Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0626-00172
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/06/2026 | Commercial Plumbing Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Identify the material used for the water service piping. Reference: Section 605.3, IPC 2024. 2. Provide underground facility tracer wires for non-metallic piping per ARS 40-360.22. If you have any questions about this review comment, I can be reached at Robert.Sherry@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 08/13/2026 | NPPO Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | See site landscape comments. Thank you. |
||
| 08/03/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0626-00172 (1st Review) Project: Development Package for a small restaurant, GEMS Tucson Location: 3338 E FORT LOWELL RD Review Date: 8/3/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate & Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov Related cases: 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. Provide the development package case number (TD-DEV-0626-00172) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3] 2. Review and revise the XX of XX-page indictor – it appears they were not updated to account for the 17 total pages shown. [AM 2-06.4.2.D] 3. 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] 4. Site plan (Sheet 2) - Revise the site plan provided to provide compliant Sight visibility triangles for the site entrance: Fort Lowell RD is designated as an Arterial Road. This designation will be used for Table 5.3. Refer to TSM 10-01.9.0 Figures 16-18 for examples of SVTs. [TSM 10-01.5.0.] a. 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. b. Revise the SVTs to have a 20-ft measured stem side – not 15-ft. c. The SVT’s provided are for a collector road, not arterial. 5. Keynote #14 – Steel Edging – After review of detail H, it doesn’t show compliance with vertical separation requirements nor containment of the vehicle use area. Revise the detail accordingly. 6. PAAL/Access Lane width – the one-way access lane at the central roundabout will need to be revised to 20-ft width minimum as this would be considered the fire lane for the site. 7. 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 bicycle racks as referenced by keynote #17 on site plan (Sheet 2) as well as the existing building at the Northeast corner. 8. As the proposed surfacing includes stabilized DG – demonstrate on plan view how the parking spaces will be clearly delineated and distinct. 9. Compacted decomposed granite cannot be used for construction of a required sidewalk system. [TSM 7-01.4.3.C.6]. Demonstrate how pedestrian circulation connecting to ROW Frontage along Fort Lowell RD meets compliance with accessible route standards. This will require revision regarding the crosswalk shown at the North portion of the development. 10. The landscape plans show keynote 2.2 as DG path, but the civil site plan (Sheet 2) denotes this path as Keynote #10 concrete sidewalk. Revise the plan set to be consistent across all sheets. This path will have to remain as a concrete sidewalk. Waste Management Comments: 11. The plans do not demonstrate compliance with TSM 8-01.5.1.A, which requires that adequate space be provided for both solid waste and recycling collection services. Revise the plans to clearly show that each proposed enclosure provides designated, separate space for solid waste containers and recycling containers. 12. 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. d. Delineate the required clearance space in front of each container – 14x40 (single), 28x40 (double) 13. 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. Grading Comments: 14. Grading plan (Sheet 4) – its not entirely clear based on the spot elevations provided – demonstrate that vertical separation requirements are met per TSM 7-01.4.2 between the PAAL’s and pedestrian areas across the site. The TC vs FS elevations should demonstrate that the vehicle use area is effectively contained as required. [UDC 7.4.6.H]. 15. Provide keynotes and call-outs identifying all new and EXISTING structure downspouts and sidewalk scupper locations on the grading plan & 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]. Existing will be required to be compliant as expansion exceeds 25%. 16. The Grading plan (Sheet 4) has keynote #13 as a concrete splash pad, but it appears not be used on plan view. Revise the plan to show where this is intended for placement or revise to remove any and all unused keynotes from plan set. |
||
| 08/13/2026 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE FOR A SMALL RESTAURANT; GEMS TUCSON ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0626-00172 RELATED PRE APPLICATION: TP-PRE-0126-00011 ADDRESS: 3338 E FORT LOWELL RD ZONING: COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-1) LAND USE: COMMERCIAL REVIEW: 1 8.13.26 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. Include the on-site NPPO monitor and contact information for this project. 2. NPPO appears to be mostly complete and compliant. Thank you for the note with regard to mitigation requirements being included at the next submittal. 3. Hydroseed is an allowed form of groundcover per Tucson landscape code, but increasingly we would like to see a screened rock in its place for a finished appearance and to avoid the possibility of areas not taking to the hydroseed and becoming inundated with invasive weeds that could become a maintenance issue. 4. PER THE PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE REVIEW: The overall parcel land use is commercial, and the south property line and a portion of the east and west boundaries are adjacent to residence zone R-2 and require interior landscape borders. If it is believed that the existing vegetation is to be counted toward the required vegetation for that interior landscape border, then please provide the calculations that back it up. There may be supplemental trees needed to meet the standards of the code. 5. Provide quantity summary for parking lot trees required and provided. 6. Provide quantity summary for the landscape borders required and provided. 7. Include SVTs on the planting plan. 8. Include tree root barrier call out and detailing. The parking lot tree islands will need the barriers. 9. Include spot grades, curb cut locations, flowlines, etc. on the commercial rainwater harvesting plan. 10. Include WHIA and subwatershed information on the plan sheet. The legend looks good, just include the information graphically on the plan. 11. Prior to site landscape approval, ensure that Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are fully addressed. 12. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0626-00172 on all sheets in the plan set. Thank you. CHAD KELLER - PLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CITY OF TUCSON - PDSD CHAD.KELLER@TUCSONAZ.GOV 520.837.4923 |
||
| 08/12/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PROJECT: Development Package 3338 E Fort Lowell Rd, Tucson, AZ 85716 TD-DEV-0626-000172 (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 12, 2026 DUE DATE: August 10, 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 30, 2027. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.7 - A small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet. 1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.7 - Provide requested information. See redline on sheet T1. 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. 2. COMMENT: 2-06.3.8 – Provide requested information. See redline on sheet T1. 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: 2-06.4.7.A.6 – Include a general note stating “This project is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria of UDC Article 5.4, Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone (MS&R).” 2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A - A lot combination of the subject parcels for this development, 111-05-022C, 111-05-021A, and 111-05-0200, will be required. Provide receipt for a lot combination application processed through Pima County. If this cannot be secured prior to completion of the development package, this can be made a prior-to-final condition for the associated building permit (TC-COM-0626-00998). 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - If any of the required parking is located off-site as permitted by the UDC, a drawing of that parking area is to be provided, together with the city's required parking agreement (include a copy of the lease agreement if applicable) must be provided. Please remember that in these situations, if the off-site parking location is a new parking area, it must comply with all parking area requirements and must be allowed as a principal use by the zoning classification of that property. If the off-site parking area location is an existing parking lot, the parking spaces utilized for the proposed land use must be non-required parking for the existing use for which the parking area was established. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.b – Underlying zoning requires the proposed food service use to meet the minimum parking space requirements as shown in UDC Table 7.4.4-1. The parking calculations table on sheet 1 shows that 29 spaces are required, but only 18 are provided. No explanation is provided regarding how the remaining 11 spaces are accounted for. In addition, the parking calculations table appears to be incomplete. For a restaurant of a total of 2,908 sf (including interior and exterior dining areas), the minimum required parking is 29. For the associated office building (1,672 sf) in the northeast corner of the property, the minimum required parking is 6 spaces. The total required is 35 spaces. The parking calculations table only indicates 29 are required. UDC Section 7.4.5 indicates available parking reductions and exceptions. Given the number of parking spaces requiring reduction (from 35 to a proposed 18), an Individual Parking Plan (IPP) in accordance with UDC 7.4.5.A. would be required. An IPP is a staff review process that requires a public meeting and mailing. Please contact Mark Castro at mark.castro@tucsonaz.gov for more information about an IPP, including the process and associated costs. Prior discussion with the project team indicated that use of off-site parking at the Unscrewed Theater lot next door was a potential option to forgo an IPP. However, UDC 7.4.6 governs off-site parking and states “ The off-site parking area meets the design criteria provided in this section,” which would require the parking area to meet current landscape (parking lot tree) requirements in UDC 7.6.4.B., which the Unscrewed Theater does not. However, unused spaces at Unscrewed Theater can be proposed as part of the IPP narrative/substantiation. The minimum required of EV parking is based upon the amount of parking provided. As long as the request for a reduction in total parking to 18 spaces is approved, the amount of EV parking shown in the parking calculations table will be correct. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The minimum required bicycle parking spaces calculation are also short since they do not include those required for those office use. Show how many spaces are required for the office use (short-term: 2 spaces; long-term: 2 spaces). Please be aware that long-term bicycle parking spaces may be provided inside of buildings rather than as lockers; if so, provide a general note indicating that long-term bicycle parking is to be provided inside and show where on the associated building permit floor plan. Bicycle parking for the office will need to meet the requirements of UDC 7.4.9.C. and be in vicinity of the office. 2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.I – Please confirm that the future right-of-way for E Fort Lowell Rd is properly shown on the site plan. The Major Streets & Routes Map update of 2026 shows a future ROW of 100’ for this portion of E Fort Lowell Rd. Confirm with Jesus Villezcas at jesus.villezcas@tucsonaz.gov, with the Department of Transportation and Mobility, Right-of-Way Engineering Section, that what is depicted on the site plan is correct. No required site improvements, including required street landscape borders, can be located within the future ROW. ***For additional information on the any standard presented in this memo, please refer to the City of Tucson “Unified Development Code” – Administrative Manual Section 2-06 or Technical Standards noted in the comments. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-codes-plans-determinations If you have any questions about this transmittal, contact Site Zoning Reviewer Fernando Garcia at fernando.garcia2@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and comment response letter. To resubmit visit Tucson Development Center at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. Instructions for resubmittal - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/website/Resubmittals.pdf. |
||
| 07/20/2026 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP to the workflow. Fyi notice sent to PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP. | ||
| 07/20/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/20/2026 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/20/2026 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/20/2026 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 08/10/2026 | Fire New Construction Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 07/15/2026 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 07/16/2026 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 08/03/2026 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED |