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.

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S05-116
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
6132 S ANTRIM LP

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S05-116
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/03/2006 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: S05-116 DESERT POINT 2/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: January 3, 2006



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:


Add suffix of Court or Place to Lifeson and Limelight.

Correct Lakota Drive to Antrim Loop.













jg
01/03/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
01/12/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
01/12/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Tentative Plat is approved December 27, 2005.
01/12/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S05-116, Desert Point 2, Tentative; The developer has not contacted Real Estate about the vacation of Antrim Loop right of way as requested in August. Antrim Loop is public right of way vested in the City of Tucson not private property. The right of way must be vacated by M&C action and conveyed to the developer prior to the final plat being recorded. Real Estate must have time to process the appropriate paper work prior to allow the plat to proceed so the right of way conveyance is can be considered by M&C at the same time the plat is being considered. On further study, it does not appear that Antrim Loop as proposed connects to existing Antrim Loop at Desert Vista Estates to the south.
01/13/2006 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S05-116 Desert Point 2 12/23/05

(X) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-90-18

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan

GATEWAY ROUTE: No

COMMENTS DUE BY: 1/10/06

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
() Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
(X) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(X) Resubmittal Required:
(X) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
(X) Other

REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 01/10/06
Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments:
S05-116, Desert Point 2
January 10, 2006

The following staff comments are carried over from staff’s previous review dated August 8, 2005. These issues have not been addressed correctly and need to be added/revised to be in compliance with rezoning conditions or RCP requirements.

1. Please correct tentative plat, sheet 1 of 3 to include on the heading for the Mayor & Council Rezoning Conditions, the applicable rezoning case number = C9-04-15. Currently reads C9-14-15

2. Please correct tentative plat, sheet 1 of 3, rezoning condition # 15 to read verbatim as approved by Mayor and Council on October 4, 2004 (see attached copy).

3. Please correct landscape plan, sheet 3 of 6 to comply with rezoning condition # 10. Common Area “A” to include actual play equipment information, layout design and shall identify child age group, tot lot or older, etc.
As submitted, “ play equipment by others” is insufficient information to comply with requirements.

4. Please correct landscape plan, sheet 3 of 6, to demonstrate that Common Area “A” landscaping is designed to be child friendly by providing all landscaping to be of the “thornless” variety. This includes canopy trees, shrubs, and ground cover planting. Submittal does not demonstrate that all trees, shrubs, and ground cover planting within Common Area “A” are of the “thornless” variety. Instead, landscape plan sheet 3 of 6 includes fishhook barrel cacti within Common Area “A.”

5. Please correct landscape plan, sheet 3 of 6, to provide on the east one-half of Common Area “A,” to be turf surface, which surrounds the play ground equip/area.

6. Common Area “A,” shall include an all weather, handicap accessible, five feet wide sidewalk surface from the perimeter sidewalk system located along the street to the individual amenities (ramada, picnic tables, grills, and play ground equipment) located within the common area.
As submitted the plan proposes ADA stabilized decomposed granite as the general surface material within Common Area “A.” However, Common Area “A” also requires a turf area surrounding the play ground equip/area and requires an all-weather surface at minimum to be either asphalt or concrete material for the required handicap accessibility (sidewalk) to connect the on-site amenities to the street sidewalk. The all weather handicap accessibility surface shall be a minimum five feet wide sidewalk within Common Area “A,” again connecting the amenities to the street sidewalk.

Please show footprint location and size of ramada in Common Area “A.”
Submittal does not indicate a ramada on landscape plan, sheet 3 of 6.

8. Please provide a trash container location, with a secure hold-down, within Common Area “A” to contain trash generated by users of the recreational facility.
Submittal does not indicate a trash container location, with a secured hold-down, within Common Area “A.”
01/17/2006 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP:

1. Traffic is still NOT in receipt of the Traffic Impact Analysis as required by rezoning condition 3.

D. Dale Kelch, PE
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
01/20/2006 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied January 20, 2006

TO: Paul Nzomo, P.E.
Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc.

THRU: Patricia Gehlen
City of Tucson, Development Services Department

FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer)
Subhash Raval, P.E.
Pima County Development Services Department
Development Review Division (Wastewater)

SUBJECT: Desert Point 2, Lots 1-43 and Common Area A
Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal
S05-116

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 Southeast 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.

SHEET 2. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer at the downstream connection. Also show the six digit Pima County manhole number for existing MH #17.

SHEET 2. Revise the sewer design to accommodate the minimum required cover of four feet for PVC pipe or three feet for DI pipe.

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 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

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,





Subhash Raval, P.E.
Telephone: (520) 740-6586

Copy: Project
01/25/2006 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: S05-116
Desert Point 2 Subdivision, Residential Cluster Project
Tentative Plat
2nd Submittal

TRANSMITTAL: 01/25/06

DUE DATE: 01/10/2006

COMMENTS:

1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat 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 tentative plat is July 10, 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 version (IBC). When referring to Development Services Department, the abbreviation "DSD" is used.

3. Per last review:
A) Provide staff with a copy of the rezoning conditions for case C9-04-15.
B) Label Rezoning Conditions on the plat with case number, C9-04-15, NOT C9-14-15.

4. Per last review:
Provide a separate response letter advising how all conditions of rezoning case C9-04-15 have been met.

5. Per this review: Per DS 2-03.2.3.D, and Figure 2 of DS 3-01, To typical street section drawing 2, add 6" of right of way between the property line and sidewalk on each side of the street.

6. Per last review/current review: It appears lot 22, and several lots along Limelight Road do not have guest parking within 150' of their lot lines, as required. Revise plat accordingly. Per DS 3-05.2.4.A.1, guest parking must be provided within 150 feet of the front or street side yard property lines of each residential unit.

7. Per last review: Typical detail drawings of such parking spaces between unit driveways should be provided (add information to the typical drawings showing lot setbacks).

8. Per last review:/This review: Your response advising a wall will be provided at the boundaries of the subdivision does not address building setbacks. Please review the following information and delineate on the plan with lines and labels showing the minimum building setback at each side of the subdivision. AS FOLLOWS:

A) Per RCP requirement 2-10.3.1.A, the perimeter of the RCP Subdivision has different building setbacks than interior lots of the subdivision.

B) The western boundary of the proposed subdivision abuts an R-1 zoning classification. The minimum building setback for any lots on this side of the subdivision is: the greater of 10' or ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall.

C) The northeast boundary of the proposed subdivision abuts a C-2 zoning classification. The minimum building setback for any lots on this side of the subdivision is: equal to the height of the exterior building wall.

D) The eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision abuts Pima County zoning classification TR, which translates to an O-3 zoning classification in the city. The minimum building setback for any lots on this side of the subdivision is: equal to the height of the exterior building wall.

E) The southern boundary of the proposed subdivision abuts both an R-3 zone (where lot 1 is located) and an I-1 zone (lots 41, 42, and 45). The minimum building setback required against an R-3 zone is: the greater of 10' or ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall. The minimum building setback required against an I-1 zone is: equal to the height of the exterior building wall.

F) The northwest boundary of the site is abutting a new street, with an ADT of 140-1000 from the information presented on the plan. The building setback for lot 22 is: the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall, measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane.

9. Per last review: /This review: Per RCP requirement 2-10.3.1.B, provide a typical plot plan layout for a corner lot, an interior lot and a lot affected by perimeter yard setbacks.

A) The typical drawings provided on sheet three have incorrect setbacks noted. Correct the setbacks to read as follows (CORRECT ALSO ON THE GENERAL NOTES): The setback for a garage or carport is 19 feet from back of sidewalk. The setback allowed for the residence (not inclusive of a carport or garage) is: the greater of 21 feet or the height of the exterior building wall, as measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent TRAVEL lane. Please revise the detail drawing, including the travel and parking lane lines to ensure setbacks are clearly noted.

B) Label each detail drawing as to what they show: corner or interior lot.

C) Please correct the corner lot drawing to show the correct setback from a street to the building wall (not garage or carport) is: the greater of 21 feet or the height of the exterior building wall, measured from outside edge of travel lane.

D) Note: for buildings along streets with an ADT under 140, as are proposed in this project, reduced building setbacks (from those described above) are allowed. Please review Section 3.2.6.5.B, Chart for ADT less than 140 (page 195) of the Land Use Code and PROVIDE detail drawings AND general notes for any lots with such proposed setbacks.

E) Provide a separate note near the detail drawings summarizing the setbacks along the perimeter of the subdivision. (see comment 8.)

10.Per last review/This review: Staff acknowledges note 23 on the first page of the submittal, which indicates mechanical equipment must be screened. However, the response "Acknowledged" does not address HOW screening is to be accomplished.

Please review the following comment and provide the information requested.

Per RCP requirements 3.6.1.4, all mechanical equipment must be screened from adjacent streets and adjacent existing residential development. If roof mounted, please PROVIDE a typical detail of the location of the mechanical equipment found on a lot, and the screening that will be done to meet this code requirement. If ground mounted, PROVIDE a note indicating that the equipment will be screened with patio walls.

11. Please note, depending upon the information provided in the resubmittal, further review comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608.

C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-116.2nd.doc


RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat.
02/21/2006 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator
SUBJECT: Desert Point 2 Tentative Plat Engineering Review Resubmittal
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-116
LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 10

SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape documents, revised Drainage Report, response comments, and were received by Engineering. Many of the comments were not adequately addressed. Engineering has reviewed the items and does not recommend approval of the revised Tentative Plat at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-01.II.3: Regarding basin design address the following comments:
a) Provide proposed conditions hydrologic data sheets.
b) DS Sec.10-01.3.3.1: Tables do not provide derivation of calculated storage volumes and the Threshold Retention requirements calculation sheet is unclear. Provide the equation in the Drainage Report with calculations showing 15% reduction for detention for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year discharges, and show in a table for existing and proposed conditions. Also, explain different volumes listed for Developed and Existing under the storage heading. Provide updated routing calculations.
c) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Provide natural looking design for the basin per DS Sec 10-01.1.1.2, to show that the proposed design provides a detention/retention facility that has multi-use facilities and is visually appealing. Show 8:1(H:V) slopes in the basins if human activity zones are proposed.
d) Revise Conclusions portion of the Drainage Report to correctly explain discharge from the basin, and channels.
e) Provide one table and exhibit showing both the pre-developed and post-developed flowrates that provide the 15% reduction.
2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following additional Drainage Report comments. Explain in Drainage Report and assure that compliance is shown on the Tentative Plat.
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5: Address the following offsite drainage improvement comments:
i) All offsite easements shall be depicted with dimensions. Docket and page are required prior to plat approval.
ii) Submit copies of notarized documents for all offsite improvements, providing authority from adjacent property owner(s) to construct any offsite easements.
b) Regarding the northeastern offsite flow address the following:
i) On the bottom of the Offsite Hydrology page, there is a statement that the Thurban Avenue contains the offsite 25 cfs. Provide cross section for Thurban Avenue showing offsite 100-year stormwater is contained in this alley.
ii) The easement delineation at the rear of lot 19 - 21 is labeled as private and public on detail and planview; clarify.
c) For the Figure 8 exhibit, correct sub watershed delineations.
d) For the Figure 10 Drainage Scheme exhibit, correct discrepancies in the sub-watershed delineations shown on the exhibit and the verbiage described in the report. Label CP4.
e) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J & 2.4.L.6: On Figure 10 exhibit, label existing and developed 100-year event flows entering and exiting the site boundaries.
f) Provide offsite proposed channel and spillway cross sections and details.
g) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: In Drainage Report, explain purpose of road capacity sheets. Cross sections are confusing.
h) Explain/revise Figure 10 exhibit watershed delineation for lots 1, 2, 44, and 45 and roadway area within Antrim Loop. Provide elevations in roadway to clarify.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
3) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.1: List the telephone number developer of the project.
4) DS Sec. 2-03.2.1.D.2: Clarify Earp Wash location on Location Map on cover sheet.
5) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C&E: All existing easements and utilities will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, sizes, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status.
a) Check to see that all easements listed in Title Report are shown and indicated on the Tentative Plat. For instance, there is a phone easement listed in the Title Report with Record102 pg509, show and label all easements. Item 5 indicates a gas and electric easement with Dkt467 pg304; show on planview.
b) Some easement lines are indicated on planviews; label all easements.
i) Label width of existing utility easement at the rear of lots 20 and eastern lot 21.
ii) Clarify detail 4 on sheet 3 for the delineation near the western lot 21 is an easement along this northwest boundary; explain building pad location for western lot 21 to assure space for building and setbacks from any easement.
iii) Show bulding pad for lot Assure building pad can be placed on this lot.
iv) Clarify on sheet 2 the easement delineation at the west of lot 22. Show on the Tentative Plat sheet 2.
6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.B: Clarify new adjacent drainage easements from the development to the north; clarify details on sheet 3 and 4.
7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The following information regarding the existing public right-of-way within one hundred (100) feet of the site will be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Specifically add information for East Thurban Avenue (to the east side of the site) and South Antrim Loop (to the south).
8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Clarify elevations in proposed street near basin to clarify how drainage within the intersection at Lakota and Tappen will work.
9) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.H: Show no-vehicular access easements along appropriate perimeter boundary lines; consider along portions of the south and east boundaries.
10) DS Sec.2-03.3.2.D: Show extents of the existing Antrim Loop right-of-way with recording information and dimensions. If proposed, street abandonment for any portion of Antrim Loop right-of-way must be done prior to, or concurrently with, the platting of the final plat. In response letter state status of abandonment.
11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: At grading review stage local basis of bearing and benchmark will be required.
12) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C&6.4.I: Retention/detention area must be clarified. In the Title Block, label the basin area as "RETENTION / DETENTION BASIN".
13) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Placement of fill can not exceed 2 feet above natural / existing grade at any location in the outer 100 feet of the project. Proposed fill elevations for lots 41, 42, 45, 14-17, 20, 21, and basin along the project boundaries do not meet grading standards. Fill and pad grades shall be changed to meet two-foot differential limit, otherwise the procedures for differential grading outlined in this section shall apply and written justification based on engineering / technical reasons shall be submitted as first step in the procedure.
14) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.J: Provide a copy of the conditions as approved by Mayor & Council for this case. Address the following comments:
a) Explain in response letter and provide status of compliance for each of the following Conditions: 3, 4, 5, 9, 13.
i) For Condition 3, provide copy of the traffic impact analysis in resubmittal with discussion of access locations to the site and whether the alley to the east is for public access.
ii) Show compliance of Condition 9 in section details.
iii) Show on plan view the locations of placement of wall per Condition 13.
15) DS Sec.2.4.K&10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised soils report that includes recommendations for maximum slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. The report shall have minimum setbacks for basins from structures. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design.
16) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: For clarification of proposed flow conditions on these RCP lots, revise typical lot grading detail that explains the following:
a) Clarify and provide swale dimensions, slope run-outs, and minimum slope grades away from structures.
b) Assure that the detail complies with recommendations of soils report.
c) Show/clarify area for utility pads / mechanical equipment or A/C unit locations, if it is located along the side yards.
d) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Show any building setbacks to swales, slope setbacks for screen walls, minimum side and rear building setbacks, per geotechnical report and drainage report.
17) DS Sec.11-01.9: Show compliance with slope setback requirements.
a) The end of cul-de-sac's appear too close to property boundaries. Where proposed right-of-way abuts property line, provide cross sections depicting existing and proposed topography and grades showing that slope runout is provided and in conformance with 2-foot slope setbacks.
b) Provide additional cross section adjacent property showing cut and fill runout dimensions and proposed slopes and grades for the following locations:
i) at rear of pad for lot 5;
ii) at the side of pad for Lot 41, 22, and end of cul-de-sac's;
iii) at the northwest end of basin.
18) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Per the revised Drainage Report, address the following drainage comments:
a) DS Sec.10-01.3.4: Label sediment control structure on the Tentative Plat planview. Cross section and details with appropriate spillway of sediment control structure will need to be shown on grading plan.
b) Provide detail and sections for the two additional channels and spillways exiting to the west of the [project. Depict construction drainage and maintenance easements for these offsite improvements.
c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: On sheet 2, provide existing and proposed spot elevations at the following locations:
i) At existing header or nearer to project boundary on the south side of project in Antrim Loop.
ii) Scupper openings.
iii) At entrances and exits of basins.
d) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Depict in sections the security barriers (acceptable fencing, vegetation, or, combination of vegetation and structural materials) that will be provided for the basin.
e) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J & 2.4.L.6: On plan view on sheet 2, label all existing and developed 100-year event flows entering an exiting the site boundaries.
f) DS Sec.2.4.L.1: Delineate ponding limits in the basin.
19) DS Sec.2-03.5.2: A final grading plan for the subdivision will be required. Please be aware that the final grading plan may be submitted for review after the second resubmittal of the tentative plat. In the case of a tentative plat submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request, the final grading plan and the tentative plat cannot be approved until 30 days after adoption of the rezoning ordinance.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
20) DS Sec.3-01.5.1: Address the following Landscape Plan comments:
a) Show the sight visibility triangle on planview sheets.
b) Provide notation on Landscape Plan for restriction of existing or proposed vegetation and structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility triangles.
c) On planview sheets with basins, assure that no proposed plants are blocking or placed on access ramps for the revised basins.
d) Provide locations of varied wall alignment on Landscape Plan sheets per Mayor and Council Condition 13 if not shown on Tentative Plat.

The next submittal should include a revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, revised Landscape Plans, revised soils report, copy of the title report, differential grading justification if applicable, and response letter that addresses all the above items. If you have any further questions, or would like to set up a meeting, you may call me at 791-5550 extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
02/23/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

February 23, 2006

Paul Nzomo
Coronado Engineering and Development Inc.,
1010 North Finance Center Drive
Tucson, AZ 85710

Subject: S05-116 Desert Point 2 Tentative Plat

Dear Paul:

Your submittal of December 23, 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED

8 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Real Estate, Community Planning, Addressing, Wastewater, Traffic, Zoning, Engineering, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Community Planning, Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Soils Report (Engineering, DSD)


Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 1179.

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: 571-1961