Permit Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0726-00176
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Commercial Plumbing Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | External Reviewers - Tucson Airport Authority Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Fire New Construction Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Historic | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | NPPO Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | ROW Engineering Review Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | ROW Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Landscape Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Zoning Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 07/22/2026 | Design Review Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | A complete SMD Design Package needs to be submitted and approved prior to approval of the Development Package. If you have any questions, please let me know: maria.gayosso@tucsonaz.gov. Thank you. | ||
| 07/23/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0726-00176 (1st Review) Project: Add parking lot, demolish existing structure, and renovate existing buildings. Location: 1046 E BROADWAY BL Review Date: 7/23/2026 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-0726-00176) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3] 2. Revise general note #8 – the City of Tucson adopted The IBC 2024 with ICC A117.1 2017 edition at the beginning of 2026 3. Provide the following 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] 4. Revise parking calculations to show how many ADA parking spaces are provided that are considered VAN spaces. 5. Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means [TSM 7-01.4.2]. a. This will need to be addressed for the pathway connection directly south of the northern parking spaces associated with the WILDCAT smoke shop as it connects towards the southern parking lot. The pathway is shown to be parallel to the alleyway. 6. Dimension the back-up spur distance/space shown at the Western edge of the site’s parking area & Southern edge. [7.4.6.F.4.] 7. The following floodplain information is required to be shown on the development package documents. Revise all applicable sheets (Site, Grading, Landscaping) accordingly: [AM 2-06.4.9.N & Chapter 26-8.(b).(5)] a. Depict the 100-year flood limits with associated Water Surface Elevations (WSELs) for all flows of 100 cfs or greater. b. Identify and label all off-site runoff acceptance points and on-site runoff discharge points, including the type of each. c. Revise Sheets both the site plan and grading sheets to show the 100-year floodplain limits and associated WSELs as established regarding the wash that exists to the southern portion of the property. This information is required to confirm that the proposed development does not create adverse floodplain impacts. d. Applicable erosion hazard setback must be delineated. 8. A Technical Standard Modification Request (TSMR) will be required for the proposal of a reduced PAAL width as shown at the southernmost parking area (22’-8”). For resubmission, ensure to provide the TSMR request form so that review/approval can be given. 9. Provide keynotes and call-outs identifying all new and/or 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]. a. This will need to be addresses as a new pathway is proposed along the Southern portion of the Existing WILDCAT smoke shop. 10. The grading plans lack sufficient spot elevation information at key drainage control points necessary to verify design intent and facilitate site inspections during and after construction. Provide spot elevations at all of the following locations: a. All curb cut inlet locations, showing both the top of curb elevation and the adjacent pavement grade at the inlet opening. b. All landscaped water harvesting area inlet and overflow points. c. All curb cut outlet locations, showing outlet invert elevation and the receiving grade immediately downstream. d. Top of curb versus finished pavement grade at key transitions throughout the site to confirm positive drainage and curb reveal are maintained as designed. 11. 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 12. Clarification required – the plans show the front entrance of WILDCAT smoke shop having a ramp. Based on historical proceedings with this property by Site Engineering, from previous discussions, there should exist a newly established ramp that extended towards the East where what appears to be bicycle parking proposed. Revise accordingly. a. Revise keynote #25 shown on the Northeast corner of the existing building. 13. Clarification required – The area where the trash containers are proposed, is reference with keynote #1 “Existing Asphalt to remain,” but the landscaping plans show plants and trees proposed along the Eastern boundary of this area. Provide clarification in the intended design of the open area, and how the trash containers will effectively be serviced through this intended location. 14. W.A.S.H. Ordinance - The Arroyo Chico Wash carries a W.A.S.H. (Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat) designation per Tucson Code Chapter 29, Article VIII. The following items must be addressed: a. Delineate the Study Area on both the site plan and grading plan. The Study Area consists of the channel, the banks, and the land area extending fifty (50) feet outward from the banks of the wash. b. It must be demonstrated why the resource area cannot be left in its natural condition. No development—including grubbing, grading, removal of vegetation, channelization, or any other alteration of the land—may occur within the resource area unless a mitigation plan is submitted to and approved by the Development Services Department Director in accordance with Section 29-17. c. The mitigation plan must include the proposed wash treatment and a preservation/revegetation plan, and must demonstrate that (i) the loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resulting from development within the resource area is minimized, and (ii) lost vegetation and habitat will be restored or recreated. Where a vegetated area is altered, the site must be revegetated to the same or greater density, diversity, and volume of vegetation as existed prior to the alteration. d. Revise the drainage report to include the analysis required under Section 29-15(1) for encroachment into the Study Area. Each required element of that analysis must be individually addressed. e. Per chapter 26 of the City code, no site improvements can be located within the erosion hazard setback. Includes required parking. Section 26-8. & Section 26-8.b.(5) https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az/0-0-0-19604. Revise the plans to show all proposed improvements outside the erosion hazard setback from Arroyo Chico wash 15. After review of the sites’ existing conditions & historic use of the site – coordination with Environmental Services will be required based on the following determinations: a. The site is proposing centralized trash service (Trash & Recycling) for three existing buildings. It appears that one container is currently existing while one new one for recycling is proposed. When a new waste container is proposed to effectively manage a site’s total waste generation, it is required that an enclosure be built to accommodate and house said container [TSM 8-01.5.1.B]. b. The site is proposing “Roll-out service” for the collection of the containers. 16. The contact to reach out to at ES will be Andy Vera at Andy.vera@tucsonaz.gov. Please submit the approval & directions/requirements provided by Andy for the resubmission of this development package. a. If approval is given, ensure to be aware that this request will be managed as a TSMR which will require the submission of a Technical Standards Modification Request at time of resubmission of this development package. Drainage Report: 17. The FEMA Panel referenced under Methodologies and Procedures (PDF Page 4) appears to be incorrect. The effective FIRM panel for this site is 04019C2277L. a. The same wrong number appears in the Works Cited, which also lists "June 13, 2016" as the map date—that's the LOMR revision date; the panel effective date is June 16, 2011. Same paragraph also contains "Flood Rate Insurance Rate Map" and "SHFA" (should be SFHA) 18. Existing Conditions (PDF Page 6) – there appears to be a mistype in describing the site’s existing watersheds – “The site contains there watersheds.” Revise accordingly. 19. Weir Design Consistency – The report describes wall openings functioning as the controlling weir for the proposed basin at the south portion of the development; however, this design is not shown in plan view. Revise the site plan and grading plan sheets to depict the weir openings consistent with the drainage report, including invert elevations and opening dimensions. a. The text states the weir wall openings are "distributed along the basing length of the north property line," but the basin is at the south end of the site discharging south into Arroyo Chico. Revise accordingly. b. The basin summary table shows Weir Elev. = WSEL = Basin Top = 2410.0. If the weir crest equals the water surface elevation, there's zero head and the stated Q100 out of 3.6 cfs is not possible; and with weir crest at basin top, there's no freeboard. Revise to provide compliant freeboard requirements. c. The basin bottom is 2409.25 in the table but Figures 5 and 6 show "BOT 2408.70"—a 0.55' discrepancy that also changes the retention depth/volume calc (the first flush table uses 0.75' depth, consistent with 2409.25, not 2408.70). Revise so that the report and plan set are consistent in regard to design and proposed conditions. 20. Erosion Hazard Setback Analysis — Arroyo Chico - An Erosion Hazard Setback (EHS) analysis section is absent from the drainage report. In accordance with City of Tucson Drainage Manual Section 7.4, an EHS analysis is required in association with the Arryo Chico adjacent to the subject property. The EHS analysis shall be incorporated as a dedicated section within the drainage report. All regulated setback boundaries resulting from this analysis shall be depicted on all applicable plan sheets in a surveyable manner. 21. A Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility section is absent from the report. This section is required by Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.2.E and must identify the entity responsible for maintaining all proposed drainage improvements, including any retention/detention basins, outlet structures, and any riprap erosion protection. This section should immediately follow the Procedures/Methodology section. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.E] 22. A comparative summary table presenting existing versus proposed peak discharges has not been provided. Provide a table addressing all applicable storm events (2-, 10-, and 100-year) and demonstrating compliance with balanced basin detention requirements. 23. The Arroyo Chico wash carries a W.A.S.H. designation. As such, provide a dedicated section within the drainage report that discusses compliance with applicable W.A.S.H. Standards. [Sec 29 Article 8] 24. Summary and Conclusions Section - The report does not contain a complete 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 25. Section I – ensure to include a “Required Permits” section that demonstrated that whether any other or no governmental permits are required for the scope of development. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.F] a. As work is shown to encroach into the established erosion hazard setback area, a Floodplain Use Permit from the City of Tucson will be required. 26. Soils description garbled: "The site contains Hydrologic Type 100% C soils, and Hydrologic Type 100% D soils” - both can't be 100%. Figure 2 shows two units (86/HSG C and 11/HSG D); state the actual split, and reconcile with the data sheets, which use different soil assumptions per watershed (E1 at 100% D, E2 at 40% C–60% D). 27. The First Flush section references water harvesting areas "depicted on Figure 7 in Appendix A," but the appendix contains only Figures 1–6. Revise accordingly. 28. E1 parameter check: Existing Watershed E1 is described as the unpaved south portion, yet the data sheet assigns "Moderately Urban" with 45% imperviousness and Cw = 0.86. Verify this reflects actual existing cover—overstating existing imperviousness inflates the existing peak and makes the detention comparison look more favorable. 29. Refer to comment #14 – Provide a dedicated section within the drainage report that demonstrates this proposed developments’ compliance with applicable W.A.S.H. standards. |
||
| 07/08/2026 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 07/16/2026 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added Design, Historic, Adot, TAA, PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP to the workflow. FYI notice sent out to PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP. | ||
| 07/16/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/21/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | Good morning, Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-0726-00176. Thank you, David Wilging Planner I - Addressing Division Pima County Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-724-6381 |
||
| 07/16/2026 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/16/2026 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/16/2026 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 07/09/2026 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 07/10/2026 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |