Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T09CM01368
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/16/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The following comments have not been addressed from the previous review: A Native Plant Preservation plan is required. If the set-aside methodology is used, the mitigation requirement is for a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the site to be set aside in perpetuity as NUOS area. The area to be set aside is required to be be delineated and legally described on the site plan (with recording data included) and legally protected by a document, such as a conservation easement (Exhibit C), recorded by the County Recorder. The set-aside method typically requires an Environmental Resource Report that identifies the areas of the site with highest natural resource value. In this case the area identified on the TDOT Map as "Critical and Sensitive Biological Communities" would be an acceptable delineation. |
| 12/18/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/22/2009, Drainage Report: The Drainage Report is acceptable for site plan purposes and it is hereby approved. Additional drainage related information may be required with the grading plan. Site Plan: 1. A response letter, to the Site Plan comments, was not included in the last submittal. Without a response letter, the review can not be done properly. The previous comments are included below again. 2. Provide the 100-year water surface elevations for all floodplains that may impact the proposed structure as required by D.S. 2-02.1.15. Additionally, show the erosion hazard setback line for the onsite Pantano Wash tributary. The proposed structure shall be outside the erosion hazard setback line. 3. Provide the proposed finish grades around the proposed improvements as required by D.S. 2-02.1.16. 4. Since Nebraska is a public right of way, label it as such, dimension it and show the street center line (D.S. 2-02.2.1.19). Additionally, since the street width is substandard, show an additional 10.5' setback from the lot line inwards, to allow future street widening. The proposed structure shall be located outside all setbacks. 5. Show existing and future sight visibility triangles at the parcel entrances (D.S. 2-02.2.1.10). 6. Show all easements of record, if applicable, as required by D.S. 2-02.1.20. 7. Please be advised that a grading plan and a floodplain use permit are required for this project. The floodplain use permit is required for demolition work and the proposed driveway within the floodplain and erosion hazard are. 8. The grading plan shall clarify how the cut/fill slopes will be treated and or stabilized. A geotechnical report addressing slope treatment/stabilization will be required with the grading plan. 9. It is recommended that the Consultant/Applicant meet with the reviewer before the next submittal to ensure that the next submittal is granted and Engineering and Floodplain approval. Resubmittal Required: Revised Site Plan |
| 12/22/2009 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: T09CM01368 11221 East Nebraska Road New SFR 4th zoning review TRANSMITTAL: December 22, 2009 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 a new single-family residence (SFR) in the SR Zone (LUC Section 2.2.4.2.A.1). Provide the correct zoning on the plot plan, in the site data information and on all the adjacent lots. The Development Designator is "C" (LUC Section 3.2.3.1.A) and the Perimeter Yard Indicator is BB (LUC Section 3.2.6.4). This site is subject to LUC Section 3.5.7.1.F. 2) Parcels 205-66-099C and 205-66-099D have been combined on September 9, 2009 to Parcel 205-66-099F. 3) Access has been confirmed by Jose Ortiz, e-mail September 8th 2009. 4) There appears to be a SFR on the site according to the records with the Pima County Assessor and the aerial photos. The maximum number of units in the SR Zone is one (1) (LUC Sections 2.2.4.2.A.1 and 3.2.3.1.A). Provide a demo permit for the existing SFR. 5) The property lines on the plot plan are incomplete. Provide the correct property lines with dimensions on the plot plan. Also place dimension of the proposed structure and any existing structures to remain from the nearest edge of each structure to each property line (LUC Section 3.2.6.4). 6) Completed. 7) Completed. Please be aware that there may be additional comments relative to information provided on subsequent submittals. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2010 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/05/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |