Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: TD-DEV-0626-00146
Parcel: 113071620

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0626-00146
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/07/2026 Commercial Plumbing Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT ACTIVITY NO. TD-DEV-0626-00146
ADDRESS/PARCEL: 1439 E HEDRICK DR TUCSON, AZ 85719

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. A private sewer collection system that includes manholes, force mains, or lift stations, will require a review of the system design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality prior to obtaining a building permit from the City of Tucson. In addition, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality requires the Engineer of Record to conduct specific inspections during construction. Submit the plans that have been approved by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for approval. Reference Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code.
07/14/2026 External Reviewers - Design Professional Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT DATE: July 10, 2026
TO: Aaron Flores,
City of Tucson
FROM: Rick Gonzalez, Architect (#26992)
COT On-Call Design Professional
RE: DP Review, Apartments at Hedrick,
TD-DEV-0626-00146 (1439 E HEDRICK, TUCSON, AZ 85719)
I have reviewed the Development Package for a Flexible Lot Development (TDDEV-
0626-00146) submitted July, 2026 for the purpose of determining
conformance with the Design Requirements of the FLD. I have checked the
submittal against the Flexible Lot Development (FLD) Development
Requirements relative to Section 8.7.3., Design Standards under procedure
described in Section M4a.
Submittal Requirements Status
8.7.3. FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT
(FLD)-SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Additional Functional Open Space
The project preserves at least 20% more Complies
Functional Open Space than is required by
Functional Open Space Requirements.
The additional open space shall be usable
for passive or active recreational uses,
such as trails, walking paths, picnic areas,
and playgrounds.
2. Additional Open Space within an FLD N/A, < 5 acres
Greater than 5 Acres
The project preserves features in a natural
state at least 15% more area than is required
by other sections of the UDC, including, but
not limited to: Sections. These natural
features include, but are not limited to,
vegetation, washes, riparian floodplain, and
hillsides.
3. Proximity to an Arterial Street N/A to this project
The project is located in the City’s Central
Core and is on a designated arterial street
near transit facilities to promote the use of
transit and reduce vehicle trips. The
project density does not conflict with any
applicable area or neighborhood plan.
4. Trail or Wildlife Corridor Dedication N/A to this project
The FLD provides for dedication of trails
or wildlife corridors, or both, that connect
to offsite trails and wildlife corridors as
approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
5. Green Building Indicate how the project complies
The project is designed and located to w/Green Building Requirements
comply with the energy efficiency (TSM 3-01.3.0). Note 20 of the 30
requirements.(N/A if not a Max Density Option) Requirements are met.
6. Regulations for FLD Projects
The following regulations are required of
all FLD projects:
1. Development Alternative A is for standard FLDs. Alternative B is
2. Development Alternative B is for Maximum Density Applicable to this project
Option FLDs.
Zone R-2; Alt. B; Max Site Coverage 75%; Complies
Max Density 22; Max Building Height 25'
7. Minimum Lot Size
There is no minimum lot size within an R-2 FLD,
except as follows:
All lots developed with a septic system shall N/A to this project
be at least one acre.
8. Open Space Requirements Functional
Open Space Area Requirements
Functional open space shall be provided
as shown: 5 acres or less (<13 DU/AC = 109 sf/DU);
> 13 DU/AC=161sf/AC; Complies
More than 5 acres (269sf/DU)
Functional open space shall be for
an active recreational, passive recreational
or scenic purpose.
An FLD shall provide functional open space
amenities appropriate for the mix of residents
for which the FLD project is designed.
A homeowners’ association or management Add a note onto the plans in
organization shall be established by the regard to this submital
developer to be responsible for the ownership, requirement
permanent care, and maintenance of
functional open space areas.
Any portion of the FLD project site that has been Noted on plans areas of functional
dedicated to and accepted by a public entity for functional open space
public use as a functional open space amenity
may be included in meeting the functional open
space area requirements. Dedications that meet
this requirement include, but are not limited to,
parks, trail, and detention and retention basins
that incorporate Multiple-Use Concepts and
Aesthetic Design Guidelines.
The portion of the FLD project site that includes N/A – no trails on or adjacent to
all or portion of a trail located within a natural the property
open space or natural undisturbed open space
may be included in complying with the functional
open space area requirements.
Exemptions The following FLD projects are The exemptions do not apply
exempt from functional open space requirements: to this project
(1) An FLD project with 60 lots or fewer located
within one-quarter of a mile of a City community
park of at least 15 acres which does not require
crossing an arterial roadway to reach the park;
or, (2) An FLD project zoned SR, SH, RX-1 or RX-2.
9. Configuration and Location of Functional Complies
Open Space within an FLD Project a. FLD projects
five acres and less. Functional open space amenities
should be configured as contiguous areas, but may
also be incorporated into the design of other elements
on the site, such as detention/retention basins and
buffers, in order to make those areas functional.
b. FLD projects more than five acres. Functional N/A to this project
open space may be divided into smaller areas if
they are distributed throughout the project site
and conveniently located for residents of the FLD project.
c. Functional open space shall be conveniently Complies
located to and usable by the maximum number
of the residential units on the site.
d. To the greatest extent possible, functional open Complies
space should not be comprised of remnant areas
that are not usable by residents of the FLD project.
e. Where the project is located near a public preserve, N/A to this project
or can provide connections to open space areas or
areas of environmentally or culturally significant
features, the open space shall be configured in a
manner to preserve this connectivity.
10. Detention and Retention Basis Complies
To the greatest degree practicable, detention
and retention basins within an FLD shall be
designed as Functional Open Space by
incorporating the Multiple-Use Concepts and
Aesthetic Design Guidelines. Functional Open
Space amenities within detention and retention
basins may count toward meeting Functional
Open Space requirements
11. Landscaping, Screening and Wall Requirements
1. One canopy tree shall be provided every 40 1. Complies
feet of pedestrian circulation systems, excluding
crossings with streets, alleys, and driveways.
If providing canopy trees every 40 feet is not
achievable, the applicant shall: a. Provide the
equivalent number of trees that would be obtained
using the 40-foot increment measure; and,
b. Distribute the trees within the FLD project b. provided required trees
site along pedestrian circulation systems and along pedestrian
within functional open space areas. 3. Landscape walkways
plans shall incorporate water-conserving design. 3. Complies
4. Water harvesting techniques shall be incorporated 4. Complies
as part of the landscape design. 5. Mechanical 5. Indicate compliance
equipment, utility boxes, irrigation equipment
and similar elements shall be screened from
adjacent streets exterior to the project and from
adjacent existing residential development.
Screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the overall design of the FLD. 6. If a 6. Walls appear to be CMU, if
perimeter wall is proposed along an existing CMU, note graffiti-resistant
public right-of-way, it shall be constructed of, materials or finishes. Call-out
or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. at least one listed material or
The wall shall incorporate one or more of the finish
following decorative materials: Tile, Stone, Brick,
Adobe, a textured material such as stucco or
plaster, or Metal.
12. Parking An alley abutting an existing Complies
development shall not be used for parking access. 1. 1. a. Complies
Common parking areas shall meet the following 1.b. N/A
requirements: a. No more than 60 parking spaces 1.c. N/A
may be located in any single outdoor parking area; 1.d. Complies
b. There shall be a minimum of 30-foot separation
between common parking areas. Common parking
areas shall be separated by a building or landscaping;
c. The same parking area access lane (PAAL) may
provide access to two or more parking areas; and,
d. Curbed areas shall provide openings to allow
water to flow into landscaped areas and water
harvesting basins.
13. Circulation and Connectivity
All elements of an FLD, including residential
units and recreational amenities, shall be
connected by a pedestrian circulation system.
1. Interior pedestrian sidewalks shall connect 1. Complies
to sidewalks on abutting streets and to abutting
commercial and recreational facilities with
adjacent property owner’s consent. 2. Bus
turn-out lanes and bus waiting shelters shall
be provided if requested by the City. 3. Barrier 3. Complies
free access to functional open space amenities:
a. Barrier free access to functional open space Indicate FOS barrier free
amenities shall be provided. Exception:FLDs access
using the Housing for the Elderly maximum
development option shall provide barrier free
access pursuant to the City’s adopted Building
Code. or 50%, but not less than one, of each
type of functional open space amenity,
whichever is greater. Trails that have current
or future linkages to other trails, open space
areas or recreation areas shall be provided
as determined by the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department. a. Trails shall be
constructed in compliance with the design
criteria established for trails. Hard and soft
surface paths, when required, shall have an
average separation of at least five feet to allow
for landscaping that does not interfere with the
paths, except where a reduced width is allowed
by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.
14. Perimeter Yards Along FLD Project Site Boundaries
Perimeter yards along FLD project site boundaries
are required in accordance the site’s underlying Complies
zone. 1. Street perimeter yards along FLD project
site boundaries are required unless special zoning
requirements dictate a greater distance or different
point of measurement.
15. Perimeter Yards on Interior Lots 1. Perimeter
yards may be reduced for setbacks along interior
lot lines. 2. Along interior street lot lines, street provided on the DP
perimeter yards are required. The street setback
may be administratively reduced by the PDSD
Director based on a finding that the reduced
setback enhances the architectural design or the
vehicular circulation in the FLD and a
transportation statement is approved by the City’s
Traffic Engineering division. A street perimeter yard
reduction request is considered for approval
concurrent with the processing of the plat or site plan,
whichever is applicable. 3. Along parking area 3. Complies
access lanes (PAALs), setbacks are required.
Design Criteria
16. Architectural Variation Purpose
Applicability
(1) Projects with 20 or more single-family detached N/A Not Single Family Detached
residential units except when residential units are on
lots larger than 10,000 square feet or, where dwelling
units are separated by 30 feet or more; or,
(2) Elevations of single-family detached units abutting
a public street designated as a collector or arterial
street in the Major Streets and Routes Plan; or, a
private or public street designed and/or designated
as a residential collector street.
Requirements (1) The same architectural elevation
shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot.
(2) Architectural variation may be accomplished by
incorporating a minimum of two of the following
design features into the affected elevations: different
building footprint orientation, building elevation,
garage placement, roof type, ornamentation, or
architectural style.
(3) Garage Placement. For FLD projects with over
20 or more single-family detached residential units,
no more than 50% of detached residential units
throughout the FLD shall be designed with garages
that protrude from or are flush with the front wall
of the living area or front porch of the house.
Architectural Variation Plan Required
The AVP shall be included with the subdivision plat, N/A for attached
site plan, or building permit submittal.
17. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation
for Adjacent Properties
Transition Edge Treatment
Where a single-family attached or multi-family FLD Complies
project is adjacent to existing single-family residential
development, the FLD shall provide buffering in order
to preserve the privacy of the existing residential
development. Examples of buffering include, but are
not limited to, landscaping, a fence, or a wall. The Verify as a condition on the
proposed buffering shall be included as conditions on approved DP or Plat.
the approved subdivision plat or site plan.
Privacy Mitigation
Applicability
Privacy mitigation is required when multistory A PMP is provided
residences are proposed adjacent to existing
single story residences and the existing residences
are zoned R-2 or more restrictive.
Prohibited Improvements
Balconies, windows (except for clerestory and Screening provided
translucent windows), or any other feature on an
upper floor that overlook the rear and side yards
of an adjacent residence are prohibited.
18. Privacy Mitigation Plan
(a) PMPs shall demonstrate that adequate The PMP meets requirements of
measures, such as screening, setbacks, building 18. (a) and (b).
mass, solar access, air circulation, and light
access are incorporated into the design of the
project to preserve the existing residents’ privacy.
(b) PMPs shall be included with submittal of the
tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable.
19. Solar Access and Passive Solar
Solar Access
Dwelling units should be configured to allow Optional
solar access to adjacent structures.
Passive Solar
FLD projects should incorporate passive solar Optional
design when practicable.
20. Alternative Compliance. Optional
Alternative Compliance requests may be
considered.
General Comments:
Please respond to yellow highlighted comments indicated above.
Based on review of the DP Package for the Apartments at Hedrick, I recommend
resubmittal of the DP as indicated in my highlighted General Comment's above.
Sincerely,
Rick Gonzalez, Architect
RGA
07/01/2026 NPPO Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT See site landscape comments for NPPO monitor contact information requirement.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, PLA
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
06/29/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0626-00146 (1st Review)
Project: FLD-18 Apartments with associated parking, landscaping and drainage improvements
Location: 1439 E HEDRICK DR
Review Date: 6/29/2026
Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate
Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov
Related cases: TP-PRE-095-00174, TC-COM-0626-00146

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 Zoning and Land Use General Note: - If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area. [AM 2-06.4.7.A.6.C]
a. If this applies, revise/update general note #10.
2. Provide the general note: “Any Proposed signs will be approved per separate permit” [AM 2-06.4.7]
3. Provide the general note: “Retaining walls and/or screen walls referenced on this plan are to be designed by others. Elevations shown hereon are for reference only. The contractor shall confirm exact elevations. All retaining/structural walls and/or screen walls require a separate building permit and are not covered under the grading permit for this project’
4. Provide the development package case number (TD-DEV-0626-00146) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3]
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. 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]
7. As the subject property/site is located within a FEMA mapped AE floodplain with associated regulatory limits – a floodplain use (FPU) permit application will be administratively begun and processed for the development to assure compliance with establish floodplain regulations and standards. No further action is required for this comment.
8. To the greatest degree practicable, detention and retention basins within an FLD shall be designed as Functional Open Space by incorporating the Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design Guidelines described in Chapter IV of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the Floodplain Ordinance, and in accordance with UDC Section 7.6.6.C, Stormwater Runoff. Functional Open Space amenities within detention and retention basins may count toward meeting Functional Open Space requirements; and, developed in accordance with Section 7.11, Detention and Retention Basins. [UDC8.7.3.G]. Demonstrate how the Proposed basins to the North meet this design requirement.
9. Revise Vehicular parking calculations – the table reference 2018 IBC, the City of Tucson adopted IBC 2024 with local amendments at the beginning of 2026. Revise accordingly.
Site & PAAL comments:
10. As there are multiple retention basins proposed – ensure to name (identify) each with individual designations on plan view to ensure consistency with the drainage report and drainage design.
11. Pedestrian circulation is required to connect all buildings, dumpster areas, common areas, and the sidewalk on all the street frontages [TSM 7-01.3.3]. Demonstrate how this requirement is addressed for connecting the site to the proposed new trash enclosure at the Southwest corner of the development and connecting the north to south portion of the site together.
a. Its acknowledged that that there appears to be pathway connections for the North & south to meet where the valley gutter is proposed. Ensure to demonstrate on plan view (C3.0) that there is intended to be a striped path connection here.
b. Ensure that the pathway to cross the valley gutter maintains compliant conditions in line with TSM 7-01.0.0 & ADA standards.
12. Provide keynotes and call-outs identifying all new structure downspouts and sidewalk scupper locations on the site plan sheets. Sidewalks shall be flood free for all storm discharges up to and including a ten-year frequency flood event, and drainage flowing across any pedestrian circulation path shall be conveyed under the path for up to and including the ten-year frequency flood events.[TSM 7-01.4.1.E and 7-01.4.3.E] This information is required to demonstrate compliance and to ensure coordination with building permit plan review.
13. 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 Nogales Highway and Drexel 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.
14. 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.
15. Provide complete trash enclosure construction details in compliance with TSM 8-01.5.0. Details must address wall materials, wall height, gate type and swing, foundation, and enclosure dimensions. It is strongly encouraged that the figures presented in TSM 8-01.9.0 be used as the minimum basis for the enclosure and dumpster layout details shown on the plans.
a. If it is desired to proceed with the “Modified Dual Dumpster Enclosure” as shown by detail 1 (C6.0) - Environmental services approval will be required in regard to accepting that they will have no issues with the proposed modified & the turnaround/maneuvering requirements which require the service vehicle to enter and perform turnaround maneuvering prior to dumpster servicing. 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.
b. If approval is provided, it will be necessary that a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) be included in resubmission.
16. Provide a construction detail for the proposed ramp with the Northern most ADA parking space. Ensure that the detail demonstrates compliance with IBC 2024 – 2017 ICC ANSI 117 – This includes landing requirements.
17. Revise the site plan (C3.0) to delineate all existing structures that surround this subject development. This will be necessary to demonstrate compliance with grading comment #25
Grading & Drainage comments:
18. Show the 2-foot minimum bench grading setback from the property line per along the North, West, and South property lines. This 2-foot setback dimension shall be called out on the grading plan view and all applicable details, including all applicable cross-section details. Any reduction to this setback requires geotechnical justification demonstrating that no adverse impacts will result from the proximity of grading and drainage infrastructure to the property line. [TSM 2-01.9.0].
19. 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: This will be very important to ensure ponding is not allowed to occur within the proposed enclosure.
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.
20. The grading plan sheets are missing required floodplain information [AM 2-06.4.8.I]. Provide the following: [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.4.C] – This information should abide by the established FEMA FIRM & FIS information available – Information that has not been accepted by FEMA will not be accepted.
a. Water surface elevation (WSEL) contour cross sections associated with all floodplains and washes on or adjacent to the site.
b. Peak discharge rates (CFS) denoted at all points where floodplains and washes enter and exit the site.
21. Include spot elevations at curb cut inlets, landscaped water harvesting areas, and curb cut outlets for quick reference during site inspections.
22. Provide a construction detail for the swale proposed at the Eastern & Western property boundaries.
23. Any parking lot that is subject to flooding from either a Regional Watercourse, a Major Wash, or a Minor Wash shall have a prominent sign posted at each entrance to the parking area that contains the following words: "Warning, this parking lot is subject to periodic flooding at depths of up to two feet. No unattended or overnight parking is permitted". [Drainage Manual 12.3.3]
24. For those developments that will be located within the regulatory flood plain, as designated by FEMA and others, a note shall be added stating that the owner/developer agrees to (I) have an Arizona Registered Professional Land Surveyor certify the finished-floor elevations of all new structures located within the flood plain; and (2) obtain a Floodplain Use Permit from the City Engineer [Drainage Manual 5.2.6]
25. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to proposed basin on the grading/Storm Drain 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: [DSSDR 11.1.3]
s. Total volume, cubic feet or acre feet;
t. detention volume, cubic feet or acre feet;
u. retention volume, cubic feet; d.
v. first-flush retention volume, cubic feet;
w. Q100 in, cubic feet per second;
x. Q100 out, cubic feet per second;
y. Basin top elevation, feet;
z. 100-year water surface elevation, feet;
aa. 100-year ponding depth, (measured from the lowest elevation of the basin), feet.
26. 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 basins proposed at the Western property boundary of the site: This requirement applies to both existing and proposed structures. As currently presented, the proposed Western basins appears to be close to the existing structures to the West.
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.
27. Revise detail 13 (C6.1) – It appears that the design for the swale is to be uniform across the Eastern boundary, at least based off of flow-paths and grading contours. Revise the detail to show applicable set-back distances as well as intended slope treatment.
a. This will require that an additional cross-section detail be provided to differentiate between Eastern and Western Swales proposed as their site parameters differ.
28. 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: This applies specifically to the Western property boundary basins as well as the northern proposed basins.
a. Show erosion protection (riprap apron, grouted riprap, or equivalent) at every inlet and outlet structure on both the grading sheets (C4.0) 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.
29. Revise detail 14 (C6.1) to properly label the property line delineated.
Drainage Report Comments:
30. The submitted drainage report references and utilizes the FLO-2D hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and floodplain mapping for the Flowing Wells Wash Watershed, prepared by JE Fuller (2019). This study has not been reviewed or accepted by the City of Tucson City Engineer or Floodplain Administration and therefore cannot be used as the basis for floodplain determination or drainage design in this submittal. The following revision is required prior to approval:
a. All floodplain references, delineations, and base flood elevations (BFEs) for the Flowing Wells Wash must be based solely on officially adopted Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) data. The report shall be revised to remove the scope on the unapproved JE Fuller (2019) FLO-2D study and replaced with the effective FIRM panel(s) and associated FIS hydraulic data applicable to the project site. [Sec 26-1.3. & 26-3]
b. It will be required that the encroachment analysis be revised to follow suit with the use of established FEMA information rather than the FLO-2D study referenced.
31. Further Encroachment Analysis Revision Required
a. The encroachment analysis should be revised to incorporate not only the buildings & site improvements but should also include the entirety of the fill used to create the pads & site elevations overall. The current model presented does not appear to account for the 1-2 feet of fill used for site elevating.
32. A building pad constructed with compacted fill is required at the base of every building to achieve compliance with the finished floor elevation (FFE) requirements per Sec. 26-5.2(9) and 26-5.2(12). All foundation slabs shall be elevated to a minimum of one (1) foot above the established Base Flood Elevation (BFE) through the use of compacted fill placed beneath the slab. This will need to be reviewed and addressed for all building foundations proposed.
33. 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.[Drainage Manual 2.3.1.1]
a. Ensure to address this for the running header accordingly.
34. The cover sheet does not include a submittal number. Revise to include the submittal number in accordance with [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.1.A]
35. Provide the applicable telephone information for both the client and engineering firm responsible for the report. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.1.C & D]
36. Provide a legal description of the specific parcel or parcels in question within the Introduction section of the report [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.3]
a. A full legal description (lot/block, subdivision name, or metes and bounds from recorded documents) is required.
37. Revise the Introduction section A. to briefly describe the type, size, and scope of the referenced project. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.4]
a. The current Section I.A is thin. It identifies the address and general location but doesn't explicitly describe the development type (multi-family residential), the number of proposed units or buildings (three buildings are mentioned later but not in the intro), or the overall development scope.
38. On-Line detention within regulatory floodplains is prohibited without floodplain administration approval [DSSDR 4.2.3]. As such, please remove the verbiage regarding pursuing a detention waiver as it is not required due to the project being located entirely within a FEMA AE floodplain area. (Section I.C.1)
a. Ensure to further revise the section to include applicable first-flush retention requirements.
39. 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]
40. 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]
a. As the property falls within a regulatory floodplain – ensure to include that a floodplain use permit from the City of Tucson is required for applicable site improvements, as well as separate elevation certificates will be required for each individual building to be constructed.
41. 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. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.6.C]
42. Provide a geotechnical statement from the geotechnical engineer certifying that the proposed Swale to the West of the structure would be advisable & compliant with overall geotechnical analysis. The report describes that positive drainage should be maintained at least 10-ft beyond the perimeter of the building. Per the Drainage Manual 7.6.5 – buildings are to be setback 10-feet from drainage swales. It may be determined that the swale may need to be grouted to prevent Signiant infiltration near the building foundation.
43. Summary and Conclusions Section - The report does not contain a Summary and Conclusions section as required by Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.7. This section should be added and shall include, at minimum, the following:
a. A concise summary of all significant analyses and conclusions presented in the report, including compliance with City of Tucson first flush retention and critical basin detention requirements
b. A certification by the Engineer of Record, under seal, that the proposed drainage plan — once properly constructed — will adhere to all applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations
44. Provide applicable calculations and analysis used for the intended swale design proposed at the eastern boundary. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.5.C]
a. While the FLO-2D encroachment analysis in Appendix C does show depth and velocity changes, it doesn't substitute for explicit swale sizing calculations. The offsite flow discharges are quantified in the hydrology (E2 = 19 cfs, E1n = 10.4 cfs at the upstream watershed boundary), so design discharges are derivable.
45. The report does not demonstrate drain-down compliance for the proposed basins as required by DSSDR Section 4.5. The resubmission must include a dedicated section that calculates and documents the drain-down time for each basin using results from site-specific infiltration testing. The section should showcase this drain down compliance using the results from the infiltration testing completed.
46. The report does not identify the project's watershed. The project site is located within the Stone Avenue Wash & First Avenue Wash watersheds respectfully. This must be explicitly stated in the report per Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.6.A.1.
a. Revise Section 2.0 (Location) to clarify that this site resides within two non-designated basin areas, and as such undesignated basins shall be treated as balanced per City of Tucson amendments. This designation governs detention/retention requirements
b. Revise Section 7.0 Drainage Criteria – Revise Basin designation to include the scope that this project is located within a non-designated basin which is subject to balanced basin standards.
47. Storage Time Discussion — Percolation Testing - A storage time discussion section is absent from the drainage report. In accordance with DSSDR Section 4.5.1, a storage time analysis shall be provided for the proposed Basin utilizing the stabilized percolation rates established in the associated geotechnical investigation (Atlas Technical Consultants, July 7, 2023). The discussion shall demonstrate that the proposed basin achieves compliance with applicable storage time standards.
48. 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.
49. Revise Section IV.D Table provided for FFEs:
a. Northwest building appears to have an error – it shows 2777.6 for the FFE when it should most likely read as 2377.6.

Geotechnical Report Comments:
50. Revise the geotechnical report to provide applicable Slope Stability analysis – the report states site-specific analysis was not completed as part of the scope. This will be required as the project proposed 1:1 Grouted slopes for the basins.
51. Revise the report to include a surfacing requirement recommendation section to demonstrate the proposed surfacing pavements within the report fall in-line with geotechnical recommendations.
52. Refer to Grading comment regarding boring requirements.
07/01/2026 Site Landscape Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA
SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: FLD-18 APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0626-00146
ADDRESS: 1439 E HEDRICK DR
ZONING: RESIDENCE ZONE (R-2)
LAND USE: FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT
7.1.2026

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. SEE UDC 8.7.3.H -- LANDSCAPING, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. Also see FLD pre application conference comment under TP-PRE-0925-00174. Below is a summary of the requirements for a FLD landscape plan set.

2. The FLD has specific requirements. Please include a summary breakdown of the requirements listed below:

• Functional Open space per UDC 8.7.3.F: OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. See Table 8.7.3-2 for Functional Open Space Standards. Provide leader callouts pointing at the functional open space. A separate key map/plan that is color coded is simple way to identify the open space requirement.

• One canopy tree shall be provided for every 40 feet of pedestrian circulation system, excluding crossings with streets, alleys, and driveways. If providing canopy trees every 40 feet is not achievable, the applicant shall:
a. Provide the equivalent number of trees that would be obtained using the 40-foot increment measure; and,
b. Distribute the trees within the FLD project site along pedestrian circulation systems and within functional open space areas.

3. SEE UDC 8.7.3.F.2 CONFIGURATION AND LOCATION OF FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE WITHIN AN FLD PROJECT.

4. Label the existing and future ROW lines on the landscape plan sheets.

5. Clearly draft and label the SVTs on the planting plan. If trees end up within the SVTs, them make sure that the gal./box size is large enough so that the bottom limbs are at the 72” minimum height as stated on sheet L3.0 and the note about SVTs.

6. The basins on the west property line are close to the wall. Add a note to the plan that identifies positive drainage away from the wall and refer to the civil grading plan for more information. Add an additional WHIA schematic detail to show the wall and the slope away and into the basin. See *STANDARDS FOR STORMWATER DETENTION AND RETENTION FOR PIMA COUNTY. See 5.3.1.11.d UNDER: GENERAL STANDARDS FOR STORMWATER HARVESTING BASINS, NUMBER (11) for safety and access purposes, stormwater harvesting basins shall have the following setbacks, as measured from the top of the basin slope (specifically d and e below):
a. Minimum 1 foot from a sidewalk or other pedestrian access path and from off-street parking areas.
b. Minimum 2 feet from back of curb or edge of pavement for streets with on-street parking.
c. Minimum 6 inches from back of curb or edge of pavement for streets with no on-street parking.
d. *Minimum 10 feet from structures, or minimum setback specified in a geotechnical report for the project.
e. *Minimum 4 feet from the property boundary or other access space for maintenance access.

6. A NPPO Monitor is required to be identified on the approved plans. Clearly indicate the NPPO Monitor for the project with contact information (EMAIL AND PHONE).

7. Prior to site landscape approval, ensure that Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are fully addressed.

8. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0626-00146 on all sheets in the plan set.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, PLA
Landscape Architect
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
520.837.4923
07/07/2026 Site Zoning Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Jeffrey W. Cassidy, Planner
Planning & Development Services Department – Current Zoning Review Section

PROJECT: TD-DEV-0626-00146 – Commercial – FLD-18 Apartments with associated parking, landscaping and drainage improvements
1439 E HEDRICK DR TUCSON, AZ 85719 (R-2 Zoning)
Development Package Review – 1st Review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 08, 2026

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also, compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az_udc/0-0-0-8753

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above.

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 08, 2027.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a re-subdivision are to be provided. On re-subdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat;

1. COMMENT: Add Legal description HEDRICK ACREAGE TRACT NO 3 LOT 10 BLK E to C1.0 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.

2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0626-00146 adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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.

3. COMMENT: Remove zoning and land use note #10, sheet C1.0 as E Hedrick Dr is not currently designated as a Major Street and Route.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

4. COMMENT: Provide this missing information for E Hedrick Dr.

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.C - If the project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way.

5. COMMENT: Label Open Areas with letter designation per standard.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

6. COMMENT: Provide dimensions of existing sidewalks along E Hendrick Dr.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

7. COMMENT: Update the notes 29 and 30 on sheet C3.0 to reflect 3 EVR and 6 EVC as they currently depict 5 for the EVR and 4 for the EVC.

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.

8. COMMENT: Building setback dimensions (C1.0 Sheet) are inconsistent with Dimensional Standards under UDC Table 6.2-4.A. Update drawings to reflect appropriate setbacks.

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.

9. COMMENT: Indicate location of gang mailboxes and ensure pedestrian connectivity.

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.

10. COMMENT:Zoning assumes there will be a desire to advertise/direct customers to the appropriate building and entrance for this newly added use. Provide (draw, label and dimension) scale able exterior building elevations that include any proposed signage and label as ‘for reference only’. A separate signage permit will be required. Contact Mark.Castro@tucsonaz.gov or Georgia.Pennington@tucsonaz.gov for more information and refer to this permit number. That being said, if the design intent is a ‘monument’ sign, this will need to be included in the site plan to show compliance with setbacks and any vision clearance triangles.

MISCELLANEOUS:

11. COMMENT: Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next review based on responses to Zoning and other the PDSD reviewer comments.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED:
1. Corrected Development Package permit
2. Provide a detailed response letter with your submittal that clearly shows how you have addressed all Zoning comments.

To resubmit visit Tucson Development Center at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home .

Instructions for resubmittal - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/old-pdfs/double-old/resubmittals.pdf

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact jeffrey.cassidy@tucsonaz.gov

The Unified Development Code (UDC) can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Codes/Zoning-Code .
06/09/2026 CDRC Application Completeness Express REVIEW COMPLETED
06/15/2026 CDRC Review Coordinator Express REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added Addressing, TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to Addressing.  FYI email sent to TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG.
06/15/2026 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
07/15/2026 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard REVIEW COMPLETED Good afternoon,

The applicant has contacted us directly and addressed our concerns with the plan set. Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-0626-00146.

Thank you,







David Wilging

Planner I - Addressing Division

Pima County Development Services

201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor

Tucson, Arizona 85701

520-724-6381
06/15/2026 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/15/2026 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/15/2026 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/21/2026 Fire New Construction Standard REVIEW COMPLETED
06/09/2026 OK to Submit - Engineering Fast REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC Note: Include Fire and Environmental Services for review of Fire service lines and trash maneuverability
06/11/2026 OK to Submit - Zoning Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
07/13/2026 ROW Engineering Review Standard REVIEW COMPLETED Show proposed pavement cuts for utility connections.
Add driveway width for new driveway.
06/15/2026 ROW Review REVIEW COMPLETED