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: DP14-0173
Parcel: 99999999A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0173
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/23/2014 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/23/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
09/26/2014 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Reqs Change 9-26-14 - This project requires and Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) per UDC Section 8.7. Please submit with other revisions.
09/26/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Please indicate location of of existing and proposed fire hydrants
09/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved see documents in SIRE
09/30/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change 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: Julieann Arechederra
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: September 30 2014


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: Tentative Plat
DP14-0173 Kinnison Overlook



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

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

COMMENTS:


" THE TITLE BLOCK MUST BE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER.





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.
09/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207





MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW

PH #: 724-9512



TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0173 KINNISON OVERLOOK LOTS 1-46/DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ 1ST REVIEW

DATE:
September 29, 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:

Label Project# DP14-0173 on all Sheets.
On Title Block show: Kinnison Overlook Lots 1-46 and Common Areas A-1, A-2, A-3 being a Resubdivision of Villas Escalante recorded in Book 63 of Maps and Plats at page 50 being within the southeast ¼ of Section 29 . . .
On Location Map the following need corrected:
Plat reference should be corrected from 27-21 south of Escalante Rd to 27-92

Plat reference should be corrected from 26-02 north of Escalante Rd to 27-21

Plat reference should be corrected from 27-23 to 21-77

Plat reference should be corrected from 66-36 to 56-36

Plat reference should be corrected from 21-68 to 21-58

At Kolb Rd and Escalante Rd -- Section Corners should be 30&29; 31&32

At Pantano Rd and Escalante Rd-Section Corners should be 29&28; 32&33
10/02/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Kinnison Overlook
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0173

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 6, 2014

DUE DATE: October 20, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

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

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 & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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 August 20, 2015.

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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

1. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address on each sheet.

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

2. COMMENT: It appears that the section corners are labeled incorrectly. The northeast section should be 28, southeast 33, northwest 30 and the southwest 31.

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.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

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.

3. COMMENT: There are numerous easements that were platted under S05-155 Villas Escalante. Ensure that these easements are either abandoned per the new final plat or by separate instrument.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

4. COMMENT: It does not appear that the intersection widening for Prudence Road has been addressed.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

5. COMMENT: Show the street perimeter yard setback requirements on the "TYPICAL PERIMETER LOT SETBACKS" detail.

2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

6. COMMENT: Indicate the location of gang mailboxes to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

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

2-06.5.2.B - Show the maximum developable area of each lot (i.e., building footprint).

7. COMMENT: Show the maximum developable area of each lot (i.e., building footprint).

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.C - Functional Open Space
Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Provide, by note on the plat, the required and proposed functional open space calculations;

8. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the functional open space requirements are met.

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;

9. COMMENT: Provide the required building elevations with the next submittal.

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:

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,

10. COMMENT: Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide architectural variation

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.

11. COMMENT: 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.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues with this request.



>>> DSD_CDRC 9/23/2014 9:40 AM >>>

Dear Reviewers:



This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Tentative Plat review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon.



The applicable case numbers are:



CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0173

Existing and Proposed Zoning: R-3

Proposed Use: Residential FLD

Due Date: October 17, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=DP14-0173&command=InitialProcess



1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page.

2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0173 to display the document list

3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document.



Tentative Plat Review



This is the first review of the proposed tentative plat. Please provide comments based on all applicable codes and ordinances. Should you deny the review, you will receive the resubmittal of this plan for further review and comment.



Please post your comments in Permits Plus as you normally do or send the comments to: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov



For questions and/or for further information concerning the development plan review, please contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 or patricia.gehlen@tucsonaz.gov.









Patricia
10/10/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change Insure Compliance with the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance, City of Tucson Ordinance No. 10463I. Provide a new general note referencing to that effect on the drawings.
10/10/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
10/10/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 10, 2014
DUE DATE: October 20, 2014
SUBJECT: Kinnison Overlook Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Oasis Tucson, Attn: Zach Hinman
LOCATION: 3775 S Prudence Rd; T14S R15E Sec29
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0173

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co., 14AUG14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the links for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN PACKAGE:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0173) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.B: Revise the project location map to meet the minimum requirements within the referenced section; the location map must label all major streets, since Prudence Road is a MS&R Collector Street it should be labeled on the location map.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.C: Revise the project location map to meet the minimum requirements within the referenced section; the section corners labeled on the location map are incorrect, revise to reflect the correct section corners locations.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package to provide a general note stating "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria of Chapter 29 Article VIII and Technical Standard Manuel Section 4-02 for Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat."

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6.C: Revise the development plan package to provide a general note to read per the referenced section, specifying all lots impacted by the W.A.S.H. standards and including a total for the regulated area and protected Riparian Area.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for all existing easements onsite, as per the last recorded subdivision plat map for Villas Escalante or provide the recordation information for the abandonment of said easements if they are to no longer to be utilized.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to label all existing storm drainage facilities adjacent to the site with the Improvement Plan Number in plan view.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package and Cross Section B/5 to provide for the required vertical curbing within the right-of-way of Prudence Road which is a Collector MS&R Street. Per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.B.2 vertical curbing is required on all streets with a projected ADT of 1,000 or more.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to correctly dimension the existing and/or future SVTs for both the proposed local street to the collector street and for the collector street to the arterial street, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. On a designated MS&R street, the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross-section. Keynote #4 needs to be revised to reflect the differences in the SVT dimensions for the specific intersections.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.4: Revise the development plan package to label both existing streets as "Public and MS&R." Specifically "MS&R Collector" for Prudence Road and "MS&R Arterial" for Escalante Road.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the intersection widening for Prudence Road to Escalante Road per the MS&R Map. Since the development plan package has been prepared in conjunction with a plat street dedication maybe required in accordance with the MS&R Plan. The intersection widening must be clearly delineated and verification from TDOT will be required for the possible street dedication.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise Cross Section A/5 to label and dimension the future sidewalk area for Escalante Road as shown in plan view on the development plan package. Label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area and the future sight visibility triangles based on the future MS&R cross section.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 1-foot VACE in plan view on the site plan sheet as shown in both Cross Sections A/5 and B/5. Provide the recordation information for the proposed easement or state "By Final Plat" as a label or Keynote.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and associated cross sections to label and dimension the required 2-foot setback from the toe of the fill slopes to the property lines. Per TSM Sec.2-01.9.3 the toe of fillslope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of two feet.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide the required basin access ramp per TSM 4-04.14.3.4; A minimum of one 15-foot wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: The development plan package was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. A separate grading plan with application will be required prior to construction and additional information will be required at that time for construction purposes.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to label the proposed 18-inch bleed pipe from the basin as a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Per TSM Sec.4-04.10.3.4 & 9 the minimum acceptable size and material for storm drains within a right-of-way is an 18-inch diameter RCP.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 6-foot width requirement for the sidewalk within the right-of-ways of Prudence Road and Escalante Road. For the existing 4-foot sidewalk width along Escalante Road verify conformance with handicap accessibility and if the sidewalk is in acceptable condition then per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.c where sidewalks are less than five feet in width, passing spaces at least five feet by five feet will be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet.

21) 2-06.5.3.C - Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Provide, by note on the plat, the required and proposed functional open space calculations; Demonstrate on the plan how the functional open space requirements are met.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

22) Tucson Code Sec. 29: Revise the Drainage Report to meet all minimum requirements for the adjacent W.A.S.H. Wash per Chapter 29 Article VIII and TSM Sec.4-02. The report must provide a specific discussion on the adjacent W.A.S.H. wash and show that all requirements found within each referenced section have been addressed.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

23) TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following:

a. Soils report should provide conformance with TSM Section 4-04.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the proposed basin.

b. Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.

c. Provide pavement structure design recommendations.

d. Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes that are proposed.

24) Provide a General Note to include the reference to the Geotechnical Report and any addendums prepared for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc.

W.A.S.H. WASH:

25) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): The Drainage Report submitted does not completely address all of the items listed in this section of the Tucson Code. In addition to the information required by Chapter 26, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, the hydrology/hydraulics study shall contain the following elements:

a. The location of the 100-year floodplain on, adjacent to and a minimum of 200-feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development.

b. Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential.

c. Existing right-of-way or easement dedication along the wash for a distance of 500 feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development.

d. The existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities.

e. Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed.

f. Groundwater recharge potential at this location.

g. Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location.

h. Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site.

i. Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site.

26) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(2): Plant/habitat inventory. All development proposals shall be accompanied by an inventory of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitats within the study area.

27) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(3): A copy of the plant/habitat inventory shall be submitted to the Planning & Development Services Department for review.

28) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(c): Basin management plan. Development on a parcel which is located within the boundaries of an approved basin management plan shall be in conformance with the plan.

29) TSM Sec.4-02: Revise the development plan package to meet all requirements within the referenced Section and provide an Environmental Resource Report (ERR). Applicants are required to submit an Environmental Resource Report as defined in UDC Article 11 Section 11.4.6. The supporting material for preparation of the ERR is based on information from the Hydrologic Data and Wash Information maps on the Tucson Department of Transportation internet web site: The Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map and Report, the Mayor and Council Interim Watercourse Improvement Policy and subsequent adopted policies, the Tucson Stormwater Management Study, the following Basin Management Plans. An application may request that an element listed below be waived or that the report addresses only a specified area where a full report is not applicable to the proposed encroachment. PDSD may grant such waivers where the elements or full report are not required by code. The Environmental Resource Report must include all items (a-x) within this section.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, W.A.S.H. wash report, Geotechnical Report and ERR that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
10/16/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net



From: DSD_CDRC DSD_CDRC [mailto:DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:41 AM
To: Scott Beck; Tom Martinez; Bea Corral; tcoyle@flytucson.com; Kelley Sims; Eric; Ken Perry; Addressing; Pima County Assessor; Francisco Galindo; Jessica Orto; Pima County Planning; TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com; Mary; Frank Dillon; Howard Dutt; Jim Vogelsberg; Joseph Linville; Kellie Anderson; Kenneth Brouillette; Martin Brown; Rebecca Noel; Robert Sherry; Ronald Brown; Steve Shields; Zelin Canchola; Glenda Vega; Robert Soler
Subject: DP14-0173/Kinnison Overlook



Dear Reviewers:
10/17/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in PRO
10/17/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From TDOT
Zelin Canchola

October 17 2014

DP14-0173 Kinnison Overlook Tentative Plat

1. Along -Prudence-- ensure that all existing signs that are effected by the off-site improvements and are applicable to the roadway remain in place or relocated to an appropriate location. If damaged or unsuitable for reuse then replace with new sign and/or post.

2. Provide note on plan...A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work Call City of Tucson Permits and codes 791-4259 for informtion or requirements.

3. From PDSD Engineering comment #12:

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the intersection widening for Prudence Road to Escalante Road per the MS&R Map. Since
the development plan package has been prepared in conjunction with a plat street dedication maybe required in accordance with the MS&R Plan. The intersection widening must be clearly delineated and verification from TDOT will be required for the possible street dedication.

4. No MS&R future right of way widening on Prudence Road according to the MS&R map is required.

5. TDOT concurs with PDSD's Engineering review comments regarding improvements in the right of way. Approval will be based on those comments.
10/20/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied The proposed project may conflict with facilities proposed in the Eastern Pima County Regional Trails Plan. See Parks and Recreation comments. TCC Chapter 29-17(a)3

Provide any easements required by Parks and Recreation. UDC 7.12
10/20/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
10/21/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
10/21/2014 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
10/21/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
10/21/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
10/21/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
10/21/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
10/21/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Passed
10/22/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: KINNESON OVERLOOK – LOTS 1-46

DP14-0173





Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Tentative Plat for Kinneson Overlook Subdivision submitted for review on September 23, 2014. TEP will prepare a preliminary electrical design for the subdivision upon receipt of the Approved Tentative Plat and a copy of the subdivision AutoCAD file, including water plans.



If you have any questions, please feel free to contact met at 917-8744.



Thank you,



Mary Burke

Right of Way Agent

Tucson Electric Power Co.

Mail Stop HQW603

PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

Office - 520-917-8744

Cell - 520-401-9895

mburke@tep.com
10/22/2014 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Reqs Change Per the City/County approved Pima Regional Trails System master Plan, the bank of the Kinnison Wash adjacent to this property is designated as a Greenway (G028). Please refer to the Pima Regional Trails System Master Plan, which can be found on the City Parks website ( http://parks.tucsonaz.gov/parks/planning ), or by following this link: http://parks.tucsonaz.gov/files/parks/docs/prtsmaster.pdf . On this document you will find a description of the planned Kinnison Wash Greenway on page 105, as well as a description of the standards for greenways adjacent to a drainageway/wash on page 63. Per the requirements stated in this document, a minimum corridor width for a greenway is 50' from the top of the bank. Please show the area of this property within 50' from the top of the bank of the Kinnison Wash as a Non-Motorized Recreational Trail Easement. Contact Howard Dutt at Tucson Parks and Recreation with any questions. Email: Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov , Phone: 520-837-8040.

Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
10/22/2014 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 that contains all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff.
4) All items needed to approved the site plan
10/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed Although paperwork indicated that the plan was submitted to RWRD, they did not responded to requests for a copy of the comments and their review is not required for approval.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/30/2014 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/30/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed