Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0426-00090
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/15/2026 | NPPO Standard | APPROVED | Native Plant Preservation Plan approved under activity number TD-DEV-0325-00081. | ||
| 05/07/2026 | Commercial Plumbing Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | ACTIVITY NO. TD-DEV-0426-00090 ADDRESS/PARCEL: 10125 E CORTE VISTA LA MARIPOSA TUCSON, AZ 85749 Submit your revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all comments were addressed. Review will not proceed without the response letter. The submitted documents were incomplete and a thorough plan review could not be performed. Please be aware, new comments may arise with the next review. If you have any questions about these review comments, I can be reached at Sean.Severson@tucsonaz.gov. COMMENTS: 1. The RIM elevation of the nearest upstream manhole (MH #19) is 2583.70 and the FFE of building 12 is 2584.30. Since the FFE is less than 12 inches above the RIM elevation of the next upstream manhole, a backwater valve will be required. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2024, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. The FFE for Building 79 on Sheet C504 is illegible. Please revise for clarity. a. Sheet C302 appears to show an FFE of 2589.10 for Building 79 |
||
| 05/27/2026 | External Reviewers - COT Environmental Services Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Depict 14ft x 40ft clear approach in front of enclosures to ensure provides adequate space for maneuvering. Refer to TSM 8-01.5.3.B 2. Provide details of structural design of enclosure/wall/bollard. Refer to TSM 8-01.9.0 Figure 2. Andy Vera (520) 837-3798 Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 06/15/2026 | External Reviewers - PC RFCD Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Will need to be added to the next workflow | ||
| 04/16/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Report Date: 04/16/2026 Description : null - Addressing Review of TD-DEV-0426-00090 Casitas At La Mariposa Address : , , , Record Type : Addressing Document Filename : Site Plan Reviewer Contact Information: Corrections in the following table need to be applied before a plan is approved Review Report - Resubmittal Requested Application Number: P26AD00309 Comment ID Comment Date Corrections Needed Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments DSD Addressing 1 04/16/262026 Yes 1 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Please ensure that all buildings requiring a building permit have a building number. 2 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 5 3 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 6 4 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 7&8 5 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 9 General Comments Pima County Public Works 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 If you have any questions please call 520- 724-6490 for an appointment to discuss this notice. If following discussions with staff you still disagree with the below listed deficiencies, you may appeal to the Building Official in accordance with Pima County Code 15.04.060 by submitting the form posted on our web site with payment of appeal fee prior to permit application expiration. Disputes about the interpretation of the Zoning Code may be appealed to a Pima County Board of Adjustment under A.R.S. § 11 -816 and P.C.C. § 18.93.060. Please submit all plans, calculations and specifications to us electronically via the Digital Projects page in the online portal. Comment ID Comment Date Corrections Needed Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments 6 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 20 7 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 19 8 04/16/262026 Yes 7 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Bldg 21 Re-Submittal Procedures Please submit all documents using Citizen Access at permits.pima.gov (i.e. plans, drawings, calculations, quantities, exhibits, photographs, letters, etc.). 1. Please go to permits.pima.gov and login to your account to access review comments and resubmit. 2. If you have questions or need clarification regarding comments, please contact the reviewer. 3. Provide a response to each correction comment. 4. To resubmit, upload revised full plan set. Should the resubmittal not completely address this request for corrections, the application maybe denied requiring a new application and payment all applicable review fees in accordance withA.R.S. § 11-1605. |
||
| 05/13/2026 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | May 13, 2026 WO#T182415 City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: CDRC Admin Team Dear CDRC Admin Team Subject: Casitas at La Mariposa Community LLC - Phase 1 TD-DEV-0426-00090 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and cannot approve the development plan submitted 4/16/2026. There are no existing facilities within the development. Further: TEP UG line & TEP easement Bk 12493 Pg 314 not shown on development plan TD-DEV-0426-00090 Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. To apply for electric service, please call the New Construction department at (520) 918- 8300. Please submit a final set of plans including approved site, electric load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. If available, include a PDF version of the plans. Questions regarding Land, ROW, Easement, etc., please contact the TEP Land Department Liz Boehler Right of Way Agent Consultant 520-686-1341 Landreviews@tep.com Should you have any technical questions, please contact the area designer, Martin Rodriguez (520) 991-5495 mrodriguez@tep.com Sincerely, Design Admins Design Admins Tucson Electric Power |
||
| 06/10/2026 | Floodplain Administration Review Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Development Package Floodplain Administration Review Comments: Development Plan – Site, Grading, Landscape, SWPPP Comments: Address the following comment for both the Site plan sheets and Drainage Report - Provide Water Surface Elevation (WSEL) data and include a discussion of ineffective flow conditions originating from the Agua Caliente wash as they relate to the northeast and eastern portions of the development. Describe how floodplain flows will be conveyed around the development in a manner that minimizes encroachment and avoids adverse impacts to the Houghton Road roadway prism and Corte Vista La Mariposa. Label the scenic route designation on all plan view sheets adjacent to Houghton Road. Demonstrate compliance with UDC Section 5.3.6 view corridor requirements for Scenic Routes. Label and dimension the 30-foot scenic corridor buffer on Sheets 10 and 13. This buffer shall be measured from the future right-of-way line. d. Revise Sheets 10 and 13 to reflect all scenic corridor requirements per UDC Section 5.3.4.A. Explain how the proposed levee/berm at the northeast corner of the development will meet FEMA levee accreditation standards. Absent accreditation, the FEMA-mapped floodplain will be assumed to overtop or pass through the berm without attenuation. Provide a written explanation of how this improvement complies with Rezoning Condition #17. Provide an associated cross-section detail inclusive of scour protection measures. Provide flow rate for by-pass flow conditions from the Agua Caliente south – between Houghton and East side of proposed development. Demonstrate how the drainage system along the east side of the project is impacted by and addresses Rezoning Condition #6. Provide cross-section details for the channel and Basin 1 area adjacent to Corte Vista La Mariposa. Address the following basin comments: Provide the required sediment level measurement device for each detention basin, which can be incorporated into the weir or the side slope or constructed as a separate stand-alone device per DSSDR 4.4.1.4. Provide documentation or design measures demonstrating that the dog park will not discharge animal waste into the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ) floodplain. Identify the intended use of the north portion of the property outside of the proposed improvement limits — specifically, the area north of the “2:1” * grouted riprap slope within the property boundary. * Refer to comment 24 of drainage report comments. Ensure to remove/demo all existing unused driveway improvements within the Eastern landscape buffer as shown on plan view. Under the provided earthwork quantities table on the cover sheet, revise the associated note to reference the most recently approved soils report - note shall reflect a revised approved soils report. Revise the plan set legend to remove unused entities, including the dumped rock riprap designation, consistent with the drainage report's findings and assessment regarding overall slope stability. Label and identify all areas proposed for dedication to the Pima County Flood Control District in accordance with Rezoning Condition #11. Provide documentation of written notification that was given to Bear Canyon submitted at least 30 days prior to the Development Package submittal, as required. Provide a written explanation of the current status and progress of compliance with Rezoning Condition #15. Provide correspondence or other documentation showing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 compliance. Revise General Paving and Grading Note #12 to state that all work shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Revise General Paving and Grading Note #25 to reflect a current and accurate contact phone number. Address the following ERZ comments: On Sheet 3, label the limits of the ERZ floodplain associated with the Agua Caliente Wash. Delineate the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ) overlay floodplain limits in plan view on Sheets 3, 5 (C200), and 8. These delineated limits will be used to establish required temporary construction fencing locations. The ERZ boundary shall be labeled and called out across all applicable construction sheets per UDC Section 5.7.5.B. Additionally, provide a general note on the plans confirming compliance with ERZ temporary fence standards. Consider updating General Note #11 to satisfy this requirement. There shall be no disturbance of the ERZ floodplain – except for necessary utilities, trails, or road access – the grading proposed at the southwest portion of the site shall be clarified as part of a stormwater utility, otherwise it will need to be revised/removed to follow ERZ standards Revise the trash enclosure details and associated grading plan sheets to reflect a 2% slope away from the enclosure on the approach ramp and a 1% slope toward the gate on the enclosure slab. Provide vehicle turning maneuverability exhibits in plan view for both solid waste collection and emergency response vehicles. The exhibits shall demonstrate compliance with applicable turning radii and back-up distance requirements. Provide traffic control signage at the emergency access entrance to clearly indicate that the access point is not a public entry. On Sheet 8, label Sheet 14 to the master grading sheet index. Revise Detail 9 on Sheet 18 — update Keynotes A and B to specify a minimum mortar bed thickness of 2D50 or greater. If this standard cannot be met, provide supporting geotechnical recommendations in lieu thereof. The plans indicate that 1:1 perimeter slopes will be constructed using fill material sourced from the planned recharge basin excavation. As this material originates from a major watercourse confluence and is likely sandy or granular in nature, a 1:1 (H:V) slope is insufficient. The proposed fill slope shall be revised to a gradient greater than 1:1 (H:V), consistent with prior review comments and in accordance with the geotechnical report analysis and design recommendations. Provide additional cross-section details demonstrating positive drainage gradients for runoff in the vicinity of each building area. Additional cross-sections or details between buildings should demonstrate positive drainage away from all structures in accordance with IBC Chapter 18. Provide sufficient cross-section details for each outlet structure, weir structure, and inlet structure proposed. Provide horizontal dimensions for all basin access ramps throughout the plan set. Provide a dimensioned construction detail for the proposed valley gutter as referenced on the details sheet (Sheet 16). Detail 5 — Concrete Scupper: Revise this detail to reflect and incorporate the applicable comments provided in the drainage report comments. Grouted slope details: Revise the specified mortar depth to reflect a minimum thickness of 2D50 throughout all grouted slope details. Detail 9, Sheet 18 — Keynote E: Clarify whether scarification of the existing grade will be required prior to placement of the proposed fill material and revise the keynote accordingly. Detail 11, Sheet 18: Label the weir height directly on the detail and/or incorporate the weir height into the weir schedule table. Detail 12, Sheet 18: Add proposed apron length dimensions to the basin apron table, or alternatively, dimension and label apron lengths on the plan view sheets or provide supplemental cross-sections. Address the following comments for details 14 & 15 on sheet 18 Provide and label sufficient vertical separation between the top of the proposed corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and the bottom of the pavement structure. Include a curb call-out within the detail to fully describe the design intent at this location. [Drainage Manual 4-04.10.9.21] For detail 14 plan view – assure that riprap spillway apron length matches the drainage report. Show dimensions for apron depth per drainage report. Detail 1, SWPPP Sheet 19 — Construction Entrance: Revise the specified rock size to an appropriate gradation for a stabilized construction entrance. The currently proposed 2–3 inch stone is insufficient and must be increased accordingly. SWPPP General Notes — Note #3: Revise this note to clearly state whether the development site contains any surface water bodies including dry/Ephemeral washes & wetlands and reflect the appropriate compliance language based on site conditions. Drainage Report Comments: As the plans designate both portions of the overall site as future Phase 1 and future Phase 2, it is recommended that both phases be constructed and certified with completed as-builts prior to submitting the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). In the drainage report, provide a dedicated discussion explaining how the proposed drainage improvements constructed under Phase 1 may serve as a functional dependency for the operation and performance of Phase 2. The discussion shall address any phasing constraints, interim drainage conditions, and measures to ensure adequate drainage function during the period between phase completions. In the drainage report, include a dedicated section addressing Rezoning Condition #18.c. This section shall explain the technical basis and design justification for the proposed finished floor elevations, including how the elevated floors meet or exceed the condition's intent with respect to flood risk and site safety using the unaccredited levee condition hydraulic modeling. Per Rezoning Condition #23, provide an all-weather access compliance analysis and justification for Corte Vista La Mariposa within the drainage report. The analysis shall demonstrate conformance with TSM Section 4-04.11.2 and applicable Drainage Manual standards, addressing flow depths, velocities, and roadway passability during storm events. Provide sizing calculations for all proposed spillways and weir structures within the drainage report. Calculations shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Tucson Drainage Manual methodology and design standards. Address the following comment for both the drainage report, development plan, & geotechnical report: The proposed basin side slopes are indicated at 1:1 (H:V). Provide a reference to, or include within the geotechnical report, a slope stability analysis that demonstrates this gradient is suitable for the proposed fill material and basin operating conditions. The analysis shall be consistent with the geotechnical report recommendations and address both wet and dry slope stability scenarios. The Nationwide Permit 29 (NWP 29) cited in the report does not appear to be applicable to this project, as NWP 29 limits land disturbance to one-half (0.5) acre. Additionally, the permit appears to have expired based on the date indicated. [Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.2.F] Approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) will be required prior to approval. [Sec. 26-11.2.(f).12] Revise Section C (PDF Page 3), Basin Management Narrative: This project is located within a non-designated basin management area. Remove all references to the 2009 Critical Basins Map, as it is not applicable to this project. Address the following Northeast Berm comments: Provide justification and technical support for the proposed berm at the northeast corner of the development. The berm was not included in the original Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) submittal or the associated HEC-RAS model. The addition of this berm has the potential to alter hydraulic model results for the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which may have downstream implications for the project design. It is unclear whether the proposed northeast berm may cause a requirement by FEMA to re-submit the CLOMR, in which case the grading permit may not be issued. Provide correspondence from FEMA stating that the proposed berm will not trigger the need for a revised CLOMR. Explain how the proposed berm is reflected in the HEC-RAS cross-sections provided and clarify how the berm will be recognized by FEMA given that it has not been designed to meet FEMA accreditation standards. Provide additional clarifying narrative within the Channels Section of the drainage report to address the berm's hydraulic function and design intent. Clarify whether a Tucson Water design standards or operational constraints required the inclusion of this berm in the proposed design. Provide property ownership information for the project site within Section E (PDF Page 4). Revise the concluding statement of Section E to read as follows, or similar: "For the proposed water recharge basin, ownership will be conveyed to the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD), which will assume responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the recharge basin. Annual drainage facility maintenance reports shall be submitted to the City of Tucson Floodplain Administration in accordance with applicable requirements." Address the following comments for Section F (Drainage report): Revise Section F (PDF Page 4) to clearly state that the Floodplain Use Permit will be issued by the City of Tucson. Additionally, include language indicating that a separate Facility Permit must be obtained through the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) prior to construction. Section II (PDF Page 4): Clarify the year of the topographic data used as the base mapping for the CLOMR submittal. Section II-A (PDF Page 4): Provide clarification on the basis for the regulatory flow rates utilized in the hydraulic model, including confirmation of whether these flow rates are consistent with Pima County's most recent restudy of the Agua Caliente watershed. Provide a page reference or exhibit number for Figure 3 as cited within Section II-A (PDF Page 4). Within Section II of the drainage report, explain why Watersheds WS-A and WS-B, as depicted in Figure 3, do not appear to account for the Agua Caliente breakout flow originating from the northeast that flows southward between the project site and Houghton Road. Confirm that all applicable regulatory flow conditions have been addressed. For Hydrologic Data Sheet WS-C, clarify whether the reported sub watershed flow rate incorporates tributary flows from WS-B. Revise the Channels Section on Page 8 to reflect corrected flow rates consistent with the response to the comment above. Provide justification for the 15% impervious cover assumption used in Section II-A of the drainage report, including the basis or methodology used to determine this value. Revise all Hydrologic Data Sheets to reflect accurate and substantiated impervious cover percentages consistent with the justification provided. Provide clarification on the watershed naming convention used throughout the drainage report. The designation "DA" is currently applied to both existing and proposed conditions, and the Hydrologic Data Sheets do not distinguish between the two. Revise the Hydrologic Data Sheet project names or rename the watershed designations to clearly differentiate between existing and proposed conditions. An existing regulatory flow path (WS-C) is directed toward the southeast corner of the southern Phase II area. This flow appears to be diverted southward toward Watershed DA-O, which is located on private property. This diversion may constitute an adverse hydraulic impact to adjacent properties. Revise the Phase II design to ensure that no flows are diverted off-site and that no adverse impacts result from the proposed improvements. Armoring of Basin 3 within Phase II will be required to address unconfined/unmitigated flow conditions. Within the drainage report, provide clarification on how both Basin 1 and Basin 2 are each equipped with an independent first-flush capture system. Describe the design and operational function of each system. PDF Page 7: Clarify that "Type 1 scuppers” are proposed for use with the 0.5 square foot outlet tubes and provide applicable design specifications or references. The term “tube scupper” is not used within the City of Tucson Drainage Manual. Channels Section — Manning's Roughness Coefficient: Provide technical justification for the Manning's 'n' value used in the hydraulic calculations. Per Table 8.1 of the City of Tucson Drainage Manual, values of 0.022 or 0.025 may be more appropriate for the channel’s conditions present. Revise or substantiate the value used accordingly. Address the following comments regarding culvert section (PDF Page 8): Include a reference to the applicable figure or exhibit supporting the culvert design and hydraulic analysis presented in this section. Provide clear name designations on the plan view for all channels referenced within the Culvert Section. Water Harvesting Basin Section (PDF Page 8): Provide a reference to a clearly labeled exhibit or figure supporting the water harvesting basin design described in this section. Slope Gradient Units — When expressing slope gradients using ratios, please include the unit of measurement in the format [H:V] (e.g., 4:1 [H:V]). Hydraulic Assessment — Page 4, Section III — The hydraulic assessment for the water recharge basin requires additional information. Please expand this section to clearly identify all parameters used, the methodology applied, and any assumptions made. Additionally, the assessment must address other potential adverse hydraulic impacts associated with the recharge basin, including but not limited to: Diversion of flows Long-term maintenance costs related to sediment accumulation Flow velocities within and downstream of the basin Any other hydraulic changes introduced within the floodway Floodplain Limits — Provide the 2-, 10-, and 50-year storm event floodplain limits for both Agua Caliente Creek and Tanque Verde Creek. These limits are required to evaluate the range of storm events that may impact the proposed recharge basin. Culvert 2 — Manning's n Value — Revise the Culvert 2 calculations to use the Manning's roughness coefficient of n = 0.025 for corrugated metal pipe (CMP), per City of Tucson Drainage Manual, Chapter 8, Table 8.1. The value of n = 0.013 currently shown is not appropriate for this pipe material. Channel Slopes — Per Technical Standard Section 4-04.8.5.13.1, channel slopes shall be designed as steep as reasonably practicable to promote flow velocity and minimize sediment deposition. Revise all channel design calculations and plan sheets throughout the drainage report to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Riprap Apron Calculations — Culverts 1 & 2 — Revise the riprap apron calculations for Culverts 1 and 2 to use the total combined outlet flowrate for each respective culvert. Apron sizing must reflect the full discharge condition at the culvert outlet. Riprap Design Methodology — Clarification Required — The drainage report presents two different calculation methodologies for riprap design. Provide clarification identifying which methodology applies to each specific apron location. If multiple methods are used, justify the basis for each. Scour Calculations — The current scour calculations do not appear to be consistent with City of Tucson requirements. Revise all scour calculations to ensure full compliance with the equations and procedures specified in the City of Tucson Drainage Manual. Confirm that all applicable scour requirements have been addressed. Phase II Encroachment — Tanque Verde HEC-RAS Analysis — Clarify the specific location of the proposed Phase II encroachment within the Tanque Verde Creek HEC-RAS model Reach Sections. Reference the applicable cross-section station(s) and provide sufficient detail to confirm the encroachment extent and its effect on modeled water surface profiles. Geotechnical Report Comments: Soil Borings — Depth Requirement (COT Drainage Manual §14.2.6) Per City of Tucson Drainage Manual Section 14.2.6, a minimum 30-foot soil boring is required due to the high soil collapse potential identified at this site. Provide the required 30-foot boring(s) and revise the geotechnical report to establish the appropriate setback distance based on boring results. Proposed Fill for Site Pads - The geotechnical report does not appear to adequately address the proposed fill associated with the site pad grading. Revise the report to: Confirm whether soil amendment is required prior to fill placement Specify the recommended maximum lift height for compacted fill Address any bearing capacity or settlement implications associated with the fill depth Borings — Excavation Areas, provide sufficient soil borings for the proposed excavation area. Boring locations and depths should be sufficient to characterize subsurface conditions relevant to the proposed earthwork. |
||
| 05/28/2026 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PIA required for offsite improvements. Apply under subrecords. Add access ramps to street intersection at Houghton and La Mariposa. Add Turnaround design for Bonzana Ave per Technical Standards Manual. |
||
| 05/08/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0426-00090 (1st Review) Project: New Multi-Family Development – Mariposa Casitas Phase I (North) Location: 10125 E CORTE VISTA LA MARIPOSA Review Date: 5/8/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate - Site Engineering Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer – Site Engineering Related Cases: TE-FPU-0323-00152 (CLOMR), TD-DEV-0126-00004 (Rough Grading), TD-DIV-0326-00022 (Block Plat), TD-DEV-0426-00097 (South Phase II) *This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-6 and Technical Standards Manual (TSM) Section for waste management, Pedestrian Access, Hydrology -Retention/Detention Requirements, and all site standard code. * City of Tucson Code: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Codes Floodplain Code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az/0-0-0-19333 Drainage Manual Link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/cot-drainage-manual-searchable.pdf Design standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention Link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf Site Engineering Administrative Review Comments: 1. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0426-00090, adjacent to the title block on all sheets a. Provide the related cases as REF on the cover sheet: TE-FPU-0323-00152 (CLOMR), TD-DEV-0126-00004 (Rough Grading), TD-DIV-0326-00022 (Final Block Plat) 2. Provide the general note, “This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations.” AM 2-06.4.7.B.2.a 3. Provide the general note, “Accessible standards must be met per 2024 IBC, chapter 11, and 2017 ICC A117.1” 4. If a new trail or path will be constructed, add the following note under the “SITE NOTES” section on sheet 2, as appropriate: “All new onsite and offsite trails or paths constructed in conjunction with this project will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department, and, if requested, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation.” AM 2-06.4.8.F.2 5. Provide the general note, “A single property owner, property management company, or homeowners association (HOA), will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection services and storage area(s) for all development/business occupants.” TSM 8-01.5.1.D 6. Provide the general note, “Sidewalk scuppers will be used where roof drainage crosses sidewalks to contain the 10-YR flow event.” 7. As this parcel/site is entirely within FEMA floodplain and floodway zones, it will be required that a floodplain use (FPU) permit be submitted for the work within a floodplain. This is an entirely separate permit that can be submitted for within the sub-records of this development package permit. For the FPU permit submission, please provide the plan set as well as the corresponding drainage report. 8. Clean up the linework shown on page 10 (Sheet C302) – Regarding the double enclosure area – It appears a sidewalk ramp is shown to be leading towards the enclosure but runs into curbing, revise accordingly. 9. Provide clarification if wall/security fencing will be used for the entirety of the channel along Corte Vista La Mariposa – As the channel experiences flows with velocities varying between 0.95 to 3.2 Ft/s with flow depths exceeding 1.5ft – some method of sectioning off the channel from potential access will be necessary for safety especially with the change in elevation exceeding 4-feet. 10. The sight visibility triangle requirements mentioned per TSM 10-01.5.1.A.1 are for situations where access ways intersect another street in a T-configuration. Please revise SVT’s at Corte Vista La Mariposa to roundabout requirements per FHWA Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Section 6.3.10 – Intersection sight distance. Waste Management Comments: 11. Show that this project falls in compliance with 8-01.5.1.A by providing possible space for solid waste and recycling collection services. 12. Revise trash enclosure details and the grading plan sheets to show all the trash enclosures ramps slopes being 2% away from enclosure as well as the enclosure slabs sloping 1% to the gate. TSM 8-1.0.0 This will need to be addressed for all enclosures on the grading sheets. 13. Show/delineate a 28-foot by 40-foot clear space in front of the proposed double dumpster enclosures and 14-foot by 40-foot clear space for single enclosures to comply with waste access and maneuverability requirements in TSM 8-01.5.3. Parking Area and PAAL Comments: 14. In reference to keynote #13 “covered parking” - To review for compliance with UDC 7.4.6.F.2 & UDC 7.4.6.E.2. It is required that the required the canopy either follow the required height clearance of 15 – feet along the PAAL or be setback one foot or greater from the PAAL. Provide a height call-out showing the clearance OR show on the site plan that the 1-foot setback is addressed. Provide a construction detail for the canopy and ensure to demonstrate referenced compliance. Ensure this is demonstrated for the Development Package (Site Plan) submission and the subsequent commercial building permit submission 15. Wheel stops will be required at all parking spaces adjacent to the sidewalks so as not to reduce the sidewalk path to less than 4 feet. UDC 7.4.6 Sidewalks that are 6 and a half feet or wider will not require adjacent parking spaces to have wheel stops. This will need to be demonstrated/evaluated for all parking spaces that abut a sidewalk/path that is below 6.5’. 16. Provide a keynote/call-out for all structure downspouts and sidewalk scupper locations on the site & grading sheets. This is to ensure compliance with building permit plan reviews. This keynote should be provided on the grading sheets. 17. Provide a construction detail for the proposed valley gutter. Grading Drainage Comments: 18. Include spot elevations at curb cut inlets, bottom of basin and curb cut outlets for quick reference during site inspections. 19. In compliance with AM 2-06.4.8.I. These should be shown on the Overall Site plan (Sheet C202) & all subsequent sheets. a. Provide the WSEL contour cross sections associated with all floodplains/washes on the grading plan sheets. b. The CFS rates should also be denoted entering and leaving the “Site” on the grading sheets as well. Similar to how they are shown in the Drainage report. c. Ensure to also delineate the top of bank of all associated watercourses/washes. 20. Regarding the grouted riprap referenced by keynote #15 – Revise detail 9 to include that the grouted riprap shall be placed on a grout bed of at least 6-inches. DSSDR 4.7.1.2.d 21. Provide sufficient proposed spot elevations across the top and bottom of the proposed grouted riprap slopes on all property boundaries. 22. Provide cross-section details going N to S and E to W for the northern section close to the property boundaries shown on page 10 (Sheet C302). This detail should show the relative elevations and necessary dimensions. a. Provide a cross-section detail for the Berm as well. 23. Provide geotechnical justification regarding the masonry walls proposed adjacent to the 1:1 slope to the Northeast boundary. 24. Revise detail 10 for the hand placed rip rap to include the verbiage – “The filter fabric shall be woven for a minimum of 2 feet into the upper end of the blanket and wrapped for a minimum of 2 feet around the riprap base of the blanket” DSSDR 4.7.1.2.c 25. All Basins shall have a minimum of 1 sediment level measurement device, which can be incorporated into the weir or the side slope, or constructed as a separate stand-alone device. The device(s) shall be located where sediment is likely to accumulate. DSSDR 4.4.1.4 Provide a keynote/call-out and construction detail relating to the selected sediment level device. These should be shown within Basin 1-3 and the associated channels. 26. Basin 1 (Sheet C306) Security barrier for the proposed basin will need to be provided for the entirety of the basin perimeter - Basins designed for 100-year water depths of more than 2 feet and with side slopes steeper than 4:1 shall have a security barrier at all locations where side slopes are steeper than 4:1. Refer to DSSDR 4.11.1 for standards/conditions. 27. Show that erosion protection is used for all inlet and outlet structures on the Grading sheet and details. The erosion protection shall extend below the finished grade of the basin floor and/or side slope to the appropriate design depthShow this for all inlet & outlet structures as it appears erosion protection is not clearly shown to extend below finished grade across the basins 1 & 2 shown on sheet C306. 28. When a wall is proposed within 5 feet of the horizontal location of the 100-year water surface elevation, a report from an engineer registered in the State of Arizona shall be provided prior to approval of the construction permit that contains at least the following: a. The appropriate setback; and b. Specific structural design requirements with details DSSDR 4.14.1.3 This will need to be addressed regarding a majority of the masonry wall shown abutting basins and/or washes. 29. Revise all call-outs regarding hand places riprap to demonstrate grouted riprap being used for all slopes 2:1 and steeper as per the drainage report page 7 discussing necessary slope protection. This is in regard to keynote #16. 30. Revise the grading and slope protection shown on page 11 (sheet 303) regarding “Channel 3”. The drainage report calls for the necessity of rip-rap to further disperse flows and velocities prior to the flows reaching the Agua Caliente Wash. As currently shown, this does not appear addressed. See COT Drainage Manual Section 9.4. 31. Provide a cross-section detail for the southern channel along Corte Vista La Mariposa ROW. This should include the distance from the channel for the ROW and buildings. Drainage Report Comments: 32. Provide an inspection and maintenance protocol including frequency of inspection, a checklist of items to be inspected and recommended maintenance when an inspection identifies a maintenance requirement shall be prepared by an Arizona registrant. The protocol may be included in the project drainage report or prepared as a separate document. The protocol shall be reviewed and approved by the Floodplain Administrator prior to approval of the tentative plat or development plan. The protocol shall be delivered to the entity responsible for inspection and maintenance. An example of a detention basin inspection and maintenance checklist is provided in Appendix F of the DSSDR 4.1.1. 33. Provide a storage time discussion section within the drainage report that uses the results of the associated percolation testing performed from the Geotech report to demonstrate compliance with Storage Time Standards for basins 1 & 2– DSSDR 4.5.1. 34. Include a discussion section within the drainage report that revolves around how the erosion hazard setback was calculated/determined regarding all watercourses. This should be shown to fall in compliance with Drainage Manual Chapter 7. 35. Include a section within the drainage report that satisfies the requirements for demonstrating All-Weather access to the proposed site. SWPPP Comments: 36. Ensure that proposed Storage/Staging Area will be sufficient for this size of project and revise as needed. 37. Please provide additional fueling/maintenance, waste storage, staging, and washout locations to accommodate construction activities within these proposed locations shown on SWPPP plan. 38. The proposed work includes the Agua Caliente and Tanque Verde Wash floodplains. Please revise General SWPPP note 3 to reflect this. Plan review for the above referenced structure has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. For facilitating a shorter review time, please provide updated plans and calculations with a written response to each of the notated items indicating action taken. Do not cloud the changes made for comment updates; revisions are processed if changes occur after the permit is issued. Provide a response letter addressing each comment with location of change on the plans. Submit the separate response letter and plan set files. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact: Marco Contreras at Marco.Contreras@tucsonaz.gov Joe Macaulay at Joe.Macaulay@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 05/12/2026 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0426-00090 RELATED ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0426-00097 ADDRESS: 10125 E CORTE VISTA LA ZONING: SUBURBAN RANCH ZONE (SR) LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY 5.12.2026 THE PROPOSED PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SITE LANDSCAPE, NATIVE PLANTS, AND RAINWATER HARVESTING, PER-THE-CITY OF TUCSON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC), TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL (TSM), AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL (AM). RESUBMIT REVISED DRAWINGS ALONG WITH A DETAILED RESPONSE LETTER, STATING HOW ALL SITE LANDSCAPE AND NPPO SECTION REVIEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. The following hydroseed plants are not found within the Arizona Department of Water Resources, TAMA 5 approved plant list: Enneapagon desvausii; Setaria macrostachya; Vulpia octoflora; Bowlesia incana; Helianthus annuus; Hymenothrix wislizenii; Kallstroemia grandiflora; Lepidium lasiocarpum; Lesquerella gordonii; Pectis papposa; Verbena Gooddingii; Xanthisma spinulosum; Isocoma tenuisecta; Sphaeralcea coulteri. *THE ABOVE LIST CONTAINING PLANTS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE APPROVED ADWR PLANT LIST HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR VIABILITY AND COMPLIANCE BY PIMA COUNTY IN MAY OF 2025 AND THE PDSD SITE LANDSCAPE REVIEW SECTION AGREES THAT THE PLANT SEED LIST SHOULD BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE SITE PER PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AND SITE LANDSCAPE REVEGETATION USE. 2. N Houghton Rd scenic corridor measures approximately 24 feet inside of the ROW/property line to remain native and untouched. The 6 feet of disturbance area within the scenic buffer to be re-established with a native hydroseed mix meets the intent of the code for scenic corridors. In addition, can some other container plants indigenous to the area be implemented to the hydroseed area on the planting plan. The hydroseed mix could take a few growing seasons to establish and some additional natives in the area of disturbance will only enhance the scenic buffer area. 3. Add a leader callout to the SVTs shown in the planting plan sheets. 4. The spot elevations shown on the commercial rainwater harvesting plan are very helpful and much appreciated for review and inspection. Please double check that all grades shown on the rainwater harvesting plan are identical to what is shown on the grading plan. Sheet 11 grading and sheet 55 crwh in the southwest corner have a few grades that don’t line up. Or add a note to the contractor stating: (if there are discrepancies between the grading and crwh plans, to refer to the grading plan or to contact the civil engineer and landscape architect for clarification.) Or similar wording. 5. Include all drainage structure linework shown on the grading plan on the crwh plan as well. IE: downspouts, splash pads and scuppers. There are a few locations that appear to need scuppers under sidewalks. Coordinate the scupper locations with the civil engineer. 6. Provide all applicable information for construction of public use amenity areas and other hardscape elements on site, IE: point table with northing and easting coordinates, or some kind of dimensioning system for design layout on site. Enlargement plans may be necessary for legibility. Coordinate with the civil engineer to establish how this information will be shown on the plan set. 7. Prior to site landscape approval, ensure that Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are fully addressed. 8. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0426-00090 on all sheets in the plan set. Thank you. Chad Keller, PLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 05/21/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Fernando Garcia Site Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Development Package 10125 E Corte Vista La Mariposa, Tucson, AZ 85749 TD-DEV-0426-00090 DUE DATE: 05 MAY 2026 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 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 April 29, 2027. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 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: 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0416-00090, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.3 – Add this rezoning note language to Site Note 1. 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. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – Indicate for Site Note 2 that the proposed use is “Residential Use Group – Multifamily Development, subject to use-specific standards 4.9.7.B.6, .8, & .9”. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6 – Include a note stating “this project is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria of UDC 5.3, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ), of UDC 5.4, Major Street and Routes Setback Zone (MS&R), and of UDC 5.7, Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ), and Tucson Code, Chapter 29, Article VIII, WASH Regulations. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a – In addition to the already-provided rezoning case number, C9-21-20, provide all case numbers for the related development packages for this project, to include TD-DEV-0325-00081, TD-DEV-0725-00175, TD-DEV-0126-00004, and TD-DIV-0326-00022. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a – Provide height and floor area for “Building A Leasing Office” and each garage on Sheet 7. Label the enclosed structure to the immediate east of the pool on Sheet 7 and indicates its floor area and height. 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.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Indicate that the provided PAALs meet the 1’ setback from adjacent structures per UDC 7.4.6.F.2. If the required width cannot be provided, a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) or Parking Design Modification Request (PDMR) may be required to request approval for a reduced PAAL width. Contact Stephen Blood, Section Lead, Site Engineering at stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov for a copy of the application form. Indicate that the PAALs meets either the required 1’ setback from an open structure roof or overhang, or that the carport roof (for the covered parking areas) is at least 15’ in height per UDC 7.4.6.E.2 or 7.4.6.F.2. Provide a general note indicating the height of the covered parking structure. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Provide short-term bicycle parking detail. Although 26 short-term bicycle parking spaces are required, only 24 are shown on the site plans provided with the development package. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.U – Provide a note on Sheet 1 indicating the total acreage or square footage, and the percentage of the total area, dedicated to open space. Indicate what this calculation is in relation to the rezoning condition requirement of C9-21-20. 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. Include a note stating all signage requires separate permits. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – Place note on monument wall sign sheet 46 that signage will be per separate permit. ***For additional information on the any standard presented in this memo, please refer to the City of Tucson “Unified Development Code” – Administrative Manual Section 2-06 or Technical Standards noted in the comments. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-codes-plans-determinations If you have any questions about this transmittal, contact Site Zoning Reviewer Fernando Garcia at fernando.garcia2@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and comment response letter. To resubmit visit Tucson Development Center at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. Instructions for resubmittal - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/website/Resubmittals.pdf. |
||
| 04/13/2026 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/16/2026 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added Historic, Addressing, TEP, Environmental Services, PC RFCF, Floodplain Admin, PAG, USPS, and SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to Addressing, TEP, Environmental Services, PC RFCF, and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 04/16/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 04/16/2026 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 04/16/2026 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 05/12/2026 | Fire New Construction Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/24/2026 | Historic | REVIEW COMPLETED | Westland Resources Inc. has completed an archaeological data recovery on the parcel and submitted a technical report summarizing the results of the data recovery. The HPO has reviewed the report and determined that Westland Resources has followed the approved Data Recovery Plan. Historic review is complete. Archaeological monitoring must be carried out during the initial ground-disturbing construction phases of the project when the upper soil in the data recovery area is being removed or graded. Archaeological monitoring must also be carried out in the “polo grounds” area, where the retention basin will be constructed. |
||
| 04/13/2026 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC Note - Add Pima Country Regional Flood Control for floodplain/floodway development and associated requirements, Environmental Services for review of satisfactory Waste Management proposition review & Floodplain Administration for COT Floodplain development compliance. | ||
| 04/15/2026 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 04/22/2026 | ROW Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 05/06/2026 | Traffic Engineering Review Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | As cited in the TIA, the 162 casitas development is anticipated to generate around 73 AM peak hour trips and 90 PM peak hour trips. This amount of traffic can be accommodated for by the existing public roadway network. No concerns with the development going in. The TIA turn lane warrant analysis indicates that a southbound right turn lane is warranted based on the project improvements being built. Accordingly, this warranted turn lane should be constructed through the Private Improvement Agreement (PIA) project process. Thanks! |