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: DP14-0041
Parcel: 116206330

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP14-0041
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/10/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: April 14, 2014
SUBJECT: West End Station Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: MetroTED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 855 W Congress St; T14S R13E Sec14
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0041

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (The WLB Group, Inc.; 14MAR14 revised 09APR14) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Consultants, Inc.; 10OCT13). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.
4) Complied.
5) Complied.
6) Complied.
7) Complied.
8) Complied.
9) Complied.
10) Complied.
11) Complied.

12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from TDOT and Suntran for all proposed work within the Public right-of-way. The relocation of the bus stop will require prior approval from all entities that have an interest and a PIA will be required to be processed through TDOT Permits and Codes.

13) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from TDOT for the proposed discharge location within Congress Street at the light rail track location. Verify if TDOT will allow the site to drain water directly onto the existing light rail track.

14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from TDOT for the track access permit that is required when any work is being proposed along the streetcar route. The permits can be obtained from TDOT Permits and Codes.

15) Complied.

16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.4: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for the abandonment of Paseo De Los Zanjeros from a public right-of-way to a private street. The proposed improvements can not be approved within the public right-of-way until the street is abandoned and made private. Once the roadway is abandoned a lot combination request will be required to make the abandoned area part of the same lot.

17) Complied.
18) Complied.
19) Complied.

20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information, SEQ#, under General Note #14.

21) Complied.
22) Complied.
23) Complied.
24) Complied.
25) Complied.
26) Complied.
27) Complied.
28) Complied.
29) Complied.

30) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Specifically per plan view it does not appear that both containers have a clear 14'x40' approach. The approach to container on the eastside appears to be block by the curbing for the landscape island.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

31) Complied.
32) Complied.

SWPPP:

33) Complied.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and supplemental approvals from TDOT and SunTran along with the recordation of the public roadway abandonment that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.

Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
04/15/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
04/17/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
04/21/2014 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approv-Cond Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property.
04/21/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Identification and Descriptive Data

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. Ensure that all zoning and engineering comments and concerns are addressed

Include with re-submittal MDR approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property.
04/21/2014 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP14-0041
855 West Congress Street
Apartments & Retail C-3 & I-1

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 21, 2014

DUE DATE: April 26, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed.

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

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. 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 March 18, 2015.

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

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

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.

1) COMMENT (for previous comment #3): Provide the correct address for this site (Parcel 116-20-6330) on the plans. The correct address is 855 West Congress Street. Change the address in the bubble near the top center of the title sheet to the correct address.

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.

2) COMMENT (for pervious comment #7): This site is located within the Rio Nuevo District (UDC Section 5.11 & Figure 5.11-A: Rio Nuevo District Map; p. 313). A pre-application conference is required for all development in the Rio Nuevo District (RND) to determine whether the project shall be reviewed through the Minor or Major Project Design Review Procedure (UDC Section 5.11.8). Complete the required design review and approval process for Rio Nuevo. Also complete the Modification of Development Regulations (MDR) process for development of this site (UDC Section 5.11.9).

Be certain to comply with the Site Design Standards for the Rio Nuevo District (UDC Section 5.11.5). Note that West Congress function as an "Entry Street" (UDC Section 5.11.5.A.1.b & Figure 5.11-B: Downtown Street Hierarchy). Also notice the Shade requirements for the site on both the sidewalks and pedestrian pathways (UDC Section 5.11.5.A.2). Note the Vehicular Circulation and Parking requirements for the Rio Nuevo District (UDC Section 5.11.5.A.3). For example, provide a six (6) foot pedestrian circulation path between the PAAL and the buildings along the east site of the west parking lot (UDC Section 5.11.5.A.3.a (1)). There are additional requirements for Rio Nuevo District. See Plazas and Open Spaces (UDC Section 5.11.5.B) and Streetscapes (UDC Section 5.11.5.B).

3) COMMENT (for previous comment #8): This site is also located in the Infill Area Incentive District (UDC Section 5.12). The Infill Area Incentive District (IID) offers development incentives by use of the MDR process (UDC Sections 5.12.1.C and 5.12.4). This site is within the Downtown Core Subdistrict (DCS) of the IID (UDC Figure 5.12-A: Illustrative Map; p. 324) and offers some relief relative to the RND requirements (UDC Section 5.12.5). Provide all approved MDRs, when completed, with the next submittal.

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.

4) COMMENT (for previous comment #10): Provide the application numbers and description on the plans as described above.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

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

5) COMMENT (for previous comment #12): List the floor area for each building.

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

6) COMMENT (for previous comment #13): The maximum lot coverage for the residential portion of this project is eighty percent (80%) (UDC Table 6.3-4.A: Dimensional Standards; p. 339). Lot coverage for the residential use includes the foot print of all enclosed structures and all vehicle use areas (UDC Definitions L Section 11.4.13). List the buildings and all vehicle use area for the lot coverage calculation. The total square footage of these uses divided by the total residential lot area (80,425) equals the lot coverage (UDC Section 6.4.3).

2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met.

7) COMMENT (for previous comment #14): When the actual site area is finally determined provide the calculations for the entire site.

2-06.4.7.C - Streets and Roads Notes

2-06.4.7.D - Utilities Note

2-06.4.7.E.2 - The following notes will be provided on the plans/plats if private sewers are proposed for construction on the property.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

8) COMMENT (for previous comment #15): Provide the dimensions for all the adjacent streets, including centerline, curbs, sidewalks, paving, streetcar track and all right-of-way related conditions. (See comment #9.) The information provided on the site plan is incomplete.

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.

9) COMMENT (see previous comment #17): Fully dimension the right-of-ways. Include the curb, sidewalk, paving centerline dimensions. (See comment #8.) The information provided on the site plan is incomplete.

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.

10) COMMENT (for previous comment #28): The required number of vehicle parking spaces for the multi-family residential use with over seventy (70) units per acre is 1.25 per unit (UDC Section 7.4.4.B Table 7.4.4-1). Two Hundred parking spaces are required for the residential use [160 units (1.25) = 200 parking spaces]. The required number of vehicle parking spaces for the retail use is one (1) space for every three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area. The required number of vehicle parking spaces for the food service use is one (1) space for every one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. It appears that the square footage of the food service use has been included in the square footage of the retail space. Provide parking calculation on the site plan. Include the parking required and the parking provided in the calculations. The required number of parking spaces must be provided on the plan along with the number of parking spaces provided.

There are additional requirements in the Rio Nuevo District for parking areas (UDC Section 5.11.5.A.3.b). All these requirements must be provided. See the Vehicular Circulation and Parking requirements (UDC Section 5.11.5.3). Note that all new parking areas "shall be design so that vehicles are not visible from the adjoining street level" (UDC Section 5.11.5.A.3.b.(3) Screening of Parking). (Also see comment # 2.).

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.

11) COMMENT (for previous comment #29): If off-site parking is to be used, provide the above information on the site plan.

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.

12) COMMENT (for previous comment #30): Provide all required and provided bicycle parking on the site plan, with specification, dimensions, details and calculations. No bicycle parking calculations have been provided. The bicycle parking detail refers to the LUC. See the UDC Section 7.4.9 and Figure 7.4.9-C: Bicycle Parking Layout.

Bicycle parking for the residential use is 0.10 spaces of short-term parking per bedroom, with a minimum of two (2) spaces; and 0.5 spaces long-term per bedroom, with a minimum of two (2) spaces. (UDC Section 7.4.8 Table 7.4.8-1).

It appears that the square footage of the food service use has been included in the square footage of the retail space. Therefore; the required bicycle parking cannot be determined.

Bicycle parking for the retail use is one (1) short-term space per two thousand (2,000) square feet, with a minimum of two (2) spaces, and one (1) long-term space per twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, with a minimum of two (2) spaces (UDC Section 7.4.8 Table 7.4.8-1).

Bicycle parking for the food service use is one (1) short-term space per two thousand (2,000) square feet, with a minimum of two (2) spaces, and one (1) long-term space per twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, with a minimum of two (2) spaces (UDC Section 7.4.8 Table 7.4.8-1).

It appears that only one bicycle parking area has been provided on the site (Keynote 20), Sheet 3). Bicycle parking is required within fifty (50) feet of each entrance (UDC Section 7.4.9.C.2.a).

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.

13) COMMENT (for previous comment #32): Provide the required setback lines to each property line and right of way on the site plan. Provide the height for each building's wall facing the right of way (ROW) or property lines. The required setback to the Major Street (Congress) is the greater of twenty-one (21) feet or the height of each building's wall facing the street to the back of the future curb. The setback is also the greater of twenty-one (21) or the height to the travel lane facing the other streets for each building (UDC Section 6.4.5.C.2.a; Table 6.4.5.C-1). Architectural plans are referred to in the submittal, but no architectural plans or elevations have been provided.

No elevations, with dimensions, for setback information has been provided. In addition fully take into account the Rio Nuevo District Building Design Standards (UDC Section 5.11.4).

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.

If Paseo De Los Zanjeros is acquired, provide plans that include the addition into the project and all the appropriate calculations. Be aware that all the requirements for the Rio Nuevo District, include the parking area requirements, shall be applicable.

There are a considerable number of significant requirements specific to the Rio Nuevo District that must be successfully addressed. Resubmit after the Design Review Board (DRB) has approved this project, and after all MDR request have been processed and either approved or denied.

Provide copies of the approved plans for the DRB and all approved MDRs.
04/22/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 3
1. Delete the detectable warning strip at the top of the accessible parking aisle located in the middle island of parking. The aisle is a safety zone.
SHEET 7
2. At ramp 1 and 6, delete the detectable warning strips at the top of the accessible parking aisle. The aisle is a safety zone.
3. A general note for all the ramps shown with flared sides:
a. Flared sides at curb ramp are generally used where there is cross pedestrian traffic. None of these ramps have cross pedestrian traffic.
b. None of these curb ramps with flared side comply with ICC A117.1, Sectrion 406 which requires the maximum slope of the flare to be 1:10.
c. Either provide all flared sides with a 1:10 slope or delete the flared sides and provide return curbs.
END OF REVIEW
04/24/2014 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: April 23, 2014

TO: Adam Smith, Principal Planner
City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701

FROM: Corky Poster, Architect and Planner (AICP), On-Call Design Professional

RE: West End Station, Linda Avenue and Congress Street

I am in receipt of a preliminary proposal for the West End Station, submitted by the Owner/Developer, The Gadsden Company, for review for compliance with the Design Standards (5.12.6) of Article 5, Overlay Zones.

The submittal consists of Sheets 1 - 19 and include: Master Cover Sheet; Demolition Plan; Site Plan; Grading, Paving, and Drainage Plan; Private Utility Plan; Notes and Details; SWPPP Plan; Landscape Plan, Rainwater Harvesting Plan. It should be noted that elevations were not provided as required, and therefore, review for compliance with the applicable design standards could not be done completely. These elevations should be submitted with the next submittal. Also the first floor plan provides no information about the horizontal circulation on floors 2-4. Several building sections would also be useful for the next submittal.

A. Streetscape Design:
1. Pedestrian-orientation:
(It should be noted that the proposed residential site plan provides a very rich and varied internal pedestrian-oriented plan with small narrow walk-ways that meet the intent and character of standards a.-d. below. However those standards are met internal to the development and not externally as pre-supposed by the Design Standards. If one evaluates the internal pedestrian spaces the project is in full compliance with standards a.-d. below. However, since the Guideline section is labeled "Streetscape Standards" The assessment below evaluates the external edge of the development as it faces the "street."
a. Without elevations, it is impossible to determine if the project complies with the standard that "new construction shall have architectural elements/detail at the first two floor levels." The four-story structure (Item 6 of Zoning and Land Use Notes, sheet 1) appears to have residential units on all four levels except for the commercial property on the south edge. Many of the units have what appears to be a solid masonry walled-in yard facing outward (on the east and west), so it seems unlikely that there will be compliance with this standard. Final opinion is withheld until elevations are provided.
b. "Windows on 50% of frontage." - same note as a. above.
c. "No more than 50 feet of façade without architectural detail" - same note as a. above.
d. "Front doors shall be visible and identifiable from the street" - based on the plan provided it appears that no front doors are visible and identifiable from the street, except along the south edge of the property.






e. "Parking at the side or the rear" - The project as proposed is a full city block. As such it is difficult to determine which part of the site is the "side" or the "rear." That said, I believe the intent of this language was to "hold the corners" of city blocks with structure rather than surface parking. The current location of the parking lot along Avenida del Convento is problematic, particularly at the corner of Congress and Avenida del Convento. The Mercado across to the west successfully establishes a strong zero lot line corner. I would have hoped that this new development would mirror that massing and provide a strong gateway to the Mercado District along the viewshed of Avenida del Convento. Instead the parking lot, apparently without any landscape mass, walls, or building mass, leaves a fully open corner, which undermines the firmness of that corner andf the urban block.
f. "Parking Structure design" - not applicable.
g. Sidewalks. The sidewalks are in compliance. However, sidewalks on the south edge could be much more generous and welcoming in this commercial area, if widths were greater than 5'. It is unclear what happens to the sidewalk north and south of the Streetcar Station. It appears to end 40' north of the Station and south of the Station.
h. "Bus pull outs" - There is a Streetcar Station on the west side of the property. Pedestrian connections to that station are unclear in the drawings provided.
i. "Drive-through" - Not applicable.
2. Shade:
a. The shade requirements are well met on all the internal pedestrian walkways of the development by the 4 story building mass itself. They are also met, with vegetation and tree canopy, along the pedestrian sidewalk areas on the north and east of the development. There are no pedestrian areas along the west. The south sidewalks, along the commercial areas appear to have no shade, unless they are covered by projected awnings from the building. In the absence of more architectural and elevation detail, this area cannot be evaluated.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Corky Poster, Architect and Planner (AICP)
On-Call Design Professional, City of Tucson
04/28/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER WRITE DECISION LETTER Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 4 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 this plan
04/28/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From Zelin Canchola
TDOT
April 28, 2014

dp14-0041 West End Station

The development plan cannot be approved at this time.

1. Any work to be performed adjacent to the Street Car System will need an Track Access Permit from Sun Link. In addition, given that the system will soon be fully operational, any work impacting the Sunlink System will have to be conducted as not to interfere with its operation, this will likely require work to be performed at night. Call Sun Link 520 837-6761 for additional information.


2. TDOT does not review for placement (from an Bus operational standpoint) of bus shelters, however the shelters should be placed in the public row, and/or include an easement, dedicated for its placement if it cannot be placed in the row. I will differ to City Sun Tran, or TDOT Planning (Tom Fisher ) for requirements. . The proposed placement does not seem to meet several requirements. The bus pad should be 20 x 30 feet with 6 inches of concrete, ADA access to the pad would need to be offset. It looks like the walkway meets behind the proposed shelter. It may need to be offset.


3. The roof drainage (0.4-cfs for each roof drain) into Congress Street and onto the existing street car lines should be ok, but I am concerned of the other larger drainage flows (3.2-cfs at one location) from the onsite basins. Can these onsite flows be rerouted to the parking area (concentration point 4), then conveyed into the existing catch basin along Avenida Del Convento?

4. At the NE corner of the property, it appears that stairs are proposed in the row? The stairs should be outside of the row, or a TRE should be obtained for its placement.

5. Continue to work with Real Estate for the abandonment of Right of Way for a private street and bus shelter Right of way issues. The development plan cannot be approved until then.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/22/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed