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: REVISION - - 2ND
Permit Number - DP19-0029
Review Name: REVISION - - 2ND
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/13/2019 | ALEXANDRA HINES | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | Requested review from Corky Poster. |
| 11/13/2019 | ALEXANDRA HINES | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Approved | See this as a PDF in Documents table on PRO. DATE: November 12, 2019 FROM: Corky Poster, Architect/Planner, City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional TO: Alexandra Hines, Lead Planner City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Department RE: DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER Flexible Lot Development Review of: Bella Tierra DP10-0029 per UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1 and Admin. Section 2-06.5.3E This project has been selected for review by Corky Poster, Architect and Planner (AICP) with Poster Mirto McDonald, a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). CP-PMM 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 Lead Planner (LP), Alexandra Hines. 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-PMM 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. 11 point letter Calibri bold and italic- Indicates quotations form the submitted AVP or PMP. 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 227 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. From the AVP submitted document: · Bella Tierra offers a total of 9 different floor plans. A builder/sales management program will be employed that restricts a buyer’s choice of floorplans – when an elevation is selected/permitted on a lot, appropriate restrictions will be placed on nearby lots to prevent the repetition of any particular elevation in any row of 4 consecutive homes on the same side of the street. Common areas between lots and turns in a street (knuckles/cul-de-sacs) shall constitute a break in a 4-lot string. · By implementing an effective builder/sales management program and providing an abundance of diverse design options, repetition will be avoided and architectural variation will be achieved. #2: With the 9 different floor plans, the 12 different elevations provided, and this proposed management program, this requirement can be met. However, the relationship of this program to P & DSD and their ability to insure compliance is undefined. (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 developer has provided twenty-eight different elevations: six different single-story elevations with a projecting garages showing different roof styles (gable and hip), different roof materials (clay tile and asphalt shingle tile in different colors), different garage doors patterns, different windows, shutters, and wainscot variations; eight different single-story elevations with receding garages showing different roof styles (gable and hip), different roof materials (clay tile and asphalt shingle tile in different colors), different garage doors patterns, different windows, shutters, and wainscot variations; four different single-story elevations with a same-plane garages showing different roof styles (gable and hip), different roof materials (clay tile and asphalt shingle tile in different colors), different garage doors patterns, different windows, shutters, and wainscot variations; three different two-story elevations with projecting garages showing different roof styles (gable and hip), different roof materials (clay tile and asphalt shingle tile in different colors), different garage doors patterns, different windows, shutters, and wainscot variations; three different two-story elevations with same-plane garages showing different roof styles (gable and hip), different roof materials (clay tile and asphalt shingle tile in different colors), different garage doors patterns, different windows, shutters, and wainscot variations.. This criteria is well met using the elevations presented and the management program proposed. However, the relationship of this program to P & DSD and their ability to insure compliance is undefined. (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 criteria is well met using the elevations presented with protruding, receding, and same-plane garage elevations and the management program proposed. However, the relationship of this program to P & DSD and their ability to insure compliance is undefined. 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 elements of an AVP are well thought out and well presented. And “an effective builder/sales management program” is proposed. However, the relationship of this “builder/sales management program” to P & DSD and their ability to insure compliance is undefined. 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: The developer has provided excellent and clear analysis of the two edges in which the Privacy Mitigation is required, specifically Lots 27-47 and 203-208. (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. “In accordance with DP19-0029, lots 27-47 and 203-208 will be subject to privacy mitigation plan requirements provided a two-story is selected for these lots. 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 will be prohibited. Refer to AVP for two-story architectural renderings.” This proposal is satisfactory. (3) Privacy Mitigation Plan: A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is required demonstrating compliance with this section. (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. #7: The developer has provided a satisfactory Privacy Mitigation Plan with the appropriate plat maps, photographs, drawings (AVP under separate cover). 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. |
| 11/25/2019 | ALEXANDRA HINES | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Completed | Revision Approval Notice: DP19-0029 Project Description: TENTATIVE PLAT/FLD - Bella - Tierra - Phase 1A and 1B. An FLD Subdivision, Lots 1-227, Together with Common Areas "A" and "B". To see the stamped revised plan set, visit PRO at www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO, then search by activity number listed above. Alexandra Hines, AICP | City of Tucson Planning and Development Services - Lead Planner | 201 N Stone Ave 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 | (520) 837-6975 - alexandra.hines@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/25/2019 | AHINES2 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |