Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D06-0039
Parcel: 11807003D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D06-0039
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/28/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/29/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/05/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development.
* Detail of enclosure OK>
* Access to the enclosure OK.
* No provisions shown or discussed for recycling.
* Grease container cannot be stored within the clear area of the enclosure.
10/06/2006 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Transportation Information for
Rezoning, Subdivision, and
Development Requests
Delivered to:
Date Delivered:
Development Services - City of Tucson
10/6/2006
Case Number Project Name
Average number of daily trips
(ADT) forecasted as a result of the
proposed development
This information is provided for jurisdictional
planning departments to assess the impact of
the proposed residential or commercial
development on surrounding traffic patterns
and roads. If the forecasted daily traffic
exceeds 500 average daily trips, a more
detailed analysis is also provided.
D06-0039 427 Lucky Wishbone
Pima Association of Governments
Sandra C. Holland, Data Services
177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405, Tucson, Arizona
85701-1127
(520) 792-1093 FAX (520) 620-6981
10/09/2006 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: D06-0039
Lucky Wishbone
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 5, 2006

DUE DATE: September 28, 2006

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is September 27, 2007.

2. Within the project location map please label 36th Street and the Santa Cruz River.
DS 2-05.2.1.D.2

3. Case number D06-0039 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the DP, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets.
DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

4. Please add note stating "The project is designed to meet the overlay zones criteria: Sec. 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ); Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone; Sec. 2.8.6, Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ)".
DS 2-05.2.2.B.10

5. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments.
DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G

6. The half right-of-way dimensions for Silverlake Road and Mission Road is mis-labeled, Please correct. Both existing and future rights-of-way are to be shown fully dimensioned on the DP. Information to be included are right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

In addition it appears that the property is within the intersection widening section, more specific the taper section. For Silverlake Road the taper has half R/W of sixty-five (65) feet in width for a length of three hundred (300) feet measured from the centerline of Mission Road, then tapers for three hundred (300) feet to meet the future half R/W of fifty (50) feet. For Mission Road the taper has a half R/W of seventy-five (75) feet in width for a length of three hundred (300) feet measured from the centerline of Silverlake Road, then tapers for three hundred (300) feet to meet the future half R/W of sixty (60) feet. Please verify with City Engineering if additional widening will required for this intersection.
DS 2-05.2.3.C & DS 2-05.2.4.F

7. Please dimension the back-up spur at the end of the row of parking adjacent to the dumpster. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the spur and the screen doors of the dumpster surround.
DS 3-05.2.2.D

8. Since the building is providing a greater setback from the east and south, show only the dimension of the distance between the building and property line.

The setback from Silverlake Road is to be dimensioned from the future curb location.

The required setback from Mission is per the SCZ requirement based on the height of the structure at a 3 to 1 ratio. This structure at twenty (20) feet height requires a setback of sixty (60) feet to the nearest point of the building from the future right-of-way of Mission Road. As drawn the proposed building does not meet required SCZ setbacks.

Please be aware that the required taper for both streets may affect the point of measurement for setback purposes.

9. Curb ramps or diagonal curb ramps shall be provided at access aisles. They shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles.
ANSI 406

Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at access aisles of handicapped motor vehicle parking spaces. All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line.
ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705

10. Please show the end of the sidewalk as ramp or curb at the southeast corner of the building. Currently there is no definite end to the sidewalk.

11. Please provide a detail of required signage for accessible parking spaces per TDOT regulations. Signage is to be twelve (12) inches by eighteen (18) inches with required verbiage posted at a height not less than seven (7) feet.

12. Please add to zoning and land use note 2 the square footage of the structure on site.
DS 2-05.2.4.M

13. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2).

Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30 inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (DS 2-09.5.1.A). The type of rack proposed does not provide two-point support for bicycles. Please review DS 2-09.8.0 Figure 2 - 7 for acceptable and unacceptable rack designs, Figure 8 for rack location, and Figure 9 for dimensional requirements.

Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. The revised DS may be found on the web at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf

14. Please verify that sight visibility triangles are based on the MR&R future street cross-sections.
DS 2-05.2.4.R

15. A separate Special Application, review, and approval for the SCZ and ERZ (if encroachment into the 100-year floodplain is proposed) overlay is required. For more information the applicant must contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 ext. 1179. The application form is on the DSD website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf

16. Add the 400-foot SCZ corridor boundary to plat.


17. Add the view corridor calculations to the plan.

18. If a color or construction materials palette is proposed, add both matrix tables, which includes the proposed exterior color name, number and manufacturer, proposed roof material type and color, required screening wall materials and color, etc. Or add note stating building or structure surfaces, which are visible from Mission Road will have colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape.

19. Please add the appropriate following notes to the tentative, development, or site plan plat for SCZ review per LUC Sec. 2.8.2.
a) Maximum height of structures will be 1/3 the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way of Mission Road, not to exceed 24 feet.
b) No grading beyond that is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance.
c) Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state.
d) All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along Mission Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D
e) Fencing and freestanding walls facing Mission Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements.
f) All areas between the MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation.
g) All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from Mission Road and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both.
h) Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length.

20. Proposed signage can be included in the initial Scenic Corridor review or a separate review can be done. Regulations for signs are stipulated in Section 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code, and are further supplemented by the following:
a) On any conflict in requirements between this Section and Section 3-32, the stricter of the two prevails.
b) Signs are to use those colors which are predominate within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones.
c) No commercial advertising sign, except a sign pertaining to a use conducted on the premises or a sign advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which the sign is located, and no billboard shall be erected within four hundred (400) feet of the right-of-way line of Mission Road.

21. All changes, modifications, and/or corrections must be made on all applicable plans including the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Once changes, modifications, and/or corrections are made and reviewed further comments may result.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197.

KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0039dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents.
10/13/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied October 13, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0039
PROJECT NAME: Lucky Wishbone
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1335 W Silverlake Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the plan.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. Sheet 2 of 3, Keynote 5 should read 265' for the sight visibility triangle.

3. This plan does not seem to take into account the total future intersection widening on Silverlake RD and Mission RD in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes plan. Please re-visit the intersection widening requirements to prevent future widening from having an adverse effect to the proposed structure.

4. A right of way permit will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan/site plan is required prior to applying for a R/W permit. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
10/13/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT

D06-0039

LANDMARK ENGINEERING, INC.

LUCK WISHBONE

--------------------------------------------------------


Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
10/19/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR# 170828 October 19, 2006



Landmark Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Bruce Wilson
4625 E Ft. Lowell Rd
Tucson, AZ 85712

Dear Mr. Wilson:

SUBJECT: Lucky Wishbone
D06-0039

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted September 28, 2006. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan, we will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. Also, customer to resummit plans showing location of TEP facilities

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer.

Please resubmit two revised bluelines to Pima County Development Services Department for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Mike Kaiser at 918-8244 should you have any technical questions. My telephone number is 918-8297.

Sincerely,



Elizabeth Miranda
Office Specialist

lm
Enclosure
cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
10/20/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No comment
10/24/2006 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: D06-0039 LUCKY WISHBONE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: October 24, 2006



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:


Delete direction from street names in Location Map and Development Plan.

Completely spell the suffixes for street names on sheets 1 and 2.

Label section corners on Location Map.

Delete information from inside of Address Block.

jg
10/27/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

2) Revise the numbering of the tentative plat sheets. Two of the sheets are labeled 2 of 3. DS 2-05.2.0

3) Revise the development plan and landscape plan references to the northernmost landscape border. It is to be identified as a street landscape border, not an interior border.

4) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site
storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of
all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire
vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B

5) Storm water and runoff harvesting to supplement drip irrigation are required elements of the irrigation system for both new plantings and preserved vegetation. Revise the plans to show water harvesting basins. Include grading information for the basins.

6) Revise site calculation #7 on sheet LS-1. One canopy tree is required for every ten parking spaces.
LUC 3.7.2.3.A

7) Revise site calculation #8 on sheet LS-1. The north border should be identified as a street landscape border. LUC 3.7.2.

8) Identify existing vegetation to remain in the 30' scenic route buffer area by location, size and type.
DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e

9) Projects subject to the provisions of LUC 2.8, Overlay Zones (SCZ, HDZ, ERZ, WASH) are reviewed in accordance with the procedures of TCC 23A-51. The DSD full notice procedure requires a separate application and review.

10) Revise the development plan to identify 30' scenic route buffer, eliminating the term setback. LUC 2.8.2.4.A

11) Within the required 30' buffer area, indigenous plant material is to remain. If the existing buffer is disturbed, the buffer area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible. DS 2-06.7.1.B

12) Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location
on the landscape plans. Show the total PIP, TOS, required mitigation for each species. DS 2-15.3.4.B

13) Revise the landscape and native plant preservation plans to include revised grading limits. The scenic route buffer area is to be fenced and excluded from the grading limits and the new sewer line, wall & landscape buffer along the south property line should be included within the limits of disturbance. DS 2-07.2.2.B

14) The grading limits on the native plant preservation plans require revision to match the landscape plan. Show the undisturbed 30' buffer area and note the following: "No grading can occur until thirty (30) days prior to construction. Construction plans must be in the review process for permits, or construction permits must have already been issued. Grading permits are to cover only those areas for which building permits are granted. LUC 2.8.2.13"

15) Revise the landscape plan and the development plan to show the required 6' high masonry wall for the loading area. Screening is required for both the north and east sides of the loading area. LUC 3.7.2-I

16) Revise the landscape plan to provide screening for the vehicular use area along the north and west street frontages. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

17) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, such as a native seed mix, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the landscape plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4

18) Revise the sheet numbering of the native plant preservation plan if necessary. Only sheets 1 & 2 of 3 were received.

19) Revise the plans to locate the catclaw acacia in the locations that do not present hazards to pedestrians, bicycles, or vehicles. These are to be planted a safe distance from the outer branch tips to the edge of a walkway, bike lane or path, roadway, or parking space/parking area access lane (PAAL). DS 2-06.3.8.A

Resubmittal of all plans is required. A seperate application is required for the SCZ review.
10/27/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
10/30/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: October 27, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov

CC:


SUBJECT: D06-0039 Lucky Wishbone: Development Plan(9-28-06)


Staff has no comments.
11/01/2006 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D06-0039 Lucky Wishbone 10/31/06

() Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/26/06

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
(XXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
() See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
() Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Other

REVIEWER: D.R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 10/25/06
11/03/2006 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied November 2, 2006

To: Bruce Wilson, Landmark Engineering

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

____________________________________
From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

Subject: Lucky Wishbone Restaurant
Development Plan - 1st Submittal
D06-0039

The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use.


This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southwest Interceptor. Per written guidance provided by the PCWMD Development Services Section, sufficient conveyance and treatment capacity exists in the downstream public sewerage system for this small project, and a formal capacity response letter from the PCWMD will not be required.

This project will qualify for standard connection fee rates.

All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D06-0039, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision.

Sheet 1: Revise General Notes, Wastewater Management Notes #4, so that it states:

THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ZERO (0) EXISTING AND 35 PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E).

Sheet 2: Several pieces of data are inaccurate or missing from the sewer design. Revise the site plan so that it shows:

The roadway improvement plan number, I-82-57, is displayed with the pipe/stubout that will be the point of connection to the public sewer. And show the existing pipe diameter, length, material and slope.

Provide arrows over the existing public sewer mains to show the direction of flow.

All public sewer elements (manholes and mains), that are located on this project or are less than 100’ from this project, are correctly identified with plan numbers and IMS numbers. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites.

Delete any reference to RIM and INV data from the most northern manhole identification label.

Provide RIM and INV data to the first manhole downstream from the point of connection and at the new public manhole and the two cleanouts on the site.

Provide the slope data along the proposed private sewer reaches of the BCS pipe.

Due to the shallow depth of the private sewer pipe in this project, all reaches should be DIP. Delete any reference to PVC.

You are proposing the connection of a 4” BCS to an existing 8” stub in the public right of way. PCWMD and PDEQ will not allow this type of connection. Revise the site plan so that it shows:

A new public manhole, constructed over the end of the stub that will provide the necessary transition from the private sewer to the public sewer. See COT/PC standard details WWM 301

Due to the shallow depth of this connection a non-standard shallow manhole will be required. See COT/PC standard details WWM 207. Note that this manhole will require written approval from the PCWMD Systems Management Engineering Section. Mr. Eric Wieduwilt, P.E., is the chief engineer.

Due to the close proximity, to the 33” Southwest Interceptor sewer, this new public manhole will require corrosion resistant linings or coatings. See COT/PC standard details WWM A-3.8.a.

PCWMD requires a Backwater Valve when making a connection into a large line sewer due to the potential for off-gassing caused by turbulence. With the interceptor sewer being less than 200’ from your project ,we recommend that a Backwater Valve be used in this private sewer, to minimize the potential for offensive odors.

This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.


If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter

CC: Project File
11/07/2006 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
11/17/2006 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 8, 2006

SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Lucky Wishbone Development Plan. The activity number is D06-0039.

SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on September 28th, 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report.

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT

SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GEOTECHNICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only.

2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. Development Standards 11-01.4.1.C. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6.

3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements.

4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval.


The next submittal must address the following items:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS

1. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan.

2. Two sheets of the tentative plat are numbered "2." Revise one of the sheets to read "3."

3. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E.

4. Provide the development plan case number on all sheets at the lower right hand corner of the plan. DS 2-05.2.1.K.

5. The location map shall identify conditions, such as major watercourses within the square mile area. Revise the location map to show the watercourses within 1 square mile. DS 2-05.2.1.D.2.

6. Revise sheet 2 to provide the north arrow, contour interval, and scale in the upper right corner of the plat. DS 2-05.2.1.H.

7. Provide on the first sheet the telephone number (with the administrative address) of the primary owner of the development. DS 2-05.2.2.2A.1.

8. Remove "/or," from the drainage note number 3. This project is subject to the City of Tucson Floodplain requirements and will be required to apply for a floodplain use permit and submit a completed elevation certificate. Revise as requested. DS 2-05.2.2.C.2.b.

9. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. If applicable provide the requested information. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

10. Dimensions from the centerline of Silverlake and Mission Road for the existing ROW and to the edge of pavement must be clearly indicated on the plan. It is acknowledged a dimension has been shown for each road, however is it not clear what the dimension is for. Revise the development plan to show from street centerline of each road a dimension to the existing ROW and edge of pavement. Label accordingly each dimension, i.e. 40' existing ½ ROW . DS 2-05.2.3.C.

11. Indicate the width of the existing sidewalk along Missions Road. DS 2-05.2.3.C.

12. Silverlake and Mission Road subject to future widening per the Major Streets and Route Plan. As with the existing ROW, the future ROW width, curb and sidewalk location must also be shown on the plan. Dimension from street centerline the future ½ ROW width, future sidewalk and curb location. Label appropriately.

13. In addition to the above comment this project is subject to "intersection" widening per the MS&R Plan. Refer to the following web site for the dimensions. http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/maps/city/msr.pdf The dimensions of the intersection widening must be clearly indicated on the plan. Dimensions are to be shown from street centerline. Also indicate on the plan where the taper begins and ends. Revise as requested. (See Zoning Comment #6)

14. Future sight visibility triangles (SVT) have not been shown on the plan. Provide future SVTs for both Mission Road and Silverlake Road. Be advised the future SVTs shall reflect the intersection widening ROW. DS 3-01.5.0.

15. Proposed sidewalks along a designated MS&R Street are required to provide 6' sidewalks. Revise the plan to show 6' sidewalks along Silverlake Road. If there are 4' existing sidewalks along both MS&R Streets show and label on the plan. Be advised the sidewalk may need to be replaced with 6' sidewalks.

16. Label Silverlake Road as an "MS & R Collector Road" DS 2-05.2.3.C.

17. Label Mission Road as an "MS & R Arterial Road." DS 2-05.2.3.C.

18. If applicable the location and size of water wells shall be provided on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.D.

19. The legend provides the line weight for existing and proposed contours. The plan appears to only show one line weight (solid line) that is identified in the legend as proposed. After reviewing the aerial photo it appears the contours shown on the plan are actually the existing contours. Clarify. The plan must provide existing contours and proposed contours and/or spot elevations to determine existing/proposed drainage patterns. Revise the plan appropriately to clearly show the existing and proposed contours. DS 2-05.2.3.E.

20. Show the existing storm drain facilities adjacent to the site. DS 2-05.2.3.F.

21. The 5' sidewalk between the structure (southside) and the parking spaces does not show an end point on the plan view. Clearly indicate where the sidewalk ends. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3.

22. If applicable, indicate dimensions on proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) and label as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.G.

23. The length for a near sight visibility triangles (SVT) for an ingress/egress to a collector road is 265'. Revise keynote 5, to indicate a 265' length. DS 3-01.5.3.

24. Label the 30' Scenic Buffer to be undisturbed. DS 2-05.2.3.G.

25. Provide the estimated cut and fill quantities on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17.

26. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at marked crossings (crosswalks). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including the handicap access aisle. All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. Revise the development to comply. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705

27. Per Development Standard 6-01.4.2.C.1., food service establishments are required to provide a sewer connected drain in the center of the concrete slab to facilitate container cleaning. Revise the solid waste enclosure detail to show a drain and the site plan view to show connection to the sanitary sewer system.

28. Water harvesting is a requirement of all new development. Demonstrate positive drainage towards northeast landscape area and other ares in effort to promote water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for the landscaped areas. Provide curb openings/depressed curbs where appropriate. Drainage patterns must be consistent with existing conditions. LUC 3.7.4.3.B.

29. A separate Special Application, review and approval is required for the SCZ and ERZ overlay. Encroachment into the flood plain occurs with the proposed development thus requiring the Special Application process to occur for compliance with the ERZ Overlay regulations. For more information regarding the process contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 extension 1179.

30. Once the overlay case numbers are assigned, provide the case numbers on the first sheet, lower right hand corner. Ds 2-05.2.2.B.10.

31. Provide the floodplain limit (delineation) on the plan. Include the line weight in the legend. DS 2-05.2.3.I.

32. Provide on the plan the WSE profile for the 100-year flood. Provide the water surface contours with the existing and proposed water surface elevations on the plan. Clearly label. DS 2-05.2.3.I.1.,3., DS 2-05.2.4.H.6.

33. Acceptance and discharge points must be shown on the Development plan. Show the locations of the existing and proposed off site and on site 100-year concentration points found in the drainage report. Revise the development plan as requested. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7.

34. The Developed Hydrology Map Figure 4 found in the drainage report does not depict the same site infrastructure as the provided on the development plan. Both document must show the same site infrastructure in the same location. Which document is the correct depiction of the site development? Clarify and revise appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.H.

35. Show the 100-year ponding limits for the basin, include the WSE. DS 2-05.2.4.H.1.

36. Provide a profile of the basin. The top of the basin and the volume provided shall be shown on the plan. It is acknowledged that an elevation is shown in the vicinity of the top of the basin, however the elevation is not labeled, consequently it is not clear what the elevation is. Provide the requested information for plan clarity. DS 2-05.2.4.H.2.

37. Show the location, size and indicate the slope of the basin maintenance access ramp on the plat and in the applicable details. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b.

38. Show more ground elevations to provide reference to grading and drainage. DS 2-05.2.4.H.4.

39. Show on the plan view positive drainage from the southeast end of the parking lot, through the rock rip rap to the bottom of the basin.

40. Demonstrate on the landscape plan the utilization of the Multiple Use Concept and Aesthetic Design Guidelines found in the Detention/Retention Chapter 4.

41. The basin depth and slope shown on the plan do not match what is provided in the drainage report, Section 3.0 Retention. The plan shows a basin depth of 3' with a 4:1 Slope. The drainage report indicates the basin will be designed with a depth of 2' and a side slope of 3:1. Which document is correct? Both documents must match. Revise appropriately.

42. Please note that subsequent comments on the development plan may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans.

DRAINAGE REPORT

1. Provide the case number for the development plan on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B.

2. Provide any applicable overlay case numbers on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B.

3. Provide the submittal number on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.A.

4. Figure 4, the Developed Hydrology, shows a different configuration for the site then what is shown on the tentative plat. Figure four must match the proposed configuration/conditions found on the tentative plat. Revise.

5. Include concentration point 3 and 3A on Figure 4, Developed Hydrology.

6. Page 4 of the drainage report states this property is within a non-designated basin, this is not correct. This property is within a Critical Basin, which means this property is within a watershed, which has been identified as having severe flooding problems as a result of existing watershed conditions. The drainage report at minimum must provide discussion and calculations for the 2, 10 and 100-year storm event with a 15% reduction of post development. Revise the drainage report to provide discussion on how the development will comply with the requirements and the hydrological analysis for 15% reduction for 2, 10 and 100-year event.

7. Page 8, 2nd paragraph of Section 2.5.1. Encroachment Analysis, revise NCVD to read NGVD.

8. The second and third paragraph same section (2.5.1.) has a sentence that states, "The results indicate that there is a slight decrease increase in water surface elevation in the vicinity of the site." This sentence does not make sense. Is there a decrease or an increase? Revise appropriately.

9. Table 3 in Section 2.5.1. Encroachment Analysis, cross section 4 shows an existing water surface elevation (WSE) of 2378.38' and a developed WSE of 2376.36 with a change in WSE of -0.2. This is not correct. The change in WSE (difference) is actually 2.02'. Is this a typo? Is the provided developed WSE for cross section 4 correct? The WSE for cross section 4 found in Appendix H, page 9, shows the WSE at 2378.36. Revise the report to correct the typo and clarify in the response letter where the mistake occurred.

10. Section 2.5.2. Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) provides the FFE of the office building for the second phase but does not provide the FFE for the Lucky Wishbone. The report must clearly indicate both FFEs. For report clarity the FFE for Lucky Wishbone must be indicated with the office building. Revise this section to indicate the recommended FFE for the Lucky Wishbone. Also, for report consistency provide the recommended FFE for the lucky Wishbone in section 4.0 Summary, number 5.

11. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM.14.3 must be included in the Drainage report. At minimum provide a detailed checklist addressing all areas of basin and drainage maintenance. Clearly indicate in the drainage report the responsibility of operating and maintaining a local detention basin rests with the owner of the facility. However, the City of Tucson reserves the right to periodically inspect or review any private-maintenance actions that would help to ensure that private maintenance, related to facility operation and safety, is being adequately provided.

12. The basin depth and slope shown on the development plan do not match what is provided in the drainage report, Section 3.0 Retention. The development plan shows a basin depth of 3' with a 4:1 Slope. The drainage report indicates the basin will be designed with a depth of 2' and a side slope of 3:1. Which document is correct? Both documents must match. Revise appropriately.

13. The developed Hydrology Plan (Figure 4) Concentration point 1 shows a 100-year Q of 16.5 cfs and the 100-year Q found in the hydrologic data sheet, Appendix F is same. However the hydrologic data sheet shows the impervious surface at 13%. The stormwater that drains to concentration point 1 is crossing a parking lot, which would equate to a higher percentage of impervious surface. Clarify why 13% impervious surface was used. Is this a typo? Clarify and revise the drainage report appropriately.

14. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Provide a soil's report that addresses the maximum disposal time for a storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of drainage. SDRM 3.5.1.5. and SMDDFM 14.2.6.

15. Please note that subsequent comments on the development plan may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans.
11/21/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

November 21, 2006

Bruce Wilson
Landmark Engineering, Inc.
4625 East Fort Lowell Road
Tucson, Arizona 85712

Subject: D06-0039 Lucky Wishbone Development Plan

Dear Bruce:

Your submittal of September 28, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Traffic, TEP, Addressing, Landscape, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD)


Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179.

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: 321-0333