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: D06-0049
Parcel: 13715144E

Address: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D06-0049
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/18/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/23/2006 DAVID MANN COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No comment
10/23/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/24/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development.
* Refuse enclosure at the angle shown does not meet the Development Standards. The service truck positioned perpendicular to the doors would require the dumpster to be at an angle in the enclosure.
* If the enclosure is perpendicular/parallel to the property line then the 14' wide service area is in conflict with the property line.
* Access from Mission cannot be made around the island curb as shown to the east.
* Access around the property cannot be made if there is any vehicles in the loading zone or the stacking lane.
* No provisions shown or mentioned for recycling.
10/25/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#172156 October 25, 2006

Larry Click and Associates
Attn: Larry Click
3444 N Country Club #105
Tucson, Arizona 85716

Dear Mr. Click :

SUBJECT: Dominos
D06-0049


Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 19, 2006. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:

Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Ms. Mary Boice
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (DB-101)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8732

Please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth Miranda
Office Support Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
10/30/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D06-0049
LARRY CLICK AND ASSOCIATES
DOMINOS - MISSION/DREXEL

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


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.
11/01/2006 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: D06-0049
Dominos - Mission/Drexel
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 31, 2006

DUE DATE: November 16, 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 October 18, 2007.

2. The project area is to be centered within the project location map. Please revise. Once done additional major streets and watercourses may need to be shown.
DS 2-05.2.1.D.1 & 2

3. Case number D06-0049 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets.
DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

4. Please correct the proposed use of the property to "Commercial Use Group, Food Service, subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.6.A & C". Food Service is defined as the preparation and sale of food primarily for consumption as a meal on or off premises. This affected General note 3 and Development Criteria note 2.
LUC 6.3.5.13

5. Please add the LUC sections to general note 4. MS&R is Sec. 2.8.3 and Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) is 2.8.2.
DS 2-05.2.2.B.10

6. Please provide the lot line dimension and bearing for west property line.
DS 2-05.2.3.A

7. 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

8. Mission Road at Drexel has a proposed right-of-way width of one hundred and twenty (120) feet per the MS&R Map. There is a required taper where the right-of-way is increase to one hundred and fifty (150) feet commencing at the centerline in Drexel extending for three hundred (300) feet and then tapers down to one hundred and twenty (120) for another three hundred (300) feet. New sidewalks and curbs are to be designed per the MS&R cross-section as noted in the MS&R Plan. Please verify required roadway of Mission Road with Traffic Engineering.

9. Please show and dimension the location of all existing sidewalks and ramps adjacent to site. This will ensure proper tie -in of new construction to the existing.
DS 2-05.2.3.C

10. Food Service requires parking calculated either one (1) space per fifty (50) sq. ft. of GFA excluding the kitchen and storage or one (1) space per one hundred (100) sq. ft. of GFA. 1:100 would required a total of sixteen (16) parking spaces. Please revise and provide.
LUC 3.3.4 Food Service

11. Please provide dimensions as required by Table 1 DS 3-05.6.0 within the parking detail for both standard and handicap parking spaces. Those dimensions that are not shown include "A", "C", and "E".
DS 3-05.6.0 Table 1

12. The minimum width of a one-way PAAL is twelve (12) feet. The PAAL area between the off-street loading space and vertical curb appears to be seven (7) feet. The off-street loading space will need to be relocated to provide a twelve (12) foot PAAL.
DS 3-05.2.1.C.1

13. The minimum width of a two-way PAAL is twenty -four (24) feet. The PAAL between the entrance from adjacent lot and from Mission Road is shown as 19.2 feet. Please revise.
DS 3-05.2.1.C.1

14. Please dimension the PAAL between the edge of the trash enclosure to the edge of the drive-thru lane and the eastern edge of the drive through to the proposed six (6) foot wall. This is required to assure that a minimum one-way PAAL of twelve (12) feet is maintained.
DS 3-05.2.1.C.1

15. The minimum drive-thru lane width is eleven (11) feet and clearly delineated. The minimum drive-thru lane width at the window is nine (9) feet. No more than two (2) car lengths may be less than the minimum lane width of eleven (11) feet. Please provide.
DS 3-05.2.1.C.2.a

16. The minimum vehicle stacking capacity of any single drive-thru is six (6) vehicle spaces, eighteen (18) feet in length, including the space at the window. The plan shows only five (5) stacking spaces. The sixth space appear that it will block the PAAL at the south end even if the off-loading space is relocated.
DS 3-05.2.1.C.2.c & d

17. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at access aisles. The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the access aisles of handicapped motor vehicle parking spaces. 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

18. A cross access agreement will be required between the lot to the south and project site. Please provide a copy of this agreement with the next submittal as required by rezoning condition 8.
C9-04-25 Condition 8

The following comments (19-26) are based on Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) LUC Sec. 2.8.2

19. A separate Special Application, review, and approval for the SCZ 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

20. The required setback per the SCZ is 1/3 of the building height, which will require a sixty (60) foot setback from the future right-of-way of Mission Road. It appears that the proposed twenty (20) foot high building does not meet this required setback which appears to be fifty-five (55) feet. The current setback would require the building to be no greater than eighteen (18) feet four (4) inches. Revise Development Criteria note 3 to reflect this requirement.

21. Revise Development Criteria note 3 building height. Maximum allowed building height for commercial structures in the SCZ is thirty (30) feet. Twenty-four (24) is maximum height for residential structures.

22. Please include the thirty (30) foot buffer on the DP. The required buffer is measured from the future right-of-way of Mission Road and is in lieu of the required ten (10) foot landscape border. The buffer will be labeled "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state". Currently the proposed PAALS other than access from Mission Road appear to be located within the

23. Please add the 400-foot SCZ corridor boundary to plat.

24. 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. If no palette is proposed please add note to DP reading "Building or structures surfaces, which are visible from Mission Road, will have colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones".

25. Please add the appropriate following notes to the tentative, development, or site plan plat.

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 thirty (30) 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.

26. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. All signs will require SCZ review. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so.

Regulations for signs are stipulated in Sec. 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code, and further supplemented by the following:
a) On any conflicts in requirements between the LUC and Sec. 3-32, the more strict of the two prevails.
b) Signs are to use colors, which are predominant 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 on any street or route designated "scenic".

27. Please dimension all pedestrian areas around the perimeter of the building to assure that a minimum width of four (4) feet is maintained. The sidewalk area between the edge of the handicap parking space and the face of the building may be a trouble spot.
DS 2-08.5.1.A

28. Please provide the location of required Class 2 bicycle parking on the DP. Keynote 15 indicates that parking is provided but the location cannot be determined on the plan. 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).

The bike rack detail indicates that two bicycles will share one rack. Per DS 2-09.8.0 Figure 9 thirty (30) inches will be supplied between posts/bicycles. Please revise.

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

29. Please provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with rezoning conditions.
DS 3-05.2.4.U

30. Please provide a detail that indicates compliance to rezoning condition 6 illustrating how exterior mechanical equipment is screened from view of adjacent development and street frontages and integrated into the overall design of proposed project site.
C9-04-25 Condition 6

31. Please provide a wall detail that illustrates compliance to rezoning condition 14 and 15.
C9-04-25 Condition 14 & 15

32. Please provide the location of all outdoor lighting as required by rezoning condition 26.
C9-04-25 Condition 26

33. Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area with a building please state so on the plan.
DS 2-05.2.4.V

34. 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\D06-0049dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents.
11/01/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied November 1, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0049
PROJECT NAME: Dominos - Mission/Drexel
PROJECT ADDRESS: Mission Rd/Drexel 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. The Tucson Access Management Guidelines requires a minimum driveway separation of 80'. The proposed driveway measures 70' from the existing driveway to the south of this development.

3. Extend the end of the median bull nose approximately 10' south to match the location of the existing bull nose.

4. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
11/09/2006 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Transportation Information for
Rezoning, Subdivision, and
Development Requests
Delivered to:
Date Delivered:
City of Tucson - Development Services
11/7/2006
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.
D06-0049 1,156 Dominos Mission/ Drexel
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
11/09/2006 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Transportation Information for Rezoning,
Subdivision and Development Review Requests
File Number Description Date Reviewed
E
Pima Association of Governments
Sandra C. Holland, Data Services
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 792-1093
Fax: (520) 620-6981
www.pagnet.org
D06-0049 Dominos Mission/ Drexel 11/7/2006
This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further
assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments
that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby
roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and
capacities, and bus and bike accessibility.
1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street
2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation
Improvement Program?
See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process.
Planned Action:
STREET IDENTIFICATION
3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT)
See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information.
4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT)
5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes
8. Future (2030) Number of Lanes
TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS
10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance)
11. Existing or Planned Bikeway
Remarks:
Street Number 1 Street Number 2, if applicable.
Year Year
Planned Action:
VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS
6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT)
(Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.)
7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT)
Mission Rd (Drexel to Irvington)
No 0
24,800
44,000
4
44,000
41,262
4
1,156
Route 27, 30 minutes, 1/8 mile
Bike route with striped shoulder
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development
Transportation Information for Rezoning,
Subdivision and Development Review Requests
File Number Description Date Reviewed
E
Pima Association of Governments
Sandra C. Holland, Data Services
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 792-1093
Fax: (520) 620-6981
www.pagnet.org
D06-0049 Dominos Mission/ Drexel 11/7/2006
This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further
assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments
that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby
roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and
capacities, and bus and bike accessibility.
11/13/2006 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) A buffer area thirty (30) feet wide, adjacent to the MS&R right-of-way line, is to be preserved and maintained in its natural state. The buffer area shall be in lieu of the landscape border required along street frontages under Sec. 3.7.0, Landscaping and Screening Regulations. The proposed vehicular circulation is located within the required buffer. Revise the plans to comply.

3) Within the 30' scenic route buffer area, indigenous plant material is to remain. If any disturbance occurs during construction or prior to permit application, the buffer
area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible. Revise the landscape plans as necessary.
DS 2-06.7.1.B

4) Revise the plans to remove the screen wall from the scenic route buffer area. No development may occur in a Scenic Route buffer area except as provided in Sec. 3.7.5.2.C.
The required screening is to be located behind the 30' buffer.

5) Revise the plan to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7

6) An interior landscape border is required along the northern property boundary. Revise the plans as necessary to comply. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

7) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A

8) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5

9) PORTIONS OF THIS SITE ARE SUBJECT TO NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLANS APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH D01-0037. SUBMIT A COPY OF THAT PLAN AND REVISE THE CURRENT PLAN TO MEET ANY APPLICABLE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS.


RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. A SEPERATE APPLICATION AND REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE.
11/15/2006 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approv-Cond 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: D06-0049 DOMINOS-MISSION/DREXEL/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: 11/15/06



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.

NOTE: Approved with the following condition:

1.) Correct Holladay Road to Holladay Street (sheet 1) of mylar.

Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses.

2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection.


es
11/17/2006 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D06-0049 Dominos - Mission/Drexel 11/16/06

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

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-25

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan

SCENIC ROUTE: Yes

COMMENTS DUE BY: November 16, 2006

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
() Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
(X) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(X) Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Other

REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: November 14, 2006

Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments
Do6-0049 Dominos – Mission/Drexel: Development Plan
November 14, 2006

Staff offers the following comments:

Please provide documentation from the City of Tucson Department of Transportation and from the Pima County Transportation and Flood Control District to satisfy rezoning case C9-04-25, condition # 2, which reads:

No direct access to Mission Road from the rezoning site unless allowed by the City of Tucson Department of Transportation in compliance with the Access Guidelines Manual, Pima County Transportation and Flood Control District in compliance with the following:
One point of access shall be allowed on Mission Road and shall align opposite Holladay Street.
The property owner shall provide, at no cost to Pima County, any necessary improvements to Mission Road to safely accommodate traffic to and from the site. These improvements shall include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for a southbound median left-turn bay and pavement/striping as necessary.

Please revise development plan to include a new sheet that addresses rezoning case C9-04-25, condition # 5, which reads:

At the time of development plan review the submittal shall include dimensioned elevations drawings. Side and rear facades shall be designed with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, with consistent design treatment, including but not limited to, comparable color palette, signs, lighting, screen walls, rooflines, and materials. Dimensioned elevation drawings are to be submitted as a part of the development plan.

3. Please revise development plan to include a new sheet that addresses rezoning case C9-04-25, condition # 6, which reads:

All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent development and street frontage, and shall be architecturally integrated into the overall design of the buildings and development.

Please revise development plan to include a new sheet that addresses rezoning case C9-04-25, condition # 7, which reads:

Provide a pedestrian system within the development, which provides a safe and convenient connection to the adjacent commercial development to the south and Mission Road pedestrian systems. Pedestrian paths to be marked with cross-walks wherever crossing or utilizing a PAAL.

Please provide documentation to satisfy rezoning case C9-04-25, condition # 8, which reads:

Provide cross-access agreement with the property to the south at the time of development plan submittal.
11/21/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
11/21/2006 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
11/21/2006 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
11/24/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: November 22, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

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

CC:


SUBJECT: D06-0049 Dominos - Mission/Drexel: Development Plan(10-19-06)


Staff has no comments.
12/06/2006 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied December 7, 2006

To: Larry Click, Larry Click & Associates

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: Mission/Drexel Dominos
Development Plan - 1st Submittal
D06-0049

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. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at:

http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf.

The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

This project will qualify for Standard connection fee rates.

All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D06-0049, 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 2: Show the existing public and existing private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different line-types in the legend on Sheet 1.

Sheet 2: You are proposing the construction of a new private sewer, connecting to an existing private sewer, located off the project site, on neighboring property. A private sewer easements, granting from the owners of the neighboring parcel, is needed to construct, operate and maintain the off-site private sewer. Revise the site plan to show:

The private sewer easement, appropriately labeled and showing the recording information, so it may be located in the future.

Sheet 2: You are proposing a connection to the public sewer collection system by first connecting to a private sewer located on private property. A Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement, between this project and the parcel to the south (CASEZ Investment Group, LLC, tax parcel 137-15-144D), will need to be recorded for the shared private sewer line, before this office will be able to approve this development plan. Prior to signature or recordation, this agreement must be reviewed and approved by Ms. Ilene Deckard of the PCWMD Development Services Section. Please contact Ms. Deckard about this matter as soon as possible. She can be reached at 740-6544.

Sheet 2: Revise the site plan so that:

The parcel to the south is labeled with the owners name and tax parcel identification number (shaded).

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 $50.00 (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
12/12/2006 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 28, 2006

SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Dominos Development Plan. The activity number is D06-0049.

SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on October 19th, 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 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.

4. Once the Development Plan is approved, a site card with two copies of the CDRC approved Development Plan will need to be walked through for DSD site plan approval by the following sections; Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO. No fees are involved in re-stamping the Development Plan as an approved site plan.


The next submittal must address the following items:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

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. 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.

3. This project has been assigned a project activity number of D06-0049. Provide this number on each sheet in the lower right hand corner of the page. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2.

4. This project is located in the Scenic Corridor Zone and is subject to the overlay requirements for the Scenic Corridor Zone. A separate special application, review and approval is required. This process must be complete with approval prior to the development plan is approved. For information regarding the process contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5550 extension 1179. Once a case number is assigned please provide the case number in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the development plan.

5. Remove "/or," from the general (drainage) note number 16. 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.

6. Provide a dimension and bearing for the west property line. DS 2-05.2.3.A.

7. 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. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. If applicable provide the required existing easement information on the plan. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

8. Mission Road is designated an arterial road per the Major Street & Route Plan with a future ROW width of 120'. When a project is 600' from an intersection with two designated MS&R roads/streets, future intersection widening is required at that intersection. Drexel Road is within 600' from this project, therefore the future intersection widening effects this parcel. At the centerline of Drexel Road and Mission Road, a future ROW width of 150' is required for 300' and then tapers to 120' for another 300'. The future ROW width must be shown on the development plan depicting the taper from 150' to 120'. The location of the future sidewalk and curb are to be designed and depicted on the plan per the MS&R ROW Plan. Revise the plan appropriately.

9. Dimension from street centerline to the existing curb and proposed sidewalk location.

10. In addition to the above comment the plan shows current (existing) ROW and the future ROW are coincident. The plan must also indicate if the curb and sidewalk are existing, future or coincident. Verify if the curb and sidewalk location is future and existing, label as such.

11. In addition to the above comment the sight visibility triangles must also indicate if it is existing, future or coincident. Revise appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.I.

12. Indicate if the masonry wall (keynote 6) is existing or proposed and provide the height. DS 2-05.2.3.G.

13. In addition to the above comment, if any walls are proposed for this development demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition number 15. (keynote 13)

14. If applicable provide on the plan any existing storm drainage facilities adjacent or on the site. DS 2-05.2.3.F.

15. Delineate on the development plan the floodplain boundaries and provide the water surface elevations. The water surface elevation contours should not exceed 200'. Provide the line weight and any symbols used in the legend. Revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-05.2.3.I.

16. The minimum width between driveways on an arterial road is 80'. The current proposal provides a 70' space between the nearest pavement edge to the south and the proposed driveway. This does not meet the minimum criteria of section 5.4. of the Transportation Access Management Guidelines. Revise the development plan to meet the minimum criteria for driveway locations on an arterial road.

17. Be advised a private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work within the ROW. Please contact the PIA coordinator for further information, 791-5550 ext. 1107.

18. Label the Scenic Corridor Zone 30' buffer, "To be undisturbed" and provide a dimension for the width of the 30' buffer. The dimension is to be provided from the future ROW line of Mission Road. Currently a portion of the PAAL is located within the SCZ 30' buffer. Revise the plan to remove the PAAL from the 30' buffer and label the buffer as requested. LUC 3.7.5.2.

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

20. 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 development plan view to show connection to the sanitary sewer system.

21. The solid waste vehicle can not maneuver into the solid waste enclosure without obstructing the southern landscape island, the loading space and the drive through lane. Revise on the plan view to show maneuverability for the solid waste vehicle without any obstruction with site infrastructure. DS 6-01.4.

22. Rezoning condition #24 requires the solid waste enclosure to be outside the regulatory floodplain or 1' above the 100 year water surface elevation. Be advised if the shown location of the solid waste enclosure is within the regulatory floodplain demonstration of compliance with this rezoning condition is required. Revise appropriately.

23. Provide the required cross access agreement that is required per rezoning condition 8.

24. The minimum width for a one way traffic aisle is 12'. The space between the loading space and the landscape island only scales to 7'. Revise the plan to show a minimum width of 12' in this area. DS 3-05.2.1.C.

25. If the intent is to only have a one way travel lane for the entire project, proper signage must be provided to avoid onsite traffic collisions. Provide one way and do not enter signage where appropriate. Label on the plan view or provide a keynote.

26. Dimension the 5' pedestrian circulation around the building. It appears the 5' pedestrian refuge is not being met between the handicap striping and the building. When scaled the distance is only 4.5'. Confirm there is 5' in this area for pedestrian circulation and dimension the surrounding sidewalk. DS 2-08.3.1.

27. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at the handicap access aisle at the edge of pavement (asphalt). 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

28. Provide cross sections for run out at each boundary of the site. The cross sections must show edge of pavement/curb to property line/existing grade. A minimum 2' off set from property line to slopes is required. Provide the requested cross sections. DS 11-01.9.0.

29. Provide a general note on the development plan stating the following, "Prior to issuance of the first C of O for a development a Arizona registered Professional Civil Engineer must certify that the drainage ways and detention/retention basins have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans."

30. Provide locations of the off site to on site acceptance points and on site to off site discharge points for this project. Include the existing and developed Q. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7.

31. Show the location of the off site 6-cell scupper located at the entrance from Mission Road to the car wash, south of the entrance exit drive. Provide the Q.

32. Finish floor elevations (FFE) shall be one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation (WSE) of any adjacent basin. Per SMDDFM 12.3.4., parking can be permitted in a detention basin provided depth of flooding is one foot or less during a 100-year event. The 100-yr WSE shall be provided on the development plan in effort to determine if the project is in compliance with the referenced codes. Revise. SMDDFM 14.2.4.

33. Parking is permitted in floodplains where the WSE does not exceed two feet in depth and WSE can not exceed one foot where overnight parking is provided. The plan must clearly indicate depth of stormwater in a 100-year event. Any parking lot subject to flooding shall have a prominent sign at each entrance to the parking area. If applicable refer to SMDDFM 12.3.1.3. for required verbiage and revise the plan if appropriate.

34. Water harvesting is a requirement of all new development. Demonstrate positive drainage towards all landscape areas in effort to promote water harvesting, provide curb openings/depressed curbs. Drainage patterns must be consistent with existing conditions. Revise appropriately. LUC 3.7.4.3.B. (See drainage report comments 8-10)

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

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS


1. It is acknowledged that the conclusions of the submitted report are based on the referenced drainage reports by George Feltovic and Paul Nzomo. This is acceptable however the submitted report by DCC must follow the "Report Content and Format" found in the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management section 2.3.1.1.

2. This office also wants to acknowledge that there are some discrepancies in the submitted drainage report by Paul Nzomo. To begin with in the introduction, the second paragraph it states the location of the subject property is at the NE corner of Lee Street and Rosemont. The fourth paragraph of the introduction states this parcel is not effected by a COT regulatory flood hazard area and his submitted "Concept Development Plan," shows delineation of a COT regulatory flood hazard area with 100-year water surface elevations. In the section "Objective" it states that the provided WSE were established from George Feltovic's drainage report. However George Feltovic's drainage report states the parcel currently being reviewed (by Paul Nzomo) was not included in his analysis. Please be advised this office recommends verification of referenced data/information for accuracy.

3. Provide the development plan case number on the drainage report cover. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.A.

4. Provide the address of the project. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B.

5. Provide a table of contents for the drainage report for clarity. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.G.

6. It is recommended to provide DCC's information (calculations, data sheets) together in one section followed by the referenced drainage reports by George Feltovic and Paul Nzomo. It appears Appendix D - H is DCC's data. This data/information is found after George Feltovic and Paul Nzomo's drainage report. This makes the report difficult to readily find data/information. Again it is highly recommended for clarity to provide DCC's report together then followed by George Feltovic and Paul Nzomo's drainage reports.

7. When using information from George Feltovic and Paul Nzomo's drainage reports, reference the page number and which report the information came from, in effort to readily find the referenced information.

8. Per SMDDFM 14.2.8., parking lot detention basins shall be discouraged. Provide a detailed explanation in section Detention/Retention why a separate area can not be provided within the parcel for Detention. It is acknowledged the parcel is small however utilizing water harvesting, detention requirements can be supplemented. The Landscape Review section has a comment that states an interior landscape border is required on the north boundary. Some of the detention requirements could be met in the parking lot landscape islands and the interior landscape border. Provide the explanation and/or revise the report to utilize water harvesting.

9. If the parking lot detention is approved by this office, the detention system design must be provide a first flush into a landscaped area to promote a decrease in the potential off site erosion and impact to the adjacent property to the east. Revise the drainage report and the development plan appropriately.

10. 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.

11. Per SMDDFM 12.3.4., if parking is permitted in a detention basin the depth of flooding must be one foot or less during a 100-year event. If an explanation is accepted for parking lot detention ensure this requirement is met on the development plan.

12. Provide a site map from DDC with the flood hazard area delineated. Provide the 100 year water surface elevations with datum used. Include existing and developed Q at the acceptance and discharge points. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4..C.

13. An Encroachment analysis is required when development occurs within a designated regulatory flood hazard area. The encroachment analysis must show that the 100-year WSE is not increasing by a tenth of a foot. George Feltovic's drainage report did not address encroachment in the floodplain analysis. Provide an encroachment analysis. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.F.

14. Per SMDDRM, 2.3.1.6.C., a very detailed Detention/Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owner(s). A maintenance checklist and schedule shall be provided in the drainage report in effort to clearly communicate the responsibilities involved by the owner for proper maintenance of retention basins. Include a detailed retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule in the drainage report.

15. Show and provide explanation on how the site is accepting the previously approved discharge from the off site basin to the south. Show the acceptance point with the 100-year volume on the previously requested site map (comment number 11). Provide explanation on how the proposed 6' wall will accept the off site discharge. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.

16. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the report.
12/13/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

December 13, 2006

Larry Click
Larry Click and Associates
3444 North Country Club Road #105
Tucson, Arizona 85716

Subject: D06-0049 Dominos Mission/Drexel Development Plan

Dear Larry:

Your submittal of October 19, 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 (ESD, Zoning, Traffic, Landscape, DUPD, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

3 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies Building Elevation (DUPD, 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: 327-8816
dp-resubmittal