Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Permit Number - TD-DEV-1024-00287
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2025 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 09/23/2025 | Zoning Modifications - IPP | APPROVED | |||
| 09/23/2025 | Zoning Modifications - Variance | NOT REQUIRED | |||
| 10/17/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 10/08/2025 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-1024-00287 for corrections. Please see the attached resubmittal request. 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 |
||
| 09/29/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit: TD-DEV-1024-00287 Location: 2444 N BALBOA AV Review Date: 9/29/2025 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. 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. Dimension parking spaces in accordance with UDC 7.4.6. 2. Revise plan set to show trash enclosure pad is sloped 1% towards the gate and the ramp sloped 2% away from enclosure. Right now, they are swapped on the plans, and the ramp slope is incorrectly sloped towards the side rather than directly away from enclosure. Use figure 3B in Technical Standards manual 8-01.9.0 for reference. 3. Provide more spot elevations and slope values for the parking lot to ensure proper drainage. 4. Vertical separation will be required along the center of the development where the gang mailbox is proposed. 5. Show that this project falls in compliance with 8-01.5.1.A by providing the possible space for solid waste and recycle collection services. 6. Provide in the drainage report that this project site is designated as balanced basin, it appears that the critical basin standards are being followed, this can be adjusted if this was misunderstood, but if it is pursued that is okay as well. 7. Provide the following General note “This project is required to provide stormwater detention and/or retention. The total volume of detention provided is _____________ cubic feet. The total volume of retention provided is ____________ cubic feet” Design Standards for stormwater detention and retention 11.1.2.1 8. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to each basin. Include a leader arrow to the basin or provide a label for the basin and reference the label on the top of the descriptor box. Include the following applicable information in the descriptor box: a. Total volume, cubic feet or acre feet; b. If applicable, detention volume, cubic feet or acre feet; c. If applicable, retention volume, cubic feet; d. If applicable, first-flush retention volume, cubic feet; e. If applicable, Q100 in, cubic feet per second; f. If applicable, Q100 out, cubic feet per second; g. Basin top elevation, feet; h. 100-year water surface elevation, feet; and i. 100-year ponding depth, (measured from the lowest elevation of the basin), feet. This information should also be found within the drainage manual. Design Standards for stormwater detention and retention 11.1.3.1 9. A Geotechnical report with soils testing will be required for this development due to the proximity of the basins to all structures. DSSDR 4.14.1.2 10. Show that erosion protection is used for all inlet and outlet structures. The erosion protection shall extend below the finished grade of the basin floor and/or side slope to the appropriate design depth. DSSDR 4.8.1.4 11. Show the 2ft minimum grading setback from the property line for the basins on the grading and site plan TSM 2-01.9.0 12. Provide A detailed Drainageway and Maintenance Checklist and Schedule Arizona Registered Professional Civil 2.13 Detention/Retention Basin shall be provided by an Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owner(s) referenced in the Introduction to the Drainage Report. Certification of such maintenance shall be undertaken by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer. Each of the privately owned drainage structures and detention/retention basins to be regularly inspected shall be identified, and the final design shall be indicated by referencing specific portions of construction drawings, noting the minimum frequency of inspection and identifying the expected range of acceptable performance (i.e., sedimentation levels, scour hole dimensions, etc.). Drainage Manual 2.3.1.6.C.1 13. Provide a summary/conclusion of the important analyses and conclusions presented in the report. Certify that the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations. Drainage Manual 2.3.1.7.A 14. For the northwest more parking space, show that back-up 15. Dimension the back-up spur for the ADA parking spot closest to the mailbox. Vertical separation is required to separate back-up spur from pedestrian area. Must demonstrate that pedestrian path is not reduced below 4 ft. UDC 7.4.5.F.4 16. Dimension the back-up spur for the northwest most parking spot in compliance with 7.4.6.F.4. 17. It is encouraged to promote the use of Multiple-use concepts such as human activity zones DSSDR 6.2.1 – This is not a requirement, just a site suggestion due to configuration of the site and promotion of useable open space creation. 18. Show pedestrian circulation connecting to the trash enclosure. TSM 7-01.3.3. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Marco Contreras Marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 10/09/2025 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE FOR MULTI FAMILY EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING APARTMENT ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-1024-00287 ADDRESS: 2444 N BALBOA AV ZONING: O-3 OFFICE ZONE LAND USE: MULTIFAMILY 10.09.2025 This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 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. The Site Engineering Review section included some comments that may affect the commercial rainwater harvesting plan. Prior to Site Landscape Development Package approval, ensure that Site Engineering comments are addressed and coordinated within the landscape plans if applicable. Thank you. Chad Keller, RLA Landscape Architect chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov 520.837.4923 |
||
| 10/17/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Bobby Parsons PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: 2444 N. Balboa Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 Development Package (2nd Review) TD-DEV-1024-00287 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/17/2025 DUE DATE: 10/03/2025 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 November 18, 2025. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.4.C – Previous comment 5 not addressed. Clearly label the section, township, and range on the location map as noted by the standard above. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, 2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c – Previous comment 8 not addressed. Clearly provide a percentage for the proposed expansion. 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. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F – Previous comment 12 not addressed accurately. Sheet 3 calls out this property as zoned C-2/O-3 which is incorrect. This property is zoned O-3. Also, across N. Balboa is zoned C-2 not C-2/O-3 as shown on your plans. 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.4 – Please label N. Balboa Avenue “public” as noted by the standard above. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Please provide vertical separation between the PAAL and the concrete pad where the mailboxes are located. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O – Previous comment 19 not addressed accurately. The setbacks provided on sheet 1 are incorrect. For nonresidential (multifamily) use to a nonresidential or residential zone, the setbacks for the side and rear are 10’ or ¾ (Height) of the proposed exterior wall, whichever is greater. As Balboa Ave is a minor local road, the minimum required street perimeter yard is 20’, as measured from the street property line (UDC 6.4.5.C.2.b). 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Previous comment 21 not addressed completely. Please include the height and square footage within the footprint of each building. ***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 Bobby Parsons at Robert.Parsons@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. |
||
| 09/29/2025 | ROW Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | N BALBOA AV is under pavement moratorium. New street cuts should be in compliance with COT Public utility manual. |