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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Approved
Review Details: NPZ DISTRICT REVIEW v.2
Plan Number - SD-0624-00055
Review Name: NPZ DISTRICT REVIEW v.2
Review Status: Approved
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has submitted a very informative and well organized Design Package. I was unable to see the formal application, but the Design Package text seems to have covered all of the information normally contained with the formal application. The applicant submitted a very comprehensive project description, a narrative covering the Feldmans issues, an aerial photo of a portion of the Development Zone, a cover sheet and site plan drawing, photographs of the primary residence and the view along the west and east property lines, a street view looking east and west, and several adjacent properties. It also included photographs of before and after project images, with the latter showing renderings (which effectively demonstrated the very minimal impact of the design proposal on the street elevations of the house.) 2. Chapter 1 of the Design Manual states: Bullets 1 and 2 pertain to this project. The finding of the Design Professional is that the proposed improvement is virtually invisible from the street and the improvement has minimal impact on the appearance of the streetscape. It appears as if a further Design Professional Review is not required. 3. Nonetheless, the applicant successfully responded to the Priority Review Criteria for the Feldman’s NPZ. Specifically, these include: 4. Front Yards –Not applicable 5. Massing – Not applicable 6. Rhythm - Not applicable 7. Scale – Not applicable 8. Architectural Style- The applicant designed these small building additions to continue the style of the later addition to the historic structure on the north side of the building. While that previous parapet structure was not the most sympathetic design, it is included in the Contributing status of the listing and is therefore, by definition, considered itself to be Contributing. 9. Exterior Building Wall Materials - The stucco wall is an appropriate material. The keynote on page 12 states that, “Stucco finish to match existing (AZ Room).” The sample of the stucco finish is excellent. 10. Garages and Carports - Not applicable. There is no garage or carport. 11. Landscaping –No landscaping is shown on the site plan. Because the new construction is mostly in the side and rear, this is also not applicable. 12. Pedestrian Ways – Not applicable. 13. Porches – Not applicable. 14. Roofs -The proposed roof is appropriate for the north and south side of the building. 15. Vehicular Use Areas – No vehicular use area is shown. None is required. 16. Windows – There are no new windows on the east elevation. The windows on the west elevation (unseen from the street) are appropriate. The alder finish on the window frames are fine. It should be repeated that the applicant has submitted a very sensitive design proposal, with excellent documentation and a very complete Design Package. Thank you. I recommend approval of the Feldmans NPZ application for 1315 North 4th Avenue as submitted, if an approval recommendation is even required. Review by Corky Poster, Registered Architect |
|||
| Special Districts Application Completeness | REVIEW COMPLETED | Design package complete, sent to design professional for review 9-9-24. |