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: Active
Review Details: 3RD PARTY REVIEW - RESIDENTIAL
Permit Number - T21CM00984
Review Name: 3RD PARTY REVIEW - RESIDENTIAL
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2021 | ANY | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | RECEIVED | |
| 02/01/2021 | ANY | 3RD PARTY REVIEW-COMMERCIAL | AT 3RD PARTY OFFICE | Active | |
| 02/08/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ZONING REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: T21CM00984 309 N Park Ave Convert SFR to Duplex (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL: February 8, 2021 COMMENTS: the following comments are relative to an application for a Design Development Option (DDO) (UDC 3.11.1). This site is located in the R-2 zone (UDC 4.7.9). A single-family residence (SFR) is a permitted use in this zone (Table 4.8-2). See Use-Specific Standards 4.9.7.B.5 - 9. Perimeter yard setbacks a based on a measurement from design grade to the highest point of the exterior wall, see Unified Development Code (UDC) Article 6.4.5. The minimum setback is the greater of six (6) feet, or two-thirds (2/3) the height of the structure’s wall facing each interior property line (UDC Table 6.3-2.A). As dimensions were not provided from design grade Zoning will be adding an additional 3’-0” based on a measurement done in Bluebeam. 1. Based on a wall height of 21’-0” the required perimeter yard setback from the proposed addition to the north property line is 14’-0”, Propose setback is 6’-0”. 2. Provide fully dimensioned elevations for the proposed “Ramada” so that perimeter yard setbacks and structural height can be verified. As elevations were not provided for the proposed “Ramada” perimeter yard setbacks cannot be verified. Also the setbacks should be measured from the face of the columns not the midpoint, see UDC Article 6.5.4.B.2 As elevations were not provided for the proposed “Ramada” structural height cannot be verified. Per UDC Article 6.6.3.C the maximum allowed height of a detached accessory structure is 12’-0”. COMMENTS: the following comments are relative to an application for Architectural Documentation prior to demolition of historic buildings (UDC 3.12.1). The Pima County Assessor’s effective construction date for your building or structure is 1932. The actual construction date may be earlier. Buildings, portions of buildings or structures that are 50 years of age or older must be architecturally documented prior to demolition. Documentation will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Office before a permit is issued. Demolition (Historic and Older Structures) Application and General Information may be downloaded (PDF) at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-application-forms-submittal-requirements Return completed documentation to PDSDHistoric@tucsonaz.gov. Applicant will be contacted within 5 working days if additional materials are required for review. Additional Comments: 1. The DDO must be submitted as a separate submittal. This submittal cannot be submitted until Zoning comments are finalized. The DDO application submitted with this submittal is not the correct application. DDO application can be found at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/forms/DDO_for_Setback_and_Height_UDC_8.11.20.pdf This application package should be submitted at: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd-filedrop |
| 02/08/2021 | SSHIELD1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/02/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Engineering review of floodplain standards and requirements are dependent on historical status of proposed work. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |