The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOV130606�If+I - gRJa` 0�0 HL /y 4 Planning & zoning Division 1100() N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley � 42Z i322 � Phone: (520) 2294800 Fax: . www,townoforovalley.com APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT RRIIEW PROJECT ARCHITECTURE DATE' l 2 '� OV CASE N0. U I!t o l G o (,� _{office use only) PROJECT NAME' SUBDIVISION LOCATION I ADDRESS: g —►� zONIN G PARCEL NUMBER; ' LOT slzE 6 • �a3 ' MODEL NAMES OR NUMBERS APPLICANT,' ADDRESS: 1 PHONE NO.:45W �J • � o Z FAX NO.: �ZO PROPERTY OWNER: PHONE NO.��• DEVELOPMENT SIGNATURE: FAX FIC3;• '/= (C • DATE: DATE. / — / 20 Submittal Reggire nts: 1C - Foes g_:r09y r6py of 2406 elevations and floor plan 114 or 118 scale t ne copy of 24X36 site plan 40 sear (Custom Lots Only) —: Typical lot lay out for subdivision Models - Lot frt analysis for subdivisions Cut sheets for lighting (All Commercial Projects, Custom Homes, and Model Plans) Twenty- Five c 1 s of the following: ✓ imensioned Elevations of all four sides of all buildings and floor plan (11" x 17" tomlat) mereial projectsrequire color drawings or photographs of elevations (8 Y2'° x 11"format) �t square footage of buildings Plan (11 " x 17" forma) Color chips of body, trim and roof tiles r ;2" by 11" format) Commercial and Residential Applications will not be accepted without all required materials. co Ir - front view side view oQOJP��EY qR/2O�v FUNDED 19�p Development and Infrastructure Services August 10, 2011 Mr. Wissam Kaddoura; Coronado Custom Homes 5481 N Indian Trail Tucson, AZ 85750 Re: Shoppes at Oracle Site Maintenance On 08-04-11 a complaint was received regarding the general condition of this site located at 8500 N Oracle Rd. I followed up on 08-05-11 by inspecting the construction site to determine whether the minimum requirements of the Town codes, and conditions of the grading permit (G0700091) were being adhered to. My findings are as follows: 1) 1 found various types of material both scattered and piled throughout the site; which include broken pieces of pipe, large tree limbs, broken pallets, pieces of metal piping, wood form material, discarded plastic fencing, scaffold planking, torn filter socks, broken chunks of asphalt, plastic wrap material, tumbleweeds and general litter (which is blown into the trees and cactus) 2) There remain large dead boxed trees at the former south nursery area 3) There are approximately 10 large bags of mortar mix along the east side of the building that are torn and are now approximately 16 cubic feet of solid cement material 4) There is an old flatbed truck parked on one of the building slabs that has been vandalized (all 4 windows broken out) 5) There is block, scaffolding, and rusting reinforcing steel staged on and around the site 6) There's and old plastic mortar trough that's damaged and is partially filled with bottles 7) There's a construction trailer (semi trailer) that remains on site along with an old pickup and a tandem axle trailer -8) There are piles of dirt, some of which are causing ponding of water, and an area where mosquitoes could breed (at the NE area of the property) 9) The site is not secure in any as the perimeter fencing is almost entirely fallen or has been removed for construction. Also, some of the plastic fencing has become more like litter than fencing. Due to lack of site security there are block piles with plywood material where kids have created ramps and jumps on the concrete slabs. The erected scaffolding set up on the slabs is also an invitation for to kids to climb 10) The original SWPPP measures that were placed on the site are almost entirely ineffective. A condition of the grading permit states that; "A STORMWATER PREVENTION PLAN IS PROVIDED FOR THIS SITE. THE PLAN IDENTIFIES THE MINIMUM MEASURES REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE MEASURES SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S), SILT FENCES, AND STRAW BALE BARRIERS SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNTIL ALL GRADED AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED WITH PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES". There are areas of serious erosion, excavations and piles of dirt without protective measures, silting, damaged filter socks and fencing, unprotected inlets/outlets at the detention basin, etc. 11) Another condition of the grading permit states that; "TEMPORARY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF WHEN THE GRADED AREAS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY STABILIZED". There are dirt/rock piles mixed together with old filter socks and similarly discarded temporary erosion control devices 12) A third condition of the grading permit states that; "TRASH DUMPSTERS MUST BE PROVIDED FOR TRASH DISPOSAL AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. WIRE RECEPTACLES ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR TRASH". The materials piled and scattered throughout the site are evidence that this condition is not being met In general, the site must be effectively cleaned and each of the items noted above satisfactorily addressed. This would include removal of all dead trees and sizeable branches, trash, broken pieces of pipe, broken pallets, unusable pieces of metal piping and wood form material, old plastic fencing, torn filter socks, broken chunks of asphalt, plastic wrap material, the damaged mortar trough, tumbleweeds and general litter. In addition, the large bags of solidified mortar mix will need to be removed. The vandalized flatbed truck needs to be removed or repaired and put into running order as it is considered a nuisance vehicle. The scaffolding that is set up needs to be taken down; locked, or along with the planking, stored or removed from the site. The reinforcing steel needs to be stored or removed from the site. The block needs to be neatly stacked in a staging area for future construction or removed from the site. The site also needs to be secured by resetting the perimeter fencing and limiting ready access. Finally, an engineer qualified to determine necessary SWPPP measures must provide a new plan for protection of all elements on site; and these measures need to be put in place to prevent further compromise of the site. The areas where dirt/rock piles occur need to be knocked down and graded so that water doesn't accumulate to a depth greater than 4 inches. The construction trailer needs to be removed from the site or may remain if painted a single solid color to alleviate the unsightly appearance. A company logo or design which employs more than one color can also be utilized. If you have questions about any of these requirements or would like to meet on site to review these conditions please feel free to call me at 520-229-4805. Your prompt response to these concerns is appreciated. Extension of any permits associated with this project may be preempted if measures to meet the minimum conditions are ignored. Respectfully; huck King Inspection & Compliance Div. Mgr. Cc. Paul Keesler; Suzanne Smith; permit file DUl3-D(-DU(, OUI 2D5- F� �p,L�EY q,4i <' .. O z- 9 'UNDED , 9' March 28th, 2006 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 - (520) 229-4800 - Fax (520) 742-1022 Oro Valley Public Library 1305 W. Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 - (520) 229.5300 - Fax (520) 229-5319 Parks and Recreation 680 W. Calla Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 - (520) 229-5050 - Fax (520) 797-2202 Dale Rittenhouse ,Rittenhouse Management Company 8956 E. Voltaire Drive Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 480.451.9286 ,faed tltit,�t"-�'d 3 jz& RE: Retail Tenant Uses for the Shoppes at Oracle; 8600 N. Oracle Road; OV12-05-17. Dear Dale, The Planning and Zoning Administrator has made a determination on what constitutes "Furniture store" as restricted as part of the Rezoning of this parcel. The sub -categories you have provided for review are listed below, preceded by the Administrator's determination. The lists below are uses that do not constitute "Furniture Stores", per the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 5736: Musical Instruments Stores: • Musical instrument stores -retail • Piano stores - retail • Sheet music - retail 5713• Floor Covering Stores: • Floor covering - retail • Floor tile - retail • Rug store - retail 5719: Miscellaneous Home Furnishings stores: • Bedding; • China stores - retail; • Cookware - retail; • Crockery stores; • Cutlery stores; • Fireplace screens and accessories - retail Fireplace stores - retail; • Glassware stores; • House wares store; • Kitchenware stores; • Lamp and shade stores; www.townoforovalley.com • Pottery stores; and • Window shade shops - retail. This list below includes uses that do constitute "Furniture Stores", per the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 5712: Furniture stores: • Bed and springs - retail • Mattress store - retail • Outdoor furniture- retail • Waterbeds - retail If you have any questions, please contact me. Most Cordially, Pamela J. Holt Planner 520.229.4813 pholt@orovalley.net F:\OV\OV12\2005\12-05-17\Correspondence\Development Plan a RMC Date: March 20, 2006 To: Sarah S. More, AICP C/o Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: Retail Tenant Uses Proposed for The Shoppes at Oracle 8600 N. Oracle Road; Case OV12-05-17 Dear Ms More: We appreciate your taking the time to administratively qualify proposed tenants for The Shoppes at Oracle. We provided a lengthy OSHA.NAICS document to define available standard industry uses for our project. With this correspondence we have greatly reduced the field of choice for your review. We look forward to your direction. We are asking your direction on Major Group 57 [Home furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Stores] and Major Group 58[Eating and Drinking Places]. We are not asking direction on the balance of Division G: Retail Trade or Divisions H: Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, I: Services, and J: Public Administration in total at this time. We would like to reserve the right to request your direction on these groups, on an individual basis, as the need arises. We will list the uses by sub -group for your review and direction as follows: YQS 5736: Musical Instrument Stores: Musical instrument stores — retail Piano stores - retail [Anchor Tenant & Developer] Sheet music stores - retail 5712: Furniture Stores: Bed and springs — retail Mattress stores, including custom made — retail Outdoor furniture — retail Waterbeds — retail 5713: Floor Covering Stores: �L Floor covering stores — retail Floor tile stores — retail Rug stores — retail7'�---- ' RITTENHOUSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 8956 East Voltaire Drive. Scottsdale, Arizona 85260-4256 Phone: 480.451.9286 E-mail: RITMGTCO(a)aol.com -1- RM C 5719: Miscellaneous Home Furnishings Stores: Bedding China stores — retail V" Cookware — retail Crockery stores — retail Cutlery stores — retail Fireplace screens and accessories — retail Fireplace stores — retail Glassware stores — retail Housewares stores — retail Kitchenware stores — retail Lamp and shade shops — retail Linen shops — retail Pottery stores — retail Window shade shops — retail Industry Group 581: Eating [5812] and Drinking [5813] Places to be reviewed and directed as serious tenants become available. We are looking for sit down type users. We hope we have provided a short enough list for you to review and a long enough list to provide enough prospects for our real estate agent to successfully lease our facility. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. We are available to meet with you and your staff for the review, if you deem that as appropriate. Best Regards, Dale Rittenhouse Designated Representative/ Herhode Development, LLC RITTENHOUSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 8956 East Voltaire Drive. Scottsdale, Arizona 85260-4256 Phone: 480.451.9286 E-mail: RITMGTCO(n�aol.com -2- MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Harold Kandetzke, Member David Johnson, Member Marc Panas, Member Mike Zinkin, Member (Acting Chair) ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Paul Keesler, Division Review Manager David Ronquillo, Senior Planner Pamela Holt, Planner Jill Manion -Farrar, Planner Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Mary Caswell, Chair Dan Sturmon, Vice Chair John Buette, Member ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE 2!1ti;2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 11 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 2005 STUDY SESSION MINUTES AND THE JANUARY 10, 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve both sets of minutes as submitted. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-06-01, C&C CONSTRUCTION CO. INC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR A CUSTOM HOME IN THE UPLANDS SUBDIVISION, LOT 5, LOCATED IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, 1/8 MILE WEST FROM TO THE LA CANADA INTERSECTION, PARCEL #224-25-2320 B. OV13-06-02, C&C CONSTRUCTION CO. INC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR A CUSTOM HOME IN THE UPLANDS SUBDIVISION, LOT 6, LOCATED IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, 1/8 MILE WEST FROM THE LA CANADA INTERSECTION, PARCEL #224-25-2320 C. OV13-06-03, C&C CONSTRUCTION CO. INC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR A CUSTOM HOME IN THE UPLANDS SUBDIVISION, LOT 7, LOCATED IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, 1/8 MILE WEST FROM THE LA CANADA INTERSECTION, PARCEL #224-25-2320 D. OV13-06-04, DAVID JORGENSON REPRESENTING, CORBAN ENTERPRISES, REQUESTS ARCHITECTUAL APPROVAL OF A CUSTOM HOME ON LOT 114 OF THE CANADA HILLS ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 10845 NORTH SUMMER MOON PLACE, PARCEL # 224266910. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve all four Consent Agenda Items. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 4-0. REGULAR AGENDA 1. CONTINUED ITEM: OV12-05-01, ALPHA ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING CAPE CORAL LAND CO., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER, LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND HARDY ROAD, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE CIRCLE K, PARCEL 225-14-166B i \];\( ([�: ,CMB"10)00" lh-HOVhllt[[c�.doc_' Approved03-14-06 2/16%2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 11 Applicants Brad Gephart, Co -Manager of Cape Coral Land Company, address 1730 North Tucson Boulevard, and Dan Sharp, Architect, gave their presentation. Mr. Gephart explained that this item was continued from December. Primary concerns were the circulation throughout the plan and the need for more detail in the landscape and the wall areas. All major issues had been resolved to staff's satisfaction and agreement had been reached. There are no objections to staff recommendations. Applicants met with engineering staff today, reviewed additional changes and agreed that applicant has made good progress and should be on time for resubmission to Town Council. Mr. Sharp said that applicants met with staff on January 9, 2006, and brought in a conceptual plan. He detailed the revisions, which accommodate staff requirements and address some of the comments from the December DRB meeting. • Drives have been changed to one-way to two-way. • The two drives have been aligned on a cross -axis. • There are now 130 parking spaces and parking bumpers.. • A 5' screen wall, along the east 30' landscape border, has been added. • Dense and high vegetation on the east screen wall and along the path adjacent to the screen and the path, has been added. • Rip -rap along property line was moved to the center of the 30' landscape buffer. • Two distinct future access points were provided, in case the Circle K expands. • Two to three feet high parking lighting has been added. • Restaurant drop-off area redesigned. • Loading area was redesigned so delivery trucks don't have to back up into traffic. Member Zinkin asked where the dumpster for Lot 2 is located. Applicant replied that it was at the northeast corner, and would be screened in with heavy vegetation. Member Zinkin asked for a clarification on the landscape plan, which shows 140 parking spaces, and the Master Development Plan, which shows 130 parking spaces. Applicant said the discrepancy was a typo error. The Development Plan shows the correct number. Member Kandetzke asked if the two items were to be addressed separately or together. Member Zinkin said they should be addressed separately since there were different speakers. Senior Planner David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record and requested permission to present the Master Development Plan and the Landscape Plan simultaneously and have the Board provide separate motions at the end. Member Zinkin said that was fine. Mr. Ronquillo presented a map showing the project and said that at the last meeting, the DRB recommended continuance because of certain design issues. He displayed the previous plan to illustrate the concerns and the revised plan to show that concerns have been addressed. Board members and staff were given a copy of the revised plan, labeled L-1. F:\MINUTES\DRB`,2006\02-16-06 `-tinutes.doe Approved 03-14-06 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 11 Mr. Ronquillo stated that the project's Master Development Plan and the Master Landscape Plan meet all code requirements and staff recommends approval with the conditions in Exhibit A, deleting Condition number 1. Member Kandetzke asked if any of the engineering concerns, when satisfied, will change the Master Development Plan. Mr. Ronquillo replied that as far as design, building layouts and parking circulation, they would not change the Master Development Plan. Paul Keesler added that the engineering issues are updates for drainage and details needed to confirm that the drainage works once we get to the improvement plan stage. The improvements plans will have to match the Master Development Plan. In no way is that going to change the actual layout, landscaping or general feel of this development at all; these are just issues that need to be completed before we start on the development plan. Member Kandetzke asked if this project consisted of three separate parcels. Mr. Ronquillo said it did. Member Kandetzke asked what kind of changes we could expect as these parcels come before us with future development plans. Mr. Ronquillo said the Master Development Plan is prepared for the whole site. Later, on the individual development plans, each pad on its own will meet the 20 % open space requirements. Member Kandetzke asked if there was any limit on what the building heights will be. Mr. Ronquillo replied that the maximum for Cl is 25 feet because the Oracle Road Overlay District wasn't established as far as this site. Member Kandetzke asked if customers have been identified. Mr. Ronquillo replied that the plan is still conceptual and users have not been identified for specific lots. Member Kandetzke asked if the square footage of the proposed buildings could change. Mr. Ronquillo said the purpose of the Master Development Plan was to establish conceptual areas for building, circulation, and parking. When individual development plans come in the key is to stay close to the conceptual design or revise the Master Development Plan. Member Kandetzke expressed concern that once the Master Development Plan is approved, no individual plot has the authority to alter it. He asked if the particular owner of the three plots could sell off each individual plot, and asked how the Master Development Plan would be modified. Mr. Ronquillo said the owners could sell. Minor changes could be done administratively and major changes would require a revision of the entire Master Development Plan. Without seeing the specific changes, it is hard to say whether it would be a change that could be done administratively or one which would require a revision. Member Kandetzke asked for the basis for comments on the staff report that refer to excessive building square footage on the site. Mr. Ronquillo explained that the comments were based on last month's DRB meeting minutes. Member Kandetzke asked if anything had been done to mitigate. Mr. Ronquillo said that this point nothing can or has been done, as the applicants are still well under the minimum requirement ratio. F:`,MINU`ITS\DR13\2006`02-16-06 N4inutes.doc Approved 03-14-06 . 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 11 Member Zinkin asked if, now that there is two-way traffic, there is any plan of installing traffic calming devices. Paul Keesler replied that stop signs will be required on the improvement plans. It has not yet been determined which lanes will be primary and secondary. From an engineering standpoint, north/south would be the preference for primary and east/west secondary. Mr. Ronquillo requested to make a clarification. Part of the staff recommendation was to delete Condition 1 of the Landscape Plan. Mr. Ronquillo said he would like to leave that in. Member Zinkin opened the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 1. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated his objections to this Master Development Plan. The applicants don't intend to develop this property, but will sell it to ultimate owners who will develop the property. They are submitting a plan which they have no control over how it is designed or developed, what uses are actually there, and what the square footage will be. This is not appropriate or what the Code intends. Largely because of the property conditions, shape and size of the property, the design is unsuitable and incompatible with the standards in Oro Valley. The property is crowded, and the two-way traffic adds to the congestion and the risk. This property should not be developed with buildings of different sizes and shapes, but rather with one centrally located building. This plan may be workable in terms of the strict interpretation of the Code, but it is not suitable or compatible. Access from Hardy Road is not a way to access this property, as this adds another element of risky congestion. Member Zinkin closed the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 1. MOTION: Member Johnson MOVED to recommend approval of the Master Development plan for commercial center, OV12-05-01, subject to the conditions specified in Exhibit A. MOTION DIED due to no second. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend DENIAL of OV 12-05-01, Master Development Plan for commercial center,finding that the plan itself doesn't really give the information needed about the property or what we are being asked to approve. Member Panas SECONDED motion. Motion carried 4-0. 2._ CONTINUED ITEM, OV12-05-01, THE ACACIA GROUP, REPRESENTING CAPE CORAL LAND CO., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND HARDY ROAD, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE CIRCLE K. PARCEL 225-14-166B F:'. 1MiN1J'1'ES\I:)RB\2006',02-16-06 %-linutes.doc Approved 03-14-06 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 11 Applicants Brad Gephart, co -manager of Cape Coral Land Company, 1730 North Tucson Boulevard, presented. Mr. Gephart asked if he would be allowed to go back and address the last issue. Member Zinkin told him it wouldn't do any good. Mr. Gephart stated that applicant submitted a revised Landscape Plan which met staff requirements and now sought approval of that, even if they have to revisit the issue of the Master Development Plan. Applicant designed a master plan because applicant has tried to sell the property as a single use piece for 20 years and the market is not there. Attorney Andrews interrupted by pointing out that this was going back into the previous item, and explained that each item has to be dealt with separately under the Open Meeting Law. John Hucko, Acacia Group Landscape Architects and Planners, presented the revised landscape plan, which now includes 45 trees across the east bufferyard. Another condition, to have the tree canopies touching for ultimate screening, has been done. The landscaping on both sides of the 5 foot screen wall meets the needs of the homeowners. Member Kandetzke asked how long it would take the trees to provide a canopy. Mr. Hucko replied that the 24" box -size mesquites and acacias would achieve the touching canopy height in two growing seasons. Member Kandetzke asked if Mr. Hucko would have anything to do with the ongoing maintenance. Mr. Hucko said personally would not; his company would ensure that plantings are done per the plans, and then maintenance would be entirely up to the owner. David Ronquillo stated that staff recommends approval of the Master Landscape Plan, based on the revised site plan that the applicant submitted, with the conditions included therein. Member Kandetzke asked if the recommendation in the staff report was null and void, and if staff was recommending approval, instead of continuance. Mr. Ronquillo replied that was correct, based on the revised plan, that would change to a recommendation of approval. Bayer Vella pointed out that DRB's denial of the Master Development Plan has practical implications on the Landscape Plan and asked the Board to keep that in mind. If the Development Plan ends up changing dramatically once revised by Town Council, that would necessitate additional review of the Landscape Plan. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to continue OV 12-05-01, Master Landscape Plan and (based on Mr. Joe Andrews' legal recommendation that the continuance be indefinite due to the fact that in this item would have to be re -noticed if it were to come back based on what comes from the Town Council) then modified the MOTION to continue indefinitely. Member Johnson SECONDED. Motion carried 4-0. F:\AN41\L TES\D1tB\2006`02-16-06 1linutes.doc Approved 03-14-06 2i 10, 2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 11 3. OV13-06-06, GANSLINE ARCHITECTS REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR THE "SHOPPES AT ORACLE" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED AT 8600 NORTH ORACLE ROAD IN PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST OF ORACLE ROAD AND HARDY ROAD; PARCELS 225-13-005C AND 225-13-006B. Applicant Bill Gansline, project architect, said the Development Plan was previously approved by the DRB. He presented an overview, conceptual plans, elevations, and a sky view. Project consists of three buildings. Materials are a metal standing seam copper roof, natural stone, matching stone veneer, concrete masonry Hacienda Block. There are two separate colors and glass fronts. There are overhangs, an outside patio, two covered pedestrian areas, and an identification tower. Planner Pamela Holt introduced the staff report into the record. She emphasized that the elevations don't clearly depict the non -linear design of the buildings. The building juts in and out, adding visual interest to the front of the building. At the back of the building, the alternately colored stucco helps provide visual interest and helps break up the visual mass. Staff recommends approval of the architectural plans Member Panas asked if something further could be done to break up the back, with either pattern or color. Ms. Holt deferred the question to the applicant, who said they could do what DRB liked, but pointed out this is the rear of the shopping center, where there will be electrical panels, gas meters, loading zones, trucks, and dumpsters. The south part of this property is going to be cut into the hillside about 10 feet and be below grade because the property slopes from the south to the north. One is not going to see much of the back of the building from that southeast house. The houses on the northeast are looking at the north side of the project, which is the restaurant component with the sloped roof and glass. The middle part of the shopping center, which is recessed in the site plan, has no view from any neighbors because there is a wash there. In addition, we have the 5' — 8' screen wall, and a lot of mitigation, which includes the landscaping. Member Panas asked how high the towers were and if they were within the allowable heights. Ms. Holt said one is 38.75' high and the other is 41' high. The permitted building heights for this area are 25' per the zoning and the Planning and Development plan, and the towers are permitted under the code as architectural elements and are permitted to exceed the permitted building height. Mr. Vella added that it does meet code, and that it is within the purview of the DRB to determine whether it's within the design and scale of the rest of the building. Member Panas commented that it just looked really high. Member Johnson asked what the grade change was from the residential first floor to the shopping center. Ms. Holt replied that when one is standing directly across the wash, at the two homes adjacent to the homes, one is standing at the same grade. As to what happens after the improvement plans, she couldn't say, and deferred this question to the applicant. Applicant said the house to the north is going to be very close to the same grade as the finished elevations of our project. The house to the south will be above the grade level of the project. With regard to the issue of towers heights, there is a section in the commercial section of the Oro Valley Code that encourages towers I : All\"( I1=1) DR[1 2006 02-16-06 Approved 03-14-06 . 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 11 and other elements to breakup the horizontal mass along elevations. It doesn't just permit, it uses the word "encourage." MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve OV 13-06-06, the Shoppes at Oracles, request for approval of commercial architectural review, subject to the condition described in Exhibit A. Member Johnson SECONDED motion. Discussion: comment from Member Panas that he would like to see the tower a little bit smaller. Member Zinkin acknowledged that it is hard to envision the height of the tower, but pointed out that it does add interest. Motion carried: 3-1 (Panas opposed). 4. OV12-05-25, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING PEPPERVINER HOMES INC., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A 69 LOT SUBDIVISION WITHIN ROONEY RANCH AREA Z LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NARANJA DRIVE AND FIRST AVENUE PARCEL 220-09-0160 Applicants Rob Longaker, of WLB Group, 4444 East Broadway Blvd., Tucson, Bill Viner and Richard Barna (Construction Manager for Pepper Viner, 11153 North Poinsettia, Oro Valley) of Pepper Viner Homes, and John Holly, Civil Engineer with WLB Group, presented. Project encompasses 77 acres, and consists of 69 homes in a high -end, gated, single family residential community with 2 recreation areas and undisturbed natural open space across two thirds of the project. Applicants displayed a scale model of the project. Staff report currently allows for eleven 2- story homes. Applicants are asking DRB to consider request to build six additional 2-story homes, for a total of seventeen 2-story homes. This issue centers on a visibility clause in the Zoning Code, which restricts houses visible from First Avenue to single story. When staff did their analysis, they learned there are some places along First Avenue where you can see into the project. Applicants feel these are fairly small windows that, and as one drives by, don't offer very good glimpses of the property. Applicants' request is to build three 2-story homes on Lots 5-9. Applicants also ask that Lots 44-53, which closely approximate the lots that in the Zoning are restricted to single story, be restricted to single story. Applicants pointed out some alternative sights for 2-story homes. Applicants said that the distance between First Avenue and the project takes the visual characteristics of any 2-story home almost out of play. Bill Viner, 4121 N. Camino Arco, Tucson, Arizona, summarized that applicant is asking for six additional 2-story homes. Staff had congregated them all in one area. Applicants wants some of the 2-story homes in the area to the back of the project to, so that they are not all in the same area, and would like to increase that number by six, to make the project more viable. 1 :\1'f1NUT'ES\DRB\2006"02-16-06 Minules.doc Approved 03-14-06 . 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 11 Member Kandetzke asked if applicants had discussed these recommendations with staff and was agreement reached. Applicant clarified that applicants and staff are not in full agreement. Attorney Andrews interjected that under the "viewable from First Avenue" analysis that there is possibly some gray area. A legal problem arises if there is a request to rezone at the DRB level. If the zoning restricts 2-story homes, making an interpretation at the DRB level is a problem. The determination on zoning is generally made at the staff level. If there's something that the applicant disagrees with, they should go out with staff and find out is it or is it not viewable, and if they need a second story on certain lots, that requires rezoning and is not something that would come to DRB. Member Panas referred to the entrances, one of which comes off of the dead end at the stop light, and asked if the stop light would be built through off of Lambert. Applicant said that it would. Member Panas asked how far away the second entrance off of First would be to the stop light, and if there was a plan for an additional traffic signal there also. Applicant said is it approximately 1,200 feet. Paul Kessler interjected that there were no plans to install a traffic signal at that particular juncture, as it would put the two traffic signals to close together. Member Panas asked if the second entrance off of First would that go all the way through the neighborhood, and if traffic jams were anticipated. Applicant said that anyone living in the community would have access at either entrance. Paul Keesler said the applicant and staff worked out the issues with the two entrances, and with circulation within. Member Zinkin asked if, at the entrances off of Lambert, a school bus would be able to get in and make a U-turn and get out so that it doesn't have to stop on First Avenue for schoolchildren. Applicant said both entrances were designed to accommodate large vehicles such as school buses. Member Johnson asked applicant to run through the lot numbers to indicate which ones have been approved for 2-story. Applicant said Lots 1-4 would be one story. Lots 5 through 9, three of those would be 2-story. Attorney Andrews added that a determination would need to be made to ensure that those are not viewable from First Avenue. Applicant identified an additional four lots, Lots 66 through 69, 56 through 59, 32, 37, and 38; these are already allowed. Member Johnson asked what was relevant to seeing the houses from First Avenue. Attorney Andrews clarified that the zoning just says "viewable from First Avenue" meaning that if one is on First Avenue and you can see it it, it is viewable. Member Johnson asked if staff could identify those areas that on this site are completely allowable for the 2-story houses, and then point out the gray area and get down to the ones that are strictly for a zoning variance. Mr. Bayer Vella said that the staff report identifies all of the lots that are visible from First Avenue. The only discretion here in whether or not they are viewable from First Avenue. The staff report provides a description of the methodology used to determine if it's visible Member Zinkin said that Lots 66, 67, 68, and 69 are going to allow 2-stories anyway, that's not restricted. Fifty-six through 59 isn't restricted in Exhibit A, but 5 through 9 are restricted to one l�:",MINL"I'ESIDRB\2006`02-16-06 llinutes.doc Approved 03-14-06 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 11 story. The only debate is on Lot 5 through 9. Member Zinkin asked which other lots applicants wanted as 2-story. Applicant replied that they were asking for three more, but they haven't identified which ones, and pointed out to the area in the middle of the project. Member Zinkin said DRB needed more specifics. Mr. Viner clarified that applicant was trying to obtain permission for a maximum of seventeen 2-story lots. A lot of these potential 2-story houses will be driven by the customers' wishes, who might prefer to have a one-story home. Applicant wouldn't build more than any two 2-stories in a row. Member Zinkin said he cannot see how DRB can make a decision to allow a 2-story home potentially visible from First Avenue if we don't know where that home is going to be. Mr. Vella interjected that to a degree a portion of this discussion is esoteric. The zoning requirement is a "shall." To receive a waiver from that, applicant has to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council to allow lots that are viewable from First Avenue to be 2-story. Member Zinkin asked if that waiver request should be done prior to applicant coming to DRB. Mr. Andrews said that was correct. Mr. Vella said this was a legal, rather than a policy, issue. Member Kandetzke offered a suggestion that DRB determine what is and is not visible. If the lot is visible it means a zoning waiver or change. If it isn't visible, applicant can proceed. If lots fall into discussion between applicants and staff, that should be revolved at the proper level of authority, not at DRB. Applicant said one of the things they would ask, if appropriate, is that there be a caveat on the staff recommendation that the plan would be able to move forward with 2-story homes on those designated lots, if it was determined by staff prior to issuance of a building permit or the final plat, that they were not visible from First Avenue. Member Kandetzke asked Mr. Andrews if DRB had the authority to do what applicant is asking. Mr. Andrews said that has already been done. If it is not visible from First Avenue, there is not a problem. If it is visible from First Avenue there is a problem. The Code is a "shall." Anything that is visible from First Avenue, under the Zoning Code, would require a zoning change. Member Kandetzke asked Mr. Vella if he and the applicant were in agreement with what is visible and what is not. Mr. Vella replied there has not been a discussion about that, but that the staff report would shed some light on this issue, as it would explain how the site was tested. If it comes down to an issue to which lots remain that the staff and the applicant are disagreeing about, then we may add conditions specific to those few lots or give staff direction to do further testing. Applicant pointed out that he didn't know if staff analyzed every lot. Mr. Vella said that staff had not. Applicant pointed out that it has been analyzed pre -grading. It might be more appropriate for staff to analyze after the grading, and go out, lot by lot, and identify which lots can be seen. Paul Keesler pointed out that Public Works would not be able to issue a Type II Grading Permit in order to conduct the grading for this site that would necessitate this testing without prior approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat and the improvement plans. There is no guarantee that the ultimate improvement plans will be graded at the exact same level. l�:`MINU'I'ESIDRI3`,2006-`02-16-06 Minutes.doe Approved 03-14-06 W 2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes— Page 11 of 11 Bill Viner suggested that, rather than restricting homes which may or may not visible from First Avenue, a possible solution would be a recommendation from the DRB (adhering to the zoning conditions) that if those lots are visible from First Avenue (based on a field trip by staff and the applicant after grading), the planning, tentative plat and development plat processes could continue, and if it is agreed lots are not visible, Applicant could build 2-story homes on those specific lots. Planner David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record and presented a general location map and a project overview. He described the methodology used to determine if a particular area of the project was visible from First Avenue. Overall, the project meets all the code requirements, and staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions in Exhibit A, which includes the restriction on the lots that, based on our analysis, are visible from First Avenue. Attorney Andrews said staff might have potentially worked up an alternative condition to help meet the applicants' needs and also comply with the zoning without having to go back for a rezoning. Mr. Bayer offered the following alternative wording: "Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Planning & Zoning Administrator must determine which lots (not lot areas specifically addressed as part of the rezoning) are `viewable' from First Avenue as provided in OV9-03-03. All `viewable' lots are restricted to one story." Member Zinkin asked how that language be incorporated into Exhibit A. Mr. Vella recommended replacement of the language in Item #1 with the proposed language. Member Zinkin asked applicants if that was agreeable to them. Applicants said it was. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend approval of OV12-05-25, preliminary plat for Rooney Ranch Area Z, Lots 1- 69, with the conditions listed in Exhibit A, replacing Item # 1 with the following: "Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Planning & Zoning Administrator must determine which lots (not lot areas specifically addressed as part of the rezoning) are `viewable' from First Avenue as provided in OV9-03-03. All `viewable' lots are restricted to one story." Motion SECONDED by Member Johnson. Motion carried 4-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to adjourn the February 16, 2006, Development Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 7:50 p.m. Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Prepared by: Arinda Asper Office Assistant F:'kMINL "I'ES\DR13\2006\02-16-06 1%linutes.doc Approved 03-14-06 3 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: February 16, 2006 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: Pamela J. Holt, Planner SUBJECT: OV13-06-06, GANSLINE ARCHITECTS REOUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR THE "SHOPPES AT ORACLE" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED AT 8600 NORTH ORACLE ROAD IN PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST OF ORACLE ROAD AND HARDY ROAD; PARCEL #Is 225-13-005C AND 225-13-006B. BACKGROUND: The 6.22 acre site is currently undeveloped and designated C-1, Commercial District. The site is accessed off Oracle Road and southeast of Hardy Road. Each parcel was rezoned separately and approved by Town Council in May of 2001. The Development Plan for the "Shoppes at Oracle" was approved by the Development Review Board on December 191h, 2005. The Development Plan has been forward to the Town Council, and is scheduled on the agenda for February 22"d, 2006. As part of the Development Plan, all design issues, such as building layout, building heights, and the like, were resolved. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposal entails a commercial architecture review for the "Shoppes at Oracle". The proposal entails a commercial complex comprised of three separate buildings with a combined square footage of 52,455. The uses for the site are as follows: • Restaurant: 10,054 Square Feet, with outside patio; • General Retail: 10,888 Square Feet; • General Office: 7,800 Square Feet; • Art Galleries and Studios: 23,713 Square Feet; Design elements: ■ Earth -toned color palette consisting of muted browns; ■ Main stucco color will be a light tan, with brown -colored trim accents; ■ Natural stone veneer will be used to highlight features, as shown on the west elevation for Building 91; ■ The masonry "hacienda" block will be utilized as an accent feature to the natural stone veneer along the western elevations of all buildings; ■ Building #1 utilizes an arched and overhanging metal copper roof, as well as a tower component as an architectural element; ■ The roof line of Building #2 is comprised of flat roofs with slight variations in height; ■ Building #3 incorporates primarily level flat roofs, with the addition of a tower component as well. Architectural Style: Territorial and Contemporary blend. As provided with the Rezoning, proposed building heights are limited from eighteen to twenty-five feet (18'- 25'). The bell towers heights are permitted under the OVZCR Section 23.5 Measurements and Exceptions B 2 Height exceptions c Architectural Elements: "Within nonresidential districts, architectural elements such as TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 2 of 6 bell towers may exceed this limitation. " The applicant proposes two towers at approximately forty-two feet (42') and thirty-eight feet (38') in height. Setbacks: • Front: Average of 120 feet (ORSCOD requirement) • Side: 50 feet (where C-1 abuts Single-family Residential [SFR]) • Rear: 25 feet Setbacks/Lot Fit The proposed building complies with the OVZCR regarding the proper setbacks for Community Commercial (C-1). The entire parcel consists of 275,734.80 SF (or 6.33 Acres). The total square footage for the combined buildings is 52,455. The proposed buildings fit on the lot. SURROUNDING LAND USES: • North: R1-144; Single Family Residential; adjacent parcel is undeveloped vacant land. • South: R-6; Multi -Family Residential; adjacent site is the Teen Challenge facility. • West: R-4; Townhouse Residential; the complex is the Casitas Del Oro Vistas (directly across Oracle Road from the site). • East: R1-36; Single Family Residential; adjacent neighborhood is the Rancho Catalina Subdivision; and R-6, Multi -Family Residential is also adjacent to site; Sunnyslope Townhouses. The neighboring buildings do not have a cohesive design palette. The Teen Challenge facility has a light tan colored building fagade. The Casitas Del Oro Vistas complex utilizes various shades of brown in their color palette. Other nearby commercial developments to the north includes a storage facility and a Circle-K. Neither development utilizes a cohesive color palette. The surrounding land uses do not fit any architectural style. COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA: Chapter 22.6. B. 4, "The height, area, setbacks, and overall mass as well as parts of any structure and landscaping shall be appropriate to the development, then neighborhood, and the community. " • The proposed design meets all building height requirements and setback requirements and it appropriate for the development and neighborhood. Chapter 22.6.13. 6, "The character of the proposed design shall be in harmony with, and compatible to, those structures in the neighboring environment and the design character adopted for any given area avoiding excessive variety or monotone. • The existing neighboring buildings in the development do not have any strong architectural elements or features. The exception is a tan and brown color palette utilized by both the Casitas Del Oro Vistas complex and the Teen Challenge building. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 3 of 6 • The proposed building merges a fusion of Territorial and Contemporary building styles; stone veneer; masonry brick; and an earth -toned color palette for the building facades. As the neighboring buildings lack a cohesive design, the proposed building exceeds the intent of the requirement listed above by providing a cohesive design. Chapter 22.6.B.10, "All exterior materials and colors including roofs, walls and fences shall be predominantly muted earth and plant tones and shall minimize contrast and glare. " The materials and colors proposed for the commercial building meets this requirement (please see attached color palette). The two primary colors are muted earth tones comprised of tan and brown shades. A condition has been added to ensure this requirement will be met during the building process. This condition ensures that the flat roof segments are painted to match the stucco color (review Condition #1). The attached color palette lists the reflectivity values of the proposed colors. Colors and window reflectivity values are below this requirement. OVZCR DESIGN GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE: Design Guidelines C 2 d iii: "Vary roof line silhouettes. " • The proposed building utilizes roof line styles such as flat roofs of varying heights and curved arches. Design Guidelines C 2 e is "Design buildings with consideration given to all sides of the building. " • The architect has designed the entire building facades convey visual interest through the use of the stone veneer, masonry brick, and a two -toned minimum color scheme on the building facades. • Specifically, when designing for the rear (east) and sides (north and south) building facades, the architect has incorporated masonry brick columns, echoing the design of the masonry brick columns which are provided along the front building facades. • The building facades are varied to provide an alternative color palette between the main stucco color and the accent color as provided on the color palette sheet. Design Guidelines C 2 e iv: "Rooftop mechanical equipment, vents, and ducts should be screened or installed in a manner that prevents obstruction or distraction of views. Screening should be consistent with building design. Low (50%) reflectivity materials are required. " • A condition has been added (Condition #2, Exhibit A) to ensure that this requirement will be met during the building process. Design Guidelines C 6 h: "The visual impact of large scale conunercial buildings ("big box') and commercial complexes should be moderated to reduce the apparent scale and mass of such projects. Articulate facades (exterior walls) to reduce scale and mass and provide visual interest. (Figure 28) Tliis is to be accomplished by: (a) Ground level facades that face public streets and/or primary parking areas should have one- story pedestrian scale features for at least 213 of the horizontal length of the side of a building. Features may include windows, entry areas, arcades and/or overhangs (awnings, trellis, etc) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Page 4 of 6 • All building facades are designed in manner to provide story pedestrian scale features for at least 2/3 of the horizontal length of all buildings. (b) Facades greater than 100 feet in horizontal length should be broken by recesses or off -sets. Alternatively, the horizontal length may be broken by vertical elements. Off -sets or vertical elements should be of sufficient size to effectively mitigate the visual impact of the horizontal line and mass. • Roofline silhouettes are accented by variations in height, which meet the requirement listed above. • Building facades are broken up by recessed and off -set design structures. This is clearly seen on Buildings #2 and #3. The building facades meet the one hundred foot (100') variation criteria listed above. • The towers effectively mitigate the visual impact of the horizontal line and mass by providing vertical interest and identification along the entire length of the building facades. The "Shoppes at Oracle" buildings are about five hundred feet (500') in length. The heights of the two towers are about forty feet (40'). This is less than ten percent (10%) of the horizontal length. Design Guidelines 8 e: "Utilize pedestrian scale features at the ground level, such as planters, benches, and textures (Design Guidelines: Figure 12). " • The approved landscape plan incorporates potted plants around the exterior of all the buildings. All sides of the building facades currently utilize natural stone veneer and masonry "hacienda" brick, in addition to color variations and pop -outs. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: This development project and architecture review has been reviewed using the General Plan 1996. The development process began prior to the ratification of the General Plan 2020. Policy 9.1 F: "All sides of buildings may impact their surroundings and shall be coherently designed and treated. " • All building facades are designed in a coherent and appealing manner. Visual interest is provided through the use of two -toned minimum color scheme on the building facades, and also through the use of pop -outs. Natural stone veneer and masonry `hacienda" brick columns provide addition vertical interest. PUBLIC PRESENTATION: Pursuant to Resolution (R) 98-31, "all presentations before Boards, Commissions and Council of rezonings, subdivision plats, development plans, and planned area developments must be formatted to be shown on the Town's projection system or overhead system. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, however, may exempt certain projects." The Applicant is responsible for all aspects of the presentation. If an applicant does not conform to the aforementioned resolution, the item may be continued due to non-compliance. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Pate 5 of 6 The following is offered as guidance for applicant presentations: • A presentation must be designed to ensure that the audience, staff, and voting body can view the graphics • Presentations should include a location map, project history, site layout, and a depiction of all pertinent design elements (colors, materials, etc) • Examples of acceptable foimats are PowerPoint, ArcView, a videotape presentation, presentation boards and/or overhead transparencies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed Commercial Architecture review, with the conditions listed in Exhibit A, would have no adverse impacts to the neighboring buildings. The design of the commercial buildings compiles with all applicable elements of the General Plan, the OVZCR, and the Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to approve of OV 13-06-06, the "Shoppes at Oracle" request for approval of Commercial Architecture review, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. XMI I move to approve of OV 13-06-06, the "Shoppes at Oracle" request for approval of Commercial Architecture review, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A and the following additional conditions: I move to deny of OV 13-06-06, the "Shoppes at Oracle" request for approval of Commercial Architecture review, finding that: Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval 2. Elevations and Site Plan CC: Bill Gansline 577.9362 Fax: 299.5154 F:\OV\OV13\2006\13-06-06\Reports\DRB EXHIBIT "A" OV13-06-06 ARCHITECTURE REVIEW "SHOPPES AT ORACLE' 1. Flat roof segments shall be painted to match approved stucco color. 2. Rooftop mechanical equipment, vents, and ducts must be screened and installed in a manner that prevents obstruction or distraction of views from Oracle Road and the surrounding residences. Screening must be consistent with building design. Low (less than 50%) reflectivity materials are required (Design Guidelines: Figure 13). IU�ST B!-DCz. 1 13mm NORTH 5i-DG. 1 2 1 : 3m0 ■ ■ ■ inur[n djr axxnreaafex ARCHITEC iS PLANNERS UJ�ST3OO p�PCz. 2 1 1 : 2 D2 �ASt 1 : 3(dfa 2 ■ � ■ i�ex[xnr, djr axrnMiaafrne ARCHITECTS PLANNEflS UJEST Bi—, "rt: 3 1 I : 300 SOuT 2 1:300 ��'� ��1 rZ T k�';w.4..� ❑ o s?p��. � o ❑ 1�'� AwK� 6LDG.I 6LDG.2 BLOG.3 REFER TO 8HT I REFER TO 8HT 2 REFER TO 8HT 3 WI=BT B!-Pa. >=l-EVATION ELDG.3 DLDCx.2 BLDG.I REFER TO 9r4T 3 REFER TO SF4T 2 REFER TO SHT I 0 2A8T B!-DCx. ELEVATION 1" = 50'-mH ■ ■ ■ aitxlxrtp di' axrviri2lex ARCHITECTS PLANNERS t The Shoppes at Oracle Road December 19, 2005 Novak Environmental, Inc. 4574 North First Avenue, Suite 100 Tucson, Arizona 85719 -11 C" 5m1' - 10 1/8" 1=1.00R PLAN 1 1° a 4m'-m° r ■ t ■ q-61 TECTS PLANNERS ., - �^i�- . �[$ ootIl - oV13-0 (o-oC past BLDC� 2 West BI.DCrt 2 FEB 7 200,5 ■ � ■ tna+rli�� ' ax�w�iislrx 2 ARCHITECTS PLANNERS ONE i l�\AI �IIT .>•.�� i fir. �c71�18y r7ly� — �,.ed �s� � , � •Fail e ROWSICI �� „ Il�� I o 9: MEN fifflalble awsociffles ARCHITECTS PLANNERS PHONE: 520 577-9362 FAX: 520 299-5154 A ■ ■ ■ ansline 4i associates ARCHITECTS PLANNERS PHONE: 520 577-9362 FAX: 520 299-5154 OV12-05-1-1 5600 N. ORACLE ROAD ORO VALLEY, AZ NOTE: TH15 IS A RE5U5MITTAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THIS PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH THE THE THE OF ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CONDITIONS FOR THE DEV. PLAN 4i=='ROV,4L. 45 SUCH, ALL ITEMS SPECIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURE 5U5MITTAL HAVE SEEN UNCHANGED EXCEPT THE HEIGHTS OF THE 'TOWERS' WERE REDUCED TO 30'. DR5 CONDITIONS: ]FLAT ROOF SEGMENTS 5HALL 5E PAINTED TO MATCH 4PPR0VED STUCCO COLOR. 2.ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, VENTS AND DUCTS MUST 5E SCREENED AND INSTALLED PREVENTS 055TRUCTION OR DISTRACTION OF VIEW5 FROM ORACLE ROAD AND SURROUNDING SCREENING MUST 5E CONSISTENT WITH 5UILDING DESIGN. LOW (LE55 THAN 50 c,) REFLECTIVITY REQUIRED (DESIGN GUIDELINES: FIGURE 13). APPROVtO BY: TC/PZ/D"BOA a-/ - DA FA bl, Z PROJECT MANAGER N A MANNER THAT RESIDENCES. MATERIALS ,ARE 16 EAST 5LD 2 1/1(0" = 1'-0" NOfRT 5LD r 2 1/1(0 " = 1' - 0 11 WE5 1/16 = T 5LDCz 2 1' 0 11 =,45T 5LDG 3 1/1( II _ 1 1 _ /T II sours 5LDG 3 rA& 1/1(0 II _ 1I_oII WE5T 5LDG 3 �& i WE5T 5LID I 1/1(0 II _ 1 1-011 NORTH 5LID I 1/1(0 II _ 1 1 _ 0 11 EA5T 5LIDG 1 1/1(0 11 _ 1 1-0 _0 11 5C)UT 5LID r 1 1/1(0 11 _ 1 1 _ 0 11 The Shoppes at Oracle Road December 19, 2005 Novak Environmental, Inc. 4574 North First Avenue, Suite 100 Tucson, Arizona 85719 501' - 10 1/8" 1=1.oO5' PI -AN 1 111 = Y0'-�II CA v r ■ ■ iaex[inetir Rxx�Mealrx AICHITECT5 pLpNNFRS WSW- liliftu WFINS IMF - IN w @__�A8t BJ-PC� 2 1/16" = 1'-m" UJ�St 5 L.PCs 2 2 1/16" FEB 7 20 mom" ■ ttttxliue dY axArAci 2 ARCHITECTS � �w k - i ^+w :'trt x 'nfam.�nMi ,J --•"�"'.'S;i�n i }.niT. ..z�� Y xY'.�k 4fi�.�3..i��M1..4A#.'+ i' WSW a 7 i i k $ Nl -w17 k ro "E y(� y i'4 JC' R i 1 d �i ,i�7i8iw"' � 4S -' 3 .P e 1 6 s ! x i w.» a rk \ a X ! "2 F. } - KIM fi� r 3 a. F � -i7l i� '�. .:..'.'tL.°^`��a''a,�^✓k'�'�.Li''k"a".�F v -"4"..-.. .z. '+`.-a �-` _. 1..;"-.,.. -,_ ...`�-z•'*.ie' ... 4 � 1'ya .st t , u x r" F ■ ■ anstilte fis• associates ARCHITECTS PLANNERS PHONE: 520 577-9362 FAX: 520 299-5154 Uvt 3-Ulo-cf(a The Shoppes at Oracle Exterior Color Board Meta 1 Roof Copper Standing Seam Natural Stone Veneer Sebastian by Stone Solutions t r Main Stucco Color Graham Cracker DE# 6144 �- PI '57 Accent Stucco Color Cuban Cigar DE# 6154 I.KV = Ia _ Masonry Storefront System to be by: Hacienda Block Southwest Aluminum Color --taupe Glass to be: Oldcastle Glass: Solar Carey Outboard Glass: Reflectance Value 19.' Inbound Glass: Clear Total Shading Coefficent .51