Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP15-0174
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/12/2015 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/12/2015 | BVIESTE1 | POLICE | REVIEW | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 |
| 10/14/2015 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/14/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you. |
| 10/14/2015 | BVIESTE1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See additional documents in PRO. Here is our response letter to above request. Kellie Anderson Tucson Water/New Development Administrative Assistant 520-837-2165 520-791-4718 520-791-2501 (fax) Kellie.Anderson@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/14/2015 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Denied | Plans / Architectural Variation PLan has been forwarded to the Design Professional for Review and Comments. |
| 10/14/2015 | FDILLON1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Denied | October 14, 2015 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER PROJECT: COT FLD DP15-0174 Red Colt Ranch FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW 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 Flexible Lot Development Design Criteria Review report #1 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Interim Director, Jim Mazzocco, and Principle Planner (PP), Frank Dillon. This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter 2nd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in accordance with their submittal requirements. To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the plans are found to be in accordance with the UDC FLD recommendations and modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Interim Director and PP. The PDSD shall make the final decision on the project's compliance with FLD design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). GENERAL NOTE: 11 point letter Times New Roman - Indicates excerpts or edited excerpts from the FLD or UDC for reference and clarity. 12 point bold and italicized Arial - Indicates Design Professional's Comments 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS: M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation c. Requirements (1) The same architectural elevation shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot. Comment 1: Please provide a Site Plan indicating the location of the models and showing the same model will not be repeated in lot sequence more than four times in a row. (3) Garage Placement. For FLD projects with over 20 or more single family detached residential units, no more than 50 percent of detached residential units throughout the FLD shall be designed with garages that protrude from or are flush with the front wall of the living area or front porch of the house. Comment 2: Please provide a Site Plan indicating no more than 50% of the detached units are flush or project from the front wall living area. Architectural Variation Plan Required (2) The AVP shall be included with the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit submittal. (5) Conditions of the approved AVP shall be included as notes on the approved plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. Comment 3: Please demonstrate in the Site Plan how dwellings are configured to provide Solar Access and passive Solar considerations. 3. Solar Access and Passive Solar a. Solar Access Dwelling units should be configured to allow solar access to adjacent structures in accordance with Section 7.3, Solar Considerations. b. Passive Solar FLD projects should incorporate passive solar design when practicable. END OF 1ST FLD REVIEW, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS |
| 10/15/2015 | 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 October 15, 2015 To: Michael Baker, P.E. Baker & Associates, Inc Thru: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson ____________________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, P.E Engineering Services (520-724-6719) Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: Red Colt Ranch Lots 1-21 and Common Areas "A","B" and "C" Revised Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has approved the above referenced submittal of the Tentative Plat, based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2012. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD Gerry Koziol, RWRD Project file |
| 10/19/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 240 N STONE AVENUE 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: October 19, 2015 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: DP15-0174 RED COLT RANCH TENTATIVE PLAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: 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. |
| 10/22/2015 | BVIESTE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO. No objections/adverse comments. See attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data reflect the views and opinions of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to create and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler PAG40MPOhoriz3.png 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 10/29/2015 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | Applicable policies for the General Plan and the Pantano East Area Plan were addressed at the time of rezoning case C9-06-19. |
| 10/29/2015 | BVIESTE1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | Good Morning, Pima County Addressing approves Dp15-0174 / Red Colt Ranch FLD Tentative Plat. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 ROBIN FREIMAN ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: Dp15-0174 / Red Colt Ranch FLD Tentative Plat - 1st Review DATE: October 29, 2015 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Final Plat to City Planning ***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING*** 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files. These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov 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.*** |
| 11/02/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/03/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/03/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ADA | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/03/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP15-0174 9955 East 22nd Street TP for Red Colt Ranch FLD TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 3, 2015 DUE DATE: November 5, 2015 1) COMMENT: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals 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. 2-06.4.0 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 - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2) COMMENT: In Zoning and Land Use Notes, note number 8 refers to the subdivision as RCP. Change that to FLD. Rezoning Conditions, number (6) six is listed as number four (4). You should correct that. 2-06.4.7.C - Streets and Roads Notes 2-06.4.7.C.3 - Provided the following notes as applicable: 2-06.4.7.C.3.a - "Total miles of new public streets is ____________." 3) COMMENT: Provide the mileage for the new street. It is not zero. 2-06.4.7.C.3.b - "Total miles of new private streets is ____________." 2-06.4.9.M.3 - Tentative Plats - Non Concurrent Review. A separate grading plan may be submitted after the second resubmittal of the tentative plat; however, the grading plan cannot be approved unless it is conformance with an approved tentative plat. Note: In the case of a tentative plat submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request, the tentative plat and grading plan cannot be approved until 30 days after adoption of the rezoning ordinance. See Section 3.5.3.K.6, Ordinance Effective Date, of the UDC. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 4) COMMENT: Signs shall be by separate permits and process. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 5) COMMENT: See comments by the landscaping reviewer. 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: 2-06.5.2.B - Show the maximum developable area of each lot (i.e., building footprint). 6) COMMENT: See comment number seven (7) below. 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.A. Reduced Perimeter Yards Street perimeter yards along interior street rights-of-way and perimeter yards between interior lots may be modified in accordance with Section 8.7.3.L, Perimeter Yards on Interior Lots, of the UDC. Applicants requesting a perimeter yard reduction must indicate what the required and reduced perimeter yards are and their locations. Applicants requesting a reduced street perimeter yard must provide a written description of how the reduced yard will enhance the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and submit a transportation statement, or if required by the Department of Transportation, a traffic impact analysis; 7) COMMENT: Note 7 in the Architectural Notes on the cover sheet call out for a minimum side yard separation of ten feet for lots one through ten. Delineate and dimension this requirement on sheet 2 of the tentative plat. 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: 8) COMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. 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, 9) COMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. 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. 2-06.5.3.F - Privacy Mitigation Plan 10) COMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. When applicable, a privacy mitigation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.d of the UDC as follows: 11) COMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. 2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; 12) COMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. 2-06.5.3.F.2 - Provide photographs of the site and its interface with the adjacent properties documenting the existing conditions; and, 13) COMMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. 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; 14) COMMENT: See comments by Frank Dillon and the Design Professional. 2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. 15) COMMENT: Provide the CC&Rs. 2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property. 16) COMMENT: Provide the protective covenants. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 11/03/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/04/2015 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 11/05/2015 | BVIESTE1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Add a general note stating the refuse and recycling service is to be individual curbside service. Plastic containers (APCs) shall be placed and removed from the curbside collection area on the day of service and shall be stored from public view. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 11/05/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/05/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 11/05/2015 | 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) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan |
| 11/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Passed | |
| 11/05/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to identify which lots will require the installation of a backwater valve. A backwater valve shall be installed where the finish floor elevation will be less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer system. Reference: Admin Manual Section 2-06.4.9.N.4. |
| 11/05/2015 | BVIESTE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO. November 5, 2015 The WLB Group, Incorporated Attn: Linda Thompson 4444 E. Broadway Blvd Tucson, AZ 85611 RE: SWG Plan Review for Stone Canyon VIII Improvement Plan Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) has no objection to the plans of the above-mentioned project. Existing natural gas facilities are located in adjacent rights-of-way and may be affected by the construction of this project; specifically, an existing 6" & 4" gas main with 4" Stubs is located within the right-of-way of Tortolita Mountain circle and Flint Peak Place which may be impacted by pavement sawcutting and grading into the development. SWG also requests that no trees be planted within close proximity to gas facilities due to root intrusion; therefore, SWG requires all tree placements have a minimum eight-foot clearance from the tree center line to existing or proposed gas facilities. Shrubs and bushes may be planted within the eight-foot clearance zone. All information is provided for reference use only. Please note that it is the responsibility of excavators or those developers planning excavation to verify actual field conditions in advance of construction so that requests for gas service or any potential issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Blue Stake and potholing are suggested for best accuracy when locating SWG facilities. Please include SWG in all future plat and development plan submittals of this project. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (520) 794-6194 or TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com. Sincerely, Ben De Los Monteros Engineering Tech/Engineering Southern Arizona Division |
| 11/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 11/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 11/05/2015 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: RED COLT RANCH - REVISED TENATIVE PLAT DP15-0174 Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Revised Tentative Plat for Red Colt Ranch submitted on October 12, 2015. In order for TEP to prepare an electrical design for the subdivision, please provide a copy of the Approved Tentative Plat and the subdivision AutoCAD file to mburke@tep.com. Easements for TEP facilities must be shown on the Final Plat before TEP can approve the Final Plat. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 917-8744. Thank you, Mary Burke Right of Way Agent Tucson Electric Power Co. Mail Stop HQE613 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Office - 520-917-8744 Cell - 520-401-9895 mburke@tep.com |
| 11/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/13/2015 | EGALLET1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 11/13/2015 | EGALLET1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/13/2015 | EGALLET1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |