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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN

Permit Number - D06-0049
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/09/2008 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers, including applicable rezonings, to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

2) Revise the plan to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7

3) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. Revise the limits to include the offsite parking access lane and new sewer line. construction. Verify that these areas are included in the Native Plant Inventory. DS 2-15.3.4.A

4) PORTIONS OF THIS SITE ARE SUBJECT TO NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLANS APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH D01-0037. REVISE THE CURRENT PLAN TO MEET ANY APPLICABLE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. The PIP trees from the previous plan currently on site should be replaced with larger trees than 15 g. if not preserved due to the

5) A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall, screen, or other obstruction. The wall along the edge of the PAAL, south of the driveway, does not include the minimum seperation.
DS 3-05.2.2.B.3

6) Revise the landscape and site plan show the same correct information for screen wall heights. DS 2-07.2.2

7) A screen wall is required at the eastern property boundary per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.

8) Revise the preservation credit box on sheet L-1 for soaptree yucca.

9) L1 indicates 3 PIP mesquites in the scenic route buffer area, L2 indicates only 2. Revise all plans as necessary. DS 2-15.3.4.B

10) Revise the landcsape plan to include the Mission Road right-of-way as an area to receive the hydroseed mix per note 22 on the development plan and corresponding LUC requirements.

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. A SEPERATE APPLICATION AND REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE.
01/18/2008 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

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

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 18, 2008

DUE DATE: January 24, 2008

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 has been extended to October 18, 2008.

2. DS 2-05.2.1.K Place the rezoning case number in the lower right corner, next to the title block.

3. Please correct the proposed uses of the property to:

" Food Service "28", subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.6.A & C" (take out only). Food Service is defined as the preparation and sale of food primarily for consumption as a meal on or off premises. Per a determination by the zoning administrator take out only food service can provide parking at a ratio of 1:200 GFA.

General Merchandise Sales "28" subject to: Sec. 3.5.9.2.C.

Food and Beverage Sales "28

The above will affect General note 3 and Development Criteria note 2.

4. DS 2-05.2.4.F Provide location, with dimensions, of the future right of way and the future curb locations. The following comment will affect the location of future curb.

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.

5. DS 2-05.2.4.I The provided setback for the east property line in development criteria note #3 is incorrect. Revise. Indicate the height of the wall for the east elevation of the building in this note.

The provided setback for the south property line in development criteria note #3 is incorrect. Revise.

The provided setback for the north property line in development criteria note #3 is missing. Revise.

6. DS 2-05.2.4.K A minimum 4' clear sidewalk is required between the top of the handicap ramp and the building. Revise.

Per rezoning condition #7 requires a pedestrian circulation path connecting to the adjacent commercial property to the south AND connecting to the sidewalk on Mission Rd. Using Mission Rd pedestrian circulation path as both does not meet the requirements of the rezoning condition. A pedestrian circulation path is required within the development connecting to the adjacent property.

7. DS 2-05.2.4.M In note #1 of the development criteria The square footage of the building appears to be incorrect. Revise.

Revise the actual FAR calculations in note #3 based on the new square footage of the proposed building.

8. DS 2-05.2.4.O Clearly indicate maneuverability for vehicles in and out of the proposed loading zone. See engineering comments.

9. DS 2-05.2.4.P On the detail for the handicap parking spaces clearly indicate the maximum slopes of the handicap parking spaces and access aisle as 1:48, per ANSI 117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5.

10. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material.
DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2

11. DS 2-05.2.4.R Provide the location of the future sight visibility triangles. See engineering comments.

12. The following comment was not addressed. 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

13. A separate Special Application, review, and approval for the SCZ overlay is required prior to approval of the development plan. Provide the case number on each sheet in the lower right corner, next to the title block.

14. 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".

15. Please add the appropriate following notes to the development plan.

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.

16. This comment has not been addressed. Please provide the location of all outdoor lighting as required by rezoning condition 26.
C9-04-25 Condition 26

17. This comment has not been addressed. 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

18. 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 Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961
01/24/2008 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Provide verification that Pima County will accept the proposed median configuration along Mission Road.
01/28/2008 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
01/31/2008 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Passed
02/01/2008 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

() 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: January 24, 2008

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
(X*) Proposal Complies with Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
(X*) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:








REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: January 24, 2008
Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments
Do6-0049 Dominos - Mission/Drexel: Development Plan (2nd Review)
January 24, 2008

Staff offers the following comments:

1. (*) Note = DUPD approves this development plan, subject to approval of rezoning conditions # 2 and 8 (C9-04-25) as may be approved by City of Tucson, Traffic Engineering Section (Reviewer =Jose Ortiz).

Rezoning condition # 2 and 8 read:

Condition # 2- 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 Guideline Manual, Pima County Transportation and Flood Control District in compliance with the following:
a. One point of access shall be allowed on Mission Road and shall align opposite Holladay Street.
b. 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. Theses improvements shall include, but shall not limited, provision for a southbound median left-turn bay and pavement/striping as necessary.

Condition#8- Provide cross-access agreement with the property to the south at the time of development plan submittal.

















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:

2. 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:
a. One point of access shall be allowed on Mission Road and shall align opposite Holladay Street.
b. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.
02/06/2008 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied 1. Sheet 2, Trash enclosure - Must call out all dimensions within detail drawing. Identify bollard spacing so side front bollards are a minimum 2 ft from face of enclosure wall and side rear bollard is 4 ft to center from front side bollard. Rear bollards must be 4 ft to center of side walls.

2. Enclosure gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. Per DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Annotate and show within detail. Recommend "Qty-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation.

3. Sheet 3, DP - Clarify and identify refuse/recycle service vehicle circulation onto and within development to enclosure service area. Service vehicle must not back into moving traffic or across pedestrian pathway. DS 6-01.4.1.I.

4. Recommend replacing single enclosure with a double wide enclosure or adding another single enclosure to acommodate for both refuse and recycle service.

Please provide corrections on resubmittal.

If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov
02/11/2008 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
02/12/2008 BIANCA RAMIREZ ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator
DATE: February 12, 2008

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. Complied

2. Complied

3. Complied

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. Please note that DP cannot be approved until scenic requirements have been met.

5. Complied

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

7. Note that book and page for all easements will need to be provided on mylar prior to approval for recordation.

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. Contact Pima County Department of Transportation for requirements. Provide approval letter from Pima County and/or appropriate documentation.

9. Complied

10. Verify that future ROW is accurate. Plan show significant spacing between property line and future curd. ROW table indicated a 9' sidewalk area needed. Verify that the plan indicates the future curb and sidewalk in the correct location.

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. If future is different modify sight visibility triangles.

12. Complied

13. Complied

14. Complied

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. Provide approval from TDOT

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. Grading permit is required.

20. Complied

21. Complied

22. Revise trash enclosure to meet minimum requirements. Contact me at bianca.ramirez@tucsonaz.gov to arrange for a copy of standard detail.

23. Complied

24. Complied

25. Complied

26. Complied

27. Revise truncated domes at along ROW to be located at the edge of the sidewalk (pedestrian access) and vehicular access.

28. Complied

29. Complied

30. Complied

31. Complied

32. Complied

33. Complied

34. Complied

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


Notes from previous review are no longer valid since new drainage report has been completed for the site. See the following comments for review of new drainage report.

1. Revise extisting and proposed RAS profiles to have the same stations.

2. Revise cross-section map to provide points for stations.

3. Cover Sheet - Provide submittal number

4. Cover Sheet - Provide on cover Proposed Zoning of the development.

5. Cover Sheet - Provide phone number for Larry J. Click

6. Cover Sheet - Provide contact and phone number for Project Administration.

7. Cover Sheet - Provide Township, Section, Range

8. Cover Sheet - Provide parcel number

9. Site Location and Project Description - provide a site location map, at a minimum scale of three inches equals one mile, which shows the geographical relationship od the project to nearby properties, streets and watercourses.

10. Site Location and Project Description - provide legal description of the specific parcel or parcels in question (if the description is lengthy, the information may be places in an Appendix).

11. Purpose and Objective for Submitting a Drainage Report or Hydrology Report - Give the purpose for submitting the report (i.e., Tentative Plat/ Development Plan approval, Building Permit Application, Floodplain User Permit application, condition of rezoning, etc.).

12. Know Development Requirements - as appropriate, list any rezoning requirements that relate to drainage and grading, and describe how these specific requirements have been satisfied.

13. Onsite Drainage - unless and alternative size has been approved, beforehand, by the Floodplain Engineer, show onsite drainage conditions on topo maps baving a minimum scale of one inch equal to 40 feet with one-foot contour intervals, as stipualted inn Tucson Development Standard 2-03.2.1. A Grading Plan, Tentative Plat, Development Plan, or Site Plan may be modified for this pupose, Show on this map: a) watershed boundaries b) All points of drainage concentration; and, c) Flowlines and grade breaks ised to compute basin in lengths and average watercourse slopes.

14. Proposed Conditions Watershed Map - show volume for water harvesting area.

15. Water harvest areas to be a maximum of 6 inches. Acknowledge that water harvesting areas are 8 inches per drainage report Depth exceeding 6 inches requires percolation - provide geotechnical report or modify accordingly.

16. Reference Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona (Dated December 1989), Chapter II. Report formats and verify that drainage report complies with minimum drainage report submittal requirements.

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

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4928 or BiancaRamirez@tucsonaz.gov


Bianca Ramirez, CFM
Engineering Associate
City of Tucson/Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 837-4928 office
(520) 879-8010 fax
02/22/2008 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

February 22, 2008

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 December 24, 2007 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 Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD)

Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919.


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
02/22/2008 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied March 9, 2009

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


SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF CDRC FILE


Development Plan

Per Section 5.3.8.2.A, Expiration Dates, of the Land Use Code, "an applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A development plan application that has been in review for a period of one (1) year which has not been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a development plan for the property, a new development plan which complies with regulations in effect at that time must be submitted. The new submittal initiates a new one (1) year review period."

Case # Case Name DSD Transmittal Date

D06-0049 Dominos Mission/Drexel October 18, 2006

Please note that this case has been closed and that, in order to continue review of the project, new development plan/tentative plat application is required which comply with regulations in effect at the time of the new submittals. CDRC members should be advised of their ability to review the new applications per the current regulations.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Patricia Y. Gehlen
CDRC Manager


xc: CDRC file D06-0049
…….
12/24/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
12/27/2007 CDRC1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied December 27, 2007

To: Larry Click, Larry Click & Associates

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

____________________________________
From: Tom Porter (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

Subject: Mission/Drexel Dominos
Development Plan - 2nd 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.

1. 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. 2nd request.

2. 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. 2nd request.

3. 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. 2nd request.

4. Sheet3: Do not show the 4" private sewer running to the trash enclosure.

5. 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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