Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Number: TD-DEV-0824-00228
Parcel: 138100090

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0824-00228
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/13/2025 NPPO APPROVED
06/24/2025 CDRC Post Review Express PENDING ASSIGNMENT
06/03/2025 Commercial Plumbing REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. Comment not resolved; no Utility Notes shown on sheet S-1. [Initial comment: Specify the materials to construct the building sewers, water service, underground gas piping, and buried electrical services.]
2. Comment not resolved; no detail shown. [Initial comment: Provide a detail showing how the water service, building sewers, underground gas piping, and buried electrical service lines will be separated to prevent corrosion, cross-contamination, and to facilitate maintenance activities. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018 and Section 603.2, IPC 2018
3. A boxed note on S3 shows that backwater valves have been confused with backflow preventers. Backwater valves are to be installed in the building sewer, not to be located “adjacent to its corresponding water meter.” [Initial comment: Provide the first floor elevations of the proposed buildings. Determine the need for backwater valves per Section 714.1, IPC 2018, as amended by the City of Tucson. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2018.
06/03/2025 Fire New Construction REQUIRES RESUBMIT Provide turnaround for dead end in excess of 150', See IFC 2024, 503.1.1/D103.4 Questions: patricia.shelton@tucsonaz.gov
06/05/2025 ROW Engineering Review REQUIRES RESUBMIT TD-DEV-0824-00228 • 5740 S NOGALES HY

1. Provide complete details of all improvements within the public rights-of-way.

If you have any questions, please contact Richard Leigh at richard.leigh@tucsonaz.gov.
06/17/2025 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. Previous comment 1 not fully addressed – The enclosure wall detail needs to match figure 2 of TSM section 8-01.9.0.
2. Previous comment 2 not fully addressed – The enclosure detail doesn’t match figure 3A of TSM section 8-01.9.0 and the clear space is not clear with 2 bollards proposed in the middle.
3. Clarify inconsistencies throughout the plans on what the proposed surfacing is going to be (site plan shows double shot chip seal – grading and paving plan keynote 3 calls out asphalt 2” AC on 4” AB and refers to Detail 1/G1 which shows 4” AC on 4” AB)
4. Previous comment 5 not fully addressed – show the onsite maneuverability for the solid waste service vehicle to ensure ES can service the trash enclosure.

Stephen Blood
(520) 837-4958
Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov
06/17/2025 Site Landscape REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA
SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE - 4 DUPLEX BUILDINGS ON EXISTING SITE
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0824-00228
ADDRESS: 5740 S NOGALES HY
ZONING: R-2 RESIDENCE ZONE
LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY
REVIEW #2

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/NPPO Section review comments have been addressed.

SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS:

1. COMMENT NOT FULLY ADDRESSED, SEE NOTE NUMBER 22 ON SHEET L1. Replace all references to the COT/County recommended plant list with Arizona Department of Water Resources Drought Tolerant Plant List (ADWR) as stated in the UDC landscape and screening code. The bold note that you added is good. Possibly remove note 22 in the general landscape notes.


2. COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED OR THE WH-1 SHEET WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE SUBMITTAL PER THE APPLICANT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. IF THE APPLICANT NEEDS GUIDANCE IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN, PLEASE REACH OUT AND WE CAN DISCUSS. A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan is required. The set of plans does not include this plan and required plant water use spreadsheet. Provide the spreadsheet and indicate on the plans the Water Harvest Infiltration Areas (WHIA’s) and Subwatershed areas. Depict contours, flow lines and spot elevation in the depressed planting rainwater harvesting areas on the rainwater harvesting plan and the planting plan that match the civil grading layout and information. An outline of the WHIA with a hatch and spot elevations that match the civil grading plan on its own sheet is an effective way to depict the depressed basin areas. Clearly call out the depressed landscape areas with leader callouts and or keynotes and add a schematic detail that shows basin side slopes, depth of rock, depth of basin and plant placement within the basin. If an example of this type of detail is needed for the plans, then please reach out and I will supply a copy.

3. COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED, SEE ABOVE RELATED COMMENT. 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.

COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED, SEE ABOVE RELATED COMMENTS. 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: (See Civil Grading Plan for additional information on basin side slopes, spot elevation, shape, contouring, flow lines, curb cuts, downspouts, splash pads, etc.)

4. The Development Package Activity Number is not correct on the irrigation details sheet I2.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, RLA
Chad.Keller@tucsonaz.gov
520.837.4923
06/16/2025 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT PDSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: PDSD Zoning Review

PROJECT: Multifamily – 5740 S. Nogales Hwy.
Development Package (2nd Review)
TD-DEV-0824-00228

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 16, 2025

DUE DATE: June 12, 2025

COMMENTS: Resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also, compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

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 December 30, 2025.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. This comment was not addressed for sheets 4-7. COMMENT: 2-06.3.9 – The plan drawing shall be oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.3.9 – The index of drawings is not correct and shows 9 sheets when only 8 were submitted.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

3. This comment was not addressed correctly. The total number of pages 9 is not correct as only 8 sheets were submitted. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) shown on sheets 1 – 3 is not correct.

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.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(1) are met from the posts supporting the covered walkway to the PAAL.

5. This comment was not fully addressed. The 23’-6” PAAL shown does not meet the 24’ requirements. A Parking Design Modification Request (PDMR) may be applied for, see UDC Article 7.4.10.COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAAL located between the porch of the single family residence to the vehicle parking space to the west. Minimum width is 24’.

6. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per the 2018 IBC Table 1106.1 when 31 vehicle parking spaces are provided, 2 accessible parking spaces are required, 1 shall be van accessible, 2018 IBC Section 1106.5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The vehicle parking space calculation shall clearly show how may van accessible spaces are required and provided.

7. This comment was not addressed correctly. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Details 1 & 2 sheet S2, the wheel stop location dimension is not correct. Review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 and provide the correct dimension.

8. This comment was not addressed correctly. The distance between racks should be 4’ clear from the edge of the rack, not the center. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said clearly show all 4 – 2’ x 6’ spaces on detail 8 sheet S2, UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f and Figure 7.4.9-C.

9. This comment was not fully addressed. No height was provided for buildings 4, 5 &6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Provide the square footage, height and the specific use proposed within the footprint of all building(s) on site.

10. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the proposed width of the required sidewalk.COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Review TSM Section 4-01.4.1.B and provide the required sidewalk along the north and west side of the existing single family residence. This sidewalk shall meet the requirements of TSM Sections 7-01.4.2 & 4.3.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@tucsonaz.gov.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A revised development package as well as a comment response letter. To resubmit, visit the Tucson Development Center Online at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. The instructions for resubmittal can be found at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/revisions-and-resubmittals.pdf.
06/24/2025 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing REVIEW COMPLETED Good afternoon,



Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-0824-00228.



Nicholas Jordan

Site Review Project Manager II – Addressing Official

Pima County Development Services Department

201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 724-9623