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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S07-110
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/12/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/17/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The current access to Phase 2 and the large southeast square of Phase 3 result in dead ends greater than 1200 feet. The roads into these areas must have 36 foot width as in Development Standard 3.01.6.2 and the dwellings in these areas must have automatic fire sprinklers installed unless the areas are not built out until the roads across the current State land are constructed. |
| 10/18/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | October 17, 2007 To: Warren Thompson Stantec 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: Mountain Vail Estates Residential Cluster Project, Phase 1 Lots 137-184 & 217-331, Phase 2 Lots 1-136, Phase 3 Lots 185-216 & 332-521 & CA's A & B Tent. Plat – 2nd Submittal S07-110 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast Interceptor. 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 tentative or preliminary plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2nd request. 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 tentative or preliminary plat. 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 third(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. 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. |
| 10/18/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | October 23, 2007 To: Warren Thompson Stantec 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: Mountain Vail Estates Residential Cluster Project, Phase 1 Lots 137-184 & 217-331, Phase 2 Lots 1-136, Phase 3 Lots 185-216 & 332-521 & CA's A & B Tent. Plat – 2nd Submittal(rev) S07-110 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. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative or preliminary plat as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 10/25/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates Tentative Plat Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 18, 2007 DUE DATE: November 9, 2007 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. The lands which lies within the AEZ must be given a block number and remain as part of the subdivision unless the property has been split prior to tentative plat approval. Because it is within the ADH its area cannot be counted toward compliance to RCP criteria for density and site coverage. 2. Please re-dimension street cross sections 1/6. Individual dimensions for curbs, sidewalks, etc. do not add up to that overall dimension provided. 3. Please provide the boundary of Common Area "A" and the public street on either sheet 15 of 30 or 17 of 30. It is still not clear where this separation occurs. 4. Please add lot number and common areas to title sheet of CC&Rs. 5. The proposed public roadway link between phase 1 and phase 3 and proposed drainage improvements construction is on a separate parcel that is not part of this subdivision. A signed agreement and dedication must be provided from the property owner allowing the off-site improvement of the road to be done within the access easement on that parcel. Per Engineering this will still be required incase proposed subdivision for rezoning case C9-06-15 is postponed or never constructed SCZ Comments: 6. The Overlay Zone case number T07SA00168 must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans. LUC 2.8.2 7. Please add the overlay case number T07SA00168 to general note 45 and 46. Once the overlay zone is approved add the date of approval to note 46. 8. Please replace Houghton Road with Mary Ann Cleveland Way in general note 49. Reviewers mistake. 9. Once Landscaping and Engineering have approved the WASH ordinance portion of the overlay review Zoning can then approve the overlay/tentative plat. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-110tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 10/30/2007 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/30/2007, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Estates S07-110, T15S, R16E, SECTION 31 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on October 15, 2007 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 Tentative Plat where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. The detention basin outlets appear to concentrate the discharge onto adjacent parcels, which is not acceptable. Revise the basin outlet design to reestablish to pre-development discharge patterns. The basin outlets may be flared out to allow the discharge to be in more spread out fashion that will not have erosive velocities. 2. It appears that most of Chevrolet Avenue runoff will be bypassing the proposed scuppers and will be concentrating onto the Church parcel to the north, which is not acceptable. Ensure that all the drainage will be intercepted by the scuppers or provide an analysis that can verify that the runoff leaving the site through Chevrolet Avenue will not adversely impact the parcel to the north. 3. Include in the Drainage Report and in the CC & R's how often the drainage structures shall be inspected. The City recommends that the drainage facilities shall be inspected at least once a year and after every major storm. 4. Clarify the structure, which appears to be a man made channel that run diagonally across the southern part of the project and crosses Mary Ann Cleveland Way west of the subject project. Does this channel have any impact on the project drainage? Tentative Plat: 1. Chevrolet Avenue 50' ingress/egress Easement does not appear to be included in the Title Report. Explain and revise as necessary. 2. Several lots do not appear to meet the differential grading requirements (i.e. Lots 2-7, 16-18, 59, 60, 69, 204-209, 227, 281-284, 287-285, 300, 302, 338, 398, 414, 421, etc.) Refer to Development Standard 11-01.8.0. for more information and verify compliance with this requirement. This issue must be addressed on the grading plan. 3. The wall footing shown in Detail 7/11 shall be completely inside the lot line. Revise. 4. Provide cross section details for all proposed slopes around the project boundary to demonstrate that proposed grading (including cut and fill slopes will be set back at least two feet as required by D.S. 11-01.9.0. 5. Slope treatment and stabilization shall be based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Additionally, slope and detention basin setbacks shall also be determined by the geotechnical engineer. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report with the required recommendations. All required setbacks shall be shown as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.M. 6. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within all proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1.). 7. Provide all street names as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. 8. Cross-section Detail 9/9 shall be revised to show the required turning lanes. 9. The location of Cross Section 10/9 is confusing. It is not clear if it includes Basin-3. Additionally, Detail 10/9 on Sheet 9/30 shows a swale (not a basin) between two rights of way. Explain the discrepancy and revise as needed. 10. Cross-section Detail 6/6 does not look like the standard 100' right of way street cross section, shown in Development Standard 3-01.0. Check with "Permits and Codes" if the proposed cross section is acceptable and revise as necessary. 11. Cross-section Detail 4/8 does not look like the standard 51' right of way street cross section, shown in Development Standard 3-01.0. Check with "Permits and Codes" if the proposed cross section is acceptable and revise as necessary. 12. It appears that proposed cul de sac's radii are substandard. According to Figure 21 of Development Standard 3-01.0 and D.S. 3-01.6.2.C.1.c., the minimum radius shall be 42'. Revise where applicable. 13. Basins 14A, 14B and 14C appear to be proposed outside the subject property. Provide written permission from the impacted property owner for the proposed work on his property as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L. Additionally, the proposed drainage easement for these basins must be dedicated and recorded before the final Plat can be approved. The Final Plat shall show this easement as existing with the recording information provided. 14. Provide the missing lot numbers. 15. Cross-section detail 12/9 call out on Sheet 26/30 appears to be incorrect. Detail 12/9 on Sheet 9/30 shows a wall between two lots. The actual cross section is taken between the lots and Common Area "B" (Atterbury Wash). 16. Show the location of Keynote 14 on Sheet 29/30. 17. Remove Keynote 17 from Sheet 28/30. It appears that it does not apply. 18. It appears that the 8' meandering walkway connecting to "B-10" 12' wide access ram should have thickened pavement to withstand maintenance truck traffic. 19. Recheck the roadway dimensions in Detail ¼ in Sheet 4/30. It appears that the left side street width is taken from the middle of the wedge curb. 20. Revise Detail 7/11 on Sheet 11/30 to show the wall and its foundation entirely within the lot area. 21. Clarify if the construction of the project shall be phased? Please be advised that in case the project will be phased, all proposed drainage structures shall be installed with the first phase unless it can be justified that some drainage structures can wait until the future phases. Additionally, according to D.S. 11-01.2.1.C. "Grading permits may be issued for single or multiple building sites, not to exceed 35 acres per permit". Mass grading the site is not permitted with one grading permit. Waiving this requirement requires an approved Development Standard modification request application/review for exceeding the 35-acre limit. 22. It appears that connecting this development to Old Vail Road will increase through traffic within the subdivision and will create additional maintenance issues with all the dust and mud that will be dragged into the subdivision from the dirt road. Check with TDOT and Traffic Engineering if this is acceptable to them. 23. The slope in Keynote 26 on Sheet 28/30 does not match the slope in "B-5". Revise. 24. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan is acceptable pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review. Additional information may be required on the Grading Plan. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report |
| 11/01/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#185019 October 30, 2007 Diamond Ventures Attn: Mark Weinberg 2200 E. River Rd. Ste. 115 Tucson, AZ 85718 Dear Mr. Weinberg: SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Estates Lots 1 thru 521 S07-110 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review July 20, 2007. The preliminary point where TEP will possibly serve this project is from pole 18 and 17 off of Mary Ann Cleveland Rd., J1, RJS-6, RJS-3, RJS-2 and poles 8 or 2 off of Old Vail Road. Enclosed is a copy of TEP’s facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. Also enclosed is a copy of the tentative plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision. This is not a preliminary design. TEP has provided this drawing to show where the proposed locations are for transformers and pedestals. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within thirty (30) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to HNoriega@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 918-8709. Any technical questions should be directed to the Designer, Frank Kilpatrick at 918-8227. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: City of Tucson (Email only) W. Thompson, Developer |
| 11/02/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. For clarity and ease of referencing the maps and aerial photographs, number all folded exhibits which are included as part of the Environmental Resource Report, including exhibits II.O and II.L, which are referenced in the document. 2. It appears that there are additional riparian resources (designated xeroriparian low habitats) and washes not shown on the exhibit entitled "Aerial Photograph with Riparian Areas". There are proposed ERZ watercourses within the project site which must also be addressed in the document and exhibits per DS 2-13.2.2.A.2 The designated, proposed and under review washes are shown on the the Tucson Department of Transportation internet website. 3. Label the names of all washes and roads on the exhibits. If washes do not have a name they should be labeled as "unnamed wash". 4. Label the erosion hazard setback line clearly (greater than 12 point text) on the Native Plant Preservation Plan and provide the correct line symbol in the legend. 5. The line symbol on the Lansdape Plan for the WASH mitigation area line is shown on the legend as being the 400-foot scenic corridor zone overlay. The limits of grading line on the NPP Plan is shown in the legend to be the same as the 400-foot scenic corridor line. The top of bank and 50-foot study area lines on the NPP Plan are labeled in the legend as being the 30-foot scenic corridor line. Revise/correct all legend symbols to correspond with those shown on the plans. 6. Even though they are in concept only per general note 18 on the tentative plat, label all proposed recreation areas on the Landscape Plans. |
| 11/06/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates 11/06/07 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-06-16 – Weinberg – MaryAnn Cleveland Way NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: H.A.M.P. SCENIC ROUTE: Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: November 9, 2007 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 () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: November 5, 2007 Department of Urban Planning and Design S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates:Tenatitive Plat November 5, 2007 Staff recommends the applicant meet with Roger Howlett and Manuel Padilla from the Department of Urban Planning and Design to discuss tentative plat, S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates. Staff can be reached at 791-4505 to schedule a meeting. The following are the Department of Urban Planning and Design (DUPD) staff comments: In response to staff’s previous comment #2a., the resubmittal states that vegetation and trees within the detention basins will also serve as passive recreational area. The trees, hydro-seed, and native plants shown within the detention basin area are a requirement of rezoning condition #7.e., which reads that vegetation shall be uses as screening and/or security barrier for a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the basin perimeter. Rezoning condition #7.e, complements recreational amenities but are not the amenities in themselves. Therefore, staff again makes reference to the recreation/detention basin requirements as it relates to recreation amenities (rezoning), which includes: That rezoning case C9-06-15, condition #1, requires the subdivision plat to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan. The preliminary development dated October 8, 2006, specifically identifies in the upper left hand corner a “Typical Recreation/Drainage Area,” that calls out recreation amenities such as picnic tables, BBQ, lawns & play areas, landscape screens, and street parking. The PDP identifies eleven (11) “Recreation Detention Basins” and three additional “Recreation only Areas,” which are not detention basins. The commitment to provide ample recreational opportunities at the time Mayor and Council approved the rezoning request is further confirmed by the Land Use Concept Plan, which also identifies the eleven basins with recreational opportunities. Again landscape material alone does not constitute a recreation area to staff. Please revise tentative plat and the landscape plan to address the recreation/detention basin amenities called out on the preliminary development plan dated October 8, 2006. In response to staff’s previous comment #2b, you state that the tentative plat is in compliance with the PDP. Although connections are provided between detention basins and the Esmond Station Railway corridor, its unclear if adequate view corridor (open space) have been provided along the length of the proposed centralized pedestrian path (Esmond Station Railroad Corridor). In addition to the pedestrian friendly concept for the Esmond Station Railroad Corridor , there are the perimeter ERZ pockets and the Atterbury Washes that were also part of the pedestrian friendly trails/path system in the PDP and the Land Use Conceptual Plan. However, in the tentative plat site design these perimeter amenities of open spaces and the Atterbury Wash have been removed as part of the on-site pedestrian circulation path/links. It is recommended that the applicant meet with staff from both the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Urban Planning and Design to review the site design as it relates to rezoning requirements to address adequate pedestrian open space areas and connectivity not only within the interior but also along the perimeters. In comparing the first submittal to this follow up submittal it appears a basketball court has been removed from the centralized large park area site design. Please explain. In response to staff’s previous comment #3 & 4, as it relates to the Esmond Station Railroad Corridor/Ped. Trail, DUPD staff emphasizes that the proposed centralized pedestrian trail width and view corridors are not in compliance with the rezoning PDP and Land Use Concept Plan. However, DUPD staff will again defer to the Department of Parks and Recreation for final design approval. Correction noted to tentative plat and landscape plan that identifies the proposed recreational amenities within the large park area. However, staff request that tentative plat, keynote #23 be revised to indicate these are the proposed recreational elements/amenities. DUPD staff defers to the Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development as it relates to staff’s previous comment # 6, in reference to Desert Tortoise habitat issues. |
| 11/07/2007 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | >>> Andy Steuart 11/07/2007 12:53 PM >>> S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates: Resubmittal - CDRC -Tentative Plat Review -Request provision be provided for a non-exclusive easement for in/egress within the proposed Chevrolet Ave. corridor (pvt. rd.) . It is understood the W. 50' of the SE 1/4, NW 1/4 provides an in/egress easement to offsite parcels, however the proposed Chevrolet Ave. roadway meanders out of this easement w/in the vicinity of the Atterbury Wash. |
| 11/09/2007 | 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: S07-110 MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 11/08/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** ES |
| 11/15/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 15, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-111 PROJECT NAME: Mountain Vail Estates PROJECT ADDRESS: Houghton Rd/Mary Ann Cleveland Way PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Are off-site improvements being proposed for Old Vail Road? Cut through traffic will take place at the new intersection of Old Vail Road and the connection with the proposed public road. Minimal off-site improvements to Old Vail Road are needed to prevent vehicles from carrying debri from Old Vail Road onto the new residential roadway. Feel free to contact me to consider options of off site improvements along Old Vail Road. 3. The following Traffic Engineering comment did not appear to be addressed, please revisit: Per Rezoning Condition #6 and per the TIA right turn lanes are required along Mary Ann Cleveland Way at the intersection with Chevrolet Avenue. Revise sheets 17 and 18. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/23/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: November 21, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates: Tentative Plat Review(10/15/2007) Denied. The plat fails to address the Esmond Station Trail, Powerline Trail and Atterbury Wash Trail in keeping with the preliminary development plan and City/County trail standards. Please schedule a meeting with Parks and Recreation to discuss the trails. |
| 11/26/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 26, 2007 Warren D. Thompson Stantec Consulting, Inc. 201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates Tentative Plat Dear Warren: Your submittal of October 15, 2007 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 9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Real Estate, Fire, Landscape, Zoning, Traffic, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Tortoise Study (DUPD, DSD) Per comments from DUPD, written approval is required from OCSD prior to approval of this tentative plat. 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: 750-7470 |