Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: PLANS OK TO SUBMIT - RES
Permit Number - T06CM04901
Review Name: PLANS OK TO SUBMIT - RES
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/22/2007 | GBONILL1 | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/06/2006 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: T06CM04901 1045 North 3rd Avenue Additions to SFR in the HR-2 Zone TRANSMITTAL: September 5, 2006 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1) This review is for additions and remodeling of a single-family residence (SFR) in the HR-2 Zone (LUC Section 2.3.5.2.A.1). The proposed addition includes an office, dinning room, bedroom and storage. The Development Designator is "I" and the Perimeter Yard Indicator is AA (LUC Sections 3.2.3.1.B and 3.2.6.4). This site is located in a Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ) and is also subject to the Historic Review Process (LUC Section 2.8.8). 2) The ramada identified as existing in the southwest corner of the property does not appear in the aerial, dated April 2005, provided by the web sites of Pima County Department of Transportation and the Tucson Department of Transportation. Please provide copy of the last approved site plan, elevations and floor plans. Also provide the dimensions of the ramada and the setbacks of the ramada. (See comment #6.) 3) Alley access for motor vehicles can only be provided as secondary access. Primary access for motor vehicles must by provided from the street (LUC Sections 3.2.3.2.A and 3.2.8.3.B). In addition, Engineering must approve secondary alley access for motor vehicles. 4) Please remove all plus or minus symbols from the dimension on the plot plan. Also provide the lot dimension on the plot plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.5). 5) The minimum setback for the north property line is the greater of six feet or two-thirds the height of each wall facing that property line. Identify the height of each proposed wall measured from design grade to the highest point of each wall (LUC Sections 3.2.3.1.B & 3.2.6.4). 6) The minimum setback for the west property line is the greater of six feet or two-thirds the height of each wall facing that property line. Please provide the height dimensions as described above for the proposed carport and the ramada (LUC Sections 3.2.3.1.B & 3.2.6.4). 7) The minimum setback for the south property line is the greater of six feet or two-thirds the height of each wall facing that property line. Please provide the height dimensions as described above (LUC Sections 3.2.3.1.B & 3.2.6.4). 8) The minimum setback from the front property line to the structure is the greater of twenty feet of one and one-half the height of each wall facing that property line (LUC Section 3.2.6.5.A). 9) The plans submitted indicated that there has been a recent remodel. Please provide a copy of the approved plans. Also refer to the plot plan instructions provided by those at the Zoning Review counter. Please revise the site coverage calculations and provide all the required information on the plot plan. Site coverage is the footprint of all enclosed structures and the additions to each structure, plus all vehicle use areas. List each item, total them and divide the total by the lot square footage. Please revise and submit these to Michael St.Paul before submitting for Historic Review. |
| 09/06/2006 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/07/2006 | ANY | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Svt needs to be shown on the plans/PM |