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 - D08-0048
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/15/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/20/2008 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/23/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/28/2008 | 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. |
| 10/30/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D08-0048 Medina Road Industrial Property Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 10/30/2008 DUE DATE: 11/13/08 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 10/16/09. 2. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Case number D08-0048 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. The indicated case number C9-06-09 near the lower right hand corner of the plan is a ERZ case number by the City of Tucson which was never completed. Remove from all plans. Provide the annexation case number C9-60-39. Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. 3. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 Add a note stating that the project is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria: Airport Environs Zone (AEZ); Sec. 2.8.6. This project is located within the Compatible Use Zones for the TIA Environs. 2.8.5.5.B.2 CUZ-2. Add a note stating: Structures or uses with fifty (50) or more employees must develop an emergency evacuation plan and training program and implement it as approved by the Fire Department. Add a note stating that all building must comply with the requirements of LUC Sec. 2.8.5.6.A Noise Control Districts. for the NCD-65 criteria. This project is within the AHD (Airport Hazards District) for the TAI See LUC Sec. 2.8.5.11, .A, .1. Provide the following: MSL of the NW end of the runway (2567' ) MSL of the allowed height (2567' + 112'=2679') MSL of the finished floor of the proposed structures _______ MSL of the height of the proposed building _______ (MSL=Mean Sea Level elevation) In general notes under building requirements note #2 provide the proposed building height of all structures. 4. DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Provide recording docket and page information for the new water easement (keynote #14). 5. DS 2-05.2.4.A A search of Pima County Tax Parcels indicate this site contains two (2) separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. Forms may be found at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html 6. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 The width of the PAAL from the northwest corner of the loading zone at building #3 to the basin ramp does not meet the minimum 24' width of a PAAL requirement. Revise. Provide the dimension of the PAALs from both trash enclosures to the curbs at the southeast and southwest corners of the project. Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. Areas that do not meet this requirement are the east and south side of building #1, the east side of building #2 and the west side of building #3. 7. DS 3-05.2.4.I The setback indicated on the plans and in Setbacks and Screening note #1 is incorrect. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B the required setback for this developing area is 21' or the height of the structure from the nearest adjacent travel lane. Medina Road has an ADT of more than 140 but less than 1000. Revise note and plans. Provide zoning setback dimensions for all buildings. On zoning setbacks, if the building is proposed for location at a greater distance from the property line than the required setback, show only the dimension of the distance between the building and the property line. If the setback's point of measurement is not the property line, include the distance from the property line to the point of measurement. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.K Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location and design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0. Per DS 2-08.3.1 Pedestrian Circulation Paths Required. Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. Within this pedestrian circulation path, an accessible route is also required. The accessible route must connect all areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. If no sidewalks are provided in the right of way the pedestrian circulation path must connect to the street property line. Clearly indicate the location of crosswalks and required sidewalks with handicap ramps. 9. DS 2-05.2.4. On the footprint of all structures on the plan label the height of each building. 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 Please provide a dimensioned detail for class 1 parking spaces. Indicate the location of the class one bicycle parking spaces on the footprint of the buildings as well as the required 5' access aisle and how the bikes will be secured. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2). In the general notes provide the number of provided class one bicycle parking spaces. 11. DS 2-05.2.4.O In the general notes for loading zone requirements the indicated code section for required loading zones is 3.4.5.1 not 3.4.5.3. Revise. 12. In the general note zoning and land use note #3 concerning a DSMR provide the date of approval, case #, and any conditions of approval. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0048dp.doc |
| 10/30/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No comment. |
| 10/30/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 29, 2008 To: GREGORY CARLSON GREG CARLSON ENGINEERING, LLC 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: MEDINA ROAD INUSTRIAL PROPERTY Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-048 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 WTF via the SCI. 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. 2. Sheet 1: Add a General Note: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. 3. Sheet 3: Call out the manholes on site as private and show the private BCS to the buildings with slope/pipe size/material and length of pipe. 4. Sheet 3: Show the complete IMS #'s for the existing public manholes in Medina Rd. 5. Sheet 3: Show the existing public sewer as terminating @ MH#4107-13. 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 (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. |
| 10/30/2008 | CDRC1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | >>> "KoSok Chae" <kchae@pagnet.org> 10/29/2008 4:27 PM >>> CASE: D08-0048, MEDINA ROAD INDUSTRIAL PROPERT: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 146 PM Peak: 28 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 |
| 11/03/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 3 NOVEMBER 2008 D08-0048/MEDINA ROAD INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. Relocate accessible parking for buildings 2 and 3 to an area that is closest to the center of accessible entrances. Present locations appear to be at farthest end possible for entry access. B. A marked crossing is required at ramps shown from medina Road to Building 3; at ramps from Buildings 3 to Building 2; and at ramps from Building 2 to building 1. Provide large scale, scaled details showing all ramps, detectable warnings, dimensions, slopes, spot grades and marked crossings all to comply with 2006 IBC, ICC ANSI 117.1, Sections 405, 406, 406.12, and 406.14. C. At East sidewalk ramps and Stairs: This detail is not in compliance with ICC ANSI 1117.1. For accessibility compliance, ramps are required at sides, no stairs. Also, a 5'x5' clear landing is required at change in direction as per Section 405.7. D. West sidewalk ramp details appear not to provide a flush access situation for a marked crossing between the two buildings. Reference comment "B" above. E. For accessible routes (concrete walkways) that are flush with the vehicle way, reference zoning requirements and comments for separation. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/05/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Submit a native plant preservation plan. Where the Set Aside Methodology is selected, an Environmental Resource Report per Sec. 3.8.6.4 and Development Standard 1-07.0 shall be submitted. LUC 3.8.4.2 2) The site is required to include screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise the landscape plan as necessary to show and describe all screening elements. LUC 3.7.3 & DS 2-06.3.7. 3) Fifty (50) percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover. The required ground coverage must be achieved within two (2) years from the date of planting. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.5 4) Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations: a. Square footage of the site. b. 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. c. Minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas. d. Length and width of landscape borders and number of canopy trees per length. e. Square footage of all street landscape borders and the calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. 5) The site contains regulatory floodplain areas that may contain riparian habitat. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. Refer to DS 9-06 for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmentally valuable habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. 6) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 9-06.2.5.B.1 if encroachment is proposed in the regulatory area. The report will document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain. 7) Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report demonstrating that the proposed mitigation is in conformance with this subsection and applicable codes. DS 9-06.2.5.C 8) Landscape plans are required to document compliance with the mitigation plan requirements. A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included on the plans. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; techniques used for mitigating impacts to, or preservation of, natural areas; specifications for restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas; and general compliance with the applicable standards. Revise as necessary. 9) Ownership of the Protected Riparian Area shall be provided in one or more of the methods set forth in DS 2-13.2.6 to insure continued preservation of the area. Refer to the standards and revise the plans and provide additional documentation as appropriate. Per DS 9-06.2.6.D the Protected Riparian Area shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction upon further development. The easement must be approved and recorded prior to Development Plan approval. 10) Provide a description of the maintenance program on the plans that provides standards for revegetated/restored or enhanced areas. The program shall include irrigation to establish native plants, provide for regular inspection, removal of invasive species, and native plant replacement as necessary to successfully establish the mitigation habitat. 11) Revegetation within NUOS or PRA areas is only allowed in areas where existing vegetation will not be adversely impacted. Provide exhibits in the ERR and language on the landscape plans that addresses how mitigation plantings and irrigation lines will be sited to prevent damage to existing vegetation and cause only minimal disturbance of the ground surfaces. 12) The project proposes development within Protected Riparian Areas that does not conform to the criteria for necessary development as described in DS 9-06. An approved DSMR will be required to modify the standards. Note the DSMR Case Number on the plans. 13) Revise the landscape plans to include all items listed as required content in DS 2-07.0 where applicable. |
| 11/10/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering does not recommend approval of the development plan. DSD Engineering does not recommend approval of the drainage report. Resubmittal of the development plan and drainage report is required. The following is offered: Drainage Report: Section 3.0 - Hydraulic Structures indicates that Basin 1 and Basin 3 are to have basin walls consisting of CMU retaining walls. Section 4.3.1 of the Detention/Retention Manual (Dev. Std. 10-01) allows up 35% of the basin perimeter to consist of retaining walls. The inference of the report is that 100% of the perimeter will consist of retaining walls. Revise these basins to consist of no more than 35% retaining walls or obtain a DSMR to allow retaining walls. DSD Engineering will not support a DSMR for basin walls that consist of continuous retaining walls. Development Plan: 1. General Note #3: A DSMR has not been granted and is likely to consist of more than just one development standard (see discussion of retaining walls in basins, for example) and may have multiple conditions. If approved, list the DSMR Activity Number and any conditions in accordance with the DSMR approval. If the DSMR application is for an encroachment of greater than 5% of the PRA, please provide photos of the site with the posted sign and a certified copy of the mailing list with the DSMR application. 2. Basins 1 & 3 indicate vertical retaining walls in excess of 35% of the basin perimeter. Please revise the basins to have no more than 35% retaining walls or obtain a DSMR to Dev. Std. 10-01 (Detention/Retention Manual, Sec. 4.3.1). 3. Cross-Section C-C and Cross-Section D-D indicate a cut slope at the property line. Dev. Std. 11-01.9.2 requires a minimum 2' setback for cut slopes along property lines. Please revise the grading to be in conformance with the Development Standard. 4. Cross-Section D-D and Cross-Section E-E indicate the use of retaining walls for the detention/retention basins. Please ensure that the basin consists of no more than 35% retaining walls in accordance with Dev. Std. 10-01. 5. This office concurs with the Landscape Section's comments 5-9 & 12. Please address with the next submittal. |
| 11/12/2008 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: D08-0048 CASE NAME: Medina Road Industrial Property DATE SENT: 11/12/08 Items reviewed: Development Plan and Landscape Plan Cross Reference Cases: Annex. Ord. 2014; no rezoning Area or Neighborhood Plan: 12th Avenue - Valencia Road Area Plan Gateway or Scenic Route: N/A Due Date: November 13, 2008 1) There are no annexation or rezoning conditions. The plans are APPROVED - no resubmittal is required. 2) It is noted that the site lies with the AEZ of the Tucson International Airport. It is within the CUZ-2 and partly within the NCD-65. Buildings no higher than 100 feet, as measured above the elevation at the northwest end of runway 11L, are permitted. Joanne Hershenhorn, 837-6965 11/6/08 S:\Case_Review\CDRC\D08-0048_Medina_Rd_Indus_Prop.doc |
| 11/13/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 205173 November 12, 2008 Greg Carlson Engineering LLC Attn: James McMutrie 1521 E. Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85719 Dear Mr. McMutrie: SUBJECT: Medina Road Industrial Property D08-0048 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted November 5, 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 a possible conflict with pole #155 and the proposed driveway. The measured off distance in the field and pole #155 is close the center of the property and the proposed drive way is not marked on the development plan. If the pole needs to be moved, it will be a billable. 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 Development Services Department for 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 |
| 11/14/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | November 14, 2008 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0048 PROJECT NAME: Medina Road Industrial PROJECT ADDRESS: 225 E Medina Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. The access points shall not exceed a radius in 25' for the proposed curb returns. If a larger radius is needed for vehicular maneuvers then justification needs to be provided. 3. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/17/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 11/17/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comment |
| 11/17/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/18/2008 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | 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: D08-0048 MEDINA ROAD INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/18/08 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: Label project number on all sheets. Correct spelling of Calle Castile on Location Map. Delete “e” from “Ave” for Chess Av on Location Map. Correct suffix for Inez on Location map. Delete direction from Nogales Hy on Location Map. Correct El Vado to Elvado Wash on Location Map. Spell out suffixes for all streets on plans , all applicable sheets. Delete all owner, taxcode, docket and page information for all surrounding properties on all applicable sheets. Delete “subdivision” for Hacienda del Sol label, sheet 1. Label Medina Road, sheet 3. |
| 11/19/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify the occupancy intent for each building...will each building have mutiple tenants/users or only one single tenant/user for each? If multiple users then include a general note stating as follows: "One single property owner, management, or association will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection service/s and storage area/s for all development/buildings/users. If each tenant/user is going to be responsible then will require additiional enclosures to accomodate for each. 2. Add one single enclosure for building 1 to acommodate for both refuse and recycle collection services. 3. Enclosure detail, acess, and circulation within development okay. Please provide clarification and 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 |
| 11/19/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 19, 2008 James McMurtrie Greg Carlson Engineering, LLC 1521 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D08-0048 Medina Road Industrial Property Development Plan Dear James: Your submittal of October 17, 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 10 set of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Zoning, ADA, Landscape, Engineering, TEP, Traffic, Addressing, ESD, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Environmental Resource Report (Landscape, 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: 624-4197 dp-resubmittal |