Permit Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0725-00191
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/23/2026 | NPPO Standard | APPROVED | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Design Professional Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-0725-00191 with the attached comments. Thank you, David Wilging Planner I - Addressing Division Pima County Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-724-6381 |
||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | ROW Engineering Review Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Zoning Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 07/02/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0725-00191 (3rd Review) Project: Tentative Plat for a 7-lot single-family Flexible Lot Development (FLD) at 3957 N Mountain Ave (±0.59 acres) Location: 3957 N MOUNTAIN AV Review Date: 7/2/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate & Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov & Joe.Macaulay@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 Grading Review Comments: 1. Provide drainage flow direction arrows across the entire site to delineate high points, low points, and positive drainage patterns. Flow arrows shall demonstrate that all stormwater runoffs are conveyed away from the proposed structure and directed solely toward the applicable adjacent Right-of-Way (ROW) or approved drainage easement. Drainage shall not be directed toward adjacent private parcels. Ensure proposed grades reflect a minimum of 5% gradient away from the structure for a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet [IRC R401.3] 2. Regarding the area between lots 2 & 5 – Based on the shown grading spot elevations (Sheet 9), demonstrate how drainage will be managed to not allow for ponding while also maintaining effective positive drainage from all structures & walls. 3. One-inch equals fifteen feet is not a standard engineering scale. Update the plans to include an acceptable scale. IE: one-inch equals ten feet, one-inch equals twenty feet, etc. 4. Lot 7 does not show sufficient elevations at the Eastern boundary – revise to demonstrate positive drainage away 5. Grading Plan – The Limits of Grading (LOG) are not clearly depicted on the grading plan. The LOG must be shown using a distinct line type to differentiate it from other plan elements and to clearly define the extent of proposed ground disturbance. a. Update the legend on Cover Sheet to include and define the Limits of Grading line type. All line types, symbols, and keynotes depicted on the grading plans shall be represented in the legend. 6. The surfacing construction detail will need to be revised for the proposed interior roads/streets - a complete pavement section detail demonstrating compliance with UDC 7.4.6.I surfacing requirements. The detail(s) must address the following: a. The pavement section design must be consistent with and supported by the geotechnical report recommendations. The report (Pg 15) recommends 2.5 inches of AC over 4 inches of Base Course. Revise the construction detail A provided on Sheet 9 accordingly. Keynotes etc should also be addressed across the plan set regarding surfacing. |
||
| 06/23/2026 | Site Landscape Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE AND TENTATIVE PLAT FOR A 7-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0725-00191 ADDRESS: 3957 N MOUNTAIN AV ZONING: R-2 RESIDENCE ZONE LAND USE: FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO: 2 6.23.2026 This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants, and water harvesting. Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all of the Site Landscape and NPPO Section review comments have been addressed. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. One-inch equals fifteen feet is not a standard engineering scale. Update the plans to include an acceptable scale. IE: one-inch equals ten feet, one-inch equals twenty feet, etc. 2. Provide a calculation for the required trees along pedestrian circulation systems and indicate their locations within Functional Open Space areas. *SEE UDC 8.7.3.H -- LANDSCAPING, SCREENING AND WALL REQUIREMENTS: 1. FLD projects shall comply with Section 7.6, Landscaping and Screening Standards, except as otherwise provided by this section. *2. One canopy tree shall be provided for every 40 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 site along pedestrian circulation systems and within functional open space areas. 3. Parking Lots as an accessory to this overall use requires a 5-foot wall. Include the wall along the south property line adjacent to the parking lot on the development package. Include the masonry wall on the landscape planting plan and all other plan sheets in the plan set and include a detail for the wall on the details sheet. 4. Show the proposed contours for the recessed functional open space per keynote number 2 on the grading plan. 5. **SEE LETTER (d) BELOW: If functional open space is intended to be depressed, then make sure the requirements are met for the top contour near a building foundation. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STORMWATER DETENTION AND RETENTION FOR PIMA COUNTY 5.3.1.11.d UNDER: GENERAL STANDARDS FOR STORMWATER HARVESTING BASINS 11. For safety and access purposes, stormwater harvesting basins shall have the following setbacks, as measured from the top of the basin slope: 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. Ensure all Site Engineering grading comments are addressed. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 06/26/2026 | TSMR/PDMR - Engineering | REVIEW COMPLETED | See TSMR Traffic Engineering review | ||
| 07/09/2026 | TSMR/PDMR - Traffic Engineering | REVIEW COMPLETED | TSMR approved - Jesus Villezcas | ||
| 07/01/2026 | TSMR/PDMR - Zoning | REVIEW COMPLETED | See TSMR Traffic Engineering review |