Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0526-00132
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 | PDSD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ADDED ACTIVITY NUMBER FOR THE APPLICANT AND APPROVED THE NPPO WAIVER. Thank you. Chad Keller, PLA chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 06/11/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0526-00132 (1st Review) Project: Expansion of existing parking area and the addition of sidewalks Location: 115 E PLATA ST Review Date: 6/11/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov Related cases: TP-PRE-0525-00090 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 Review Comments: 1. Revise general note #14 – the City of Tucson adopted The IBC 2024 with ICC A117.1 2017 edition at the beginning of 2026 2. Provide the development package case number (TD-DEV-0526-00132) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3] 3. Dimension the back-up spur distance/space shown at the northern portion of the site’s parking area on sheet 3 [7.4.6.F.4.] 4. Provide a close-up grading detail for the area between the trash enclosure and existing building #1 – there are concerns that ponding could occur in this narrow space where a downspout is directly discharging. 5. The dumpster pad does not provide sufficient dimensions for a double enclosure as the waste stream calculations present. Double enclosures require a minimum clear space of 24’-8” X 10’-4”. a. Environmental services approval will be required in regard to accepting that they will have no issues in regard to smaller sized enclosure. The contact to reach out to at ES will be Andy Vera at Andy.vera@tucsonaz.gov. Please submit the approval provided for the resubmission of this development package. 6. 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. 7. A trash truck maneuverability exhibit has not been provided. Provide a dedicated exhibit or detail demonstrating that a standard solid waste collection vehicle can safely access, maneuver to, and service all proposed trash enclosures on the site in compliance with TSM 8-01.5.3 and TSM 8-01.5.3.F. The exhibit must address the following: a. The turning radius and approach path of a standard collection vehicle for each enclosure(s) location. b. Demonstration that the required back-up distance and maneuverability clearances are achievable within the proposed drive aisle and parking layout without conflict. c. Confirmation that collection vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction, or, if backing is required, that the back-up distance and sight conditions comply with the requirements of TSM 8-01.5.3.F. 8. All proposed retention and detention basins must be provided with a minimum of one sediment level measurement device per basin in accordance with DSSDR Section 4.4.1.4. The device may be incorporated into the basin outlet weir structure, embedded in the basin side slope, or constructed as a separate standalone marker. The device must be located where sediment is most likely to accumulate within the basin. Address the following on the plans: a. Add a keynote and corresponding call-out on the grading sheets identifying the sediment level measurement device at each basin location. b. Provide a construction detail for the selected device type showing its dimensions, materials, installation method, and graduated measurement markings. c. The device detail and placement must be consistent across all six basins and must be incorporated into the inspection and maintenance protocol required by DSSDR Section 4.1.1. 9. Provide an E-W cross-section detail for the outlet weir structure. 10. The site and grading plans do not demonstrate that all proposed retention/detention basins and water harvesting basins comply with the minimum 10-foot setback from all structures as required by DSSDR Section 4.14.1.2 & 5.3.1.11. Evaluate and address the following for the basin proposed at the southeast corner of the site: a. Graphically depict and dimension the 10-foot minimum setback from all proposed basins to the nearest structure on the grading sheets. This setback applies to all building walls, foundations, and other structures adjacent to the basins. b. Where any basin is proposed within the 10-foot minimum setback from a structure, a geotechnical justification must be included in the geotechnical report providing specific recommendations for a reduced setback, including analysis of potential impacts from infiltration, slope stability, and differential settlement on adjacent foundations. c. Any reduced setback analysis must comply with Drainage Manual Section 14.2.6, which requires a minimum 30-foot-deep soil boring to be performed at or near the basin location to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions used to support the reduced setback recommendation. The boring log and laboratory test results must be included in the geotechnical report. d. Until the geotechnical report is received and reviewed, this item remains open. Any reduced setback approved by the geotechnical engineer must be clearly noted on the grading and site plans with reference to the supporting geotechnical report section and boring number. e. If it is determined through the subsequent geotechnical report that a greater setback should be maintained, then the greater setback will need to be adhered to. 11. Containment of the vehicle use area – it looks like the PAAL opens up to an uncurbed section in between canopy #3 & 4 – are bollards or other methods of separation going to be used? Demonstrate how the vehicle use area will be contained to its intended design. Drainage Statement comments: 12. The cover sheet does not include a submittal number. Revise to include the submittal number in accordance with [Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.1.A.] 13. The grading sheets and basin details do not consistently show erosion protection at all inlet and outlet structures as required by DSSDR Section 4.8.1.4. Erosion protection must be provided at every basin inlet and outlet structure and must extend below the finished grade of the basin floor and/or side slope to the design embedment depth required to prevent scour undermining. Address the following for the northern portion of the newly proposed Det/Ret basin at the SE corner: a. Show erosion protection (riprap apron, grouted riprap, or equivalent) at every inlet and outlet structure on both the grading sheets and the corresponding detail sheets. b. Dimension the erosion protection apron length, width, and embedment depth below finished grade for each structure. c. Confirm that the riprap sizing and apron dimensions are supported by the erosion protection calculations required by Drainage Manual Section 9 (Refer to subsequent Drainage Report comment relating to riprap calculations). The grading plan details and the drainage report calculations must be consistent. 14. 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. 15. A Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility section is absent from the report. This section is required by Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.2.E and must identify the entity responsible for maintaining all proposed drainage improvements, including the six retention/detention basins, outlet structures, and any riprap erosion protection. This section should immediately follow the Procedures/Methodology section. 16. 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 |
||
| 06/26/2026 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: EXPANSION OF EXISTING PARKING AREA AND THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0526-00132 ADDRESS: 115 E PLATA ST ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (I-1) LAND USE: COMMERCIAL STORAGE 6.26.26 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. Related Case C9-59-19 does not include any special conditions that allows relief from the two required street landscape borders as discussed in the pre-application meeting under activity number TP-PRE-0525-00090. See the following related comments. 2. It is understood that the ROW line is directly adjacent to the face of the buildings along E Plata and N 7th. Five feet and possibly more of the ROW is allowed for plantings with the approval of DTM. Coordinate with DTM for approval and try to meet the intent of UDC 7.6 and landscape borders. 3. Was the Variance discussed with staff? Or was the PDSD Director Waiver discussed? Please provide correspondence and approval documentation that granted relief from the street landscape borders. 4. We are trying to move away from hydroseeded basins. Hydroseed is allowed, but a screened rock is preferred. 5. Label the SVTs on the planting plan and label the property lines along the streets as existing and future ROW. 6. Prior to site landscape approval, ensure that Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are fully addressed. 7. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0526-00132 on all sheets in the plan set. 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: Parking Expansion and Addition of Sidewalks – 115 E. Plata St. Tucson, AZ 85705 Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-0526-00132 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) CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 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-0526-00132, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.4.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.B – Please identify the streets that abut the subject property in the location map 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. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Bollards are proposed between building 2 and 3 however not between 3 and 4. Please explain how vehicles will be contained from driving into the proposed hydroseed basins. 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. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – Demonstrate refuse vehicle maneuverability as noted by the standard above. ***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. |
||
| 05/28/2026 | 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. | ||
| 06/23/2026 | 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-0526-00132Please Sign-In DUE: 6/26/2026 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 afternoon, TD-DEV-0526-00132 does not require review from Pima County Addressing. Please note we have plain addresses on site with no building numbers. 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. | ||
| 06/17/2026 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | June 16, 2026 WO#T185952 City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: CDRC Admin Team Dear CDRC Admin Team Subject: Expansion of existing parking area and the addition of sidew TD-DEV-0526-00132 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, Fred Quintero (520) 235-6329 fquintero@tep.com Sincerely, Design Admins Design Admins Tucson El |
||
| 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 | |||
| 06/15/2026 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED |