Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP16-0121
Parcel: 113084990

Address:
816 E HEDRICK DR

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP16-0121
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/20/2016 AHINES2 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
07/20/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed Property outside of the Avigation Easement and Disclosure Area.
07/21/2016 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. The development will has no impact to ADOT facilities

due to its proposed location. Thank you.
07/29/2016 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR

TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)

FROM: Ada Griffin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: July 26, 2016

RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

DP16-0121 TENTATIVE PLAT FOR PARK MODERN WEST

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS:


THE BELOW COMMENTS ARE BASED ON PAGES 1 AND 9 OF THE TENTATIVE PLAT PACKAGE. ALL OTHER PAGES DON'T APPEAR TO APPLY TO OUR OFFICE.

" GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS AND THE BASIS OF BEARING.

" OWNERSHIP DOESN'T APPEAR TO MATCH OUR RECORDS. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THE OWNERS ARE:

113-08-296B - PSSW INVESTMENTS LLC

113-08-2980 - PARK MODERN ACQUISTIONS LLC

113-08-291A - PARK MODERN ACQUISTIONS LLC


NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
07/29/2016 AHINES2 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change See Letter in Documents folder in Associated Documents button under PRO.

DP16-0121 Park Modern West Tentative Plat / 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections. Please see Pima County Addressing’s sticky note comments on the attached pdf. A Comment Summary is also attached for your convenience.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Robin Freiman
Addressing Specialist
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
08/03/2016 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Reqs Change See map and mark ups in Documents folder in Associated Documents and Plans button on PRO.

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) is not able to approve the 1st submittal of the tentative plat for DP16-0121 Park Modern West submitted July 20, 2016.

Attached is a copy of TEP’s facility map the existing overhead facilities must be shown on the plat as well as the 18’ wide utility easement granted by Garden Homes Annex subdivision plat, Book-6 @ Page-54. Also attached is a markup copy of the plat with TEP comments.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 917-8745.

Thank you,

Liza Castillo
Right-of-Way Agent II,
Land Resources
Tucson Electric Power
& UNS Energy Corp.
520/917-8745 (o)
520/904-2668 (m)
lcastillo@tep.com
08/03/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The finished floor elevations of lots 28 and 29 appear to be less than 12" above the rim of the next upstream manhole. Indicate the need for a backwater valve for these lots. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
08/09/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
08/10/2016 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Per 2012 International Fire Code, appendix D103.1, minimum road width shall be 26'.
Please review appendix D103.6.1 and D103.6.2 regarding signage and indicate on plan locations of signs. Be advised the dipiction of what the signs should look like in D103.6 is incorrect.
08/11/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principle Planner

PROJECT: Park Modern West
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0121

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 12, 2016

DUE DATE: August 16, 2016

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is July 18, 2017.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0121, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide the Architectural Variation Plan case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Also provide a general note station the Architectural Variation Plan case number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval on the plan.

3. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide the Privacy Mitigation Plan case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Also provide a general note station the Privacy Mitigation Plan case number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval including a description of the required mitigation and for which units the mitigation applies on the plan.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

4. 2-06.4.9.F - Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Hedrick and east of Tyndall on the Project Overview Plan.

5. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - It's not clear if you are proposing a parking area access lane to access the garage or a private street. Sheet 3 calls out "DRIVE" and on sheet 4 the sections and the title block call out "STREET". Clarify if you are proposing a drive or street.

6. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Sheet 4 has sections for streets "A" & "B", what about drive "C" called out on sheet 3.

7. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - It appears that the street sections called out on sheet 4 are labeled incorrectly.

8. 2-06.4.9.O - Clarify what "SETBACK EXHIBITS "F" & "G" are for. 2/3 of 10' would be 6.67 not 10.5 as shown and 2/3 of 22 would be 14.67 not 52. 86 as shown?

9. 2-06.4.9.O - Per UDC Section 11.4.5 Definitions - D, Developing Area An area where less than 50% of the linear street frontage of all property, excluding alleys and drainageways, located on the same side of the street and within the same block as the proposed development is occupied by principal structures that conform to the minimum front street perimeter setback required for the applicable zoning classification or street frontage, it does not appear that the north and east street frontage qualifies for developing area setbacks as shown on the "BUILDING SETBACKS" table sheet 1. Demonstrate how you meet developing area or provide the correct building setbacks for Established Area Setbacks.

10. 2-06.4.9.R - Depending on how comment 5 is addressed the following may apply; per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located or TSM Section 10-01.2.7.A All streets require a sidewalk area on each side of the street. Provide the required sidewalks along the PAALS or street.

11. 2-06.4.9.V - If applicable show the proposed location of the gang mailboxes.

12. 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

13. 2-06.5.2.B - Sheet 2 "FLEXIBLE LOT DESIGN NOTES 3-01.3.1.J, none of the proposed plans appear to have a screened porch.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
08/12/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
08/12/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 12, 2016
DUE DATE: August 16, 2016
SUBJECT: New Subdivision/FLD
TO: Kevin M. Hall, PE
LOCATION: 801 E Blacklidge
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0121
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0121).
2) Per AM 2-06.4.9N2 please provide additional detail on the plans to show how the runoff within proposed watershed 1 will be conveyed to the PAAL. The spot grades shown on sheet 4 seem to show the same elevation at both the front and back of the lot. There is a 1/10 of a foot drop off between the front of the lots and the header curb. Lot grading details for all of the different lot types that show how drainage complies with the drainage report's proposed drainage conditions map will address this comment. Per TSM 2-01.10.4 please show minimum 2% pad drainage slope.
3) Per UDC 7.6.6C2 please provide additional detail on how the hardscape surfaces will be discharged to depressed water harvesting areas. Sheet 4 shows drainage slopes (ie. 3%) that do not seem to reflect upstream and downstream spot grades (ie. 65.28 and 65.16 over a 100 feet length of vertical curb). There are also drainage slopes of 0.7% and 1.15% that seem to be directed at each other (in opposite directions) on sheet 4 in PWS1 without any clear discharge point. Since the drive uses an inverted crown it doesn't appear as though the opposing drainage slopes would be able to flow in opposite directions without mixing and ponding. Detail E on sheet 7 does not seem to be called out anywhere on the plans. Please update accordingly.
4) Please provide spot grade and/or other detail of how the flow gets to the low point (62.24) in PWS1 with the inverted crown called out by private street sections shown on sheet 4.
5) Keynote 16 on sheet 3 and the private street section details on sheet 4 refer to details on sheet 6 that are actually shown on sheet 7. Please update the plans accordingly.
6) PWS2 shows cross lot drainage where one private lot is draining directly to another private lot. Please show updated drainage schematic to show how positive drainage from private lots is routed directly to the either depressed water harvesting areas or to the private drives before being routed to the depressed water harvesting areas.
7) Per Section 2.3.1.4, item C2 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) please show identify all flow quantities with flow arrows on sheet 4 of the development plans. This would include the cross lot drainage swales if they are not updated in the next submittal. The lot drainage detail should clarify how these drainage swales are offset at least 10 feet from residential structures per Section 7.6.5 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) at part of the lot drainage detail.
8) Per Section 12.2.1, item 1 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) show how the street/private drive drainage from the 10-year storm is conveyed between the curbs.
9) Per Section 12.2.1, item 3 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) show the 100 year water surface elevations for the street/private drives are at least one foot below each of the finished floor elevations. This includes the street flows from Blacklidge Drive. Please see AM 2-06.4.9N6.
10) Per Section 5.2, item 2, of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) please plat the 100 year floodplain limits and water surface elevations upstream of each proposed house pad such that the finished floor elevation for each property shown on the plan is 1 foot above the water surface elevation from the street. See also Tucson Code Chapter 26-8(b) for additional requirements. Many of the finished floor elevations shown on sheet 4 north of Blacklidge Drive appear to not have the 1 foot of freeboard required for lots within/adjacent to a floodplain.
11) Per Tucson Code Chapter 26-8(d) please show how any lots being platted as part of this development contain a building site either natural or manmade, which is not subject to flood-related erosion or to flooding during the base flood. If any home site is to be located within an area where the floodplain limits are to be delineated based on flows along Blacklidge Drive then the requirements of Tucson Code Chapter 26-8(d)(2) must be met regarding fill and the 25' setback between the structure and the top of fill slope. See Also UDC 8.3.1A2.
12) Per Section 12.2.1, item 7 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) the amount (ie. volume) of water leaving the site shall not increase under developed conditions.
13) Please show detention/retention calculations that comply with section 1.4 of the Detention Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3) such that for densities over 6 residents per acre, 5 year threshold retention is provided. The 15:1 ration with the 9" depressed water harvesting cited in the detention/retention narrative of the drainage report is not a standard procedure used at the City of Tucson for sites larger than 1 acre. The ratios of developed/redeveloped areas to water harvesting area is intended to provide for a streamlined process for developments under an acre that are not in a critical basin and to show 2-year threshold retention when required. Please update drainage report narrative. Please refer to the previous comment 4 from the preapplication meeting memo.
14) The geotechnical report needs to be updated to show infiltration per the requirements of Sections 2.51 and 2.5.5 of the detention/retention manual (UDC 7.14.3) such that the stormwater infiltrates in 12 hours or less. The raw infiltration value needs to be derated accordingly. Please refer to previous comment 4 provided at the preapplication meeting.
15) Per Section 5.2, item 4 of the drainage standards manual (UDC 7.14.4) please show drainage flow arrows for all flows within private drives/streets such that they drain into depressed water harvesting areas before overtopping back into the street for flows that exceed the 5 year threshold retention volumes. This needs to be shown with appropriate calculations within the next submittal of the drainage report.
16) Per Section 1.4 of the Detention/Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3) detetention/retention requirements may not be satisfied within the limits of a private residential lot. There are areas on lots 14, 26, 27, 39, 40 and 59 where shading that appears to represent water harvesting areas is present within the lot lines of a proposed residential lot. Please update accordingly so that this square footage is not counted towards retention/detention requirements.
17) There are areas where the assumed detention/retention/water harvesting shading is shown outside of Common Area B (ie. with-in common area A). This requires the common area boundaries to be updated per AM 2-07.5.4C. Each common area with separate restrictions (ie. drainage, open space, traffic) needs to be called out with a separate letter designation.
18) Per AM 2-07.5.4I show the detention/retention in a surveyable manner. The assumed water harvesting area needs to be clearly identified based on shading type. The total square footage of depressed water harvesting area needs to be called out with square footage and minimum depth requirements that meet the drainage report requirements.
19) Call out detail E (curb opening) on sheet 7 where it is use on the plan view layout throughout the development package.
20) Per UDC 8.7.3F2a please show additional detail to show how depressed landscape/retention/detention areas comply with the functional open space requirements as shown in Chapter 4 of the Detention/retention manual (UDC 7.14.3).
21) Per Page 7 of the geotechnical report the hardscape such as pavement and sidewalks are required to have 12" of structural fill underneath them. The fill is to extend 2' beyond the horizontal limits of the sidewalk and pavement. Please update details and/or keynote descriptions accordingly. See TSM 2-01.4.1C6 for details of requirement.
22) Per TSM 10-01.6.5C and D the private streets must meet the requirements of public streets per the details shown in TSM 10. Please update accordingly.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
08/12/2016 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT
DP16-0121 Park Modern West Tentative Plat 07/20/2016

() Final Plat
(X) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations



SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
(X) Approval
(X) No Rezoning history on site - No Resubmittal Required:
(X) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Other















REVIEWER: MM DATE: 08/12/2016

COMMENTS
Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as existing neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods are primarily developed and largely built-out residential neighborhoods and commercial districts in which minimal new development and redevelopment is expected in the next several decades. The goal is to maintain the character of these neighborhoods, while accommodating some new development and redevelopment and encouraging reinvestment and new services and amenities that contribute further to neighborhood stability. Site is addressed 801 E. Blacklidge Drive, and currently being reviewed for DP16-0121, Park Modern West Tentative Plat. Site has no rezoning history or annexation conditions to monitor per Development Package Checklist, dated July 14, 2016, which indicates rezoning and/or annexation conditions do not apply. The Site is zoned R-2 and R-3.
Site is in compliance with Plan Tucson.
08/15/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) One canopy tree is required for every 40 feet of pedestrian circulation path. provide calculations and revise the landscape plan as necessary to comply. UDC 8.7.3.H.2
08/15/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
08/15/2016 AHINES2 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved August 15, 2016

Tucson Expediting & Development
2030 E. Speedway Blvd #110
Tucson, AZ 85719

Attn: Lisa Bowers

SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: Park Modern West, APN: 11308291A, 11308296B, 113082980, Case #: WA2029, DP16-0121; T-13, R-14, SEC-31, Lots: 1,3,5, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 3.3ac Zoning: R-3, R-2

WATER SUPPLY
Tucson Water will provide water service to this project based on the subject zoning of the above parcels. Tucson Water has an assured water supply (AWS) designation from the State of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). An AWS designation means Tucson Water has met the criteria established by ADWR for demonstration of a 100-year water supply - it does not mean that water service is currently available to the subject project.

WATER SERVICE
The approval of water meter applications is subject to the current availability of water service at the time an application is received. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying, but not limited to: 1) Water Use; 2) Fire Flow Requirements; 3) Offsite/Onsite Water Facilities; 4) Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System; and 5) Easements/Common Areas.

Any specific area plan fees, protected main/facility fees and/or other needed facilities' cost, are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be financially responsible for modifying or enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs.

This letter shall be null and void two years from the date of issuance.

Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development.

If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718.

Sincerely,


Richard A. Sarti, P.E.
Engineering Manager
Tucson Water Department

RS:ka
CC:File
08/15/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approved The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of Project No. DP16-0121, Park Modern West Tentative Plat / 1st Submittal. This project consists of a 55 lot single family residential subdivision encompassing 3.6 acres.

The Development Package stated that APCs will be used to store refuse and recycle materials at each residence. The APCs will be rolled out to the curb on the day of servicing. The APCs will be screened from public view and adjacent developments while being stored at each residence.

The waste calculations in the Development Package were reviewed and found to be acceptable.

Review of the public roads proposed for the Park Modern West development shows that sufficient roadway width is provided to allow for refuse truck access to the APC locations. There are no unusual designs of the roadways, such as dead end streets or hammerhead street alignments, that would impede the maneuverability of the refuse trucks to service the APCs. The Park Modern West development is within the service area of ES in the City of Tucson.

In summary, the proposed Park Modern West residential subdivision plans are approved by ES from a solid waste standpoint.

Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review.

Tom Ryan
City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department
08/15/2016 AHINES2 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
08/15/2016 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development.

Howard B. Dutt, RLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
08/15/2016 AHINES2 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
08/15/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this.

Thank you,

Kara Curtis
Community Service Officer
Tucson Police Department
Operations Division Midtown
1100 S. Alvernon
Tucson, AZ 85711
kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov
(520) 837-7428
08/15/2016 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
08/15/2016 AHINES2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved August 5, 2016

To: Jeff Hunt, PE
Cypress Civil Development, Inc
____________________________________
From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, EPT, PCRWRD (520) 724-6404

Subject: Park Modern West Lots 1-55
P16WS00058
TP - 2nd Submittal

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016 with the following conditions:

The revisions can be submitted by PDF. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience.

Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD
Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD
Tom Porter, P.E., RWRD
08/16/2016 AHINES2 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed No comment provided.
08/16/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed No comment provided.
08/19/2016 CLAURIE1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Denied DATE: August 19, 2016

FROM: Corky Poster, Architect/Planner, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional

TO: Carolyn Laurie, 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
DP16-0121 Pepper Viner "Park Modern West"

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 55 lots and therefore is subject to the AVP Review.







(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 three different floor plan models (Model 2 [2-story, 2-bedroom]. Model 2.5 [2-story, 2-bedroom]. Model 3 [2-story, 3 bedroom]. Each of these three model units, in turn, three alternate elevations, A, B, and C. A, B and C elevations generally differentiate themselves by window layout pattern. That leaves 9 possible elevation types. The developer intends to reserve the flexibility of not assigning specific units and elevation designs to specific lots. Therefore, compliance with this requirement is proposed to be done through a management schedule: "A management schedule will be put in place by the building to ensure that elevations do not repeat more often than one in every four." In the absence of specific units on specific lots, this management schedule 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: 1, 2 and 3. However, it appears as if the variation (A, B, and C) within each unit type is accomplished only by a different window pattern, shape, and dimension and not by a second "design feature" specified above. The cover letter indicates "a variety of colors will also be available for each unit." The variation is therefore satisfactory if the "not be repeated more often than every fourth lot" is accomplished using the three different Models (1, 2, 3), the different window 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: This project is designed with a pedestrian-only access to the "front" of the house and vehicular access to the "rear" of the house. Therefore all garages are on the opposite elevation from the front wall of the living area and 0% of the garages are "designed with garages that protrude from or are flush with the front wall of the living area or front porch of the house." The requirement is therefore met. Having said that, on the rear façade, all garages similarly face the auto-access street. But this is a condition not anticipated by the language of the FLD requirements.
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: The entire proposed project is composed of two-story units. The transition edge treatment adjacent to single-family residential development (lots 47-55 only), as described in the Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP), relies on the "walls and fences currently existing along the entire neighboring property line(s)" as its transition edge treatment to those neighbors. Since the lot is vacant, these walls and fences (photos A-F, adjacent to lots 47-55) presumably belong to the neighbors. Since the regulations state "the FLD shall provide buffering in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residential development," screening provided by neighbors does not meet the requirement. However, it is also true that these new units are separated from the neighbors by a pedestrian access walkway. It is also true that those units on lots 47-55 face west. The better solution would be to construct a five foot masonry wall along this property line and face it with extensive landscaping of some height just inside this wall, instead of the "inert ground cover" shown on the landscape plan. This would have the added benefit of screening lots 47-55 from the western sun. That would provide a substantially better pedestrian experience for the west entry of the units on lots 47-55 and represent a much better environmental solution for the western solar exposure. This would provide an attractive landscape for the front entries of units 47-55 and meet the transition requirements of the FLD.
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 edge as described in photos A-F, lots 47-55. The front elevations available for this location all indicate no balconies or other features that overlook these adjacent yards. There is a satisfactory PMP provided that states that "Opaque Window Film will be [provided] on the 2nd floor. Where a bedroom Window is not present, Clerestory will be used." This is a satisfactory solution.
(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 satisfactory PMP has been provided that also satisfactorily address solar access.
(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.
08/19/2016 AHINES2 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/15/2016 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed