Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0039
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/10/2008 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0039 Brown/Rita Ranch ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance No. 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/08 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: 9/22/08 |
| 09/10/2008 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | A fire hydrant is required within a 300 foot hose lay of all parts of the building or fire sprinklers are required and the hydrant distance can be 500 feet. |
| 09/16/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 8174 Camino de Cafe D08-0039 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 16, 2008 DUE DATE: October 6, 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 September 8, 2009. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 Place the development plan number D08-0039 in the lower right hand corner of the plan. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided type and dimensioned width of the existing sidewalk. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K There is a striped crosswalk just north of the proposed refuse enclosure. This crosswalk leads no where. If this is the proposed accessible route to the refuse enclosure, demonstrate on the plan how access will be provided to the refuse enclosure. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Provide the overall dimensions for the proposed building on the plan. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Indicate on the plan or the bicycle parking detail how the bicycle parking will be illuminated. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.V If applicable show the location and type of postal service to be provided. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W If applicable show the location and type of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) on the plan. 9. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 10. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0039dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat/development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/17/2008 | 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. |
| 09/17/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Page 2 of 4 SHEET 2 OF 4 1. For both curb ramps at the marked crossing, locate the down edge of the ramp to the end of the curb radii, go back 6' for the ramp length. Start the 2' deep detectable warning at low edge on the ramp at both end of the marked crossing. SHEET 3 0F 4 2. At the accessible parking: the ramps and the accessible parking sign are in conflict with the loctaion of the doors. Redesign the accessible parking and door loaction to comply with ICC 117.2, Sections 404.2.3.4 and 405. SHEET 4 OF 4 3. Detail 3: Redesign Accessibkle Parking so the ramps will not interfere with the entry doors, so that entry doors have required clear space and so that location of accessible sign will not be on the entrance door. 4. Insure accessible entrances comply with 2006 IBC, Section 1105 and ICC 117.1 section 404 and 303. 5. Detail 5: Delete pole if accessible signs are to be building mounted. |
| 09/18/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/22/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0039 Brown/Rita Ranch ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance No. 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/08 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: 9/22/08 |
| 09/23/2008 | 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 D08-0039 Brown/Rita Ranch ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance No. 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/08 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: 9/22/08 |
| 09/26/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#202819 September 26, 2008 Physical Resource Engineering Attn: Dennis Dovovan P.O. Box 36985 Tucson, Arizona 85740 Dear Dennis Donovan: SUBJECT: LOT 16 BROWN/ RITA RANCH D08-0039 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted September 19, 2008. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. There is an existing junction cabinet not shown on the plan. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson or TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Warren McElyea at 918-8268 should you have any technical questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist hn Enclosure cc: City of Tucson (by e-mail) W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power |
| 09/26/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 26, 2008 To: DENNIS DONOVAN PHYSICAL RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. 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: LOT 16 BROWN/RITA RANCH -8174 CAMINO DE CAFÉ Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-039 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. Sheet 3: Show the proposed BCS to the new building with slope/size and length of pipe. 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. |
| 10/01/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Submit any revised plans for an additional Landscape Section review. |
| 10/01/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D08-0039, LOT 16 BROWN/RITA RANCH: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 275 PM Peak: 53 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 10/01/2008 | DCORRAL1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0039 Brown/Rita Ranch ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance No. 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/08 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: 9/22/08 |
| 10/01/2008 | DCORRAL1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0039 Brown/Rita Ranch ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance No. 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/08 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: 9/22/08 |
| 10/01/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0039 Brown/Rita Ranch ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance No. 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/08 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: 9/22/08 |
| 10/01/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: October 01, 2008 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D08-0039 Lot 16 Brown/Rita Ranch: Development Plan Review(9-9-08) Staff has no comments. |
| 10/03/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/03/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Lot 16, Brown/Rita Ranch D08-0039, T15S, R15E, SECTION 27 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Report on September 05, 2008 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Provide all design calculations for any required drainage solutions and structures (i.e. scuppers, erosion control structures, swales, roof drains, etc.). 2. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. Provide design calculations. 3. Address water harvesting requirements in the report and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 4. The drainage report 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. Show roof drainage on the drainage exhibits. 5. The proposed building floor elevation shall be determined in the drainage report based on the site drainage. Development Plan: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. Show on the plan the Basis of Bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corners (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 3. Provide a 5 foot refuge area around the sides and the back of the building as required by D.S. 3-05.2.2.B. 4. Show the 100-year floodplain limits for all flows of 100-cfs or more as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6. 5. Show and dimension existing and proposed sidewalks as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.L. 6. Provide water harvesting areas and demonstrate how the drainage will be conveyed from the building roof and paved areas to the proposed water harvesting areas to maximize water harvesting (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 7. Show all proposed drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). 8. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 9. Revise the trash enclosure to show the interior width dimension correctly, in accordance with Figure 3 of Development Standard 6-01.0. 10. 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 the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage proposed sidewalk scuppers where applicable. 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. Show the roof drainage direction and revise the Development Plan accordingly. 11. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 12. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 13. Additional information and details might be required with the Grading Plan and the PIA plans Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the sight visibility triangles (SVT's) during installation and after the plants have grown and matured. This is a safety issue and can create a liability issue to the property owner (D.S. 3-01.5.1.1.). RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 10/03/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/03/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Lot 16, Brown/Rita Ranch D08-0039, T15S, R15E, SECTION 27 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Report on September 05, 2008 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Provide all design calculations for any required drainage solutions and structures (i.e. scuppers, erosion control structures, swales, roof drains, etc.). 2. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. Provide design calculations. 3. Address water harvesting requirements in the report and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 4. The drainage report 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. Show roof drainage on the drainage exhibits. 5. The proposed building floor elevation shall be determined in the drainage report based on the site drainage. Development Plan: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. Show on the plan the Basis of Bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corners (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 3. Provide a 5 foot refuge area around the sides and the back of the building as required by D.S. 3-05.2.2.B. 4. Show the 100-year floodplain limits for all flows of 100-cfs or more as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6. 5. Show and dimension existing and proposed sidewalks as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.L. 6. Provide water harvesting areas and demonstrate how the drainage will be conveyed from the building roof and paved areas to the proposed water harvesting areas to maximize water harvesting (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 7. Show all proposed drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). 8. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 9. Revise the trash enclosure to show the interior width dimension correctly, in accordance with Figure 3 of Development Standard 6-01.0. 10. 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 the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage proposed sidewalk scuppers where applicable. 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. Show the roof drainage direction and revise the Development Plan accordingly. 11. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 12. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 13. Additional information and details might be required with the Grading Plan and the PIA plans Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the sight visibility triangles (SVT's) during installation and after the plants have grown and matured. This is a safety issue and can create a liability issue to the property owner (D.S. 3-01.5.1.1.). RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 10/06/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | DP demonstrates adequate access and maneuverability within development for collection vehicle...enclosure detail okay. 1. Recommend including provisions for recycling and add one single enclosure to accomodate for both refuse and recycle waste. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/07/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 10/07/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/08/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0039 LOT 16 BROWN RITA RANCH/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 10/06/08 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Delete address from Title Block. Label project number on all sheets. Delete “T15S” from Location Map. Correct project location on Location Map. |
| 10/09/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 10, 2008 Dennis L. Donovan Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. PO Box 36985 Tucson, Arizona 85740 Subject: D08-0039 Lot 16 Brown/Rita Ranch Development Plan Dear Dennis: Your submittal of September 9, 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 eight (8) copies of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Zoning, ADA, Wastewater, TEP, Engineering, Addressing, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage 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: 690-1769 dp-resubmittal |