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 | |||
| 07/14/2026 | ROW Engineering Review Standard | APPROVED | |||
| 07/15/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | APPROVED | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 07/15/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | eport Date: 06/24/2026 Description : Addressing Review TD-DEV-0725-00191 Address : , , , Record Type : Addressing Document Filename : Plan Set Reviewer Contact Information: Corrections in the following table need to be applied before a plan is approved Review Report - Resubmittal Requested Application Number: P26AD00500 Comment ID Comment Date Corrections Needed Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments DSD Addressing 1 06/24/262026 Yes 1-1-1 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Please identify which road is being used as primary access. This will assist with the assignment of addresses. General Comments Pima County Public Works 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 If you have any questions please call 520- 724-6490 for an appointment to discuss this notice. If following discussions with staff you still disagree with the below listed deficiencies, you may appeal to the Building Official in accordance with Pima County Code 15.04.060 by submitting the form posted on our web site with payment of appeal fee prior to permit application expiration. Disputes about the interpretation of the Zoning Code may be appealed to a Pima County Board of Adjustment under A.R.S. § 11 -816 and P.C.C. § 18.93.060. Please submit all plans, calculations and specifications to us electronically via the Digital Projects page in the online portal. Re-Submittal Procedures Please submit all documents using Citizen Access at permits.pima.gov (i.e. plans, drawings, calculations, quantities, exhibits, photographs, letters, etc.). 1. Please go to permits.pima.gov and login to your account to access review comments and resubmit. 2. If you have questions or need clarification regarding comments, please contact the reviewer. 3. Provide a response to each correction comment. 4. To resubmit, upload revised full plan set. Should the resubmittal not completely address this request for corrections, the application maybe denied requiring a new application and payment all applicable review fees in accordance withA.R.S. § 11-1605 |
||
| 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 |
||
| 07/15/2026 | External Reviewers - Design Professional Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | the architecture company at The Silverbell Ranch 2625 N. Silverbell Road Tucson, Arizona 85745 520 622-4506 / fax 520 620-6097 Flexible Lot Development (FLD) 2ND Review: Date: July 14, 2026 From: Richard Fe Tom, AIA, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional To: City Development Review Committee (CDRC) Re: Design Professional 2nd Review of the Mountain Flexible Lot Development (FLD), 3957 N Mountain Ave, Development Package # TD-DEV-0725-00191 for compliance with Uniform Development Code (UDC) Section 8.7.3.M.1: Design Criteria and compliance with Sections 2-06.5.3.E and 2‐06.5.3.F of the Administrative Manual. The following review comments are provided to detail the Design Professional’s recommendation for approval of this project. The review is based upon Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 8.7.3.M. Design Criteria and Sections 2‐06.5.3.E and 2‐06.5.3.F of the Administrative Manual. Unified Development Code (UDC) M. DESIGN CRITERIA (Section 8.7.3.M) Design Professional's Comment: 1. Architectural Variation a. Purpose: To provide architectural diversity, visual interest, and to avoid monotony in architectural design by requiring variations in such architectural treatments as color, finished materials, massing and rooflines, orientation of units, garages, and porches. Not Required – Architectural Variation is not required as this development does not meet the applicability requirements of UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1.b.(1) & (2) below. b. Applicability: (1) Projects with 20 or more 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. Not Applicable – The Mountain Ave FLD contains less than 20 single-family detached residential units. Not Applicable – Units 3 & 4 that abut Mountain Ave are single family “attached” townhome units; therefore, they do not require architectural variation. d. Architectural Variation Plan Required (1) An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this section shall be prepared in accordance with the Section 2-06.5.3.E Architectural Variation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. Not Required – An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) is not required for this proposed FLD development. the architecture company 3957 N Mountain Ave - FLD 2nd Review tac# 25015 COT 3957 N Mountain Ave FLD TD-DEV-0725-00191 Date: 07/14/26 Page 2 of 5 2. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties a. Where a single-family attached or multi-family FLD 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 proposed buffering shall be included as conditions on the approved subdivision plat or site plan Applicable – Lots 1, 2, 5 & 6 of this project development contain single-family attached residences which are to be constructed adjacent to existing single-family residences that are zoned R-2 along the west property lines. Complies – Proposed buffering for this project is primarily achieved through perimeter walls, landscaping, window placement, and architectural screening elements. Landscape plans are included in the overall development package; however, additional landscaping is not proposed as the primary privacy mitigation method. b. Privacy Mitigation: (1) Applicability: Privacy mitigation as required by this section is required when multistory residences are proposed adjacent to existing single-story residences and the existing residences are zoned R-2 or more restrictive. Applicable – Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6 of this project development proposes multi-story residences to be constructed adjacent to existing residences that are zoned R-2 or more restrictive. (2) Prohibited Improvements: Balconies, windows (except for clerestory & translucent windows), or any other feature on an upper floor that overlook the rear and side yards of an adjacent residence are prohibited. Complies – Site plan, elevations, and site photos have been submitted demonstrating the project modifications made to comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. The following proposed measures are found to adequately reduce visibility from the upper floors of Lots 1, 2, 5, and 6 into the rear and side yards of adjacent residences to the west and south: A 5-foot-high wall will be built along the western and south perimeter of Lots 1, 2, 5, and 6. Second-floor windows facing west (Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6) have been omitted. Only the bathroom window, positioned 5 feet above the floor, remains facing west. For Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, a metal jalousie is proposed as an architectural element to reduce indirect visibility from second- the architecture company 3957 N Mountain Ave - FLD 2nd Review tac# 25015 COT 3957 N Mountain Ave FLD TD-DEV-0725-00191 Date: 07/14/26 Page 3 of 5 floor windows not facing west. On Lot 6, a metal jalousie is proposed to be installed on the south-facing window to reduce direct visibility. (3) Privacy Mitigation Plan: A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is required demonstrating compliance with this section. (a) PMPs shall be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.5.3.F, Privacy Mitigation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. (b) PMPs shall demonstrate that adequate measures, such as screening, setbacks, building mass, solar access, air circulation, and light access are incorporated into the design of the project to preserve the existing residents’ privacy. (c) PMPs shall be included with submittal of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. (d) A PMP is reviewed and considered for approval as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit review procedure, whichever is applicable, with the Design Professional included as the reviewer of the AVP. The Design Professional will review the PMP for compliance with this section and forward his or her findings and recommendation in writing to the PDSD Director for consideration of approval. (e) The PDSD Director’s decision may be appealed in accordance with Section 3.9.1, Design Review Board Appeal Procedure. (f) Conditions of the approved PMP, including a description of the required mitigation and for which units the mitigation applies, shall be included as notes on the plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. (g) A PMP shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Approved - A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) and PMP Narrativehas been submitted in accordance with UDC Administrative Manual Section 2-06.5.3.F The PMP plan adequately demonstrates compliance with UDC Section 8.7.3.M.2.a and Section 8.7.3.M.2.b 3. Solar Access and Passive Solar a. Solar Access the architecture company 3957 N Mountain Ave - FLD 2nd Review tac# 25015 COT 3957 N Mountain Ave FLD TD-DEV-0725-00191 Date: 07/14/26 Page 4 of 5 Dwelling units should be configured to allow solar access to adjacent structures in accordance with Section 7.3, Solar Considerations. Complies – An allowance for the use of solar energy collectors (UDC Section 7.3.1) on the roof will adequately minimize the adverse effects of shadows cast from any proposed multistory structure (UDC Section 7.3.2). This allowance to be indicated on the Electrical Plans and shall be reviewed by the Design Professional prior to issuance of a Building Permit. b. Passive Solar: FLD projects should incorporate passive solar design when practicable. Compliance Recommended – See comments for Solar Access above. 4. Alternative Compliance Alternative Compliance requests may be considered for projects requiring compliance with Section 8.7.3.M.1. These requests shall be made per Administrative Manual Section 2- 06.5.3.E Architectural Variation Plan. No Comment – No Alternative Compliance requests have been submitted. UDC Administrative Manual Section 2-06.5 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) – Additional Requirements Design Professional's Comment: 5.3 Additional Information E. Architectural Variation Plan: When applicable, an Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC as follows: Not Applicable – An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) is not required for this FLD development. F. Privacy Mitigation Plan: When applicable, a Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.d of the UDC as follows: Approved – A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) has been submitted in accordance with UDC Administrative Manual Section 2-06.5.3.F. The PMP plan adequately demonstrates compliance with UDC Section 8.7.3.M.2.a and Section 8.7.3.M.2.b 1. Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; Complies – General Note #1 on Site Plan (Sheet 4 of 12) of the Tentative Plat clearly identifies that Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6 must provide privacy mitigation. the architecture company 3957 N Mountain Ave - FLD 2nd Review tac# 25015 COT 3957 N Mountain Ave FLD TD-DEV-0725-00191 Date: 07/14/26 Page 5 of 5 2. Provide photographs of the site plan and lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; Complies – Sufficient photographs of the site plan and photos of the views looking west and south from Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6 that must provide privacy mitigation have been provided in the PMP. . 3. Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and landscape plans) demonstrating how the proposed mitigation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. The plan should include when practicable additional design elements to increase privacy such as the siting angle of buildings, windows, and lots; Complies – A written Privacy Mitigation Narrative along with Floor Plan & Elevation drawings and proposed Landscape Plans for the units to be constructed on Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, have been submitted that clearly demonstrate how proposed mitigation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. Design Professional's Conclusions: After review, I have determined that the Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) for FLD Development Package # TD-DEV-0725-00191 has been prepared in accordance with UDC Section 2-06.5.3.F and that the PMP plan adequately demonstrates compliance with UDC Section 8.7.3.M.2.a & b. End of Review 07/14/2026 Richard Fe Tom, AIA City of Tucson, Design Professional |
||
| 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 |