Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.4
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0725-00179
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.4
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 01/06/2026 | Commercial Plumbing Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Drawings for the Tucson Auto Mall Sewerage System can be found at: https://onbase.pima.gov/publicaccess/WW_NextGen_Single/etc/cq/results.html?cqid=161&OBKey__157_1=G%2D86%2D023 ] [Initial comment: Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: The location and size of the public sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). Reference number. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018.] 2. Answer pending. [Initial comment: Determine the need for backwater valves per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson.] |
||
| 01/16/2026 | NPPO Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Please see site landscape comments for NPPO waiver requirement. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 12/30/2025 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit: TD-DEV-0725-00179 Location: 835 W AUTO MALL DR Review Date: 12/30/2025 This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-6 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for waste management, Pedestrian Access, Hydrology -Retention/Detention Requirements, and all site standard code. Access Management Guidelines: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/access_management_guidelines_update_december_2011_final.pdf Drainage Manual Link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/cot-drainage-manual-searchable.pdf Design standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention Link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf Site Engineering Comments: 1. Previous Comment #4 not fully addressed. The master site plan only shows a SVT at the southwest entrance along Auto Mall DR. As Auto Mall DR is considered a local RD, all entrances along said RD would need the SVT triangles as 180’ for the near sides and 110’ for the far sides. Reference the Line-of-Sight Matrix figure found in TSM 10-1.5.3 a. It also appears that no SVTs were provided along Wetmore RD, as Wetmore RD is designated as an Arterial RD, use this designation for reference when referring to the Line-of-Sight matrix figure in TSM. 2. For the southeast site entrance along Wetmore RD, demonstrate throat length compliance in accordance with access management guidelines 5.11 The length must be 60 feet or greater. Based on current measurements done with the scaling provided, it appears to southeast most customer parking space conflicts with said compliance. Waste Management Comments: 3. Revise the Waste Stream calculations shown on Sheet DP107 as it appears they are flipped based on the totals calculated. 22785*.0013 = 29.6 where as the table shows it as 49 tons. 4. Add all the necessary dimensions to the trash enclosure details shown on Sheet DP108. Reference Figure 3A found in TSM 8-01.9.0. This will include showing the required minimum clearance area being 24’-8” X 10’-4”, the spacing between the bollards a. Due to the trash enclosure not following the standard dimensions or configuration, it will require environmental services approval as well as the submission of a TSMR to address the variations proposed. The point of contact at ES will be Andy Vera at Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov 5. The trash enclosure wall detail calls out a height of 8’ tall. As this is greater than 7-feet, it will be required that a separate structural wall permit with structural calculations/drawings be submitted for construction of the wall. Pedestrian Circulation comments: 6. A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. TSM 7-01.4.0. Please demonstrate how this is achieved for both buildings. 7. Sheet DP109 shows a detail for a wheel stop, when wheel stops are used along sidewalks associated with PAALs, it is required that the wheel stops be a minimum of 6-inches tall, revise accordingly. TSM 7-01.4.2.A 8. Wheel stops will be required at all parking spaces adjacent to the sidewalks so as not to reduce the sidewalk path to less than 4 feet. UDC 7.4.6 Sidewalks that are 6 and a half feet or wider will not require adjacent parking spaces to have wheel stops 9. Revise ADA parking sign & post detail on sheet CG-07 to show the required minimum height to be 7 feet minimum. This is required when the ADA sign is placed within a pedestrian pathway. TSM 7-01.4.3.B 10. Previous comment #12 not fully addressed, clearly show downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. to ensure that stormwater from roof drains, up to and including flow from the ten-year storm event, does not pass over sidewalks per Technical Standards Manual 7-01.4.3E. The South Proposed building lacks callouts for both downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. The north building calls out only existing downspouts but no sidewalk scuppers. Revise accordingly. 11. The provided striped pathway that goes east to the proposed trash enclosure and runs parallel with the drive lane does not comply with TSM 7-01.4.0 It will require some form of vertical separation. Vertical separation is required when there is a sidewalk associated with PAALs. Technical Standards Manual 7-01.4.1.B. Either some form of separation must be given, or reconsideration on the location of said pathway must be done. Drainage comments: 12. Previous comment #1 not fully addressed. It will be required to be demonstrated that the development proposed follows the City of Tucson’s balanced basin detention requirement as well as the first flush retention requirements. It will be required to demonstrate that the sites’ proposed development is equal to or less than pre-development sites peak discharges for the associated 2-, 10-, & 100-year storm events. This includes providing the necessary calculations and the City of Tucson hydrologic data sheets. Refer to the drainage manual Chapter 2 & 4 as well as the DSSDR Sections 2, 3, 4, & 10. 13. The drainage statement provided is required to be stamped by a registered civil engineer or hydrologist. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Marco Contreras Marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 01/16/2026 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: REDEVELOPMENT OF TWO ADJACENT PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN THE TUCSON AUTO MALL ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0725-00179 ADDRESS: 835 W AUTO MALL DR ZONING: C-3 COMMERCIAL ZONE LAND USE: COMMERCIAL AUTO DEALERSHIP REVIEW #2 01.16.2026 THE PROPOSED PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER THE CITY OF TUCSON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC), TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL (TSM), AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL (AM) FOR SITE LANDSCAPE, NATIVE PLANTS, AND RAINWATER HARVESTING. 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: **Overall, the site landscape plan set looks great. A few additional items to be added to the plans for coordination for the contractors and inspectors. 1. On the rainwater harvesting plan add these general notes for construction clarity. Wording similar to the following will provide clear direction/coordination and intent for the contractor’s reference: a. See Civil Grading Plan for additional information on basin side slopes, spot elevations, shape/contouring, flow lines, curb cut inlets and outlets, downspouts, splash pads, and scuppers. b. This Rainwater Harvesting Plan is designed to work in conjunction with the civil grading and drainage plans. The specific intent of the Rainwater Harvesting Plan is to demonstrate that the site grading and drainage facilitates direct flow of impervious-surface runoff in sufficient quantities to the depressed planting areas to comply with the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to meet the requirements of Site Grading and Drainage plans and the Rainwater Harvesting Plan and to notify the engineer of any discrepancies between the two plans. 2. As a standard practice, a few spot elevations on the CRWHP at the bottom of basin and basin curb cut inlets and outlets that match the civil grading plan for coordination between the plans should be included on the CRWHP. Just a few spot elevations in key locations as a quick reference for the contractor and inspectors. 3. The sight visibility triangle linework appears to be in place on the planting plan, but they are not called out clearly. Per site engineering comments with regard to sight visibility triangles, please use a leader callout that indicates clearly where the SVTs are located and plant material is within the SVT. Additionally, possibly make the SVT linework a bit heavier line type. 4. Instead of using a plus/minus diameter designation for the crushed rock, please update it to a sized screened rock. IE: ¾ inch screen rock, Coronado Brown or equal or (whatever desert color scheme you prefer as the landscape architect of record). The plus/minus designation and minus material in general at project implementation ends up including too many fines in the material and not meeting the intent of the inorganic ground cover for dust control and aesthetics. With this being said, a simple inorganic groundcover detail and its interaction with hardscape can be added. Include the reveal at sidewalk/curbing/any hardscape and dimensions of depths of material (2” layer of screened rock) and subbase material. 5. Add detail 420 - emitter location detail-trees, and detail 421 - emitter location detail-shrubs, to your irrigation details sheet. PDF copies per the City’s website can be found here for your use: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Landscape/Landscape-Architects 6. On the landscape demolition and removal legend for existing trees on sheet L-100, state that no protected native plants are being removed and reference the NPPO Waiver. See below attached link to a fillable NPPO waiver to be filled out and submitted with the next submittal. The NPPO Waiver is just for redundant clarity as the NPP Ordinance is a very important part of project sites in Tucson. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/applicationsforms/nppoapp-2025-v.2-fillable-1.pdf Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 01/28/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Loran Shamis PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: 835 W Automall Drive – remodel/expansion used car Showroom and Service Building 810 W Automall Drive – demolition/reconstruct new Honda Showroom and Service Drive Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-0725-00179 (835 and 810 W Auto Mall Dr) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 28, 2026 DUE DATE: January 20, 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 September 16, 2026. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.10 – The key should be related to site drawings and not building code. This comment was not addressed - Include a legend that shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing is to be provided, preferably on the first sheet. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.B – Include the brief legal description on sheets 28-33. This comment was not fully addressed - Include a brief legal description to the title block of each sheet. Per Pima County Assessor’s the brief legal description is “TUCSON AUTO MALL LOT B, LOT 13 EXC RD, AND PTN WLY 122.22' LOT 14”. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 - Include the annexation case number to sheets 28-33. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4 – Provide a scale for the project-location map which shall be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 5. COMMENT: The total parcel area for Lot 14 does not appear to be correct. According to the Pima County Assessors Map, Lot 14 is 156,538 square feet and the plans state the area is 101,800 square feet. Please update accordingly. 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. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.A – Provide the recordation information for the Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property once recorded through Pima County Recorders. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.G - COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges the required/provide parking is stated on each sheet; however, please provide the parking calculations used for each phase to verify the minimum parking requirement is met at each phase per UDC Table 7.4.4-1. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Dimension the PAAL/fire lane to the north of the proposed Service Building in accordance with UDC 7.4.6. According to the plan on DP106, the fire lane to the north of the service building is 20’. Per UDC 7.4.6, one-way access lanes or PAALs serving as a fire lane are required to be a minimum 20’ wide. Either clearly demonstrate how this PAAL will remain as a one-way access lane or dimension at a PAAL that is a minimum of 24’ wide for two-way PAAL serving as a fire lane. 11. COMMENT: The square footage for the Service Building in the parking calculation states there is 37,358 square feet which is not consistent with the 37,350 square feet that is stated within the building footprint on Sheet DP106. Please update so they are consistent. 12. COMMENT: Remove the note in the title block on the right side of each sheet that states the “Issued Date: 12/19/2025” as these plans have not been issued. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – It does not appear the 1 space per 10,000 square feet of lot area was applied in the parking calculation. According to the Pima County Assessors Map, Parcel B is 8,921 square feet, Parcel 13 is 165,972 square feet and Parcel 14 is 156,538 square feet which is equal to 331,431 square feet, requiring an additional 33 parking spaces. The total number of parking spaces required for all uses is 214. Please update accordingly. This comment was not fully addressed - Per UDC 7.4.4-1, the minimum required parking for Retail – Vehicle Rental and Sales is 1 space per 400 sq. ft. GFA of show room, retail, and office area, plus 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. of gross lot area, plus 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA of Automotive and Vehicle Repair use. 14. COMMENT: Per UDC 7.4.6.C, parking spaces used for storage or display of vehicles for sale or rent to the public are not counted towards required parking. The total required parking space is 214 but it appears there are only 157 parking spaces provided excluding the parking spaces dedicated to inventory (new) and inventory (preowned). Please update accordingly. 15. COMMENT: Per UDC 7.4.6.B.3 – Tandem Parking for motor vehicles are only allowed for vehicle storage or display when accessory to the principal use. Demonstrate the parking spaces designed as tandem parking are excess parking spaces beyond what is required for the minimum parking. 16. COMMENT: 2.06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC Figure 7.4.6-C Wheel Stop Curbing, the 2.5’ is measured from the front of the parking space to the opposite side of the wheel stop. 17. COMMENT: Provide a wheel stop to any parking spaces adjacent to a sidewalk to ensure the vehicular overhang does not reduce the sidewalk width to less than 4’ (TSM 7.01.4.3) 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Clarify the number and location of both the short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces on the site plan. It is unclear from the site plan how many short term spaces are at each location. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Per Technical Standards Manual 7-01.4.1.C, a sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene (Figure 2). Demonstrate compliance with this standard. 20. COMMENT: Provide the recordation information from Pima County Recorders once the reciprocal agreement has been completed and recorded. ***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 Loran Shamis by email Loran.Shamis@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. |
||
| 01/13/2026 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | Curb Returns are still acceptable to use for driveways as long as driveway is concrete from curb line to behind of sidewalk and cross-slope does not exceed 2% in crosswalk area. ROW permit required prior to working in the ROW. |