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: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/15/2016 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/17/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 11/17/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/21/2016 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP16-0084 Mercado San Agustin Annex / 3rd Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 11/23/2016 | CLAURIE1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | IID-16-05 The project is in conformance with the IID conditions. |
| 11/28/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields, Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Mercado San Agustin Annex Development Package (3rd Review) DP16-0084 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 29, 2016 DUE DATE: December 14, 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. 1. 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - Provide a copy of the required parking agreement with your next submittal. 2. 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - This comment was not addressed. It does not appear that all building square footage has been accounted for in the vehicle parking space calculation for example Building A if you total up the square footage shown on sheet 3 for A1, 2 & 3 you get 1,178. If you total up the square footage shown in the parking table you get 1,510. Also it does not appear that the "VENDOR" areas have been accounted for. 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. 3. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The short term bicycle provide number does not appear to be correct. Based on sheet 3 keynote 35 there are a minimum 26 short term spaces provided. It is not clear as the plans are not readable how many short term spaces are provided along the east side of the project within the right-of-way (ROW). The calculation calls out 8 short term within the ROW but only 6 appear to be provided. 4. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - There are no long term bicycle parking spaces called out on the plan. 5. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The short term bicycle parking detail does not show the correct distance between racks. Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f and Figure 7.4.9-C. This distance should be 4'-0" clear. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 6 sheet 10 calls out "CLASS II" and should state Short Term. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a detail for the long term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B & D are met. 8. This comment was not fully addressed, provide the height for each structure within the footprint. 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). 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 |
| 11/29/2016 | SSHIELD1 | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/01/2016 | PIBARRA1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/01/2016 | PIBARRA1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/01/2016 | PIBARRA1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 12/01/2016 | PIBARRA1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/01/2016 | PIBARRA1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |