Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-113
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/24/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/25/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | no comments |
| 08/25/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved August 25, 2004. |
| 08/30/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans to provide a street landscape border along Irwin Place and Smoot Drive per the provisions of LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2. Any required or provided screening is to be located behind the landscape border. The landscape border shall be recorded as common area and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2.c 2) Revise the landscape plan to ensure that canopy trees are located per LUC 3.7.2.3.A. |
| 08/30/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * No known landfill w/in 100feet of this development. * Refuse collection to be individual APC's placed at curbside. * On-site storage required for two 90 gallon APC's on-site. * APC's to be placed and removed from collection area on day of service. *NOTE: Exit turnout from property is hard to make - greater than 90 degrees. |
| 08/31/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S04-113 TOWNHOMES AT IRWIN PLACE/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: August 25, 2004 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Delete site address 1032 E Irwin Place on pg. 1. Please make Location Map more legible. Delete Fort on Location Map and change Fort Lowel Road to Fort Lowell Road. Change North Park Ave to Park Avenue on Project Overview and pg. 2. jg |
| 09/02/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-113 T and T ENGINEERING, LLC TOWNHOMES AT IRWIN PLACE |
| 09/10/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Townhomes at Irwin Place Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-113. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on August 24, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included on the Final Plat or in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. 8. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Number 3 of the plat drainage notes; change the verbiage, "Property owners" to "Homeowners Association." 2. In the title block show the subdivision case number, S04-113. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Dimension the existing sidewalk and the proposed curb cut for lots 1-3 from street centerline. DS 2-03.2.3.D. 4. Section A/1 and B/1 should be labeled as A/3 and B/3 given that these sections are found on sheet three. Revise. 5. Common area within a project must have a separate letter designation for each common area designated with a separate use. Landscape, drainage areas and private streets should have a separate letter designation. The private street must be designated as common area. Relabel this area "Common Area B." Revise the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.C 6. All existing easements drawn on the plat must have the recordation information on the plat. Prior to plat approval the 15' ingress/egress utility easement to be abandoned must be recorded. Include the book and page on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.C. 7. For clarity darken the contour line weight. The contours are difficult to see on the plat. 8. When on street parking is not proposed on a new residential development visitor parking is required at a ratio of one parking space per lot. The plat shows only 10 visitor parking spaces. Where is the two other "visitor" parking spaces? Is the intent to have visitor parking for lots 1 and 2 on Irwin Place? Clarify the plat. Show on the plat and in a street detail of Irwin Place the required visitor parking for lots 1 and 2. Or change the private street to show parking on both sides of the street. DS 3-01.2.4.D.3 9. At least one sidewalk or pedestrian circulation will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. Add a crosswalk indicating pedestrian circulation from the parking spaces to one access point across the street where the residences/homes/lots are located. DS 2-08.4.1.A. 10. Sight visibility triangles (SVTs) are required for the private street ingress/egress adjacent to lot 3. The near side length is 180' and the far side length is 110'. DS 3-01.5. 11. Sidewalks are required along both sides of the private street. Add a sidewalk to the other side of the private street, adjacent to the common area "A" and the parking spaces. DS 3-01.2.7. 12. Sidewalks are required as part of new development of all properties. All new subdivisions shall provide a five foot wide sidewalk along the entire length of the street frontage. A five foot sidewalk is proposed along the new private street however, a five foot sidewalk is also required along Smoot Drive. Show a five foot sidewalk along Smoot Drive for the entire length of the property. Revise the plat. DS 3-01.3.3.A. 13. Label and show on the plat and in the detail C/3 the water surface elevation (WSEL), weir invert elevation and the 100-yr ponding limits for both retention basins. Modify the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.L.1. 14. The legend shows an arrow indicating the drainage discharge point. However an arrow is not found at the proposed drainage discharge point. Revise the plat to show the arrow indicating the proposed drainage discharge point. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2. 15. Show the proposed direction of flow and amount (cfs) within the proposed private street. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2. 16. Draw locations, estimate flow quantity and indicate types of off-site drainage acceptance points and on-site runoff discharge points. There is stormwater from the south (Smoot Street) that is entering the site at the northeast corner of the site. What is the exact location of the southern offsite flow and the quantity? What kind of drainage structures will be used to handle the flow? Address and revise. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7. 17. Show and dimension basin maintenance access ramps. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b 18. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Provide the report. SDRM 3.5.1. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 19. The drainage report states on page 9 the basin is a depth of 1.5'. On the plat it shows a depth of 1' for the retention basin. What is the correct proposed depth for the basin? Clarify the plat and the drainage report. 20. Provide different ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4. 21. Refer to the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 4, for design guidelines on Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design. Retention Basins must meet the Multiple-Use and Aesthetic Design Guidelines. 22. Show proposed drainage flow arrows for each lot. How are lots 10-12 going to drain? Section C/3indicates a drainage problem adjacent to the rear wall. 23. Appears to be a differential grading problem with lots 6 and 7. See general comment number 6 above. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1. The drainage report states on page 9 the basin is a depth of 1.5'. On the plat it shows a depth of 1' for the retention basin. What is the correct proposed depth for the basin? Clarify the plat and the drainage report. 2. A very detailed Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owners expense. Include a maintenance checklist in the drainage report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C. 3. The weir detail C/3 in Appendix B shows different elevations for the basin top and bottom then on what the plat depicts. The drainage report shows the top elevation is 49.60' and the plat shows 49.30'. The drainage report shows the bottom part of the basin is 48.10' and the plat shows 48.30'. The drainage report must be consistent with the plat. Revise to show the elevations to match. 4. A soils report and a percolation test is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The retention facility must infiltrate within 12 hours. Include a soils report and show the percolation test results in the drainage report to meet this requirement. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1 5. Show and dimension basin access ramps on the drainage concept plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b 6. On page 9 of the drainage report there is verbiage regarding a perimeter fence with weep holes. On the plat detail C/3 depicts an existing wall and there is no indication of a "perimeter fence." What is existing and proposed in this area? Is there a fence or a wall? If indication of an existing wall on the plat is correct, are there wall openings (weep holes)? The drainage report and the plat must match. Revise the drainage report and the plat accordingly. 7. The drainage report states that minor amounts of sheet flow on the north side of the property will be allowed through this area. Is this under existing or proposed conditions? Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. What is the quantity of the sheet flow for the existing condition and after the proposed development? 8. The drainage report on page 3 states that the site is not impacted by off site runoff. However, the contours indicate that stormwater from the south sheet flows across the property. This flow must be accepted. New development cannot block flows. This needs to be addressed. What is the location and quantity of this offsite flow? What kind of drainage structures will be used to handle the flow. Revise the drainage report. |
| 09/17/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 16, 2004 TO: Tom Guido, P.E., T and T Engineering THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Townhomes at Irwin Place, Lots 1-12 and Common Areas A & B - Submittal S04-113 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the South Rillito West (Central) Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on historical records for the existing 6-inch public sewer line G-81-26, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-113, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 1. Replace Wastewater Management note 2 with A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. SHEET 2. Use a one percent slope for the terminal reach section. SHEET 2. Provide a number to the proposed manholes for reference purposes. SHEET 2. Change the pipe diameter from 6-inch to 8-inch. While it is known that the townhomes will be connecting to a 6-inch sewer line, the flow from these townhomes will be easily handled by the 6-inch existing line and solid deposition will further be avoided in the proposed 8-inch line. SHEET 2. The terminal manhole next to lot 12 will have to be extended enough distance to allow lot 12 to connect via a direct tap to the proposed line. Pima County design standards do not allow home connection sewers to connect to manholes in this type of situation. SHEET 2. Show the home connection sewer for lots 1 and 2. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 09/17/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: IRWIN PLACE TOWNHOMES Lots 1-12 S04-113 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated August 11, 2004. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. A copy of the plat with the approximate location of the existing facilities is enclosed. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8745 Cell Phone: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8700 |
| 09/17/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: September 17, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-113 Townhomes at Irwin Place T131430 (113-02) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS PLAT PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLAT: ADD DIMS AND BEARINGS TO ALL PARCEL LINES. 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. THANK YOU FOR YUR SUBMITTAL. ROSANNA WERMER EA\rw |
| 09/20/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is August 23, 2005. 2. Since this is a proposed Residential Cluster Project (RCP), a statement to that effect should be included in the title block. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.G) 3. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-113. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 4. Add the following general note: "This plat is designed to meet the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) overlay zone criteria." (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.10) 5. On sheet 2 of 3, clearly label the north lot line dimensions for lots 3 and 4. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.A) 6. When on street parking is not proposed on a new residential development visitor parking is required at a ratio of one parking space per lot. The plat shows only 10 visitor parking spaces. Where is the two other "visitor" parking spaces? Is the intent to have visitor parking for lots 1 and 2 on Irwin Place? Clarify the plat. Show on the plat and in a street detail of Irwin Place the required visitor parking for lots 1 and 2. Or change the private street to show parking on both sides of the street. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.G) (D.S. 3-01.2.4.D.3) 7. Provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage for all common areas. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.I) 8. CC&R's are required for maintenance of private street. 9. Submit drawings, photographs, or a combination of both, showing how the architectural compatibility requirements of Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3 of the LUC will be met. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.3) (D.S. 2-10.3.2.C) 10. Barrier-free accessibility must be provided to twenty-five percent of the ground floor units and all common areas within the project. Indicate how this accessibility is to be provided, and add a detail to the plat showing the accessibility. In addition, label those units, which are proposed for barrier free accessibility on the plan. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) 11. a) Add the following general note: "All mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP." (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9) b) Demonstrate the type of screening proposed. 12. Revise general note nine (9) on sheet 1 of 3 to the following: "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council." 13. Provide the site coverage calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). For the purposes of the RCP, site coverage shall be applied in accordance with Lot Coverage requirements in LUC Sec. 3.2.9. For an exception to site coverage refer to LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.B. (LUC 3.6.1.4.B) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.C) 14. Provide the building setback dimensions for lots 1 and 2. It appears that the north lot line perimeter yard for Lot 1 does not meet the RCP requirement. In addition, interior perimeter yards must meet the minimum setback required for a RCP. 15. Revise the street perimeter yard setback for Lots 1 and 2 to be based on established area criteria (greater of 20 feet or the building wall height)as listed under LUC 3.2.6.5.A. 16. Provide an accessible pedestrian path from the common parking area to the pedestrian circulation system within the subdivision. 17. Provide the density calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.10 for applicability. 18. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. (D.S. 2-10.3.2.E) (L.U.C. 3.6.1.5) If you have any questions about this transmittal or would like to set an appointment, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 09/21/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | no comments |
| 09/21/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 20, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-113 Townhomes at Irwin Place: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/22/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | no comments. |
| 09/22/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | no comments |
| 09/22/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Add a general note to read “All non-signalized intersection street manes must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways.” 2. Show and label as to size (ie 20x345) both existing and future SVTs at the roadway adjacent to lot 3. (DS 2-03.2.4.M) 3. Show how this layout meets the driveway spacing requirements of chapter 25 of the city code. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/24/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | no comments |
| 09/24/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-113 Townhomes at Irwin Place 09/21/04 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Northside Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/20/04 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Photos & Elevations REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 9/14/04 Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Northside Area Plan, the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. Certain bonuses are allotted the developer who utilizes the RCP. They are greater density of units (with or without density bonus), reduced lot sizes, and reduced setbacks. In the Land Use Code (LUC) a density increase can applied if the subdivision meets certain criteria. These are designated as development alternatives “B” in table 3.2.3.1.F in the LUC. The tentative must identify that the subdivision is utilizing this option and provide the additional requirements with the submittal. Within a Residential Cluster Project (RCP) active/passive common areas are to be provided for the enjoyment of the residents. [An active/passive adult recreational facility, which includes a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The adult recreational amenities to include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Additionally, common areas are required to be handicapped accessible per ADA requirements, providing access and constructed of all-weathered materials. Please revise tentative plat and identify appropriate recreational open space(s) with amenities for all ages. Section 3.6.1.5.A of the Land Use Code states when a common area is established in an RCP, a homeowner’s association or management organization must be established by the developer to be responsible for the ownership, permanent care, and maintenance of commonly owned areas. An instrument shall be submitted with the RCP for review and approval by the City in such form for recordation by the Pima County Recorder. Please provide this required instrument. The site is within the Campus Farm Subarea of the Northside Area Plan, Residential Policy 1.b. states: “Require new residential developments with more than one story to use a variety of rooflines, a clustered design, or a mix of one or two stories within the development. One-story structures should be located along the perimeter of parcels adjacent to existing low-rise or one-story residential uses.” Please provide building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Please provide color designations of all proposed buildings on the site. All sides of buildings are to have similar architectural treatment which staff must verify. Because staff will be reviewing for five-sided architecture that embraces those elements from the surrounding neighborhood, submission of photos will be required, taken of the surrounding area to assist staff in reviewing for architectural compliance and compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods. Water harvesting techniques shall be utilized by conveying all roof runoff into landscape areas in the residential portion, prior to discharging in the retention area(s) per the Design Guidelines Manual. Any required or proposed masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the RCP shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please provide a detail of the wall indicating materials that will be used and identify the location of all walls on the tentative plat. |
| 09/28/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/28/2004 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comments |