Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0526-00130
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/25/2026 | NPPO Standard | APPROVED | With the next submittal of the landscape set, please include the activity number on the NPPO/Demo plan. Thank you. Chad Keller, PLA chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 07/08/2026 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Review General Redline Comments on Page 5 of Packet. 1) Check Label at New Sidewalk/Curb location on Yavapai Rd 2) New Sidewalk sections will need to meet PAG 200 standard for 5' on residential ROW, Transition may be required 3) Note that all Driveway will Need to comply with TSM 10-01.4.2 - Driveways to require full concrete construction to the back of the sidewalk. 4) ROW permits will be required for each scope of work, and will require cut measurements in Sq yard for all work in asphalt as a future note |
||
| 06/16/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0526-00130 (1st Review) Project: New Community Center building with associated parking and landscaping. Improvements and expansion of the north existing parking lot to bring it up to current code. Requesting a detention waiver. Location: 209 E YAVAPAI RD Review Date: 6/16/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov Related cases: TP-PRE-0126-00015 Plan review for the above-referenced development package has been completed. This review was conducted for compliance with applicable development criteria including the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-6, and Technical Standards Manual (TSM) sections governing waste management, pedestrian access, hydrology – retention/detention requirements, and all applicable site standards. The following comments must be addressed prior to approval. To help facilitate a timely resubmittal, please provide updated plans and calculations along with a written response to each comment, indicating what action was taken and where the change can be found on the plans. Do not use revision clouds on resubmittal drawings — clouds are reserved for post-permit revisions only. Submit your response letter and updated plan set & reports as separate files. Applicable Code Links for quick/direct reference: 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 City of Tucson Chapter 25: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az/0-0-0-18593 Site Engineering Administrative Review Comments: 1. Provide the development package case number (TD-DEV-0526-00130) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3] 2. Revise the cover sheet to include the name, registration number, seal, and contact information for the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, along with the name and address of the geotechnical firm. This information shall be presented with the other project registrant contact information on the cover sheet. [AM 2-06.4.1] 3. Provide the general note: “Any work within City of Tucson Right-Of-Way will require a right-of-way permit, or a private improvement agreement.” Waste Management Comments: 4. The trash enclosure details and grading plan sheets must be revised to correctly show the required drainage slopes at and around all trash enclosure locations per TSM 8-01.0.0. The following slope requirements must be reflected on both the detail sheets and the grading plan for every enclosure on the project: a. The approach ramp and surrounding pavement must slope at a minimum of 2% away from the enclosure to prevent water intrusion and standing water at the enclosure pad. b. The enclosure slab must slope at a minimum of 1% toward the gate to drain away from the enclosure interior. c. These slope requirements must be explicitly labeled and dimensioned on the grading sheets and the enclosure detail for each enclosure location. A generic note referencing compliance is not sufficient — slopes must be graphically shown and confirmed on the plans. 5. The plans do not show the required maneuvering clear space in front of the proposed trash enclosures as required by TSM 8-01.5.3. Revise the site plan to delineate the following minimum clear spaces, free of all obstructions including parked vehicles, landscaping, walls, and other improvements: a. Double dumpster enclosures: A minimum clear space of 28 feet wide by 40 feet deep must be shown in front of each double enclosure. b. Single dumpster enclosures: A minimum clear space of 14 feet wide by 40 feet deep must be shown in front of each single enclosure. c. These clear space envelopes must be graphically shown on the site plan with dimensions and must not conflict with proposed drive aisles, parking stalls, landscaping, or other site elements. Where conflicts exist, the site layout must be revised accordingly. 6. Revise keynote #31 to include that this is a double enclosure. PAAL & Site Comments: 7. Dimension the back-up spur distance/space shown at the Southern portion of the site’s parking area on sheet C3.1. [7.4.6.F.4.] 8. Confirm that no proposed structures, walls, signs, landscaping, or other vertical elements exceeding the allowable height limit encroach within the established SVT at any site access point. Where conflicts exist, the site design must be revised to achieve full compliance. 9. Regarding the parking spaces shown to be surfaced with “true grid gravel system” on the Southwest portion of the site, provide clarification for the transition between the gravel and asphalt. What measures will be taken to keep the asphalt from breaking at the edge. 10. The site plan does not dimension all existing and proposed curb return radii at internal drive aisles and roadway access points. Provide dimensions for all curb return radii at the following locations: a. All proposed site access driveways at their intersections with Yavapai RD and Prince Road b. All internal drive aisle intersections and turning radii within the site. c. Confirm that all curb return radii comply with the dimensional requirements of Chapter 25, Streets and Sidewalks Standards and UDC 7.4.6.E.1.a. Where existing curb returns are to remain, document the existing radii and confirm compliance or identify any required modifications. 11. Pedestrian circulation is required to connect all buildings, dumpster areas, common areas, and the sidewalk on all the street frontages per TSM 7-01.3.3. Demonstrate how this requirement is addressed for connecting the site to the proposed new bike racks as reference by Keynote #27, Connecting the new building to the existing building site circulation & the new double enclosure (Sheet C3.1) a. In regard to connecting to the existing sites circulation – the plans show a DG pathway, in line with pedestrian circulation standards, the pathway material will need to be revised. [TSM 7-01.3.2 & TSM 7-01.4.3.C.6] 12. Clarification required – are the potential cross walks shown on the site plan (Sheet C3.1) intended to be striped/painted – if so, revise plan set to demonstrate this intent. Ensure to provide a keynote/call-out on the site plan sheets. 13. Dimension the back-up spur distance/space shown at the Southern portion of the site’s parking area on sheet C3.1. [7.4.6.F.4.] Site Drainage comments: 14. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to proposed 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 if the grading plans appear too narrow for such details. Include the following applicable information in the descriptor box: [DSSDR 11.1.3] 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. 15. Show the 2-foot minimum bench grading setback from the property line on the grading plan TSM 2-01.9.0. Demonstrate this along the West & South property lines of the site. A reduced setback will require geotechnical justification that no adverse impacts will be caused by the proximity of grading and drainage infrastructure within the minimum 2-foot setback. a. This will need to be demonstrated on the Cross-section detail 14 on C6.1 & detail 12, 11 16. Provide a construction detail regarding the 1:1 shotcrete slope protection as shown in detail 11 (C6.1) [Drainage Manual 8.5.1.1] – The detail should provide sufficient thickness, key-in depth, and toe-down required for the slope protection construction. 17. Provide clarification on plan view – where is detail 16 (C6.1) intended to be used/referenced as shown on detail sheet. 18. After review of plan view (L2.1) – the plans show some type of riprap shading at the Northwest corner of the new portion of the site, but nothing is shown in this area on the grading plan (C4.0). Revise accordingly. Drainage report comments: 19. 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 currently provided checklist is considered insufficient. 20. 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 basin 3 – DSSDR 4.5.1. 21. Provide both a North-South & East-West cross section details for the area where the hand-placed riprap channel meets the retention basin as shown on the southern portion of the development directly diagonal to the SE corner of the new structure. 22. Revise the drainage document title to be more fitting to scope – as the document goes into more significant analysis and site design aspects – revise the document title to be Drainage Report rather than drainage statement. 23. Section I (Introduction) does not adequately describe the type and approximate size of the proposed development as required by Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.2.A.4. The introduction must be revised to clearly state: the type of development (New 2-story structure); the approximate project area (XX acres); the nature of proposed improvements (buildings, parking, drainage infrastructure); and a brief narrative of the drainage strategy being employed. The current introduction is generic and does not provide the project-specific context required for review. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.4] 24. Section I (Introduction) – Provide a legal description of the specific parcel(s) in question for the intended development [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.3] 25. Section I (Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility) - Specify the name, address, and telephone number of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of drainage improvements (i.e., roads, parking areas, washes, drainageways, detention/retention basins, common areas, etc.) described in the drainage report. List other documents where these responsibilities are documented (i.e., CC&Rs, Final Plats, Development Plans, etc.) [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.E.1] 26. Section I – ensure to include a “Required Permits” section that demonstrated that if any other or no governmental permits are required for the scope of development. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.F] 27. The subject site/parcel partially exists within the Ruthrauff Wash Critical basin area as demonstrated through the basin management map – revise the introduction or existing conditions sections to include this information. As such, critical basin requirements would apply – revise corresponding “Development Requirements” section to include the scope of critical detention basin requirements (page 3). [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.6.A.1] 28. Revise the report to include a Summary & Conclusions section as described: [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.7 a. Provide a brief summary of the important analyses and conclusions presented in the report b. Certify that the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations. 29. Riprap Sizing & Apron Dimensions – Confirm that the riprap classification (D₅₀ stone size) and apron dimensions (length, width, and depth) shown on the plans are consistent with the erosion protection calculations required. Provide the associated erosion riprap calculations. At a minimum, the following shall be substantiated at the Drainage Report: [Drainage Manual Chapter 9] a. Riprap sizing (D₅₀): Shall be determined in accordance with Section 9 design procedures, accounting for the design discharge velocity, flow depth, and channel geometry at the outlet or protected reach. b. Apron length and width: Shall reflect the hydraulic conditions (Froude number, tailwater depth, and flow spread) used in the energy dissipation analysis. c. Apron depth/thickness: Shall satisfy the minimum blanket thickness requirements relative to the specified D₅₀. d. Filter fabric / bedding layer: Confirm specification is consistent with Section 9 material requirements. 30. Include within section IV.C, a table similar to Table 2.2 in DSSDR 2.2. This should break down how the first flush requirement was determined as well as demonstrate how much each drainage improvement achieves. 31. Provide supporting outlet structure City of Tucson design calculations and confirm that the weir dimensions used in the routing are consistent with the outlet structures shown on the basin detail drawings. [Drainage Manual Chapter 9, DSSDR 4.9.1] 32. Curb Opening Calculations – The curb opening calculations explicitly state "Required capacity is 10-year flow plus 50% clogging," but then immediately note "No clogging factor" applied. Revise to incorporate the clogging factor which may increase the openings at P1.1 & RB1. [Drainage Manual Chapter 10] 33. Detention Waiver – Insufficient Substantiation – The report simply requests a waiver but does not provide the required demonstration of eligibility. Revise the report to include a section regarding the request to waive detention requirements while also providing sufficient justification as discussed in DSSDR 1.2.1 a. Downstream Impact assessment – Given the documented increases of the sites peak discharge, ensure that revised analysis addressed downstream impacts at the property boundary & associated properties. This demonstration will be required as the site does fall within critical basin designation. 34. Demonstrate that the intended channel at the South meets freeboard requirements. [Drainage Manual 8.5.1.4] 35. Geotechnical Report — Supplemental Analysis Required for Infiltration Improvements [Drainage Manual 14.2.6] - The geotechnical report identifies near-surface soils with moderate to high hydro compaction (collapse) potential at in-situ moisture content and density, and moderate to high compression under typical foundation pressures. Given these documented soil conditions, the geotechnical report must be supplemented to specifically address the proposed infiltration-based improvements — including the hand-placed riprap channel at concentration point C2, the water-sponge trenches, landscaping infiltration chambers, and the gravel sump/infiltration pits shown on Sheet L3.1. At a minimum, the revised or supplemental geotechnical report shall: a. Establish Setback Distances: The geotechnical engineer of record shall determine and document the minimum required horizontal setback distances between the proposed infiltration improvements and all adjacent structures and foundation elements, consistent with Drainage Manual 14.2.6 criteria, accounting for the collapse and compression potential of the near-surface soils. b. Evaluate Structural Impacts: The geotechnical engineer shall provide a written assessment confirming that the proposed channel with infiltration sumps will not adversely affect the stability or bearing capacity of: the retaining wall shown on Detail 11 of the construction plans; and the foundation of the proposed new structure & associated site components. 36. Revise the report to include the scope of the extensive landscaping infiltration proposals. The report does not include the scope/intent of the infiltration chambers, sponge trenching, & gravel sump pits. a. As the described site components fall under Stormwater-Infiltration Systems – It will need to be demonstrated within the drainage report (New section) how the intended subsurface disposal meet all City of Tucson Infiltration standards. b. The new section should address each single standard found in section 4.13 [DSSDR] & section 14.5 [Drainage Manual] and how each point is being met. It should be noted that the use of Underground storage to achieve required retention is not permitted unless approval from floodplain administration is given, It will not be required for their approval if only detention is being achieved within the underground storage. The drainage report should also break down total retention/detention achieved and how much is achieved broken down to each component to ensure compliance with the subsurface disposal requirements. Notice – Drainage Manual carries 10 different points & DSSDR carries 20 different points, all that will need to be shown as addressed within the report section. c. It should be noted that the proposed subsurface drainage disposal is intended to achieve required retention for the development will require the written approval directly from floodplain administration. To avoid possible review conflict and timeline delays, they will not be directly added to the review cycles, but it is required that approval be provided within the next submission cycle TD-DEV-0324-00083. Please contact floodplain administration at Alfred.Zuniga@tucsonaz.gov or Austin.Wesnitzer@tucsonaz.gov or Elizabeth.Eberbach@tucsonaz.gov, This comment does not apply if not pursuing meeting retention requirements with said measures is not applicable. |
||
| 06/25/2026 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: NEW COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0526-00130 ADDRESS: 209 E YAVAPAI RD ZONING: COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2) 6.25.2026 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. Trees in the SVTs. Make sure that the gallon/box size is large enough so that the tree limbs are not in the 30” to 72” visibility area. SEE TSM 5-01.7.0 STANDARDS FOR TREES IN SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. Trees may be planted in sight visibility triangles provided that: 7.1 The trunk caliper, at maturity, does not exceed 12 inches in diameter; 7.2 The lowest branch of any tree is at least six feet above the grade of the street or driveway, whichever is the determining factor in the sight visibility triangle; and 7.3 Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed at an angle. 2. Keynote number 2: Add existing and future ROW to the property line callout along the streets. 3. Call out the irrigation meter as “irrigation only” and make sure the civil utility plan calls the meter out that way as well. This is by request from the Tucson Water Conservation Department for simple location on site and water use tracking in the future. 4. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0526-00130 on all sheets in the plan set. 5. Prior to site landscape approval, ensure that Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are fully addressed. Thank you. Chad Keller, PLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 06/24/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Bobby Parsons PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: New Community Center Building – 209 E. Yavapai Rd. Tucson, AZ 85705 Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-0526-00130 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6/24/2026 DUE DATE: 6/25/2026 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 June 1, 2027. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Please include the registrants contact information that provided the associated Geotechnical Report on Sheet 1 as noted by the standard above. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Please include the page numbers on sheets 14-25 as noted by the standard above. 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. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0526-00130, 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.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c – As a new building and vehicular use area are being proposed, please include the expansion calculations as noted by the standard above. 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. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Please dimension the backup spur associated with the parking space located on the southwest corner of the parking lot. This backup spur must be a minimum of 3’ (UDC 7.4.6.F.4). Also, as a new 20’ wide double swing gate is proposed at the Southern entrance, demonstrate the proposed gate will allow enough room for the public to turnaround when the gate is closed. 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. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Setbacks are measured from design grade. Please demonstrate the 13’4” A.F.F. building height provided is a measurement taken from design grade to ensure the minimum setback of 10’ or ¾ (height) is met. Also, plans call out an 8’ proposed CMU wall along the West portion of the property. Walls are allowed to be 6’ in height. If a height of a CMU wall higher than 6’ is desired, a Design Development Option (DDO) will be required. Please apply for your DDO as a zoning modification sub-record. For instructions on how to apply for a sub-record, please visit the following link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/sub-records_071425.pdf. For additional questions about the DDO process, please reach out to Georgia Pennington at Georgia.Pennington@tucsonaz.gov or Mark Castro at Mark.Castro@tucsonaz.gov. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Please include the proposed use within the footprint of the building as noted by the standard above. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Please demonstrate connectivity between buildings, to the new bike racks, and to the new trash enclosure as noted by the standard above. 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – Clearly show that the trash enclosures meet the minimum requirements of TSM 8-01.5.3 as noted by the standard above. 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. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – If applicable, please show the location of any proposed mailboxes. 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. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – If applicable, please show the location of any proposed new signs. ***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 Bobby Parsons at Robert.Parsons@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. |
||
| 05/27/2026 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 06/03/2026 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added Addressing, ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to Addressing, ADOT, and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 06/18/2026 | Commercial Plumbing Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 06/17/2026 | External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | Fwd: TDC External Review PERMIT: TD-DEV-0526-00130Please Sign-In DUE: 6/25/2026 rfreije@azdot.gov on behalf of ADOT SC Traffic Engineering - ADOT<adotsctrafficengineering@azdot.gov> CDRC ADOT has no comments. Thanks, Rick Freije |
||
| 06/03/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 06/04/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC Good morning, Pima County Addressing approves of TD-DEV-0526-00130. Thank you, David Wilging Planner I - Addressing Division Pima County Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-724-6381 |
||
| 06/03/2026 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/15/2026 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | July 9, 2026 WO#T185816 City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: CDRC Admin Team Dear CDRC Admin Team Subject: The Salvation Army Community Resource Center TD-DEV-0526-00130 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted 6/3/2026. There are existing facilities within the development which are depicted upon the plan. There are no apparent conflicts at this time. 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, Chuck Leon (520) 400-6133 cleon@tep.com Sincerely, Design Admins Design Admins Tucson Electric Power |
||
| 06/03/2026 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 06/20/2026 | Fire New Construction Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 05/28/2026 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 06/01/2026 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |