Permit Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0426-00111
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Commercial Plumbing Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Fire New Construction Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | NPPO Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | ROW Engineering Review Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Landscape Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Zoning Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Zoning Modifications - Variance Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 05/15/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0426-00111 (1st Review) Project: Re-development of former car lot for new Valvoline oil & lube. One new building with reconfigured parking lot. Location: 7000 E SPEEDWAY BL Review Date: 5/15/2026 Due: 6/01/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate - Site Engineering Related cases: TP-PRE-0725-00146, TP-PRE-0126-00004 *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 Review Comments: 1. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0426-00111, adjacent to the title block on all sheets 2. Revise general note #1 under accessibly align with current code adoptions. The City of Tucson adopted The IBC 2024 with ICC A117.1 2017 edition at the start of 2026. 3. 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 4. Show that this project falls in compliance with 8-01.5.1.A by providing possible space for solid waste and recycle collection services. 5. As the work proposed along the western property line falls within 100-year floodplain limits, it will be required that a floodplain use (FPU) permit be submitted for review/approval. As work is proposed both within the ROW and private property, it will be necessary that two separate floodplain use permits be submitted. 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, as this simply falls into “Work within a floodplain” – all that will be required is the associated plan set for submission 6. The plans show steps with handrail at the northeast corner of the new Valvoline. In line with TSM 7-01.3.2 – it will be required that this design be revised so that the entirety of the sites pedestrian circulation path be barrier-free with no steps being used. 7. It will be required that the new transformer pad proposed towards the northern property line have a PAD elevation of at least 2538.13 as the drainage report describes a WSEL of 2537.13 associated with the ponding conditions for the ROW catch basin/drain. Revise the PAD elevation accordingly. 8. The design for the sump pump discharge pipe – The detail shows an inv of 36.75 with the bottom of basin 3 at 36.25 which accounts for a half a foot of freeboard in regard to the pipe placement. This may have to be redesigned as basin 3 appears to fall within the 100-year floodplain limits, and in the event basin 3 exceeds this .5’ of WSEL, this discharge point would effectively be non-functioning. It is recommended that the discharge pipe elevation be adjusted to ensure no possibility of this discharge from becoming ineffective. Sheet 6 9. Show that erosion protection is used for all the inlet & outlet structures on the Grading sheet and details regarding basin 2. The erosion protection shall extend below the finished grade of the basin floor and/or side slope to the appropriate design depth. DSSDR 4.8.1.4. As currently shown, no erosion protection is shown/called-out regarding the outlet for the buildings roof drainage discharge point. 10. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to all proposed basins (Includes Water harvesting basins) on the grading plan Include a leader arrow to the basin or provide a label for the basin and reference the label on the top of the descriptor box. This can be done through an additional detail sheet or included on current basin detail sheet if the grading plans appear too narrow for such details. Include the following applicable information in the descriptor box: a. Total volume, cubic feet or acre feet; b. detention volume, cubic feet or acre feet; c. retention volume, cubic feet; d. d. first-flush retention volume, cubic feet; e. Q100 in, cubic feet per second; f. Q100 out, cubic feet per second; g. Basin top elevation, feet; h. 100-year water surface elevation, feet; i. 100-year ponding depth, (measured from the lowest elevation of the basin), feet. DSSDR 11.1.3. 11. The plans show keynotes #36 & #10 for a retaining walls. Provide construction details for all new proposed walls/fences. If they are true retaining walls – meaning they either retain ~48” of fill or exceed 4-ft in height from footer - will be treated as structural walls. As such, if it is determined these new walls fall into this designation it will be required that a separate wall building permit be submitted for the construction of the walls. For the wall permits, please submit the structural calculations and drawings for the construction of the wall. Revise all the associated Site keynotes to: “Wall to be built under separate permit.” 12. Provide the applicable floodplain information – location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with water surface elevations & associated Q-rates. The 100-year floodplain limits should be delineated/shown on the grading plan just as it is done on the site plan. Revise accordingly. 13. When a wall is proposed within 5 feet of the horizontal location of the 100-year water depth, 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 minimum setback from the top of slope; and b. Specific structural design requirements with details. DSSDR 4.12.1.2 & 4.14.1.3. This will need to be addressed for the walls proposed along the Western portion of the property as well as the retaining wall proposed to the Northeast of the new building. 14. On-line detention within regulatory floodplains is prohibited – It would be allowable for retention and/or water harvesting basins to be proposed within the floodplain limits, but Detention requirements will still need to be addressed. As currently presented – detention is minimally addressed. Revise the drainage report to follow suit with how the sites Detention will be managed. a. It is also suggested that the weirs be relooked at and adjusted so as to not promote off-site flows from entering the site during the 100-year event or extreme ponding scenarios which would be more impactful to basin 1 weir. 15. As general note # 5 under zoning and land use notes points towards a TSMR, please provide the TSMR application form in resubmission of the development package. 16. Provide labeling on the grading plan/sheets for the basins to correspond with the drainage report. Drainage Report comments: 17. Revise Section 1.C in the report to better describe the requirements set forth. Within balanced basin, post-developed peak discharge rates shall not exceed pre-developed peak discharge rates at the project boundary. The current section does not highlight the PRE vs. Post and simply states preventing increases. 18. 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 and 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. DSSDR 4.1.1. The current checklist provided on pg. 2 of the report is not sufficient. 19. Revise Section 1.F to include the fact that a floodplain use permit will be required for the new proposed development. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Marco Contreras at Marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 05/08/2026 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added PC Addressing, TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to TPC Addressing, TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 05/08/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 05/08/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-0426-00111. Thank you, David Wilging Planner I - Addressing Division Pima County Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-724-6381 |
||
| 05/08/2026 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 05/08/2026 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 05/07/2026 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |