Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0031
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/29/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Development Plan is denied August 29, 2005. 1. Minimum ingress roadway widths for Bldg.#1(Shop) and Bldg.#2(Retail) shall be 20 feet. Indicate mimimum security gate width of 20 feet and provide emergency ingress device (Key box). 2. Minimum 25 feet turn radii shall be provided at intersections of 20 Ft. PAAL. 3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. |
| 09/02/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) A 10' wide street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A is required along the entire street frontage. The border located south of the Old Oracle Road entrance appears to be lees than the required minimum. Revise as necessary. 3) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Revise all plans as necessary to provide the proper size planters within the vehicle use areas. LUC 3.7.2.4 See DS 2-06, Figure for examples. 4) Provide the following on the landscape plan: A) square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 B) minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas. A number of planters appear to be substandard (diamonds and triangles). C) length and width of landscape borders and the number of canopy trees per length. Ensure that all street landscape borders include a minimum of one canopy tree for every thirty-three feet. 5) Revise the native plant preservation plan to align the site plan information correctly. 6) Revise the landscape plan to clarify the screening requirements. The required screen height for display areas is thirty inches, the screening required for outdoor storage is six feet. Revise the notes and plan information as necessary. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3, LUC Table 3.7.2-I RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 09/07/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Dumpster enclosure requires 10 feet clear between the back wall protection and the enclosure gates. * Dumpstwer enclosure as shown is only wide enough to accomodate one dumpster for a direct front loading service. As shown it implies that the enclosure is for two 4 cubic yard dumpsters on casters to be hand pushed out to the service area. * Recommend that the enclosure be relocated to the S-W and the width increased to accomodate two dumpsters for direct front loading service off the E-W PALL. (Minimun width of a double dumpster for direct front loading service is 18'-4" clear distance between the side wall protection.) |
| 09/09/2005 | 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: D05-0031 CARMAX/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 9/08/05 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: Correct Assessors Parcel Numbers in General Note #1. Correct Old Tucson Florence Highway to Old Oracle Road in Location Map and sheets 1, 3, 4 and 5. Add Lot 5, Tucson Auto Mall, Bk. 40, Pg. 14 to legal in Title Block. |
| 09/09/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D05-0031 ARCADIS CARMAX |
| 09/15/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | estimated daily trips in 24 hr period - 98 |
| 09/23/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: CARMAX D05-0031 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted for review August 26, 2005. 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) 770-2062. 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. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 09/28/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: September 29, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D05-0031 Carmx: Development Plan(8-26-05) Denied Please contact Glenn Hicks to arrange a meeting with the city and county parks departments to discuss the project’s relationship to the adjacent Rillito Riverpark and possible opportunities to enhance both the project and the riverpark. The project location is the site of the former Home Depot adjacent to the Rillito Riverpark and west of Oracle Road. The existing riverpark corridor at this location does not meet current city/county standards which include a minimum 50 ft wide corridor, 12 paved path, 8 ft trail and landscape buffer. The riverpark corridor is constricted by Turbo Road located between the subject project and the riverpark. Development adjacent to the riverpark should incorporate landscaping that is compatible with the riverpark. Planning policies: City of Tucson General Plan Livable Tucson Goals: Abundant Urban Green Space and Recreation Areas Includes recreation and green space within the city, including neighborhood and regional parks, common space, community gardens, bike and walking paths, linear and river parks, trees, and urban landscaping. Element 10: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST) Policy 10: Provide an interconnected urban trail system throughout the city to meet the recreational needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. Actions 10.1.A Provide an interconnected urban trail network for bicyclists and walkers based on enhanced roadways and incorporating appropriate natural and improved washes. Northside Area Plan Although the project location does not fall within a specific “area” land use plan, the Northside Area Plan provides guidance relating to development along the Rillito Riverpark, including: Promote, preserve, and enhance public open space along Rillito Creek. Promote pedestrian links, bicycle routes, and equestrian pathways to and within Rillito Creek, area parks, and washes in the Northside area. New development is designed in a manner that is sensitive to the Rillito Creek linear park. |
| 09/28/2005 | 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 D05-0031 Carmax 09/27/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-82-48, C9-85-44 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: N/A GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: September 26, 2005 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 9/15/05 |
| 09/28/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 09/30/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. The consultant should note that the fine for illegally parking in a handicapped space is now %518 (detail 2/5) D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/03/2005 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | October 3, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D05-0031 PROJECT NAME: Carmax: Development Plan PROJECT ADDRESS: 4670 N. Circuit Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz, Civil Engineer The Development Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Resubmittal Required: Development Plan, Drainage Report, Last approved Development/Site Plan of the existing Home Depot, and a response letter, which states how all Engineering/Floodplain Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. 2. "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan." DS 2-05.2.2.C.1.b 3. Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown. DS 2-05.2.3.F Add to the legend on Sheet 1. 4. If applicable, other significant conditions on the site, such as structures, fences, walls, etc., shall be shown. These elements should be indicated in a different line weight than the proposed improvements and labeled to be removed or retained. DS 2-05.2.3.G 5. Floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, shall be indicated. DS 2-05.2.3.I 6. Where natural floodprone areas, such as washes, channels, drainageways, etc., exist within the development plan boundaries of the drawing, water surface contours for the 100-year flood with water surface elevations indicated must be shown and clearly labeled. DS 2-05.2.3.I.1 7. The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed two hundred (200) feet unless prior agreement has been made with the City Floodplain Engineer or designee. DS 2-05.2.3.I.2 8. If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. DS 2-05.2.4.C 9. If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so that later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. DS 2-05.2.4.D.4 10. The 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of one hundred- (100) cfs or more will be drawn on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.H.6 11. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7 12. Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location and design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0. DS 2-05.2.4.K 13. Show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. DS 2-05.2.4.L 14. Include accessibility and vehicle maneuverability of larger vehicles accessing the loading zones. DS 2-05.2.4.S Loading zones appear to be difficult to access. 15. Show refuse collection vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Development Standard 6-01.0. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that Standard, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. Adherence to the Standard is to assure: DS 2-05.2.4.T q Minimum conflict with pedestrian and vehicular traffic along streets and onsite. 16. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 17. If applicable, indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. DS 2-05.2.4.W 18. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 19. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert @ 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The NPDES submittal must accompany the Grading Plan submittal. 20. Grading Plan. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required if the earthwork exceeds 50 CY. Verify whether a grading permit and plan will be required for this project. Generally, the grading plans may be submitted for review upon approval of the site plan. Should the applicant wish, the grading plan can be submitted after the approval of the development plan; D.S. 2-03.5.2 21. As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. 22. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 3 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text; upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. If you have any questions or need clarification on any of these comments please feel free to contact me at 791-5550 x1191 or Jose.Ortiz@ci.tucsonaz.govs Jose E. Ortiz Civil Engineer City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1191 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 10/03/2005 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/17/2005 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D05-0031 Carmax, 4755 N. Oracle Road Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: October 17, 2005 DUE DATE: 09/26/2005 COMMENTS: 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 August 25, 2006. 2. This project was reviewed in accordance with applicable divisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI), and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). The content required on the plan was reviewed under DS Section 2-03. 3. Per DS 2-03.2.1.K, please list the annexation case number C9-82-48 and ordinance number 5551 in the title block. 4. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.1, the official zoning of this property is "C-3 with ®1 annexation restrictions. Please add this information to the plan. 5. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.2, please add the Development Plan number D05-0031 to the title block. This is the case number assigned to this project by Development Services. 6. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.7, as this property is subject to annexation requirements, please list the annexation requirements on the plan as a development note. 7. Per DS 2-03.2.3., provide existing development conditions on all adjacent parcels, and across all streets. 8. Per DS 2-03.2.3.A, the site boundary information along Old Tucson Florence Highway is missing from sheet 3 of the submitted plan. The curve data for curves C1 - C7 is not listed, which may resolve this concern. Please denote clearly on the plan the points of measurement and their distances. 9. Per DS 2-03.2.3.B, all easements should be shown on the plan. Staff has received information that a crucial, established access easement to the property south of this development has not been shown on the plan. If applicable, please revise the plan to show this access easement, the width and recordation information. 10. On Sheet 4, the described water easement, # 4, appears omitted. Please address this. 11. Per DS 2-05.2.4, all existing lot lines should be shown for this project. Per city and county available records, this project currently consists of 5 separate lots, parcel numbers 104-08-0810, 011G, 011B, 077D and 005C. Please delineate the current parcel configurations on the plan, with their respective parcel identification numbers. Indicate on the plan and in the response letter if these parcels will be combined. Note, buildings are not permitted to straddle lot lines. For lot combinations, covenants are required. Please contact me for further information on this matter. 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.B, please dimension the distance between the RX-1 zoning boundary line and the north property line(s) of this project. 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 and 3-05.2.1.C.1, the minimum width of a two-way Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) is 24 feet. Several dimensions are missing from the public parking lot PAAL to confirm compliance with this requirement. Please provide dimensions for every area of the PAAL, especially adjacent to the building and parking lot islands. Include the dimension for the access point leading to the property to the south. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.G, clarify what type easement number 6 is to be, and whether it is public or private. 15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I, Staff acknowledges the setbacks proposed for the structures appears in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code. For consistency and record keeping, please provide the setback dimension proposed for all buildings to property lines. In addition, dimension the distances between the curb and the property line along the Old Tucson Florence Highway, and provide the setback of the building based upon the outside edge of the nearest adjacent vehicle travel lane on Old Tucson Florence Highway. (For setback purposes only, this street is considered a developing area setback, as the street is a tributary off of Oracle Road, a Major Streets and Routes thoroughfare.) 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K and 2-08.4.1.A, sidewalks must be provided to the project from each street on which the project has frontage. Please provide sidewalks from Old Tucson Florence Highway, Circuit Road and Turbo Road to the main car sales building. NOTE: Handicapped accessibility is also needed. The alternative is to seek approval of a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). Please contact the Community Design Review Committee Office (CDRC) within Development Services at 520-791-4541 for further details on the DSMR process. 17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.L, show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right of way. 18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, clarify if the dashed line adjacent to the planned car sales business is a proposed building area or other structural component. If it is building area, please revise the square footage of building area on the plan. (Further review comments may be forthcoming on this issue.) If it is part of a building to be removed, clarify that. If it is not a structural component or other use area, remove the dashed line. 19. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, demonstrate maneuverability to the loading spaces proposed behind the car sales and shop buildings. Clearly identify and dimension the vehicular entrances to the loading areas. 20. Per DS 2-05.2-4.P., the number of parking spaces provided for this development appears to be 240, rather than 243. Please check and amend the plan accordingly. Per IBC 1106.1, a total of 7 handicapped accessible parking spaces are required for this project. The submitted plan shows only 6. Please amend the plan accordingly. 21. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, provide typical detail drawings of non-handicapped parking spaces, fully dimensioned. 22. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, provide parking bumpers along all parking spaces abutting sidewalks and property lines. This will help to ensure sidewalks remain 4 feet wide unimpeded (the alternative is to ensure the sidewalks are 6.5 feet wide) and a safe distance is maintained between physical barriers over 6" tall (walls) and a vehicle. (DS 3-05.2.3.C.). Please provide a dimension from the south property line to parking bumpers, noting they should be contained within 2.5 feet of the front of the parking space. In addition, the standard length of a parking space is 18 feet. Please amend the customer parking spaces provided along the eastern edge of the site (west of guard rail) to meet the length criteria. Please note, should a sidewalk be planned for the area along the west side of the guard rail, the required width of the sidewalk will be impeded, given the dimensions provided in the cross-section and the parking area. Please review sections 2-08 and 3-05 for parking space, parking bumper and sidewalk regulations. 23. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, a total of 10 bicycle parking spaces, all Class I lockers, should be provided for this project, per LUC 3.3.4. The submitted plan shows a total of 5 bicycle lockers. Please amend the plan accordingly. 24. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, in several places noted on the submitted plans, free-standing lighting is shown. Please provide details for any planned free-standing lighting, signage and current billboards. Please dimension a typical light detail in relation to parking spaces and property lines. 25. Per ANSI Chapters 4 and 5, handicapped ramps must be provided adjacent to the handicapped access aisles providing access from the parking area to the building. Staff noted a handicapped access ramp detail provided to standards on the submittal, however, the location of the ramps on the plan must be called out. If symbols are used, please add them to the legend. 26. Per ANSI 406.14, Truncated Domes (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. Please be sure to clearly label their location on the plan, and add the truncated domes to the handicapped ramp detail drawings. 27. Per City of Tucson Traffic Engineering advisement, the required height from the concrete to the bottom of a Handicapped sign is 7 feet. In addition, the fine for parking in a handicapped parking space illegally has been raised to $518.00. Please amend the sign cross-section accordingly. 28. Please note, depending upon the responses provided on the resubmittal, further review comments may be forthcoming. 29. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D05-0031.4755n.oracle.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 10/26/2005 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 7, 2005 TO: Arden Ranshaw Arcadis THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Carmax Development Plan – 1st Submittal D05-031 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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 South Rillito West (North Line) Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. Based on the evaluation of historical sewer improvement district maps, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-031, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. This project is too incomplete for further review, thus, per your request, it is being denied. Item five of this review letter will indicate the fees to be paid for the 2nd submittal of this project. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $250.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. 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. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 10/26/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 26, 2005 Arden Ranshaw Arcadis 3777 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 100 Tucson, AZ 85716 Subject: D05-0031 Carmax Development Plan Dear Arden: Your submittal of August 26, 2005 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 for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Addressing, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Zoning, Environmental Services, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) AS OF THIS DATE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER HAS NOT COMPLETED THE REVIEW OF THIS PLAN. THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED UNTIL THE WASTEWATER REVIEW IS FINALIZED. IF THE REVIEW IS DENIED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED, PLEASE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS REQUIRED FOR RESUBMITTAL BY ONE (1). IF THE REVIEW IS APPROVED, NO ADDITIONAL COPIES ARE NEEDED. Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 903-2395 |