow an exception to this requirement where
“compliance is not feasible due to a project’s site location and/or building
orientation and the applicant has made a reasonable effort to comply with this
standard.”
While the site is slightly longer in the north/south direction than in the
east/west direction, there do not appear to be issues with site location or
building orientation that make shading less feasible.
The proposed design consists largely of metal containers with large areas of
pedestrian access paths between them, and provides 36% shading. It requires a
more comprehensive shading strategy to meet the code requirement.
OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS, WITH COMMENTS:
UDC Section 5.12.8 General IID Zoning Option Design Standards
STANDARDS AND COMMENTS:
A. Streetscape Design:
1. Pedestrian orientation
a. Architectural elements/details
Compliant
b. Windows, window displays, or visible activity at least 50% of frontage
Not compliant. Two of the three exterior elevations (Linda Avenue, and Avenida
del Convento) do not appear to meet this requirement. They appear to be largely
opaque in the drawings shown on page 49. The third elevation (Cushing Street)
may satisfy the requirement, but it is not clear from the drawing.
c. No more than 50' of facade without architectural detail
Compliant
d. Front doors visible and highlighted
Compliant. The proposed design has several entrances. The spirit of this
requirement appears to be met.
e. Commercial services or retail trade preferred at first level
This project is commercial/retail. The opaque facades on Linda Avenue and
Avenida del Convento do not encourage street level pedestrian activity.
f. Sidewalk design
Compliant. Existing sidewalks are incorporated into the project design. A more
generous sidewalk on Linda Avenue, and a crosswalk to connect the project to the
proposed off-site parking should be considered.
g. Bus pull-outs
Compliant. There is a streetcar stop in front of the project on Cushing Street.
h. Drive-through service
N/A
2. Shade:
a. Provide shade for at least 50% of pedestrian areas as described in this
section
Not compliant. See notes under above under "Shade, UDC Section 5.8."
B. Development Transition Standards:
Development Transition Standards do not apply because the project site does not abut existing
single-family or duplex dwellings.
SUMMARY:
The project concept is appropriate and could be an exciting addition to Mercado San Agustin.
However, there are significant issues to address with respect to IID requirements.
Streetscape Design / Pedestrian Orientation. The proposed perimeter walls, particularly
along Linda Avenue and Avenida del Convento, are highly articulated architecturally but
essentially opaque. They appear to present a blank face to passers-by – on the streetcar, driving,
biking, and walking. The examples included in the Applicant's submission – Re:START and
BOXPARK:Shoreditch, provide excellent illustrations of how street facades can be made active
with retail, but they do not appear to be analogous to the Applicant's submission.
Shade. The Applicant is asking for relief from the 50% shading requirement to 36% shading.
Conformance with the shading requirement appears to be especially important given the
project's focus on outdoor space and the large areas of metal that are likely to radiate or reflect
significant amounts of Tucson's intense sun. There are many options for shading that could be
utilized.
Parking. There is no provision for parking on site. The Applicant proposes to meet the parking
requirement through open surface parking on an adjacent vacant parcel. It is unclear how
future parking needs will be met if this lot is developed. It is also unclear whether existing and
proposed on-street accessible parking is adequate.
There is no crosswalk proposed between the site and the proposed parking.
The Applicant does not address mitigation of noise / light / screening for the parking with
respect to the existing senior housing on the adjacent site.
Submitted by:
Scott Neeley, AIA
City of Tucson Design Professional
08/16/2016 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields Principal Planner
PDSD Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: Mercado San Agustin Annex
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP16-0084

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 16, 2016

DUE DATE: August 26, 2016

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.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

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 May 20, 2017.


CONTENT REQUIREMENTS


1. Follow up to Previous Comment 1: The previous submittal of the DP was stamped by David Little. The latest DP package was stamped by William Walker. Add William Walker information to the cover sheet of the DP. David Little's information can be removed if he is not assisting in the preparation or sealing any of the sheets in the DP package.

2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines.

Previous Comment 1 - The Landscape Architects information shall be included on the cover sheet.

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2. Follow up to Previous Comment 3: It is acknowledged that an MDR application has been submitted for review. List the MDR (T16SA00295) case number, date of approval and any conditions of approval on sheet 8. Provide responses on how the conditions (if any) were addressed.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

Previous Comment 3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0084, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. It is also clear that this site will not be designed to meet certain UDC requirements. The site is within the Downtown Core Sub-district and per general note 11 on the cover sheet this project has been designed to comply with the criteria of the downtown area infill incentive district. If the applicant has not done so or if an IID application has not been processed, contact Carolyn Laurie for information related to the IID review and approval process.


3. Follow up to Previous Comment 6 and 7: For zoning review reference, the previous comments will remain until the MDR process has been completed and the DP package updated to include any conditions of the MDR approval.

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

Previous Comment 6 - Any additional conditions or design criteria associated with the IID review and approval process will have to be listed on the DP, cover sheet or IID plan. Compliance with applicable conditions of the IID approval must be demonstrated on the DP.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

Previous Comment 7 - List any additional case number related to separate review and approval process related to this development as noted by the standard above.


4. Follow up to Previous Comment 14 - For zoning review reference, the previous comments will remain until the MDR process has been completed and the DP package updated to include any conditions of the MDR approval.

a. Just as a caveat, the parking lot that is to be used for the required parking has not been formally approved as a commercial parking lot. The approval of the parking lot was under a Temporary Use Permit (TUP T15TUP0002) which expired on March 18, 2016.

b. After consulting with staff (Patricia Gehlen, Russlyn Wells, and Carolyn Laurie) with regards to the proposed parking area to be used for the off-site parking for this development, the following must be addressed.

1. The parking lot in question was approved as a temporary parking lot under a Temporary Use Permit that was good for only one year and expired on March 18, 2016. The parking lot was to be used temporarily and was not developed in compliance with the current UDC requirements for a commercial parking lot. In order for the lot that is proposed for parking to be used for the off-site parking, a formal development package must be submitted for review and approval. The DP must demonstrate how the parking lot will be developed to meet current UDC and Technical standard regulations.

2. The parking lot will have to be designed, reviewed and approved based on the underlying zoning of the property.

3. The parking calculations must include the number of Accessible parking spaces which includes van accessible spaces. An accessible route from the parking lot to the development site is required and must be. Demonstrate on the plan where the accessible route is provided.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

Previous Comment 14 - It is acknowledged that none of the required parking spaces will be provided on site. It is further acknowledged that the parking is to be provided in the current parking lot on block 5. The offsite parking will require approval through a shared parking agreement that is approved by the City. This item can be discussed as part of the IID.


5. Follow up to Previous Comment 15: For zoning review reference, the previous comments will remain until the MDR process has been completed and the DP package updated to include any conditions of the MDR approval.

2-06.4.9.H.5.b - If any of the required parking is located off-site as permitted by the UDC, a drawing of that parking area is to be provided, together with the city's required parking agreement (include a copy of the lease agreement if applicable) must be provided. Please remember that in these situations, if the off-site parking location is a new parking area, it must comply with all parking area requirements and must be allowed as a principal use by the zoning classification of that property. If the off-site parking area location is an existing parking lot, the parking spaces utilized for the proposed land use must be non-required parking for the existing use for which the parking area was established.

Previous Comment 15 - The information as noted above will have to be provided with the next submittal of the DP.

6. Follow up to Previous Comment 16: The information for the length of and type of loading zones was not added to the plans or notes. Add the information and add the number and type of loading zones proposed as a general note on the cover sheet. If the loading areas are to be used by UPS type vehicles is not necessary to demonstrate that the maneuverability into and out of the loading areas, if larger vehicles such as Semi-Trailers will use the loading areas, maneuverability into and out of the loading must be demonstrated. Contact the Engineering reviewer for turning radius requirements for certain size vehicles.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

Previous Comment 16 - Demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the proposed loading zone locations. Label the length and width of the loading zones areas.


7. Follow up to Previous Comment 17: The short and long term detail drawing must be added to the DP package.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

Previous Comment 17 - The long and short term bicycle paring facilities could not be verified on any of the site sheets. Draw and label the locations of the two types bicycle facilities. Add the fully dimensioned detail drawings for both facilities and if the long term facilities are proposed within the building the facility must meet the design criteria listed in UDC section 7.4.9. Fully dimensioned detail drawing for the long term facility must be added to the DP.


8. Follow up to Previous Comment 19: For zoning review reference, the previous comments will remain until the MDR process has been completed and the DP package updated to include any conditions of the MDR approval.

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 19 - Label the building setbacks for all buildings fronting on the street perimeter. If the setbacks is part of the IID modification request, the allowed setbacks through the IID approval must be drawn and labeled.


9. Follow up to Previous Comment 20: Clarify the following items.

a. Were all the enclosed buildings or use areas included in the calculating the parking requirements. In reviewing the Automobile parking table it is not very clear that all the square footage has been listed, such as buildings G7, G8, G9, or A1, A2, A3 etc.

b. For which use are Storage Buildings 1 through 4 assigned to and were the square footages taken into account when calculating the parking requirements?

c. Compare the building square footages listed in the parking table to the square footages labeled on the building footprints. Some of the square footages do not match.

d. Why are the square footages of some of the buildings not listed in the parking table?

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 20 - Add the information for all buildings as noted by the standard above.
If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
08/17/2016 DAVID RIVERA HC SITE REVIEW Reqs Change The parking calculations must include the number of Accessible parking spaces which includes van accessible spaces. An accessible route from the parking lot to the development site is required and must be. Demonstrate on the plan where the accessible route is provided.
08/23/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change The existing fire hydrant noted is more than 400 feet from all portions of future structures. Please indicate the location of proposed fire hydrants.
The propane tanks need to be relocated. They shall be accessible to the public per NFPA 58.
08/25/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approved The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of Project No. DP16-0084, Mercado San Agustin Annex.

ES provided two technical comments for this development package on June 21, 2016. Our review of the technical comments include:


•Provide a general note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated waste stream tonnage. The response letter from the applicant for the initial Development Package review indicated that these notes and calculations per provided on an architectural plan sheet. The notes were not located on any plan sheet by ES.
•Show how the drainage flows at the enclosure location. The revised grading plan at the enclosure location is acceptable.

In summary, ES approves the Development Package for the Mercado San Agustin Annex, with the understanding that the waste collection and frequency notes are included on the plan sheets, from a solid waste management standpoint.

Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review.

Tom Ryan
City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department
08/25/2016 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approv-Cond The development package is approved on the condition that when the MDR is approved, if any conditions change engineering concerns, the plan will be rerouted to engineering.
08/26/2016 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.
B. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right
corner of each sheet:
Relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect
the site, Include MDR case # approval date and any conditions proposed.

5.12. DOWNTOWN AREA INFILL INCENTIVE DISTRICT (IID)

5.12.8. GENERAL IID ZONING OPTION DESIGN STANDARDS

Shade
a. Except as provided below, shade shall be provided for at least 50% of
all sidewalks and pedestrian access paths as measured at 2:00 p.m. on June 21 when
the sun is 82 degrees above the horizon. Shade may be provided by trees, arcades,
canopies, or shade structures provided their location and design characteristics are
compatible with the historic and design context of the street and the architectural
integrity of the building. The use of plantings and shade structures in the City right-of-way
is permitted to meet this standard with the approval of the Transportation Department.
The shade provided by a building may serve to meet this standard.
b. Exception
The PDSD Director may approve an IID Plan providing less than 50% shade
where compliance is not feasible due to a project site's location and/or building
orientation and the applicant has made a reasonable attempt to comply with this standard. Include MDR case # approval date and any conditions proposed.

Ensure that all Zoning comments and concerns are addressed.
Additional comments may apply
08/29/2016 AHINES2 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/15/2016 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed