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

Permit Number: DP13-0169
Parcel: 305972280

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP13-0169
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/13/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Comment not addressed. [Initial comment: Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system indicate the need for a backwater valve to be installed. Approximately 21 lots appear to require backwater valves but have not been marked. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.]
01/14/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
01/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Approved Rick Gonzalez, Architect
3004 E Adams Street, Tucson, Arizona 85716
520.207.2521 520.850.7401(cell)/520.260.5669 (cell)

DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER

PROJECT: COT CDRC DP13-0169 January 14, 2014
RINCON KNOLLS TENTATIVE PLAT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL 2ND SUBMITTAL
REVIEW
10495 S MILLICENT TR


This project has been selected for review by Rick Gonzalez, Architect
(RGA), a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). RGA
has conducted a Development Plan report #2 for compliance with the FLD/UDC
on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD)
Director, Ernie Duarte, and Planning Administrator (PA), Jim Mazzocco.

The Tentative Plat plans are found to be in accordance with the FLD/UDC
recommendations and modifications listed in the first review comments. This
letter of recommendation of compliance is to the DSD CDRC Project Manager
Patricia Gehlen, on behalf of the COT PDSD Director and PA. The Director
shall make the final decision on the project’s compliance with FLD/UDC
requirements. The applicant shall include the Design Professional’s
communication in the development package.
01/15/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 724-9512

TO:

CITY PLANNING

FROM:

MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:

DP13-0169/RINCON KNOLLS LOT 1-359 TENTATIVE PLAT-2ND REVIEW

DATE:

JANUARY 15, 2014



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:

1. (Additional Plat to be Resubdivided) --Add to Title Block on all Sheets:

A Resubdivision of Rincon Knolls Phase III Lots 399-457, Common
Areas A, C,D, E, G recorded in Book 64 of Maps and Plats at Page 8,
being a portion of Sections 4 & 9 . . . .

2. Upon review of street layouts the following streets need to be "Place" or "Court":
Arnold Ranch Place or Court, Megan Ridge Place or Court, William Camp
Place or Court.

3. Street labeled Tortoise Canyon Drive (south of Rincon Knolls Loop) needs to continue for the entire street length (not change to Lazy J Ranch Place) (affects Lots 221-256, 287-294)

4. Street labeled Tortoise Canyon Place needs to be changed to Tortoise Pointe Place (affects Lots 269-286) (A cul-de-sac street can use the same name if it comes off of the same named street --Tortoise Canyon Drive)

5. Street labeled Tortoise Pointe Place (affects Lots 295-297, 303-309) needs to be changed to a different name. (Lazy J Ranch Place could be used or Diane Ranch Place, for example)
01/16/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
01/21/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved ESD approves the submittal.
01/21/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved No objections/adverse comments. Detailed traffic impact analysis has been
prepared. See attached.



____________________________

Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP

Senior Land-Use Modeler



PAG40MPOhoriz3.png



177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 792-1093 x506 (tel)

(520) 620-6981 (fax)

www.pagnet.org

<mailto:ekramer@pagnet.org> ekramer@pagnet.org


Additional documents in SIRE
01/21/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
01/21/2014 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied Comments may be found in SIRE under the documents folder. Document is called DP13-0169 Parks and Recs
01/22/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
01/24/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the plans as necessary to incorporate Parks and Recreation requirements for the Pantano River Park.
C9-06-07
01/24/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve the plans.
12/23/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved on first review
12/23/2013 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
12/23/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved First review was informational only
12/23/2013 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Needs Review 100 year water assuarnce needed from water provider.
12/24/2013 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Denied Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)

FROM: Ada Griffin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: December 24, 2013


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

DP13-0169 RINCON KNOLLS TENTATIVE PLAT

_

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS:


" THE PERIMETER LINE MUST BE SOLID AND HEAVIEST LINE WEIGHT ON THE PLAT. THE LOT LINES AND COMMON AREA LINES MUST BE SOLID AND THE NEXT HEAVIEST. LINES FOR EROSION SETBACKS, FLOODPLAIN LINES ETC. SHOULD BE THE LIGHTEST LINE WEIGHT AND BE DASHED OR DOT-DASHED.

" ALL HATCHING, STIPPLING, STRIPING ETC., MUST BE REMOVED IN THE FINAL PLAT, UNLESS ANOTHER AGENCY REQUIRES IT. IF SO ALL LETTERING MUST HAVE THE HATCHING, ETC., CUT AWAY SO THEY ARE LEGIBLE.

" OWNERSHIP DOES NOT MATCH OUR RECORDS. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THE OWNERS AS FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY OF AZ TRUST # 60424.



NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
12/27/2013 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved PIMA COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT
201 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207
JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500
DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135

December 27, 2013

To: DAVID LITTLE
WLB, INC

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department


____________________________________________
From: Tom Porter, P.E. (520-724-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Subject RINCON KNOLLS
TP - 2nd Submittal
DP13-0169

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Tentative Plan.

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 construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department.

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 any activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

If you have any questions about this review letter please call me @ the phone number above.
12/27/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP13-0169
Rincon Knolls - Tentative Plat review (Second Review)
Re-plat of the approved subdivision - FLD Single Family Development

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 8, 2014

DUE DATE: January 23, 2014

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.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is .

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

1. Follow up Comment: General note 3 and 19 reference the RCP, revise the reference to FLD as required.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: Under the RCP Data text block, revise all notes and code sections that that are referenced to the old RCP requirements. This plat is being reviewed under the UDC and FLD development criteria. While the development criteria have not changed drastically the code sections have. Revise the data and code sections as noted in the UDC and FLD code sections as required. All notes or info on any plan sheet that references the RCP should be revised to FLD and any code sections that are referenced from the RCP must also be revised to the UDC FLD code related sections.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

2. Follow Up Comment: All recorded easements that are to be abandoned must be abandoned prior to approval of the final plat. The abandonment recordation with exhibits will have to be provided at time of the final plat submittal.

2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

3. Follow Up Comment: The Distance for corner lots or lot with reverse curve lot lines should be labeled separately and not as a combined distance. If needed to add the requested information add a curve data table to the sheets.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: Corner lots have not been provided with the distance and measurements as noted by the above standard. Ensure that all lot line dimensions are labeled for all lots (Corner Lots). In some case the lot lines have not been clearly labeled i.e. a continuous radius that covers two or more lots. Revise as required.

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

4. Follow Up Comment: A separate response memo explaining or detailing how all the rezoning conditions have been addressed was not included in the submittal of the tentative plat package. Ensure that the requested document is included with the next submittal.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: Submit a separate response memo detailing how all conditions of rezoning can and will be met by demonstrating the requirements on the tentative plat and submittal of any documents required by the rezoning conditions. This requested memo is in addition to the response memo required for response to the zoning comments.

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

2-06.5.2 Tentative Plat Required
An FLD proposing to subdivide the project site into two or more lots must prepare a tentative plat. Tentative plats for FLDs must be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.0.0, Development Package, including Section 2-06.5.3, Additional Information, and the following developable area information: Additional comments by the design professional must be addressed in additional to the requirements of the standard FLD criteria

2-06.5.3 Additional Information
The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable:

2-06.5.3.D - Building Elevations
Provide dimensioned building elevations of all proposed units. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits;

5. Follow Up Comment: Unless there is a specific reason why the building plans cannot be submitted at this time provide the requested documents per the standard as noted above.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: Provide the required documents as noted by the standard above.

2-06.5.3.E - Architectural Variation Plan
When applicable, an architectural variation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC as follows:

6. Follow Up Comment: Include the full UDC code section for general notes 32, 33, 34 and 35, (related to the Privacy Mitigation). If the variation is required it must be submitted for review with the tentative plat or request deferred submittal to Adam Smith PDSD Principal Planner. Otherwise the package is considered incomplete.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: See the Design Professional comments related to this standard as noted above.

2-06.5.3.E.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide architectural variation; and,

7. Follow Up Comment: List under the FLD Data text block the lot numbers that will require any type of Privacy Mitigation. The lots that may have any impact on the adjacent residential development can be identified based on the location of the affected lots. List the lot numbers under the FLD text block.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: It is not clear that this standard has been demonstrated on the tentative plat.

2-06.5.3.E.2 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and building footprints) demonstrating how the proposed architectural variation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC.

8. Follow Up Comment: Same as follow up comment 6. Provide the documents or request a deferred submittal from Adam Smith. Provide any documentation Adam Smith if he allows the deferred submittal.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: Provide the documents as noted above by this standard.

2-06.5.3.F - Privacy Mitigation Plan
When applicable, a privacy mitigation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.d of the UDC as follows:

9. Follow Up Comment: Same as comment 6

PREVIOUS COMMENT: A mitigation plan must be provided if any adjacent residential development is affected by the proposed development on this site. See the Design Professionals comments related to this standard.

2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation;

10. Follow Up Comment: Same as comment 6

PREVIOUS COMMENT: If applicable, list the information as noted above by this standard.

2-06.5.3.F.3 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and landscape plans) demonstrating how the proposed mitigation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. The plan should include when practicable additional design elements to increase privacy such as the siting angle of buildings, windows, and lots;

11. Follow Up Comment: Same as comment 6.

PREVIOUS COMMENT: The documents noted in this standard were not part of the development submittal to PDSD. Provide the documentation with the next submittal of the tentative plat or clarify if the documents were submitted tot eh design professional for review.


Rezoning Conditions Review and comments: Related to zoning purview.

12. Follow Up Comment: This requested document from the PDSD Director must be provided with the next submittal.

Previous Comment: Clarify with documentation from PDSD whether or not the change in the subdivision was considered a minor or major change. Also clarify if there has been any request to go before Mayor and Council for any change of conditions.

Address the following comments related to the Rezoning conditions per a separate response memo detailing how the rezoning conditions have been or will be complied with. (The following comments are more specific to some of the Zoning review purview.) It is acknowledged that compliance for some of the conditions of rezoning cannot be demonstrated on the tentative plat plan sheets. The response comments to the rezoning conditions should specify how and when they will be met, whether during construction, grading plan, or building plan submittal.

Rezoning condition 9 - Provide documentation that the In-Lieu fee for the Trail #5 has been accepted by the PDSD Director.

Rezoning condition 14 - Provide the communication document from Michael Wyneken related to the condition 14 section a - e.

Rezoning condition 19 - include a list or matrix table on the plan that demonstrates how condition 19 will be accomplished.
Rezoning Condition 21 - Explain or clarify what current code requirements are being cited.

Rezoning Condition 22 - Demonstrate on the tentative plat how condition 22 will be accomplished, matrix table, list of the lots with the model and facade models etc.

Rezoning condition 23 - List on the tentative plat the lot numbers that are affected by rezoning condition 23.

See sheet 2 of the tentative plat for redlines that reflect typos or required changes.

Under the FLD data text block, the front setback is listed as 20 feet from the back of sidewalk. Clarify if the intent is to provide a 20 foot setback for the dwelling and garage or the dwelling only. Be specific how the front setback is to be proposed based on code or more restrictive.

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

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/21/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed