Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0001
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/15/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 01/22/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project. -------------------------------------------------------- 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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 01/28/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Submit an updated landscape plan. Any change in design or land use requires a new review and approval process for the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.0 2) A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site per DS 3-05.2.3.C. Revise the plans as necessary to provide the required barrier at the edge of paving near Parcel III. 3) Provide canopy trees for the expansion/redesign of the vehicular use area. One canopy tree is required for every ten parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 4) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers, such as rezoning, to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 5) The Native Plant Application has been approved. RESUBMITTAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED. |
| 01/28/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D08-0001 COSTCO ADDITION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: January 28, 2008 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: 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. jg |
| 01/28/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#192856 January 28, 2008 Dear Nathan Menard: SUBJECT: Costco Addition D08-0001 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted January 22, 2008 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. The building to be expanded over the existing primary, but the plans show a new easement to go around the area to be expanded. TEP will charge for all relocation costs after customer submits the plans. 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 Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: N. DiMaria |
| 01/29/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/30/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 25, 2008 To: NATHAN MENARD MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: COSTCO WHOLESALE Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-001 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. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, D08-001, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. The development plan submitted is significantly deficient. Refer to Pima County Development Services “Development Plan Review, Checklist Requirements” section J. WASTEWATER, for submittal requirements. The checklist is available at; http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/DevPlanReq.pdf Sheet 1: Show the public and 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 a legend on Sheet 1 and show all sewer element symbols in the Legend both existing and private. Sheet 1: All public sewer elements (manholes and sewer mains), that are located on this project or are less than 100’ from this project, should be identified with the wastewater plan and IMS numbers. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites. Include the rim and invert elevations for the manholes. 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. |
| 02/05/2008 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | DP CASE: D08-0001, Costco Addition COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: No explicit traffic increase generated Please call if you have questions, Sandra Holland Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, #405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981 |
| 02/11/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Costco Addition D08-0001 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 11, 2008 DUE DATE: February 11, 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 is January 14, 2009. 2) D.S. 2-05.2.1.C All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12) point or great in size. This said the lettering on the provided vicinity map does not meet this standard. 3) D.S. 2-05.2.1.D Provide a location map that meets the following requirements; a) To be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile. b) Label the section, township and range. c) Label the section corners. d) Label the scale. 4) D.S. 2-05.2.1.K The applicable rezoning case numbers should be listed in the lower right corner, next to the title block. The numbers listed under "EXISTING CASE NUMBERS RELATED WITH THIS PROJEC:" are not correct. The cases applicable to this project are C9-77-23, C9-82-4, C9-85-86 & C9-92-9 5) D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1 Provide as a general note, the name address and telephone of the primary property owner of the site and developer of the project. 6) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.1 Provide as a general note stating, "EXISTING ZONING IS: CITY OF TUCSON ZONING C-2 AND PIMA COUNTY ZONING CR-2." 7) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 List the development plan number "D08-0001" in the lower right corner of the plan. 8) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 Provide as a general note stating, "THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS "GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES "31", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.9.2.A & FOOD AND BEVERAGE SALES "31" ". 9) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 Provide as a general note stating, "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 10) D.S. 2-05.2.3.B Based on the provided approved site plans it appears that there is an existing 10' electrical easement located along the north side of the building under the proposed new Mechanical Maint. and Produce addition. This easement will need to be abandoned. Provide documentation for this abandonment. 11) D.S. 2-05.2.3.B There is a 16' x 20' Elec. Easement to T.E.P. Dkt. 6760/592 shown on one of the provided development plans in the southwest corner, show on the current plan. 12) D.S. 2-05.2.3.B There is a reference to a "10' W. ELECT R.O.W." located near the northwest corner of the existing building. It appears this should be called out as an easement. Provide the docket and page for this easement. 13) D.S. 2-05.2.3.B The area shown as Wilmot road along the east property line is an easement not a right-of-way (ROW). Remove the words Wilmot Road from the easement area and provide the docket and page for the easement on the plan. 14) D.S. 2-05.2.3.C Provide a dimension for the width of the existing paving along Grant Road. 15) D.S. 2-05.2.4.C Provide all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to this project (including adjacent right-of-way), clearly define the boundaries. These parcels have split zoning City of Tucson Zoning C-2 and Pima County Zoning CR-2; clearly indicate the boundary on the plan. The parcel located along the southwest edge of the project is zoned City of Tucson Zoning O-3. The parcel located along the southeast edge of the project is zoned Pima County Zoning CB-1. The zoning for the parcel(s) located south of Grant Road is City of Tucson Zoning C-1. 16) D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Based on the last approved development plans provided it appears that a parking area reconfiguration/re-strip is planned for this project. The following comments apply to the parking and vehicle use area. a) The last approved plans show access aisles running from the accessible parking spaces to the sidewalk located along the north of the tire center. Based on the most current aerial photos these access aisles have been removed and this area is used for shopping cart storage. Provide the access aisles on the plan. b) Provide access aisles from the proposed accessible parking spaces located near the northeast corner of the building. Clearly delineate all ramps, detectable warnings, etc. For your information these access aisle may not be routed behind the vehicle parking spaces. c) The parking area access lane (PAAL) located northeast of the proposed mechanical /maint. & produce addition does not meet the minimum width requirements for access to 90 degree parking. The minimum width is twenty-four (24) feet, see D.S. 3-05.0 Table 1 and LUC Table 3.3.7.-I. d) Provide a dimension for the PAAL located adjacent to the proposed trash compactor. 17) D.S. 2-05.2.4.F Label the future curb for Grant Road. 18) D.S. 2-05.2.4.G State whether the proposed "NEW 10' WIDE ELEC. EASEMENT" will be private or public. 19) D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Until the future curb for Grant Road is provided and a dimension for building setback, from the back of future curb to the proposed receiving addition, the required building setback to Grant Road cannot be verified. 20) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K It appears that there are bollards located near the existing transformer. Provide a dimension from the bollards to the edge of sidewalk. This dimension is required to be 6'-6" clear or wheel stops will need to be provided. 21) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K There appears to be some type of striping near the north west corner of the proposed loading dock. This striping, if parking, encroaches into the PAAL, please clarify what this is. 22) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a four (4) foot sidewalk between the proposed parking, located along the west side of the proposed loading dock, and the proposed addition, see D.S. 2-08.4.1.C. 23) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge and at a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk along the north side of the proposed mechanical /maint. & produce addition, see D.S. 2-08.4.1.B and 3-05.2.2.B.1. 24) D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Fully dimension the proposed loading spaces. Also provide a calculation for the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 for a 161,965 square foot building, General Merchandise Sales, the required number of 12'x35' loading spaces is five (5). It appears that only four (4) are provided. 25) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Zoning acknowledges that the plans show 812 vehicle parking spaces provided. Provide a calculation for the number of vehicle parking spaces required based on LUC Sec. 3.3.4, include the ratio used. 26) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Zoning acknowledges that the plans show 28 accessible vehicle parking spaces provided. Provide a calculation for the number of accessible vehicle parking spaces required based on IBC Table 1106.1. 27) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P As there are numerous changes to the parking configuration provide a detail for both accessible and standard vehicle parking spaces. 28) D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Show the existing and proposed bicycle parking on the plan. Provide a calculation for the number of bicycle parking spaces required and provided based on LUC Sec. 3.3.4. 29) D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Provide a detail for both Class 1 & 2 bicycle parking that includes; materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. For specifics, refer to revised D.S.2-09.0. 30) D.S. 2-05.2.4.R If required by engineering provide existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the plan. 31) D.S. 2-05.2.4.T. It does not appear that there is maneuverability for access to the proposed trash compactor. As it appears that the parking shown in the vicinity of the compactor is required parking access to the compactor may not block the PAAL. 32) The zoning for this project listed under "PROJECT DATA, ZONING" is not correct. The zoning should be listed as "CITY OF TUCSON ZONING C-2 AND PIMA COUNTY ZONING CR-2." 33) Per current aerial photos it appears that the area shown as "UNDEVELOPED AREA", northwest area of the plan, has been graded and a light pole installed. Provide documentation that shows the proper permits were issued for this work. 34) It appears that this project is comprised of three (3) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the three (3) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use Of Real Property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone if sold separately. The future site plans must meet the requirements of the LUC and D.S. if sold separately. A recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use Of Real Property is also required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. I:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\2008\D08-0001dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 02/12/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC - Community Design Review Committee CASE NUMBER: D08-0001 CASE NAME: Costco Addition: Development Plan Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 2/11/08 COMMENTS SENT: 2/11/08 Items being reviewed: ( ) Tentative or Final Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Other - Related Cases: annexation - ? rezoning - C9-92-9 CDRC - ? Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: (ü) APPROVED - No Resubmittal Required. (ü) No comment ( ) Proposal complies with annexation or rezoning conditions ( ) Proposal satisfies trails, recreational amenities, and/or parks and open space requirements ( ) No additional comments - complies with comments submitted on: ( ) NOT APPROVED - Resubmit the following. See attached comments. ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 2/11/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0001_Costco Addition_DPc.doc |
| 02/12/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0001 Costco Addition ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - Site Plan & Floor Plan CROSS REFERENCE: C9-85-86, C9-92-09 & C9-03-05 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arcadia-Alamo Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 2/11/08 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment (XXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 2/05/08 |
| 02/12/2008 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 02/11/2008 8:50 AM >>> No comment |
| 02/12/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/14/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. New compactor area does not provide adequate maneuverability or the minimum required 14 ft x 40 clear approach to allow collection vehicle to position itself perpendicular to the compactor unit. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 2. Screeening will be required around the compactor with a minimum 2 ft clearance on each side of the compactor. Per DS 6-01.4.1.M. 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 |
| 02/19/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 03/05/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/05/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Costco Addition D08-0001, T13S, R14E, SECTION 36 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Statement on January 14, 2008 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and the development plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Quantify the amount of 100-runoff that will be generated and collected within the loading dock. Use the City of Tucson "Flood Peak Estimator" method and provide the Hydrological Data Sheets for the loading dock area. 2. Provide details and a schematic of the storm drain system proposed to collect and dispose of the runoff generated within the loading dock. Provide design calculations and show this information on the drainage exhibit. Please be advised that the ponding water depth within the proposed loading dock area shall not exceed 1'. 3. Provide the proposed additions finished floor elevations. 4. The drainage statement does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. 5. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Development Plan: 1. The Development Plan shall be stamped and signed by a civil engineer. 2. List the applicable rezoning case number, in the lower right corner, next to the title block (D.S. 2-05.2.1.K.). 3. The location map is preferred to be in the upper right corner of the first sheet (D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.). 4. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 5. Provide a title block that includes the project name and a brief legal description as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.G. 6. Provide a legend as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.J. 7. Include all applicable general notes required by D.S. 2-05.2.2. 8. Provide site boundary information as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.A. 9. Provide all existing easements, if applicable, as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.B. 10. Provide width and recordation data for all applicable public right of ways as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.C. 11. Provide basis of elevation including City of Tucson field book number and page and indicate ground elevation on the site as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. 12. It does not appear that the basis of bearing is called out on the plan. Additionally, the tie to the Basis of Bearing is not clearly depicted (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). Revise as necessary. 13. Show existing storm drainage facilities as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.F. 14. Provide all applicable floodplain notes as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.I. 15. Dimension all P.A.A.L's and verify that the proposed structures will not reduce the required widths of the P.A.A.L's (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3.). 16. All proposed easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). Additionally, remove the "10 W. Elect R.O.W." call out. 17. Provide all proposed drainage solutions and structures and ground elevations as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.) and in compliance with the information in the drainage statement. 18. Show sight visibility triangles as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.R.). 19. Show refuse collection areas as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T.). 20. Provide a recent property title report to help verify the depicted existing onsite easements (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 21. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Drainage Report and Title Report |
| 03/05/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 5, 2008 Nathan Menard Mulvanny G2 Architecture 18200 Van Karman Avenue, Suite 910 Irvine, CA 92612 Subject: D08-0001 Costco Addition Development Plan Dear Nathan: Your submittal of January 14, 2008 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 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Lot Combo Covenant (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Title 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: (949) 705-0802 |