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: DEV PKG - REVISION
Permit Number - DP14-0187
Review Name: DEV PKG - REVISION
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2017 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/15/2017 | ALEXANDRA HINES | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | DATE: October 10, 2016, Revised November 14, 2017 FROM: Corky Poster, Architect/Planner, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional TO: Carolyn Laurie (now Alex Hines), City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Department RE: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER Flexible Lot Development Review as per Design Criteria of UDC - FLD Sec. M DP14-0187 Lennar, "Robb Hill" This project has been selected for review by Corky Poster, Architect and Planner (AICP) with Poster Frost Mirto, a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). CP-PFM has conducted a Development Design Criteria Review report #1 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Director, and Principal Planner (PP), Carolyn Laurie. This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter 2nd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in accordance with their submittal requirements. To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the plans are found to be in accordance with the UDC recommendations and modifications listed below, CP-PFM will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PP. The PDSD Director shall make the final decision on the project's compliance with the Design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). GENERAL NOTE: 11 point letter Calibri ? Indicates excerpts or edited excerpts from the FLD or UDC for reference and clarity. 12 point bold and italicized Arial ? Indicates Design Professional's Comments Quoting from the UDC for FLD: "M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation a. Purpose: To provide architectural diversity, visual interest, and to avoid monotony in architectural design by requiring variations in such architectural treatments as color, finished materials, massing and rooflines, orientation of units, garages and porches. b. Applicability The requirements of this section apply to projects meeting the following criteria: (1) Projects with 20 or more single-family detached residential units except when residential units are on lots larger than 10,000 square feet or, where dwelling units are separated by 30 feet or more; or, #1: This FLD project contains 53 lots and therefore is subject to the AVP Review. This is still true. (2) Elevations of single-family detached units abutting a public street designated as a collector or arterial street in the Major Streets and Routes Plan; or, a private or public street designed and/or designated as a residential collector street. c. Requirements (1) The same architectural elevation shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot. #2: The applicant has proposed meeting the requirements of this section by providing four (now six) different floor plan models (Model 4072 [1-story, 3-bedroom]. Model 4075 [1-story, 5-bedroom]. Model 4062 [2-story, 5 bedroom] and Model 4067 [2-story, 3 bedroom + Next Gen Suite] Models 3570 [1 story, 3-bedroom], Model 3563 [2-story, 5 Bedroom]. Each of these four (six) model units, in turn, have three alternate elevations, A, B, and C. A, B and C elevations generally differentiate themselves by roof style, stone veneer wainscot, window sills and lintels, and window shutters. That leaves 12 (18) possible elevation types. The developer also proposes an exterior color palette that has 4 color schemes. The developer intends to reserve the flexibility of not assigning specific units and elevation designs to specific lots. 30 of the 53 lots are now permitted and the developer has fully built out all of the lots required to be single-story with single-story structures. Therefore, compliance with this requirement is proposed to be done through a "lot release schedule which will allow management to control which models are sold within the release pod. The release schedule will include specs and restricted new build lots with parameters to ensure that the AVP requirement that the same building elevation shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot." A sample was provided for lots 30-42. In the absence of specific units on specific lots, this management schedule, and the 12 variations possible, seems satisfactory if PDSD has an appropriate mechanism for enforcement. (2) Architectural variation may be accomplished by incorporating a minimum of two of the following design features into the affected elevations: different building footprint orientation, building elevation, garage placement, roof type, ornamentation, or architectural style. The applicant shall work with the City's Design Professional to ensure that adequate variation is achieved. #3: The variation proposed is substantial between each of the unit types: Model 4072, Model 4075, Model 4062, Model 4067, Model 3570, and Model 3563. The variation with each model (A, B, and C) is accomplished by at least two design features above. The cover letter indicates "The developer also proposes an exterior color palette that has 4 color schemes." The variation is therefore satisfactory if the "not be repeated more often than every fourth lot" is accomplished using the four (six) different Models, the different roof, window, wainscot patterns (A, B, C) and by utilizing different colors to accomplish the second variation element. (3) Garage Placement. For FLD projects with over 20 or more single-family detached residential units, no more than 50% of detached residential units throughout the FLD shall be designed with garages that protrude from or are flush with the front wall of the living area or front porch of the house. #4: In this project only one (two) of the four (six) models (25%) (33%) presented (4067) (and 3570) has (have) a garage that projects beyond the face of the building. In Plans 4072 and 4075, the garages are set back 2' and 5' respectively. In Plan 4062, the garage is set back 4' from a porch extension of the front door. In Plan 3563 the garage recedes 1' from the face of the building. These all accomplish the goal of making the garage feel like a receding element. So it appears that unless Plan 4067 (and 3570) is used for more than half of the constructed lots (unlikely), the developer can easily meet this requirement. The developer further points out that the protruding garage is on a 2-story unit which is restricted in its use by other subdivision requirements. Furthermore they propose monitoring the use of this plan in the lot release schedule. d. Architectural Variation Plan Required (1) An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this section shall be prepared in accordance with the Section 2-06.5.3.E, Architectural Variation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. (2) The AVP shall be included with the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit submittal. (3) An AVP is reviewed and considered for approval as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit review procedure, whichever is applicable, with the Design Professional included as the reviewer of the AVP. The Design Professional will review AVPs for compliance with this Section and forward his or her findings and recommendation in writing to the PDSD Director for consideration of approval. (4) The PDSD Director's decision may be appealed in accordance with Section 3.9.1, Design Review Board Appeal Procedure. (5) Conditions of the approved AVP shall be included as notes on the approved plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. (6) An AVP shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties a. Transition Edge Treatment: Where a single-family attached or multi-family FLD project is adjacent to existing single-family residential development, the FLD shall provide buffering in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residential development. Examples of buffering include, but are not limited to, landscaping, a fence, or a wall. The proposed buffering shall be included as conditions on the approved subdivision plat or site plan. #5: No information or explanation was provided in the cover letter regarding the edge conditions on any adjoining development. In consulting the Tentative Plat Plans and the Planting Plans (on-line at PRO), Speedway adjoins to the north, Robb Wash adjoins the entire western boundary, and a TUSD property adjoins the eastern boundary. Therefore these adjacent properties are not subject to the Transition Edge Treatment requirements above. Only the southern boundary has single family detached development and are subject to the Transition Edge Treatment requirements. The landscape plan shows a 20' wide buffer and sufficient plant material buffering to adequately protect the adjacent neighbors. The project is in compliance with the Transition Edge Treatment requirements. This condition is still met with the additional model units. b. Privacy Mitigation (1) Applicability: Privacy mitigation as required by this section is required when multistory residences are proposed adjacent to existing single story residences and the existing residences are zoned R-2 or more restrictive. #6: This condition pertains only to the southern edge. The subdivision, as per the attachment indicates that lots 30-34 are restricted to single story models. This is a satisfactory solution and the Privacy Mitigation is met. This condition is still met with the additional model units. (2) Prohibited Improvements: Balconies, windows (except for clerestory and translucent windows), or any other feature on an upper floor that overlook the rear and side yards of an adjacent residence are prohibited. (3) Privacy Mitigation Plan: A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is required demonstrating compliance with this section. #7: A PMP is not required as per the restrictions to lots 30-34 above. This comment is still true with the additional model units. (a) PMPs shall be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.5.3.F, Privacy Mitigation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. (b) PMPs shall demonstrate that adequate measures, such as screening, setbacks, building mass, solar access, air circulation, and light access are incorporated into the design of the project to preserve the existing residents' privacy. (c) PMPs shall be included with submittal of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. (d) A PMP is reviewed and considered for approval as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit review procedure, whichever is applicable, with the Design Professional included as the reviewer of the AVP. The Design Professional will review the PMP for compliance with this section and forward his or her findings and recommendation in writing to the PDSD Director for consideration of approval. (e) The PDSD Director's decision may be appealed in accordance with Section 3.9.1, Design Review Board Appeal Procedure. (f) Conditions of the approved PMP, including a description of the required mitigation and for which units the mitigation applies, shall be included as notes on the plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. (g) A PMP shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Solar Access and Passive Solar a. Solar Access: Dwelling units should be configured to allow solar access to adjacent structures in accordance with Section 7.3, Solar Considerations. b. Passive Solar: FLD projects should incorporate passive solar design when practicable. 4. Alternative Compliance. Alternative Compliance requests may be considered for projects requiring compliance with Section 8.7.3.M.1. These requests shall be made per Administrative Manual Section 2-06.5.3.E, Architectural Variation Plan. a. Design Professional Review Required: The Design Professional shall review the request for compliance with the criteria listed below: (1) meets the purpose of the FLD (Sec. 8.7.3.M.1); (2) does not create a safety hazard on an adjacent property; (3) does not create a drainage problem on an adjacent property; (4) reduces garage dominance in the overall subdivision design proposal; and, (5) is found to be a best practice. b. The Design Professional shall submit findings and recommendations to the PDSD Director in writing. c. Best Practices: For purposes of this section a best practice refers to: (1) design criteria used by a comparable jurisdiction; (2) a study or design standard used by the City; (3) a report, book, or study prepared by an expert with residential architecture or subdivision design expertise; (4) endorsed methods by a professional organization such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA); or, (5) a comparable study or design concept recommended by the City's Design Professional. d. PDSD Director Approval: The PDSD Director may approve Alternative Compliance proposals upon making a finding in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.1. |
| 11/15/2017 | ALEXANDRA HINES | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/15/2017 | AHINES2 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |