APPEAL TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, CITY OF TUCSON. { March 1, 2018. ‘9€: Ut Z= PROJECT HPZ 17-69 Miramonte Homes ~ Minor Subdivision Plat Kennedy and Meyer Townhouses Project ~ 14 Units of 2 Story Townhouses, west side of Meyer Avenue between Kennedy and Simpson in the Barrio Historico Historic District, City of Tucson ‘THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE BARRIO HISTORICO ADVISORY BOARD BY UNANIMOUS VOTE FEBRUARY 26, 2018 IN A PUBLICLY NOTICED MEETING. MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD ARE: KEN BACHER — 35 year resident of Barrio Historico. Co-producer of the award winning video “Barrio istorico A Walk Through Time.” Retired former Development Officer and Director for the University of Arizona. BA and MA English, Arizona State Uni ersity. KAREN COSTELLO ~ 8 year resident of Barrio Historico. BAin Architecture and MA in Landscape Architecture, University of Arizona. Historic Preservation experience on award winning project including international experience on UNESCO Heritage Sites, JODY GIBBS - 40 year property owner in Barrio Historico. Former Architect and Director of Centro de Arquitectura y Urbanismo para la Comunidad with offices on Convent Avenue in Barrio Historico offering Architecture, Planning, and Advocacy Services to low income groups. Recipient of a Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission Award for Architectural Excellence. BA History, Master of Architecture, Yale. MARY LOU HEUETT ~ 35 year resident of Barrio Historico. Archeologist with expertise in Southwest Archaeology and Historic Preservation Co-authay ofthe Bigual “Barrio Historico Architectural Guidelines.” Member of the Neighborhood group to convert the Old Drachman School on Convent Avenue in Barrio Historico into subsidized housing for low income elderly, BA and MA Archaeology/ History Northern Arizona University, PhD studies Archaeology, University of Arizona, ARMANDO MONTANO - Lifelong resident in Barrio Historico in a house bought by his Grandfather in 1904. Fine artist known for his water olors of the Historic Buildings in Barrio Historico. Professor of Fine Arts at Pima College. Bilingually Fluent Spanish and English.PAGE 808 VINT~ 40 years of experience in Barrio Historico. Award winning Preservation Architect Including being the Preservation Architect of the San Xavier Mission and the author of the preservation studies of Old Main at the University of Arizona and of Roy Place designed Gymnasium at Tucson High School which provided the bases for the recent renovations of these buildings. Recipient of Tucson-Pima County Historic Commission Award for Design Excellence. Bilingually fluent Spanish and English. SUBIECT OF THE APPEAL - PDSD Director's Approval on February 16 of HPZ 17-69 of the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME for this project. THE FIRST AND SECOND DESIGN SCHEMES of HPZ 17-69 were both recommended for denial by the Advisory Board by unanimous decisions THE FIRST DESIGN SCHEME (4-0) on September 11, 2017 and THE SECOND DESIGN SCHEME (5-0) on December 11, 2011. Paragraph 1 page 1 of the POSD Director's Approval Letter of February 16 acknowledges the need for the Advisory Board to review significant changes between successive design schemes, stating, “Applicants revised the original design following BHHZAB review comments, made significant changes to the design, maintained the same number of units and submitted the Revised Plan Set “B" dated 11-20-17 ... fora second review. BHHZAB reviewed these revised design plans on 12- 11-17. BHHZAB voted unanimously 5-0 to recommend denial of the project, citing the same UDC (Unified Development Code}, TSM (Technical Standards Manual), and the Barrio Historico Architectural Guidelines (cited in their previous recommendation of denial made September 11, 2017): in particular two-story height, architectural style, setbacks, proportions, roof type, building form, character and streetscape, site utilization, doors, projections and recessions, details, and rhythm” Actually the differences between FIRST DESIGN SCHEME and SECOND DESIGN SCHEME were not particularly significant. The differences included:PAGE 1) Replacement of four asphalt parking spaces in the interior of the project with open space in an unsuccessful effort to provide some open space within the project that isn’t covered by buildings or asphalt. (The Code requires open space characteristic of that found in the Historic Contributing Properties of the Development Zone in which the project is located. None of the DESIGN SCHEMES FIRST, SECOND, or THIRD meet this requirement.) 2) Provision of sight triangle setbacks at the corners and at the entries to the parking, These were essentially engineering changes shown on 6 engineering sheets. There Were no major changes to the architectural design ~ same number of units, same plan, same site Utilization, same roof form, same building form, character, projections and recessions, details, ‘hythin, etc, The BHHZAB voted to recommend denial of the SECOND DESIGN SCHEME. {In January, 2018 a THIRD DESIGN SCHEME, with many significant changes to the designs of the FIRST DESIGN SCHEME and the SECOND DESIGN SCHEME was not sent by PDSD to the Advisory Board for review, but rather to the TPCHSPRS for review on January 25, 2018 -- but not to the BHHZAB. The changes included fewer units, different roof form, different building form, different elevations, different building massing, different second floor plan, second floor balconies, different projections and recessions, and different proportions and different rhythm. The TPCHCPRS recommended approval of the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME on January 25, 2018, On January 31, 2018 the Advisory Board requested copies of the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME from PDSD Staff-person Michael Taku which he provided on February 1, On February 2, 2018 the BHHZAB informed PDSD Staff-person Taku that the Advisory Board would review the HPZ 17-69 on February 12, 2018. Despite these numerous changes made to the SECOND DESIGN SCHEME, the proposed THIRD DESIGN SCHEME stil violates nearly all of the criteria in UDC section 5.8.9 and 9-02 used to evaluate proposals for compliance with the Code. These include ignoring the following Prevailing characteristics of the Historic Contributing Properties of the Development Zone: frontPAGE and interior yard setbacks, roof type, building form, site utilization, projections and recessions, rhythm, character, architectural style, street-scape, and details, The vote was again unanimous (6-0) to recommend denial. Minutes and Legal Action Report were sent to the City Clerk’s Office of Boards and Commissions within three days on February 15, 2018, but itis obvious from the PDSD Director Approval Letter of February 16, 2018, that he approved the project without consideration of the Advisory Board's recommendations, since the February 16 letter does not even reference the Advisory Board's February 15 Minutes and Legal Acton Report. Therefore this appeal is based upon the violations of the UDC Review Process and Violation of the UDC standards for new construction in Barrio Historico. DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF CODE UDC 5.8.8.4.1 "Design Review required ~ Review and approval... is required for all development... Including ... new construction. Proposals are reviewed for compliance with Section 5.8.9 Design Standards.” UDC 5.8.8.8.1.C “The following project types are reviewed for compliance with the applicable standards in accordance with (the) Full HPZ Review Process .... new construction.” UDC 5.8.8.8.2 “Preliminary Staff Review....The PDSD Staff reviews the proposed plans for compliance with UDC requirements. The applicant will be informed in writing of any requirements the proposed plans do not meet.” VIOLATION # 1 —The PDSD staff did not review the plans for compliance nor inform the applicant i writing of requirements the plans do not meet. UDC5.8.8.4 “HPZ Advisory Board Review and Recommendation - The applicable HPZ Advisory Board shall review and make a recommendation on the application. The recommendation Is forwarded to the Tucson Pima Historical Commission.” VIOLATIONS #2 AND #3 - The applicable HPZ Advisory Board did not review the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME application as a part of the review process. Nor was the applicable HPZ Advisory Board's, recommendation on the Third Design Scheme forwarded to the Tucson Pima County Historical Commission as part of the review process. Nor was the correct sequencePAGE followed in the Review of the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME. By Code the TPCHCPRS should not review the application without the recommendation of the applicable HPZ Advisory Board, It is contrary to the intent of the UDC Design Review Process outlined in 5.8.8 for the Advisory Board to review and make recommendations on the application DESIGN ‘SCHEMES ONE AND TWO but not on the significantly different THIRD DESIGN SCHEME, UDC 5.8.8.5 "The Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission Plans Review Subcommittee (TPCHCPRS) shall review and make a recommendation on the application. ” As stated above the ‘TPCHCPRS reviewed the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME out of sequence and without review or recommendation of the Advisory Board, UDC 5.8.8.4 says, "The recommendation of the applicable Advisory Board is forwarded to the Tucson Pima County Historical Commission.” The obvious intent is that the TPCHCPRS review the Advisory Board's recommendation. That did not occur. VIOLATION #4 The TPCHCPRS did not receive nor review the recommendation of the BHHZAB during. their review of the THIRD DESIGN OPTION. VIOLATION #5 UDC 5.8.8.4.1 says, “Proposals are to be reviewed for compliance with the applicable Section 5.8.9 Standards.” That did not occur. By observation, the custom of the TPCHCPRS is not to review applications completely “for compliance” with a Code Checklist, nor with the benefit of a PDSD Code check for compliance as required by UDC 5.8.8.8.2. To the best of the knowledge of the Advisory Board this was not done for this project nor for any project in the Historic District for many years, ‘On December 14, 2017, the TPCHCPRS expressed the four objections to the SECOND DESIGN SCHEME. 1) “a second story window showing a second story use.” Unfortunately however the approved THIRD DESIGN SCHEME recommended by the TPCHCPRS shows not only second story windows but also a second story door, balcony, and a projecting closet. 2) “lack of variation or too much repetition on (the) Meyer Avenue facade.” The UDC 5.8.9 Design Standards does not contain standards on “too much variation” or “too muchPAGE Repetition.” These appear to be statements of taste. The criteria for new construction in the Historic Zone are the characteristics of the Historic Contributing Properties in the Development Zone of the Project. 3) “vertical scale and massing in particular the 22’ height with low slope roofs and mixing of roofs.” The 22’ height of some masonry walls, the low slope roofs, and the mixing of roofs are still present in the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME recommended by the TPCHCPRS, Walls on Historic Contributing Properties in Barrio Historico are rarely if ever taller than 14", There are no visible second floors in the Historic Sonoran buildings in the Barrio. 4) “horizontal scale density and transparency on Meyer Avenue facade where (the) entire Block is proposed to be built without any gaps.” This also appears to be a statement of taste. The criteria for new construction in the Historic Zone are the characteristics of the Historic Contributing Properties in the Development Zone of the project. VIOLATION #6 UDC 5.8.8.6 says “The PDSD Director shall consider the recommendation of the HPZ Advisory Board when considering a decision.” This did not occur. VIOLATION #7 UDC 5.8.8 describes the Review Process to be used by all parties including PDSD. Section 5.8.8.A.1 says, “Proposals are reviewed for compliance with Section 5.8.9, Design Standards.” Section 5.8.9.3.C of those Design Standards says, “New construction shall maintain the prevailing street and interior yard setbacks existing within the Development Zone. However on page 4 item 4 of the PDSD Director's Approval letter of the THIRD DESIGN SCHEME the PDSD Director says, “Building setbacks shall be waived with demonstration of prevailing setbacks and consistent with (the) Zoning. Administrator's determination (ZAD) dated 4-25-17". The Advisory Board is unaware of any section of the Historic Preservation sections of the Code that allows the PDSD Director of the Zoning Administrator to waive the Historic Prevailing street and interior yard setbacks in the Development Zone of this project. Nor does the Code say, “approve it now and check the prevailing setbacks later.” The Historic prevailing street front setback on Simpson is approximately 15’. The Historic Prevailing setback on Kennedy is approximately 8. The Historic prevailing rear yardPAGE setbacks within the Development Zone are not zero. When applied to the proposed project. this would eliminate Units 1, 9, 10, 12, and 13 ~-five of the proposed 14 units. This might bring the open space, number of units, and site utilization of the THIRD SCHEME closer to ‘the prevailing characteristics of the Historic Contributing properties in the Development Zone of the project. Such requirements cannot be merely waived by the PDSD Director and the Zoning ‘Administrator. If Tucson is to maintain the integrity of the Historic Zone it must be regulated by the Code and the prevailing characteristics of the Historic Contributing Buildings of the Development Zone -- not by the will of the PFDSD Director and the Zoning Administrator. VIOLATIONS BY THE THIRD DESIGN SCHEME OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE CODE- A more detailed description of each violation is listed in the Minutes of the February, 2018 Meeting of the BHHZAB VIOLATION #8 ~ Incomplete application drawings and information. VIOLATION #9~ UDC 5.8.9,3.C Setbacks VIOLATION #10 - UDC 5.8,9.£ Roof Type VIOLATION #11 - UDC 5.8.9.K.3 Rhythm VIOLATION #12 - UDC 9-02.7.3 Character and Streetscape VIOLATION #13 - UDC 5.8.9.4.3 Architectural Style VIOLATION #14 - UDC 9-02.3.10 Building Form VIOLATION #15 - UDC 5.8.9.1.3 Building Form VIOLATION #16 - UDC 5.8.9.H.3 Projections and Recessions VIOLATION #17 - UDC5.8.9.1.3 Details VIOLATION #18 - UDC Parking Requirement REMEDIES SOUGHT: 11) RE-REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT INCLUDING ‘* PREPARATION OF A PDSD STAFF WRITTEN REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE © RE-REVIEW BY THE TPCHCPRS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BHHZAB © RE-REVIEW BY THE PDSD DIRECTOR WITH BHHZAB AND TPCHCPRS RECOMMENDATIONSPAGE 2) DENIAL OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF CODE FEES FOR THIS APPEAL REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEES BY THE BHHZAB IS MADE PER UDC CODE FOR GOVERNMENTAL BODIES SUCH AS THE BHHZAB. IF FEES ARE NOT WAIVED, PAYMENT WILL BE MADE UPON NOTIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT DUE, PAYMENT WILL MADE TO AT THE PDSD OFFICE IF PDSD STAFF Is AVAILABLE TO ACCEPT PAYMENT. OTHERWISE PAYMENT WILL BE MADE TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FILING THE APPEAL ‘THIS APPEAL WILL BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY AND ALSO IN HARDCOPY WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND PDSD. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED TO THIS APPEAL INCLUDE: 1) CITY OF TUCSON PUBLIC RECORDS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT 2) FIRST DESIGN SCHEME DRAWINGS REVIEWED BY BHHZAB SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 3) MINUTES BHHZAB MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 4) SECOND DESIGN SCHEME DRAWINGS REVIEWED BY BHHZAB DECEMBER 11, 2017 5) MINUTES BHHZAB MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2017 6) MINUTES TPCHCPRS MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2017 7) THIRD DESIGN SCHEME DRAWINGS REVIEWED BY TPCHCPRS JANUARY 25, 2018. £8) MINUTES TPCHCPRS MEETING JANUARY 25, 2018 9) THIRD DESIGN SCHEME DRAWINGS REVIEWED BY BHHZAB FEBRUARY 12, 2018 10) MINUTES TPCHCPRS JANUARY 25, 2018. 11) MINUTES BHHZAB MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2018, 112) PDSD DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL LETTER OF FEBRUARY 16, 2018 13) MINUTES BHHZAB FEBRUARY 26, 2018. 14) EMAIL TO PDSD MICHAEL TAKU RE: APPEAL PAYMENT MARCH 1, 2018