The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOV120603BMINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION March 7, 2007 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL � .,� y�Helen Dan kwerth Vice Mayor. _......_ Pa0a Abbott, Council I en,,br K.Q. Clrt€ r. COUncil Member fLirr CillCouncil Member AI Kunisch. Co€ nod ryle r_Eer ___ Terry Parish, Council Member EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kunisch and seconded by Vice Mayor Dankwerth to go into Executive Session at 5:30 p.m. for the following purpose: Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03.A(3),discussion and consultation for legal advice, and A(4), discussion or consultation with legal counsel in order for Council to consider its position and instruct its attorney regarding contract negotiations, Council may vote to go into Executive Session for discussion and consultation with the Town Attorney regarding negotiations between the Town and Pima County Library District concerning the Oro Valley Public Library and the intergovernmental agreement with the District. Mayor Loomis announced that in addition to the Town Manager, the Town Attorney, and the Town Clerk, Assistant Town Manager Jerene Watson and Managing Librarian Mary Hartz -Musgrave would also be present in Executive Session. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Council Member Gillaspie opposed. Council Member Gillaspie stated that he felt that this item should be held in Regular Session. 03/07/07 —iutes, Council Regular Session RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL a_._,_a. P ESENT: Paul Loomis. i�� =r == == _ __ _—___�_m_--------—=--- ---- Helen Dankwerth,.Vice_ Mayor, --- Paula Abbott, Counc l Nle rl-er .................................._..........._................... ... ........ _... ................................ ....-............................... .......................................... .................................................................._K._0_.._Car r,_Ccu_nci.... ae e.r f rry GIIEaspic,._ Council Members Al Kunisch,. Cflutt ( Meri)"dr -------- Terry Parish, Council Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Town Manager David Andrews reviewed the upcoming meetings and events. COUNCIL REPORTS Council Member Gillaspie reported that on February 23rd, he and Vice Mayor Dankwerth and Town staff met with Arizona State Land Department regarding the planning of the State Lands to the north of the Town. He said that they met with the Deputy State Land Commissioner who reported that the State is moving forward with a conceptual plan for Phase I of this area. Council Member Gillaspie stated that he expects that the State will be coming to meet with the Town Council in the fall. Vice Mayor Dankwerth also reported that the Town's feelings regarding the protection of Open Space had been made very clear to the State Land Department. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Town Engineer Craig Civalier reported that the Townwide Space Needs open house will be held in the Council Chambers on March 15th. He also stated that the new Public Works lift truck has been delivered and is now in service. Water Utility Philip Saletta announced that the Water Infrastructure Financing Authority (WIFA) has approved the loan for Phase II of the Reclaimed Water System project. ............., Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial _.._._.__.................._............_............................................_........._.... Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial I-- Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial 03/07/07 outes, Council Regular Session Bob Kovitz updated the Council regarding the Metropolitan Pima Alliance "Wildride" event and reported that it will be held on June 6th. The event will be called "Jazzin' It Up around Oro Valley". He also reported that on Tuesday, March 13th, the Town Council and staff will be traveling to Phoenix to meet with State Legislators. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT - No report. ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING There being no objections, Mayor Loomis announced that Items 3 and 5 would be moved to follow the Consent Agenda. CALL TO AUDIENCE Michael Martin, 11780 N. Via de la Verbenita, stated that he would like to see a Skate Park at Naranja Town Site to keep the children out of the streets. He also stated that he would like to help with the solution to try to get a Skate Park as soon as possible and he and his friends are willing to go door-to-door to ask for donations. Daniel Martin, 11780 N. Via de la Verbenita, stated that he would also like to see a Skate Park at Naranja Town Site to keep him and his friends safe and still have a place to have fun at and not to get in trouble for skate boarding. PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation/Report by Pam Reed regarding the Tucson Marathon On behalf of Pam Reed, Ms. Alyssa Kender thanked the Town and the Police Department for their past support for this event. She then updated the Council on the Tucson Marathon event and the economic impact to the Town. b. Presentation by Officer Mike Schuh of Peace Vanguard Poster to the Town Council for the Town's support and professionalism celebrating 10,000 flight hours, accident free Police Officer Mike Schuh presented a plaque to the Town Council honoring the 10,000 flight hours milestone reached by the Peace Vanguard unit. He further reviewed the accomplishments of the unit. 1. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of the Council, Mayor Loomis pulled Items G, H and I. 03/07/07 mutes, Council Regular Session MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Dankwerth and seconded by Council Member Carter to approve the Consent Agenda minus items G, H and I. MOTION carried, 7-0. A. Minutes - 01-31-07; 02-07-07; 02-21-07 B. Police Report - January 2007 C. Resolution No. (R)07- 27 Authorizing and approving an Award of Purchase of a Pot Hole and Valve Exercising Machine from Balar Holding Corporation in the amount of $49,995.08 D. Resolution (R) 07- 28 Acceptance of Bid and Award of Contract to International Surfacing Systems in the amount of $239,713.85 for Sun City Boulevard/Del Webb Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation, Project No. OV 30 06/07 05. E. Resolution (R)07- 29 Authorizing and executing license agreement with the Town of Oro Valley and the Copeland Office Complex relating to the installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation within public rights -of -way along Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard. F. Resolution (R)07- 30 Acceptance of Bid and Award of Contract to K & B Asphalt Company in the amount of $191,384.07 for the Palisades Road Shoulder Improvements, Project No. OV 30 04/05 01 G. OV12-04-09 Approval of a time extension for a period of six months to expire on September 7, 2007 for the La Canada Ridge Preliminary Plat, located on the west side of La Canada Drive, just south of Moore Road (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) In response to concerns expressed by Council Member Abbott regarding the time extension request, Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More explained that she has spoken with the Planning & Zoning Commission about this matter. They have discussed the possibility of extending the time for preliminary plat reviews up to one year. She explained that the Town Engineer has also been working with the applicant on complex issues that have resulted in the delay. She also stated that one of the primary purposes to have a plat expire is to allow the Town Council an opportunity to look at the plat again to look at whether Zoning Code conditions, etc. have changed especially if it is an older plat. Town Engineer Craig Civalier stated that he supports the plat extension because the developer is planning the right-of-way in which a Town road is built and if the plat goes away, then the road would be on private property. Also, the Town offered a land trade in which the owner would give the Town a section of 03/07/07 utes, Council Regular Session the property on the southeast corner and the Town would give them the northwest corner of the Alden property. All parcel numbers have been corrected and the switch has been completed. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Parish and seconded by Vice Mayor Dankwerth to approve item G. MOTION carried, 7-0. H. OV12-03-31B Approval of a time extension for a period of six months to expire on July 22, 2007 for the Mercado at Canada Hills Preliminary Plat, located in proximity to the northeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, directly north of the Fry's Shopping Center (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gillaspie and seconded by Council Member Parish to approve Item H. MOTION carried, 7-0. I. Resolution No. (R)07- 31 Adopting an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Marana and the Town of Oro Valley for Water Service to the Northwest Fire District Station (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) In response to questions and concerns from the Council, Water Utility Director Philip Saletta presented the background on this item explaining that the Town was asked by Northwest Fire District to be included in the Town's water service area because the Town has water lines within 20 feet of the property. He stated that the City of Tucson has stated that they did not have any problem with the Town providing service and the Town of Marana has asked for an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) since the area is in Marana's service area. Mr. Saletta reviewed an overhead map depicting the service area and explained that Marana's service lines are over 3,000 feet away from the subject property. He explained that approval of the IGA would be a cooperative agreement with Marana and Northwest Fire and staff supports the request. Firefighter Jamie Kahle, 5225 W. Massingale, stated that the Northwest Fire District is asking for this service to best serve the taxpayers. He explained that the most efficient solution would be to tap into Oro Valley's water system since the Town's lines are only located 20 feet away. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Parish and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to approve Item I. MOTION carried, 6-1 with Council Member Abbott opposed. 03/07/07 utes, Council Regular Session Council Member Abbott opposed the approval of this item as she wanted to continue the item so she could get more information. 3. RESOLUTION NO. (R)07- 32 AMENDING THE FIRE SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Town Manager David Andrews reviewed the Council Communication and explained that since the Fire Services Performance Standards and Criteria were first approved by the Town, numerous areas have become a concern. The Oro Valley Public Safety Committee and its consultant have recommended amending the Standards and Criteria that would coincide with OSHA standards defining a fire structure, include all areas of the Town whether served by hydrants or not, and coincide with the agreement that was reached between Golder Ranch Fire District and Rural Metro Fire. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Parish and seconded by Council Member Abbott to approve Resolution (R)07-32 amending Fire Service Performance Standards and Criteria for the Town of Oro Valley. MOTION carried, 7-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (0)07-14 OV12-06-03B, ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A RECREATIONAL AREA IN -LIEU FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,965.51 FOR THE NARANJA RANCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE SHANNON ROAD AND NARANJA DRIVE INTERSECTION, PARCELS 224-11-045A, 224-11- 045B, AND 224-11-049A Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Abbott and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to approve OV12-06-03B, Ordinance (0)07-14, recreation area in -lieu fee proposal in the amount of $12,965-51 for Naranja Ranch Estates (as amended) and subject to the condition listed in Exhibit "A". EXHIBIT "A: 1. The $12,965.51 in -lieu fee must be submitted prior to Town approval of the Final Plat. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: At the request of Vice Mayor Dankwerth, Council Members Abbott and Kunisch accepted an amendment to earmark the in -lieu fees for the Naranja Town Site for recreational facilities. Mayor Loomis stated that he thought that there were some restrictions for the use of in -lieu fees. He also stated that there may be some facilities at West 03/07/07 motes, Council Regular Session Lambert Lane Park or other places that are closer to this site and he suggested working with Parks and Recreation. In response to a question from Council Member Gillaspie, Parks and Recreation Director Ainsley Reeder explained that in -lieu fees have been used in the past for improvements to the James D Kriegh Park dugouts. She also stated that there is a potential use for a $25,000 match for the Heritage Grant for a dog park at Riverfront Park. Further, some in -lieu fees have been specifically earmarked for trails in Rancho Vistoso. Further discussion followed regarding addressing the in -lieu fees in total, sending a message to the Town's citizens regarding the Council's intent and commitment to the Naranja Town Site, many other needs in the Town's parks, and not being so restrictive by placing in -lieu monies in specific projects. MOTION FAILED 2-5 with Vice Mayor Dankwerth and Council Member Abbott in favor. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gillaspie and seconded by Council Member Parish to approve OV12-06-03B, Ordinance (0)07-14, recreation area in -lieu fee proposal in the amount of $12,965.51 for Naranja Ranch Estates, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit "A". EXHIBIT A 1). The $12,965.51 in -lieu fee must be submitted prior to Town approval of the Final Plat. MOTION carried, 7-0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:15 p.m. 2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE NARANJA TOWN SITE PROGRAMMING AND CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT Parks and Recreation Director Ainsley Reeder presented an overview of the Naranja Town Site history to date as follows: November 2000 - Purchased Property November 2002- Master Plan completed April 2004 - Performing Arts Facilities Feasibility Study completed October 2004 - Performing Arts Facilities Business Plan completed March 2007 - Programming and Concept Design Report before Town Council David Wald -Hopkins and David Burns of Burns, Wald -Hopkins Architects reviewed the Programming and Concept Design highlighting the following: Big ideas/Goals for site Detailed Site Analysis 03/07/07 utes, Council Regular Session Team Visits to Denver, Colorado Team Planning events Public Participation and Open Houses Programming - Community Center, Theater, Aquatic Center, Music Pavillion, Support, and Buildings Don McGann, McGann & Associates presented the recommended Concept: Softball, baseball, soccer, multi -use parks, tennis courts, festival area, music pavilion, community center, skate/BMX parks, preservation of natural open space and restoration, site parking analysis, and site lighting. Duane Crawmer, Barker, Rinker Seacat Architects, then reviewed the Community Center design and Concept Plan and Mr. Burns reviewed the proposed Music Pavilion, Phases I and II, design and concept plan. Mr. Wald -Hopkins reviewed the project schedule which depicted a 4 1/2 year construction duration. However, he explained that if the project was to be completed at one time, it could be finished in 2 1/2 years. He then addressed the project costs and cost options for the site. David Burns reviewed the L.E.E.D. (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification and levels. Discussion followed regarding the music pavilion, L.E.E.D. certification costs, project costs, breakout of revenues and Operating and Maintenance costs from community center/theater/recreational components (still needs to be developed). Mayor Loomis opened the floor for public comment. Dennis Ottley, 13042 N. Catbird Drive, chair of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, stated that he is hoping that Council will support approval of the programming and design concept plans to make this park a reality. He stated that the proposed design and plan is an Oro Valley community plan. He also stated that the demands on the Town's current parks have exceeded the park limits and we now need something more for our citizens. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated that he is hearing many differences in opinions for the design, priorities, etc., for the proposed park but it all comes down to money and what level of financial commitment the citizens of Oro Valley are willing to spend. He stated that because of the magnitude of the proposal, the Town needs to get current and statistically valid numbers that the community is willing to spend on this project. David Welsh, 11372. Twin Spur Court, Oro Valley Economic Development Director, stated that there would not be one single thing the Council could do that was better for the Town than building this type of park. He encouraged the Council to be bold and courageous. He stated that many people are in favor of this park and are willing to pay for it. 03/07/07 motes, Council Regular Session Michael O'Brian, 13401 N. Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, stated that he personally sees this as a sound proposal. He stated that music and art facilities will contribute to the quality of life, this would be an economic development magnet that would attract businesses and their employees, attract other residents, enhance property values and would add to the Town's tax base. This park would make Oro Valley something special and make the Town stand out. Theresa Shaw, 471 W. Windowmaker, stated that she is in support of the Naranja Town Site as a park and it is one of the key reasons she bought her home where she did. She stated great cities large and small, have great park systems and support of the arts and the Naranja Town Site provides an opportunity for Oro Valley to have "heart". She stated that if built in stages, people will see something nice and will want more. Shannon Fox, 12326 N. Tall Grass Drive, stated that young families want and need this park and she encouraged the Council to hear from the young family members. She stated that there is much enthusiasm and passion for the park and she encouraged the Council to go to the places where the young families are and hear their thoughts. She stated that a property tax would be a small price to pay for such a wonderful park. Council Member Parish stated that this decision requires a commitment from the Council to support what is a citizen -driven plan. He stated that this project can be done and requires the political courage and political will to do what the citizens want. Council Member Gillaspie stated that he did not want to be a Council person that did not have vision and foresight. However, the issue is not about the park but about the comment as stated by Mr. Adler, that we may be creating dreams without thinking about the costs (public works facilities, roads, facilities for staff, etc.) The challenge is not that we don't want to do it, but we must put together the package and make sure that we do our homework and structure it in a way that the people will want to do it. Council Member Kunisch stated that this is a gorgeous design but he also has some of the same concerns as stated by Council Member Gillaspie. He stated that maybe we should start at a smaller scale and add to the site over the years. He stated that it is a great vision but we must be realistic about what we can afford and what the people are willing to pay for. Council Member Carter commented that we have made the dream too big and too costly. He stated that he is worried about outside costs and we need to see all the figures. Vice Mayor Dankwerth stated that besides being bold, we must be fiscally responsible. She stated that the park will come to be; however, we must not rush 03/07/07 111111utes, Council Regular Session 10 into something if all clear specifics have not been "thrashed out." She stated that we must be rational and she would vote to accept the Report but she is not voting on every design and aspect of the park. Council Member Abbott stated that the reports have provided a lot of information and the design is more beautiful than she imagined. She also stated that she is pleased with the LEED design but pointed out that we don't have to do the entire park all at once. She said that the Council should accept the report and continue to move forward, get more information and determine whether we should construct the site in phases. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Abbott and seconded by Council Member Parish to approve the March 7, 2007 Naranja Town Site Programming and Concept Design Report as presented by Burns Wald -Hopkins Architects. A Town Council Study Session will be scheduled to more fully analyze the report and provide staff with additional input and guidance. (The Study Session will be scheduled no later than early to mid April.) MOTION carried, 6-1 with Council Member Carter opposed. Mayor Loomis commented that the Study Sessions would be held to determine how to move forward, opportunities, phasing, elections, etc. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:35 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)07-13 AMENDING ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE SECTION 11-34, "SPEED LIMITS;" REVISING THE SPEED LIMIT ALONG FIRST AVENUE FROM ORACLE ROAD TO TANGERINE ROAD FROM 40 MILES PER HOUR TO 45 MILES PER HOUR AND REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER Town Engineer Craig Civalier explained that Public Works and the Police Department are requesting that the speed limit on First Avenue from Oracle Road and Tangerine Road be raised from 40 mph to 45 mph due to the design of the new road, the safety improvements that are being added, and the that this would make the speed limit from Rancho Vistoso Road down to Oracle Road consistent. Discussion followed regarding the width of travel lanes, new subdivisions going in on the east side of First Avenue, signage, traffic signals, projected completion date, Walgreen area construction, etc. 03/07/07 11111lutes, Council Regular Session 11 Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated that the increase in speed was unnecessary and he was concerned about the enforcement. He also expressed concerned about the volume of homes that are projected to be built in the area. Doug McKee, 11836 Cassiopeia, stated that he would support the change once construction is completed and stoplights are installed and functioning. He stated that the Town may have to reduce the speed limit in the future, but with this new road it is hard to keep speeds down. MOTION carried, 7-0. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Parish and seconded by Council Member Abbott to adopt Ordinance (0)07-13, relating to speed limits, amending Oro Valley Town Code Section 11-13-4, "Speed Limits." 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (0)07-15 OV9-07-03, ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY RURAL HOMESTEAD (RH) TO ORO VALLEY R1-144 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR A 2.85-ACRE ANNEXED AREA KNOWN AS ANNEXATION AREA "M", LOCATED NORTH OF TURTLE DOVE LANE AND EAST OF GIBSON TRAIL, PARCEL 219-12-0150 Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More reviewed the Council communication. She explained that the property was zoned Pima County Rural Homestead (RH) and would translate to Oro Valley R1-144 (Single Family Residential). She further reported that the current property owner has agreed that she will build a single-family house on the property and has agreed to the Town's standards. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Dankwerth and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to adopt Ordinance (0)07-15, OV9-07-03, translating zoning of Annexation Area "M" to the Town of Oro Valley R1-144 district subject to the condition in Exhibit "A". EXHIBIT "A" 1. The property will be zoned R1-144 (Single Family Residential, 144,000 square -foot minimum lot size) with continuation of the legal non -conforming lot status as recognized by Pima County prior to the annexation. MOTION carried, 7-0. 03/07/07 111111utes, Council Regular Session 12 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (0)07-16 OV9-07-04, ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY RURAL HOMESTEAD (RH) TO ORO VALLEY R1-144 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR A 120.5-ACRE ANNEXED AREA KNOWN AS ANNEXATION AREA "N", BEING THE NORTHERN ONE-THIRD OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 12, LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN STONE CANYON AND SUN CITY VISTOSO, PARCEL 219- 04-009H Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More reviewed an overhead map of the area and explained that this property is located in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 12. The property is now Town property. She explained that the property was zoned Pima County Rural Homestead (RH) and would translate to Oro Valley R1-144 (Single Family Residential). Ms. More further explained that by previous adoption of Ordinance (0)02-18 in June 2002, this area would not be developed and would remain as natural Open Space in perpetuity. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gillaspie and seconded by Council Member Abbott to adopt Ordinance (0)07-16, OV9-07-04 translating zoning of Annexation Area "N" to the Town of Oro Valley R1-144 district, subject to the condition in Exhibit "A". Further, staff shall initiate the rezoning of said parcel to the Parks and Open Space District. EXHIBIT "A" 1. The property shall remain as natural Open Space in perpetuity. MOTION carried, 7-0. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None presented. CALL TO AUDIENCE No speakers. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Parish and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to adjourn at 10:12 p.m. MOTION carried, 7-0. 03/07/07 11111utes, Council Regular Session 13 Prepared by: ----------------------------------------------------------------- _................._........................_..............................................................._-.. �,i�t �.-C l.... 1�.:._ .1tilt C1ea_�ty.._'1�a.'�r7..._ lr thattheforegoing nninutes <a:;re9 a etrueare correct, conyy cf tho, mr.inutes of the: re.o ail a€ sosstin of the,Town of Oro VC llevCounrilµof Oro Vrallev. rlri r rya held 17 tl�{ 7 h-arf-u of March '007 J fUrther (, rtlty that tt P 'tom rmc bx _- w w.a...a.e� o W ,.� LiCjy e Iled inE held and that ar io i,'n W _prt; Qtm Dated this dj v of : 1027. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CIVIC Town Clerk .......... . Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal .................................. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by _........... Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Underline, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted. Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / .-Condensed by Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by ORDINANCE NO. (0) 07- 14 AN ORDINANCE FOR A RECREATIONAL AREA IN LIEU FEE PROPOSAL FOR THE NARANJA RANCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE SHANNON ROAD AND NARANJA DRIVE INTERSECTION, PARCELS 224-11-045A, 224-11-045B, and 224-11-049A. WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed a recreational area in lieu fee proposal for the Naranja Ranch Estates subdivision; and WHEREAS, based on the written limited appraisal, the in lieu fee proposal for $12,965.51 will satisfy the 5637.18 square feet of recreation required for this subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has considered the recreational area in lieu proposal fee at a duly noticed public hearing and finds it is consistent with the Town's General Plan and ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That the recreational area in lieu fee proposal in the amount of $12,965.51 will satisfy the 5637.18 square feet of required recreation for Naranja Ranch Estates, with the condition in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3. That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, sub -section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 7th day of March, 2007. ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Paul H. Loomis, Mayor EXHIBIT A. OV12-06-03B RECREATION AREA IN -LIEU FEE The $12,965.51 in lieu fee must be submitted prior to Town approval of the final plat. FAOV\OV 12\2006\12-06-03B\In-IieuFeeTCrpt.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY '" COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 7, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Jill Manion -Farrar, Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing — Ordinance 07-14 , OV12-06-03B, JREM LLC, requests approval of a recreation area in -lieu fee associated with an eleven lot subdivision, Naranja Ranch Estates, located northeast of the Shannon Road and Naranja Drive intersection. NATURE OF REQUEST: A recreation area is required as part of all plat submittals that consists of one acre for every 85 dwelling units. As outlined in Sec. 26.5E of the OVZCR, the applicant may request an optional in -lieu fee in place of a developed recreational area, which is subject to Town Council review and approval. The use of an in -lieu fee was approved as part of the preliminary plat review. This request entails review of the in -lieu fee amount. BACKGROUND: • The final plat for this project is scheduled for review by Town Council at a future meeting. • The preliminary plat was approved by Town Council on September 20, 2006. • The landscape plan was approved by the DRB on November 14, 2006. SUMMARY: A written full appraisal report was submitted by James S. Bradley, MAI and David A. Every of KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc. with a valuation date of May 15, 2006 (attached). The appraiser concluded that the subject property containing 38.34 acres "as if complete" is equal to $3,850,000. This equates to $2.30 per square foot. Given that the recreation area amount required is 563 7. 18 square feet, the required in -lieu fee is $12,965.51. The in -lieu fee will be used to fund future Town recreation facilities. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The item was noticed as a public hearing in accordance with the Town notification procedures. To date, no comments have been submitted. SUMMARY OF FACTORS: Factors For 1. Per the certified appraiser, the fee was calculated on the basis of current market rates and improved value - as specified by the OVZCR. Factors Against I This appraisal was conducted in May 2006. F:\OV\OV 12\2006\12-06-03B\1n-1ieuFeeTCrpt.doc IN TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION• OV12-06-03B PaLre 2 of SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, OR deny], OV 13-06-03B, Ordinance (0) 07-14 , recreation area in -lieu fee proposal in the amount of $12,965.51 for Naranja Ranch Estates, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith. Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. Ordinance (0) 07-14 3. Complete Appraisal cc: Jason Rulney fax 878-0600 -iga—rah More, Planning and Zoning Director Jerene Watson, Assistant Town Manager avid Andrews, Town Manager F:\OV\OV 12\2006\12-06-03B\In-1ieuFeeTCrpt.doc JREM, LLC - Naranja Ranch Estates 3275 W. Ina Road, #269 Tucson, AZ 85741 520-907-6539 December 18, 2006 Oro Valley Jill Manion -Farrar 11000 North La Cananda Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: Recreation Area In -Lieu Fee Dear Jill, On behalf of JREM LLC, I would like to request the option of "Recreation In -Lieu Fee" for the project Naranja Ranch Estates. I have enclosed a Complete Appraisal in Summary format for your consideration. The appraisal was completed May 15, 2006 reflecting values for improved lots. At the time of the appraisal only nine lots were considered with an average value of $350,000 per lot. Since that time we have included two additional parcels (224-11-045A & 224- 11-04513) within the subdivision as recommended by Oro Valley. It is our opinion that these additional lots are comparable to the original nine lots and should be assigned the same value. With the value stated above the "AS IF COMPLETE" market value would be $3,850,000. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me anytime. I can be reached at 520.907.6539. Sincerely, Jason Rulney Manager / Partner of JREM, LLC Enclosure IkB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. A COMPLETE APPRAISAL IN A SUMMARY FORMAT OF THE PROPOSED NARANJA RANCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 2820, 2840, AND 2860 WEST NARANJA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA 85742 FOR MS. BARBARA SADLER COMMERCE BANK OF ARIZONA BY JAMES S. BRADLEY, MAI DAVID A. EVERY AS OF MAY 15, 2006 KB FILE NO. 10250-061 5235 N. Sabino Canyon Road, Suite 101 ♦ Tucson, Arizona 85750 ♦ Ph: 520-545-0000 Fax: 520-545-0001 www.kbres.com REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. KB File No. 10250-061 May 31, 2006 ; Barbara Sadler, SVP Commerce Bank of Arizona 2285 West Ina; Road Tucson, AZ 85741 RE: Summary. Report of a Complete Appraisal of the proposed Naranja Ranch Estates -- Subdivision to be located at 2820, 2840, and 2860 West Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona. Dear Ms. Sadler: In accordance, with your request, we have performed a Complete Appraisal in a Summary Format of the property described above. All information pertinent to the value conclusions '- contained herein is presented in a summary report format. This document is written in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation (USPAP), specifically pertaining to summary appraisal reports, Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and the appraisal repoFting guidelines of Commerce Bank of Arizona. All information pertinent to the value conclusions contained herein is presented in a summary format within; this report. Excluded valuation approaches, if any, are explained and supported. This summary, report is considered to contain sufficient detail that the client and intended users of the report should understand it, and that they should deem the data, analysis and conclusions contained herein to be credible. Any additional information is contained within our file and is available to the client. The purpose of this appraisal is to develop opinions of the "as is" and "as if complete" bulk _ market value of the above identified property. The intended use of this report is for loan underwriting. The intended user of this appraisal report is Commerce Bank of Arizona. The date of value of this report is May 15, 2006, the date of the most recent inspection of the subject ^. property. This report is not intended to be used, transferred, or relied upon by any parties other than Commerce Bank of Arizona. KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc. and the appraisers signing this report assume no responsibility to any party, other than the client, who uses or relies on any information in this report. Other intended users include any relevant governmental regulatory agencies and the property owner. -- 5235 N. Sabino Canyon Road, Suite 101 ♦ Tucson, Arizona 85750 ♦ Ph: 520-545-0000 ♦ Fax: 520-545-0001 www.kbres.com 10250-061 Page 2 Mav 31 2006 Based upon the data and discussions contained within this report and supported by information contained in the file, it is our opinion that the bulk "as is" and "as if complete" market value of the subject property, as of May 15, 2006, is as follows. OPINION OF THE `SAS IS" BULK MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ASOF MAY 15, 2006................................................................................................ ............ $2,200,000 OPINION OF THE "AS IF COMPLETE" BULK MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ASOF MAY 15,18 2006....................................................................................................... $3,000,000 The marketing time for the subject property is estimated to be no more than twelve months based on the above value conclusion. The exposure time, also premised upon the prior value conclusion, is also estimated to be less than 12 months. The "as if complete" bulk market value of the subject property is also premised on the following Extraordinary Assumptions. It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the "As If Complete" market value contained within this report assumes completed lots, and that the subject lot infrastructure, including the extension of utilities and roadways, will be completed in a professional manner and in accordance with the provided preliminary plat. The developer of the subject property has communicated with the appraisers his estimate of the anticipated construction costs associated with the development of the subject lots; however, the appraisers were not provided any documentation detailing the costs to finish the lots. Therefore; It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the cost figure associated with the development of the subject lots, as provided by the developer, is accurate. We reserve the right to change our opinion of the market value of the subject property should these development costs vary. Your attention is invited to the data and discussions contained in this report and to the exhibits, which are pertinent. KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INc. r- 10250-061 Page 2 May 31 2006 We hereby certify that James S. Bradley, MAI and David A. Every have inspected the subject property; that the fee was not contingent upon the opinions of value contained herein; and that we have no interest, present or prospective, in the property appraised. Credit should be given to Mr. Amos Koren of this firm who assisted in the gathering of information utilized in this analysis, inspections, and in the preparation of this report. The value conclusions drawn, however, are our own. Furthermore, we certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief, all statements and opinions contained in this report are correct, subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions, of this report, and certification that are made a part of this report. DAMES BRADLEY, MAI President Real Estate Appraisers, Inc. Certified neral Real Estate Appraiser Arizona Certificate #30432 tA. EVERY Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Arizona Certificate #31343 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS -- PAGE TABLEOF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................... 1 T INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 2 •- PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE..................................................................................................... 2 DATE OF VALUE................................................................................................................................2 r-- INTERESTTO BE APPRAISED....................................................................................................... 2 '- SCOPE & METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................2 OWNERSHIP HISTORY.....................................................................................................................4 r- NEIGHBORHOODDATA.................................................................................................................5 SITEDESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................7 TaxData .................:.................................................................... HIGHESTAND BEST USE............................................................................................................... I I VALUATION......................................................................................................................................13 CostApproach .....................................................................................................................................14 Sales Comparison Approach "As Is" ...............................................................................................14 �- Cost Approach "As If Complete" ....................................................................................................19 DiscountedCash Flow Analysis .........................................................................................................21 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis "As Is" Bulk - .........................:....................................................21 -- Discounted Cash Flow Analysis "As If Complete" - Bulk.............................................................27 Reconciliation"As Is" - Bulk..............................................................................................................28 Reconciliation "As If Complete" - Bulk.............................................................................................29 MARKETING & EXPOSURE PERIOD...........................................................................................30 " APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION....................................................................................................31 APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS ADDENDA 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION As discussed earlier, this document is written in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation (USPAP), specifically pertaining to summary appraisal reports, Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). All information pertinent to the value conclusions contained herein are presented in a summary format within this report. Excluded valuation approaches, if any, are explained and supported. This summary report is considered sufficient such that the client and intended users of the report should understand it, and that they should deem the data, analysis and conclusions contained herein to be credible. Any additional information, if necessary, is contained within the file and is available to the client. Purpose: To arrive at opinions of the bulk "as is" and "as if complete" market values of the subject property. Intended Use: Loan underwriting. Date of Value: May 15, 2006, the date of the formal inspection of the subject property. Date of Report: May 31, 2006. Market Value Definition: FIRREA - Found in the Addenda to this report. Interest Appraised: Fee Simple. Scope/Methodology: This is a Complete Appraisal presented in a Summary format. The scope of the assignment included a physical inspection of the property and area. We examined public records data pertaining to the subject property including information from the Pima County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices, as well as pertinent zoning and flood plain information. We have also reviewed the preliminary Plat for the subject property as well as soils and drainage surveys. Credit should be given to Mr. Amos Koren of this firm who assisted in the gathering of information utilized in this analysis, inspection of the subject property, and in the preparation of this report. The value conclusion drawn, however, are our own. Market data was abstracted from publications such as the Metropolitan Tucson Land Use Study, as well as our discussions with brokers and land developers who are active in the subject's area, such as, Ms. Nikki Mehalic-Halle with Windermere Distinctive Homes and Land and Mr. Daniel Wong, Broker with Casas Adobes Realty who is also the developer of the Naranja Ridge Estates subdivision. The subject property is comprised of roughly 31.68 acres of vacant land located at 2820, 2840, and 2860 West Naranja Drive 10250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE A PPRA ism, INC. PAGE 2 (generally northeast Naranja Drive and Shannon Road), in the northwestern portion of the Tucson metropolitan area, Pima County, Arizona. The subject is preliminary platted for development with nine large -acre single-family residential lots, to be known as Naranja Ranch Estates. As previously established, the purpose of this appraisal report is to develop an opinion of the "as if complete -bulk" (wholesale) — market value of the subject property. All three of the traditional approaches to value, i.e. the Income Approach (Discounted Cash Flow Analysis), Cost Approach, and Sales Comparison Approach have been considered to develop an opinion of the subject as a completed subdivision valued on a `- "bulk" basis. The Cost Approach considers recent sales of similar vacant tracts for use in a Sales Comparison Approach in order to develop an opinion of the subject property "as is". Then, the estimated cost to develop the subject lots, along with a reasonable allocation for -1 developers profit is added to arrive at the "as if complete" market value of the subject lots, "bulk". With respect to the Income Approach, the application of the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis provides the basis for developing an opinion of value as a completed subdivision valued on a "bulk" basis. As part of this analysis, an opinion of the average retail value of the proposed lots is developed and utilized within the Discounted Cash Flow. The Sales Comparison Approach has been considered in this analysis, but due to the lack of truly comparable sales of finished lots on a bulk basis in the area, this method was not utilized. The omission of the Sales Comparison Approach "as if complete -bulk" from this report is not considered a Departure from a complete appraisal per the USPAP. Legal Description: The Naranja Ranch Estates (Lots 1 thru 9), subject property, reflects the resubdivision of two larger parcels which total 38.34 acres (parcel 224-11-0450 and parcel 224-11-0490) into a single parcel 224-11-049A which totals 31.68 acres .(this parcel will be divided into 9 lots). Here follows a legal description of the subject parcel as indicated by the Pima County Assessor's Office. r Parcel 224-11-049A N2123.72' E2 SW4 SW4 31.68 AC SEC 4 T12S R13E r 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PACE 3 Statement of Ownership and History: Title to the subject property is currently vested in the name of JREM, L.L.C., as recorded in Docket 12715, at Page 4874, in the office of the Pima County Recorder. The sales price was established in October 24, 2005 (sale date) but was only recorded in January 6, 2006. The sellers were Lawrence & Pamela D Tietig. The transaction included the sale of two parcels which contained a total of 38.34 acres of land area. These were parcels 224-11-0450 and 224-11-0490. The sales price for the 38.34 acres was $2,300,000. The Developers/Buyers, Mr. Emil Martinez and Mr. Jason Rulney with JREM LLC, have indicated that the sale of the larger tract (38.34 acres) reflected an arms length transaction. Additionally, the seller was not related to the developers and was not under any duress at time of the sale. After acquiring the larger tract, the owners of the property reparcelized it into three parcels as follows; 31.68 acres were _ renamed as parcel 224-11-049A (This is the subject property). Portions of parcel 224-11-0450 were split into two additional parcels, parcels 224-11-045A and 224-11-045B. Both of these parcels each contain roughly 3.329 acres of land area. These parcels were effectively sold to the developers for construction of their private residences in December 2005 for $325,000 and $310,000 respectively. These sales are not considered to reflect arms length transactions. _ The subject property, parcel 224-11-049A, which contains 31.68 acres, is preliminary platted for development with 9 large single- family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet equal to about 3.3 acres of land area. The subject property is to be known as Naranja Ranch Estates, a nine -lot gated subdivision. Mr. Martinez has indicated that all of the planned lots have been reserved. The lot development costs are estimated at $750,000, of which about $90,000 have been already spent on platting, surveying, et cetera. Completion of the nine subject lots is anticipated to take about 60 days. This includes the plat approval and the issuance of the public report which would allow for sale.of -- the lots. Mr. Martinez has indicated that all of the lots have been reserved. The proposed subject lots will range in asking price from $375,000 to $425,000 with an average lot price of $411,111. As of the date of value, May 15, 2006 the larger subject property (31.68 acres) is not listed for sales or under contract for sale. ,_ 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 4 Neighborhood/Area Data The general neighborhood boundaries are Oracle Road to the east, River Road to the south, Interstate-10 to the west, and Tangerine Road to the north. These boundaries are considered appropriate due to natural boundaries and social characteristics of the area. The topography of the subject neighborhood is generally level to rolling, with natural washes and hills. The elevation of the neighborhood increases as one travels north through the neighborhood, providing some views of the city, views of the Catalina Mountains to the east, and views of the -- Tucson Mountains to the west. The following discussion will summarize the important factors which influence value within the subject neighborhood. -" The subject neighborhood is approximately 55% built up, with the northern half (north of Cortaro Farms Road) only about 25% built-up. The southern half of the neighborhood is roughly 75% built- up. Clearly, most of the substantial anticipated population growth will occur in the northern, relatively undeveloped portions of the neighborhood. _ The subject neighborhood is within the jurisdiction of Pima County. The Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission have established the Catalina Foothills Area Plan, a general land use plan for the subject neighborhood which has been adopted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors. The policies of the plan provide a statement of development intent for the neighborhood and establish a documented basis for directing and evaluating the planning and design of improvements within the plan. The Catalina Foothills Area Plan designates the majority of the subject area for low -density (less than two units per acre) residential development. Additionally, properties with commercial designations under the plan are situated at the intersections of feeder roadways with Ina Road, Magee Road, Orange Grove Road, Overton Road, La Cholla Boulevard and Oracle Road. Overall, the subject neighborhood is well established residentially. The variety of residences available range from custom homes to single-family detached/attached residences, along with apartment uses. Generally price levels and rental rates are level with or higher than metropolitan area averages with these higher prices reflecting the overall desirability of the area with the unique characteristics of the subject neighborhood. Commercial uses in the subject neighborhood are situated primarily along Oracle, Ina, Orange Grove and Thomydale Roads. The majority of the commercial development for the subject neighborhood can be found along Ina Road, between La Cholla Boulevard and Interstate-10. The largest commercial use for the area is the Foothills Mall (one of Tucson's four regional malls) located at the northwest corner of Ina Road and La Cholla Boulevard. The property was extensively redeveloped and re -tenanted during the last four years, and now has anchor tenants such as Barnes & Noble and a Saks Off 5th outlet store. A number of factory outlet stores, a multi-plex cinema, restaurants and local retailers complete the tenant mix of this revitalized regional shopping center. The northwest Tucson market area is one of the most active retail markets in terms of space absorption and reflects the lowest vacancy rates of any similarly sized market areas in Tucson. This reflects the strong demand for new and existing retail space in the neighborhood, which is in turn being fueled by strong population growth. r 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 5 Automotive uses area also well established in the subject neighborhood, with over 20 automobile II� � service facilities within a two mile radius of the intersection of Ina and Thomydale Roads. These automotive service facilities include transmission, lubrication and oil change, car wash, muffler, and auto supply stores. Most are located between Thornydale Road and Interstate-10 in various automotive oriented centers that front Ina Road. There are numerous strip and free-standing commercial developments, office developments, and retail developments along the major roadways in the neighborhood. Industrial development in the area is concentrated along the western boundary with close proximity to Interstate-10 and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. -- The evolution of the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and recent changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan, have had an impact on the neighborhood, especially in areas that were designated in the prior Comprehensive Plan for future medium density or higher density residential development or commercial development. Although many of the properties in the neighborhood, especially along commercial corridors like Ina Road were vested with zoning that would allow for the development of more intensive uses, many vacant properties that were zoned SR (a low residential density designation) but master -planned for this higher intensity types of development in the prior Comprehensive Plan, had their designations adjusted downward to allow SR or only slightly more intensive residential uses. Although there will still be a large number of "rooftops" built in this area over the next decade, the number of potential commercial and multifamily sites available to address future demand, especially along emerging corridors like Thornydale Road, has been limited by recent County actions. Overall, the neighborhood is in the growth stage of its life cycle and has a positive impact on the subject property. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 6 Site Description Location The subject property is comprised of roughly 31.68 gross acres of vacant land located in the northwestern portion of the Tucson metropolitan area, generally northeast Naranja Drive and Shannon Road. The subject's physical address is 2820, 2840, and 2860 West Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona 85742. Census Tract 46.34 Site Condition The subject site currently reflects vacant land with generally level -- topography and is comprised of typical desert flora. Overall, there are no negative factors that would preclude potential development of the subject site. Site Size According to the Pima County Assessor's Office the subject site contains about 31.68 gross acres of land area. The subject property is planned for development with 9 single-family custom lots. The lots range in size from 144,000 to 144,735 square feet of land area. The following tabulation summarizes the subject lots as abstracted from the preliminary plat map: Lot Size Lot Size Lot # Sq. Ft. Acres Ask Price Comments 1 3.306 144,005 $425,000 End Lot 2 3.306 144,001 $400,000 Wash traversing lot 3 3.306 144,002 $425,000 Interior Lot 4 3.306 144,000 $425,000 Interior Lot 5 3.306 144,000 $425,000 Interior Lot . 6 3.306 144,003 $425,000 Interior Lot 7 3.306 144,003 $425,000 Interior Lot 8 3.306 144,003 $375,000 Proximate to Narnaja Rd 9 3.323 144,735 $375,000 Proximate to Narnaja Rd Average 3.308 144,084 $411,111 *Each lot has a building envelope of about 30,000 SF r Site Shape According to the Assessor's plat map and a preliminary plat map drafted by Coronado Engineering Inc. on April 6, 2006, the subject site is rectangular in shape. Copies of the Assessor's Plat map and the preliminary plat map of the subject property are available within the addendum of this report. Topography: The subject site topography is generally level and at grade with surrounding properties and roadways. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 7 Frontage/Access The subject property has legal and physical access from Naranja Drive, a two-lane paved roadway (at the subject's location) that runs along the subject's southern boundary. Naranja Drive is an east to west arterial connecting I" Avenue to the east with Shannon Road to the west. Access to the interior portion of the subject site will be provided by a proposed 45' utility/access roadway that would extend along the subject's western boundary. This utility/access roadway will be controlled by a private entry electrical gate system. Overall, access to the subject site is considered to be good. Easements We were not provided with a title report for the subject property. Review of the preliminary plat map for the subject property indicates several utility and ingress/egress easements. Overall based on our inspection of the subject site and review of the preliminary plat map, there does not appear to be any easements that would limit the r-. development of the site to its highest and best use. Utilities According to the developer, all utilities are available to the site with the exception of sewer which will be provided to each lot by a septic system. Water will be provided by Oro Valley, electric power by Tucson Electric Power (TEP), telephone by Qwest, and natural gas by Southwest Gas. Environmental We have been not been provided with a Phase I Environmental Assessment for the subject. This report assumes that no environmental concerns are present that would prevent the site from being put to its highest and best use. If this remains an area of -- concern for the client, a Phase I environmental study by a qualified firm is recommended. Flood Condition A Drainage Report drafted by Arroyo Engineering LLC, on April 2006 concluded that the proposed development will not impact or alter the existing drainage patterns. Moreover, given the large lot nature of the proposed development (low density), and preliminary discussions with the Town of Oro Valley by Coronado Engineering, a waiver of detention requirements is being r requested. Lastly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Number 04019C1020 K, dated February 8, 1999, the majority of the subject site with the exception of a small area through which a wash runs through is designated as Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. As stated, a small portion of the site, located at the southeast corner of the subject site, is designated Zone "A"; Special flood r- 10250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 8 hazard areas inundated by the 100-year flood with no base flood elevations determined. Overall, given the path, location, and developer's proposed development of single family residential home sites in accordance with the R-144 (Single -Family District) zone, it is unlikely that the current flood designation and path of the existing wash (located at the southeastern portion of the subject site) will adversely limit the subject's development potential or marketability. Seismic Zone The subject property is located within Seismic Zone 2A, an area of moderate to low risk. r Soil/Sub-soils According to a Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation report for the r� subject property drafted by Pattison Engineering LLC, on April 10, 2006, there appear to be no adverse soil/sub-soil conditions that would limit the development of the subject property as proposed. Adjacent Land Uses (Larger Property) North: Vacant land and single-family residential homes on large tracts. East: Single-family residential homes on large tracts. _. West: Single-family residential homes on large tracts followed by Shannon Road. South: Naranja Drive followed by Iron Ridge High School and vacant .-- land. Land Use Code: The subject site's 31.68 acres are currently zoned R-144 (Single - Family District, Oro Valley), a residential zone providing for low - density housing with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet per single-family residence, equal to about 3 '/3 acres of land area. �- The R-144 zoning also has provisions that would allow for the development of community owned recreation facilities, agricultural uses, et cetera. The subject property is proposed for ` development with a 9 single-family custom lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet. This proposed use is considered to be legally permissible. Special Assessments According to the Pima County Special Assessment web page, there are no special assessments against the subject property. Property Taxes Pima County identifies the subject property, as parcel numbers 224-11-049A. The 2006 full cash value for the subject property is equal to $577,634. As the subject property reflects a recent split from the larger 38.34 acre tract (parcels 224-11-0450 and 224-11- 0490) no historic tax information was available for the subject 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATEA PPRA/SEXS, INC PAGE 9 ^1 property. However, utilizing the 2005 tax rates and the 2006 full and limited cash values for the subject property we have estimated the year 2006 taxes at $9380.28, equal to about $86.85 per lot per month. This level of taxes will be utilized within the Discount Cash Flow Analysis. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 10 Highest & Best Use As Is/Proposed As was discussed in the Site Description section earlier in this report, the subject property contains approximately 31.68 gross acres of land area. The subject property is located northwest of Shannon Road and Naranja Drive, in the northwestern portion of the Tucson metropolitan area. The subject site is zoned R-144 (Single Family District, Oro Valley), a residential zone providing for low -density housing with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet per single-family v residence, equal to about 3 '/3 acres of land area. The R-144 zoning also has provisions that would allow for the development of community owned recreation facilities, agricultural uses, et cetera. The subject site, as of the date of value, reflects vacant land with generally level topography and is comprised of typical desert flora. All utilities, with the exception of sewer, are available to the subject site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Number 04019C1020 K, dated February 8, 1999, the majority of the subject site with the exception of a small area through which a wash runs through is designated as Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. As stated, a small portion of the site, located at the southeast corner of the subject site, is designated Zone "A"; Special flood hazard areas inundated by the 100-year flood with no base flood elevations determined. Overall, given the subject's zoning (low density residential with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet) and location of the wash area, there appear to be no flood concerns the would adversely impact the development potential or marketability of the subject site. The subject site has good access from Naranja Drive As stated in the Site Description section of this report, the subject property is preliminary platted for development with 9 large -acre single-family custom lots with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet. This proposed use is considered to be legally permissible and physically possible. Our research indicates that there is good demand for properties similar to the subject for near term development of large acre homesites (3.33 acre lots). Absorption of single-family 3 '/3 custom lots has been steady, and 10250-061 KS REAL ESTATEAPPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 11 growing demand in northern metro Tucson for such product is observed. Overall, the highest and best use of the subject property as vacant is considered to be for near term development with single-family residential homes on large 3 %3 acre lots. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATEAPPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 12 VALUATION As concluded in the Highest and Best Use section of this report, the highest and best use of the subject property is considered to be for near term development as proposed with 9 single-family custom lots with a minimum lot area of 144,000 square feet. As previously established, the purpose of this appraisal report is to develop an opinion of the "as is" and "as if complete" bulk (wholesale) market value of the subject property. All three of the traditional approaches to value, i.e. the Income Approach (Discounted Cash Flow Analysis), Cost Approach, and Sales Comparison Approach have been considered to develop an opinion of the subject as a completed subdivision valued on a "bulk" basis. The Cost Approach considers recent sales of similar vacant tracts for use in a Sales Comparison Approach in order to develop an opinion of the subject property "as is". Then, the estimated cost to develop the subject lots, along with a reasonable allocation for developers profit is added to arrive at the "as if complete" market value of the subject lots, "bulk". With respect to the Income Approach, the application of the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis provides the basis for developing an opinion of value as a completed subdivision valued on a "bulk" basis. As part of this analysis, an opinion of the average retail value of the proposed lots is developed and utilized within the cash flow. The Sales Comparison Approach has been considered in this analysis, but due to the lack of truly comparable sales of finished lots on a bulk basis in the area, this method was not utilized. The omission of the Sales Comparison Approach "as if complete -bulk" from this report is not considered a Departure from a complete appraisal per the USPAP. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 13 COST APPROACH As discussed in the Highest and Best Use section of this report, the highest and best use of the subject site is for near term development of the subject site with single-family custom homesite lots with a minimum lot area of 144,000 square feet, in conformance with the preliminary subdivision — plat. The Cost Approach is an application of the principle of substitution, in that no person will pay more for a property than the amount for which they can obtain or purchase, without undue or costly delay, a site and develop subdivision lots with equal desirability and utility. The steps in the procedure are to: 1) estimate the value of the subject site, as vacant, via the sales comparison approach; 2) estimate the cost to develop the subject lots; 3) add an increment for developer's profit; 4) estimate the dollar amount of accrued depreciation due to physical deterioration, functional _ obsolescence, and adverse economic influences; 5) deduct the total amount of depreciation from the cost, new, to arrive at the present depreciated cost of the improvements. Following is a discussion of the steps followed in order, to estimate the market value of the subject property via the cost approach, first in its "as is" condition, and then in its' "as if complete" condition. SALES COMPARISON APPROACH "AS IS" The Sales Comparison Approach to value considers market data of similar vacant properties. This approach has been utilized to arrive at an opinion of the market value of the subject property in its "as is" condition of approximately 31.68 acres of vacant land. This technique is an application of the principle of substitution that affirms that when a property can be replaced, its value tends to be set by the cost 'of acquisition of an equally desirable substitute property that can be acquired without undue or costly delay. A search within the subject area was conducted in order to obtain market data of similar vacant properties. Three sales and one comparable under contract for sale were uncovered in the area that is considered to provide a reasonable basis for the subject's value in the current market. It is noted that Comparable Four is under contract for sale at an undisclosed amount that is close to -- the listing price of $1,500,000 with backup offers above $1,500,000. This escrow is scheduled to close by the end of May 2006. Each of the comparable. sales was confirmed with a party considered familiar with the transaction when possible, and was otherwise confirmed through Costar/COMPS, Tucson Multiple Listing Service (MLS), and available public records. The Sales Comparison Approach is considered to provide a good indication of the market value of the subject property. The sales price per acre is the unit of comparison used in this analysis. A tabulation of these comparables is presented on the following page. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 14 COMPARABLE LAND SALES Comp Parcel Sale Site Size Price per M Number Date Location Acres Zoning Sale Price Acre Use 1 224-44-050 Aug-05 3565 W. Pecos Way 40.00 SR, County . $1,600,000 $40,000 Large lot SFR Sub. Dev. 2 224-11-024 Aug-05 SE of Shannon Rd & Tangerine Rd 18.86 SR, Oro Valley $925,000 $49.046 Large lot SFR Sub. Dev. 3• 219-12-013H Dec-05 2338 West Tortolita Sunrise Tr 12.40 RH, County $1.000.000 $80,645 Large lot SFR Sub. Dev. 4*• 221-27-OOSA Escrow 7625 N Artesino Rd 20.00 SR, County $1,500,000 $75,000 Large lot SFR Sub. Dev. Subj. 224-11-0490, 0450 2840 W. Naranja Dr 31.68 SR, Oro Valley Large lot SFR Sub. Dev. • This property sold in September 2005 for $700,000 or about $56,452 per acre. -- According to Ms. Anna Midkiff with Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, comparable 4 is scheduled to close by the end of May 06. A map of the comparable sales is available on the following page. The sales illustrated above were analyzed in order to estimate the "as is" market value of the subject property via the Sales Comparison Approach. The range of sales price per acre prior to adjustments is between $40,000 and $80,645 per acre, with Comparable Four (escrow) at $75,000 per acre. As noted previously, Comparable Four is likely to close just under the list price, $1,500,000. The exact escrow figure was not disclosed to us, however, there are back-up offers on the property above the list price. Valuation Analysis: As shown, five comparables have- been selected for use in this analysis. Discussions with knowledgeable real estate brokers, buyers and sellers, along with our general observations of the market revealed the following characteristics as important adjustments to consider. These adjustments fall under two categories, transactional and subjective. The transactional adjustments are made for factors that can be specifically defined, such as, property rights transferred, terms of sale, sale conditions, and market conditions. Subjective adjustments, while not definitively supported by specific data, nonetheless are based on overall economic conditions and are considered to best reflect the perceptions of active market participants considered in this analysis. Such adjustments were considered and applied, when warranted, for location/views/access, size, zoning, site utility, and utility availability. In order to make reliable subjective adjustments, we have consulted real estate brokers, buyers and sellers and have relied on our knowledge of the overall market. Transactional Adjustments: Adjustments for Property Rights Transferred The interest being considered for the subject property is fee simple. All of the comparables sold in fee simple interest, warranting no adjustment for property rights transferred. Adjustments for Terms of Sale Adjustments for terms of sale have been considered in this analysis. The opinion of market value of the subject property assumes a cash equivalent purchase. One requirement of valuation reports written in conformation with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) is that the sale of the subject and the comparable properties be adjusted for cash equivalency. Cash equivalent sales imply those transactions which are financed by third -party lenders such as 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 15 P1NAL °:1600.00" IMA, 1510RN �l s 1440o MARANA 22o.. 1360ON _L IADDpj �• nD �`�,�_1280U . COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP '1 COUNTY i`MOVNTAlN PARK' eF?; TORTpyIF.. ttD& OR WRILE DOVE Lit ' 9 atir HAV.T:. VE IuvILLAKD ^::r wn 2 La Cholla— a _ Airpark dE-� LR CLAMBERT! ,oS lu1JDE91_ U_i� �Z o s s w ul i ty LINDA vISLn.ti._g�VO_ YV:01 PEAKS \\ � 's 1 - 9 = ; °` _ ZgD _i4uLE_ggqcqw 1 + - CAl B '�{� 1 cry el o l ,'"—ODUUN lgEz 1\ T N Ca Ku US IURpT= ItVi CORTAR0 FARIAS RD ,f Adobe u r : re = + 1 ru ra nr, C ' IOOOUN $ µp o.o CAR J ,S_rAAGEE RD a ructE µ_D W wllmr^ UK O y9 H'"^P �O litO H ,T �.� O ¢C �v."� IH I fg ru `o RoY•.L: N�iIW.orp Z7 aU.. �•W y'"aG:c72OUN YLilYE i O i "MS Pit.icture '^.:e4. �, q E - I.IWVE 64UON ro �.. 4t'Y'"', b ORATlCE .. 3.. GROVE RD IZOCi�ti l u \�•4�t"iN1UL5tt: �� NU SWISH RD � ., ti: . 4ER f4, i �6K . �. 5600N a xDUEa'p^ 77 rSAC,UARO f ��Iu:m ut�o cEAnD �t RUTHiRUFF,Of RD i IVEI!JORE_ • + NATIONAL " + W`.6A1EN DRY 1 a urJutALo'3r Ao- Ilk 4000N Y� ', tIQ A AD —^ 4 R i PARK NR;rj RD r. G . 32UUN .WEST u WAFT ca o Au 1... �,E1IRACLE FOR[ ; LOy+FLOi C.' t 1' e RP MILE I WIDE Rp' +, rala.w� tau D; GRAr_JT\. c-. �, GRAr1T 2$OUN �`yf/y R ti w.D nK t! yo �'� R o ...WELM st !1UUN. " } yFY FFDl1'AY BLVD r �I SYE �'TUCS0I11 Y, T 'E 4'r• �o- AWK11it.1'RD...`?1AARp �GTH``.c�i'_. .ST T: 01 ' MOUNTAIN Y� sa CONGREy sT € '�g .. �, �� Isl,l sw TARR W PASSr+ 11Uu5 .......yD 22,V9 t of Am. IK SL1't`htua lit SE JIUcr`iy?•: f 210' nxD=SCJU•P,H `Rod 1260U5 w4 yo PARK k,ll s it �I'UC:SL)\,...y9Gry?t\ • � c P f W-H,M ID y = r 38OUS "IVY r AJD......: - °SWAY. 4UUU5 ;f Fvr:GrOy -- <: IRVINGTOrI RD � Kit :'� Ryan AAlield 0 K I Sl a 57OUS A�::: N eci;_I 1% o*.a J= "D . 86 > W 4,. ' . VALENCIA .. RD v� 91" savings and loan associations or commercial banks. Transactions that are financed by sellers may provide advantages not available from third -party lenders. Typically, seller carry -back financing includes a lower down payment than what would be available via third -party financing. In addition, the interest rate or length of the financing may be favorable to the purchasers. Comparables One and Three reflect cash or cash equivalent transactions with no adjustments warranted for this factor. Comparable Two was financed with a seller carryback loan. We were unable to confirm the sale of Comparable Two with either the seller or buyer. As we were unable to determine whether the seller financing provided an advantage to the buyer, no adjustment was warranted to Comparable Two for terms. Adjustments for Condition of Sale Inherent in the definition of market value is that buyer and seller be typically motivated. We have analyzed the comparables with respect to the motivation of both buyer and seller. Often the conditions of sale impact the final purchase price of the comparable property. For instance, a property owner with a need to expand an existing property through assemblage would typically have a higher degree of motivation to purchase an adjacent property if it were available than would the general public and, therefore, could be inclined to pay more money. Conversely, a seller, who for financial reasons was distressed, might be inclined to sell a property at a level below market. Confirmation of the sales indicated that Comparables One and Three involved a seller and buyer who were typically motivated. Thus, no adjustment for conditions of sale was considered supported in this an Comparable Four is under contract for sale and the sale of this comparable will reflect an arms length transaction with a typically motivated buyer and seller. As noted, we were unable to determine the motivations of the parties for Comparable Two. As such, no adjustments were made to this Comparable for conditions of sale. Adjustments for Market Conditions (Time) The comparables range in date of sale from August 2005 through December 2005. The date of value is May 15, 2006. Our analysis of the marketplace, indicate moderate appreciation for properties like the subject. Overall, within this analysis, a varied degree of upward adjustment for market appreciation is appropriate to all of the comparable sales. It is noted that Comparable Four reflects a property under contract for sale with no adjustment for time warranted. The tabulation on the following page summarizes the transaction adjustments that were considered appropriate based on our analysis. Federal Register, vol. 55, no. 163, August 22, 1990, pages 34229 and 34229; also quoted in the introduction to the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 16 Transaction Adjustments - Land Comparables Comp Price Sale Rights Market Net Unit # per Unit Terms Conditions Transferred Conditions Adjustment Price 1 $40,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% $41,600 2 $49,046 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% $51,007 3 $80,645 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% $82,258 4 $75,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $75,000 To this point in our analysis, we have considered adjustments to the comparable sales for various economic and financial factors. The following portion of the analysis will focus on adjustments dealing primarily with physical aspects of the comparable sales in comparison to the subject property. Physical Adiustments: Location: As was discussed in the Site Description section of this report, the subject property is located northeast of Naranja Drive and Shannon Road, in the northwestern portion of the Tucson area. The subject has access from Naranja Drive, an undivided two-lane roadway with one eastbound and one westbound lanes. Naranja Drive connects 1" Avenue with Shannon Road. Comparable One is located southwest of the subject and has access from Pecos Way. This location is considered generally similar as compared to the subject, warranting no adjustment for this factor. Comparables Two is located just north of the subject with access from Shannon Road. Overall, Comparable Two's location is considered similar as compared to the subject warranting no adjustment for this factor. Comparable Three is located northwest of the subject along the north side of Tortolita Sunrise Trail, northwest of the La Cholla Airpark. This location offers good views but lacks paved access. Overall, these factors are considered offsetting, warranting no adjustment for this factor. Comparable Four is located northwest of Interstate-10 and Cortero Farms Road. The comparable lacks paved access but has a unique backdrop, Sombrero Peak. Additionally, the comparable _ abuts the Saguaro National Park. Overall, this comparable is considered superior as compared to the subject, warranting a downward adjustment for this factor. Site Size: Such an adjustment is based on market evidence that suggests that larger parcels will sell for less on a':per acre" basis than smaller parcels, all else being equal. Justification for this adjustment is often attributed to the notion that larger parcels inherently carry more perceived risk relative to smaller parcels. The subject contains 31.68 acres. The comparables range in size from 12.40 10250-061 KS REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 17 acres to 40 acres. Overall, the comparables are considered to be similar as compared to the subject, warranting no adjustment for this factor. Zoning and Platting Status: — The subject property is zoned R-144 by the Town of Oro Valley, which permits development with single-family home sites with minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet. Additionally, the developer of the subject has submitted a preliminary plat for the proposed development and has -- conducted necessary surveys to allow for the approval of the proposed development of the subject property with a residential subdivision. All of the comparables have similar zoning designation (single-family residential homes with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet) warranting no adjustment for zoning. However, recognizing that the developer of the subject property has expended funds to preliminary plat the subject property and conduct all necessary surveys for the proposed development, an upward adjustment for platting status was warranted to all of the comparables. Site Utility: The subject site is rectangular in shape and has level topography. The majority of the subject site is considered to be outside of the 100-year flood plain area with a small potion of the site, located at the southeast corner has a small wash area which is designated as an area within the 100-year wash. This however, is not considered to negatively impact the potential development or marketability of the subject site. Comparables Two, Three, and Four are considered similar with respect to this factor warranting no adjustment. The majority of the land area of Comparable One is situated within the 100-year flood plain. Overall, Comparable One is considered inferior with respect to site utility, warranting an upward adjustment for this factor. Utility Availability: The subject property is provided with all utilities to the site. Similarly, all utilities are available to the comparables at or to the site, warranting no adjustment for this factor. -- The following tabulation summarizes the physical adjustments considered for each of the comparable sales. Physical Adjustments - Land Comparables Comp Unit Location/ Site Zoning/ Site Utility Gross Net Adjusted # Price Views/Access Size Platting Utility Availability Adjustments Adjustment Unit Price 1 $41,600 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% $54,080 2 $51,007 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% $56,108 3 $82,258 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% $90,484 4 $75,000 -20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% -10.0% $67,500 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATEAPPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 18 Summary Prior to adjustments the comparables range in price between $40,000 and $80,000 per acre, with Comparable Five (escrow) at about $75,000 per acre. After adjustments, the comparables demonstrate a narrower range from $54,080 to $90,484 per acre. Overall, based on the available sales, with greatest weight given to Comparables Two and Three, it is our opinion that the market value of the subject property via the Sales Comparison Approach is equal to $70,000 per acre or about $2,217,600, rounded to $2,220,000. OPINION OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, "AS IS" �- AS OF MAY 15, 2006....................................................................................................$2,220,000 The marketing time for the subject property is estimated to be no more than Twelve months -- based on the above value conclusion. The exposure time, also premised upon the prior value conclusion, is also estimated to be less than 12 months. COST APPROACH, "AS IF COMPLETE" As detailed in this report, our reconciled opinion of the "as is" market value of the subject " property is equal to $2,200,000. This opinion is considered to be reasonable and appropriate given the available data. Continuing with the Cost Approach, the next step is to estimate the costs to finish the subject lots. The subject property is proposed for development with a 9-lot residential subdivision with a minimum lot size of 144,000 square feet. The developer of the subject property, Mr. Emil Martinez, has indicated that the anticipated hard and soft costs associated with finishing the subject proposed lots is equal to $750,000, of which $90,000 have already been spent in various surveys, platting and engineering, et cetera. The following tabulation summarizes the Cost Approach for the subject property. As noted in the _._ table, the value estimate figure includes an increment of value for developer's profit, estimated at 10%. t Approach Summary As If Complete Value of Land "As Is" Development Costs* Subtotal Developer's Profit 10.0% Value Estimate Rounded The development costs as in Per Lot $2,200,000 $244,444 $660,000 $73,333 $2,860,000 $317,778 $286,000 $31.778 $3,146,000 $349,556 $3,150,000 $350,000 total 3750,000. $90,000 have been spent thus far on platting, surveying, etcetera. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATEA PPRAISERS, INC. PACE 19 The "as is" land value plus the cost to develop the subject lots is about $2,860,000. Developer's Profit of 10 % indicates an additional cost of $286,000. Due to the new nature of — the improvements, no depreciation need be considered. Thus, our opinion of the "as if complete" value of the subject property via the Cost Approach is $3,146,000, rounded to $3,150,000. This is equal to a value of about $350,000 per lot, rounded. OPINION OF THE "AS IF COMPLETE" VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIA THE COST APPROACH ................................ $3,150,000 The market value noted above is based upon a typical marketing time and exposure period of less than 12 months and is subject to the following Extraordinary Assumptions. It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the "As If Complete" market value _ contained within this report assumes completed lots, and that the subject lot infrastructure, including the extension of utilities and roadways, will be completed in a professional manner and in accordance with the provided preliminary plat It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the cost figure associated with the development of the subject lots, as provided by the developer, is accurate. We reserve the right _ to change our opinion of the market value of the subject property should these development costs vary. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 20 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS A reliable technique that can be utilized to estimate the as is market value of the subject property is the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis. This approach estimates the average retail -selling price of the subject lots, the indicated time period necessary to absorb these lots, and the sales and holding costs that will be incurred over the absorption period. D1sCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS, BULK "AS Is" The steps utilized in the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for the subject lots are as follows: ~' 1) Estimate the average retail lot price for the 9 proposed subject lots assuming completion of all on -site subdivision improvements.. The Sales Comparison Approach was _ considered to be well supported, and was considered in the valuation of the typical retail price of a lot within the proposed subject development. 2) Estimate the absorption and appreciation that can be anticipated over the projection period for the 9 subject lots. _ 3) Estimate expenses that will most likely be incurred over the sell out of the project. These expenses include development costs for the project infrastructure, real estate taxes, closing costs and miscellaneous expenses. 4) Estimate an expected rate of profit to the investor/developer for the risk associated with purchasing the subject property in its entirety and initiating a development and sales program for the subject lots. Here follows a discussion of the four steps followed in order to estimate the "bulk" value of the subject lots via the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis. Estimation of Retail Lot Values In order to estimate the average retail lot price for the 9 proposed subject lots, as if complete, the Sales Comparison Approach was considered. The selling prices of a typical lot will then be used in concert with the average rate of monthly sales, yielding the gross revenues receivable per period. Following is a discussion of this method of analysis, which is followed by an opinion of the retail price of a typical subject lot. Sales Comparison Approach The Sales Comparison Approach estimates the retail price of the typical subject lot based upon sales of similar lots within the area. Analysis of the subject immediate and larger market. area revealed numerous sales of similar lots on a retail basis. The home site lots that were discovered reflected lots sold for the construction of custom homes. These types of lots are considered to be comparable with the subject lots, with some of the lots sold within gated subdivisions and others 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 21 reflecting unsubdivided lots. Thus, here follows a tabulation of comparable lot sales. A map depicting the location of the comparable sales is available on the following page: COMPARABLE LARGE LOT SALES Comp # Sale Date* Address City/Town Lot # Subdivision Land Size Acres Land Size SF - List Price Sales Price Gated Days On Market" 1 Aug-04 6100 N. Tucson Mountain Dr Pima County 31 Tucson Mountain Reserve 3.310 144,184 $298,000 $298,000 Y 174 2 Jan-05 489 W. Dream Weaver Dr Oro Valley 18 Naranja Ridge Estates 3.308 144,096 $295,000 S295,000 Y 390 3 Jan-05 1133 W. Tortolita Mountain Cir Oro Valley 176 Stone Canyon Phase Il 4.390 191,228 $425,000 $425,000 Y 0 4 Apr-05 15121 N. Silver Rock Ct Marana 119 Canyon Pass at Dove Mountain 4.500 196,020 S580,000 $742,370 Y 133 5 May-05 15090 N. Dove Canyon Pass Marana 173 Canyon Pass III at Dove Mountain 3.290 143,312 S295,000 S295,000 Y 1 6 Jul-05 15175 N. Gallery Overlook PI Marana 155 Canyon Pass at Dove Mountain 3.950 172,062 $620,000 S620,000 Y 0 7 Sep-05 5455 W. Four Barrel Ct Pima County 46 Tucson Mountain Reserve 3.309 144,140 $299,500 S299,500 Y 10 8 Oct-05 9001 N. Camino Del Fierro Pima County N/Av Unsubdivided 4.000 174,240 S385,000 S380,000 N 5 9 Dec-05 2672 W. Desert Splendor Ct Pima County 4 Rancho De Suenos 3.306 144,009 $375.000 $360,000 N 54 10 Dec-05 1710 W. Sunkist Rd Pima County N/Av Unsubdivided 5.000 217,800 $599,000 S599,000 N 109 11 Jan-06 7400 W. Ina Rd Pima County N/Av Unsubdivided 3.598 156,729 S329,000 S325,000 N 92 12 Feb-06 8100 W. Pima Farms Rd Pima County I Coyote Trail 3.310 144,184 $339,000 S339,000 N 144 13 Feb-06 10917 N. Desert Whisper Way Oro Valley 4 Naranja Ridge Estates 3.341 145,534 $435,000 $435,000 Y 4 14 May-06 419 W. Dream Weaver Dr Oro Valley 19 Naranja Ridge Estates 3.307 144,053 $400 000 $400 000 Y 8 Date in which the soles price was established Average 3.709 161,542 S405,321 S415,205 •• Days on the market for active listings Isfran May 20, 2006 The above comparable lot sales demonstrate a range from 3.307 to 5.00 acres of land area. The comparable sales exhibit a listing price ranging from $298,000 to $620,000 with sales prices ranging from $295,000 to $742,370 per lot. Days on market for the comparables sold range from 0 to 390 with an average of 80 days. However, the limited availability of large 3 '/3 acre custom homesite lots in gated subdivisions has resulted in decreasing days on market and sales of such lots at or above the asking price. The proposed subject lots are considered superior in terms of overall location when compared with lots at Tucson Mountain Reserve. When compared with lots at Canyon Pass at Dove Mountain and lots at the Stone Canyon Development the subject lots are considered inferior in terms of views and golf amenities, however, the subject project location is considered to be superior as compared to the above mentioned communities, offering better access to services in metro Tucson. Lots at Naranja Ridge Estates, located generally -- southeast of Naranja and Monterra Vista Drives, are considered to be somewhat superior to the subject in terms of views and overall location as this development is located in close proximity to major retail outlets, located along Oracle Road. We have 'also researched sale information obtained through public records on lot sales at Butterfly Mountain subdivision, located northwest of the subject, northwest of Thornydale and Moore roads. This gated community is comprised of 28 custom homesite lots with a minimum lot area of 3 %3 acres. The following tabulation summarizes some of the recent lot sales at this project. LOT SALES AT BUTTERFLY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION Comp Salo Parcel Land Size Land Size # Date Number Address City/Town Lot # Acres SF Sales Price Comments Apr-05 219-33-0880 4334 W. Butterfly Mountain Dr Marana 8 3.323 144,770 $375.000 Mountain View Lot 2 Apr-05 219-33-0860 4424 W. Butterfly Mountain Dr Marana 6 3.309 144.137 $375.000 Mountain View Lot 3 Jul-05 219-33-0910 4128 W. Butterfly Mountain Dr Marana 11 3.311 144,245 S425,000 Corner lot 4 Jul-05 219-33-0870 4394 W. Butterfly Mountain Dr Marana 7 3.318 144,516 S450,000 Mountain View. Lot 5 Jul-05 219-33-0960 4165 W. Butterfly Mountain Dr Marana 16 3.332 145,140 $425,000 Interior comer lot 6 Jan-06 219-33-0850 4458 W. Butterfly Mountain Dr Maranr 5 3 397 147,979 $485 000 Corner lot with mountain views Averages 3.332 $145,131 $422,500 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 22 COMPARABLE LOT SALES MAP PINAL Canyon`Pass at; Dove Mountain A 1600ON Plm 1520ON PEAKS....RD. TWIN, �—_ffA 960ON nD CAt�' •--8800N Lmal AD Canyon: sr t ll tiai :lee 77 AD BOOON 96W AD R A1111MVE' Ull , i 8 w : . Q HLA AD 72UUN Piclurif P'-'; Fr 01; 6 GHM AD Tucson Mountain .!—:S UW.iG:E, GRovE RD on si Reserve AD ail RAI >t? A D -�.-�-'��SAGUAR 0.11140 ;;Zt k0LLj% DEL: CE Yr' G R&� NATIONAL 'IExDR in Z� 10,'L. ROGER UUNLRLosr to, RD 400ON -PARK U PR UR 320ok r ce Z! ;MIRACLE r �5; .... JOH,j . 'LPV4 I&E. ... ....... LUM a LWIPL�.' iAl) r-ll`XU33 W L U; Rm!qs, I aFWjT AD =1 DR 6' v:i tw b. k. my! A. SPE U AIQUALI - AD RD §Krz.� la iF�g MOUNTAIN C5. COWIGRES FE :1200S STARR _PLVO 22-14 A4..UN; IR AU' "ttil: Si 444 -.210 PRU wty:Witt 126VOS a M 'PARK US( 38OOS IAVY _AJ .... ....... IVAY 4900S �lt 2 43 R Rym Anfit)ILl Ck* r mow" st- 5700S zz d-i�D : 86A I q.- Conversation with Ms. Nikki Mehalic-Halle a knowledgeable broker with Windermere Distinctive Homes and Land indicated that the lots at Butterfly Mountain are considered inferior when compared to the subject in terms of overall location. The sales transacted from April 2005 .through January 2006 and ranged in price from $375,000 to $485,000, with an average of $422,000. The developer of the subject property has provided us with a preliminary plat map of the proposed lots, which includes the asking price for each of the lots. The developer has indicated that the lots have all been reserved. The tabulation on the following page depicts the subject's proposed lots asking prices. A map of the subject lots is provided in the Addenda if this report. NARANJA RANCH ESTATES Lot Size Lot Size Lot # Sq. Ft. Acres Ask Price Comments 1 3.306 144,005 $425,000 End Lot 2 3.306 144,001 $400,000 Wash traversing lot 3 3.306 144,002 $425,000 Interior Lot _ 4 3.306 144,000 $425,000 Interior Lot 5 3.306 144,000 $425,000 Interior Lot 6 3.306 144,003 $425,000 Interior Lot 7 3.306 144,003 $425,000 Interior Lot 8 3.306 144,003 $375,000 Proximate to Naranja Rd 9 3.323 144,735 $375,000 Proximate to Naranja Rd Average 3.308 144,084 $411,111 *Each lot has a building envelope ofabout 30,000 SF Overall, considering the comparable sales, the physical characteristics of the subject property and its location, and from discussions with market participants such as, Ms. Nikki Mehalic-Halle with Windermere Distinctive Homes and Land and Mr. Daniel Wong, Broker with Casas Adobes Realty who is also the developer of the Naranja Ridge Estates subdivision, it is likely that the subject proposed lots could be absorbed at a rate of one lot per month at the developer's asking prices. As noted on the above tabulation, the subject's lot asking prices range from $375,000 to $425,000. All of the lots have a building envelope of 30,000 square feet. The lower priced lots are the ones that are situated adjacent or in close proximity to Naranja Drive (Lot 8 and 9), with one of the lots, Lot 2, which is affected by a wash area that traverse this lot offered at $400,000. As stated above, our analysis of the subject property and surrounding comparable projects supports the developers indicated asking prices. As noted in the above tabulation, the average price per lot is $411,111. Overall, it is considered reasonable to conclude that at these pricing levels absorption of the subject lots should be at about 1 lot per month. Overall, it is our opinion that the average retail price of the subject lots is equal to $411,111, rounded to $410,000. Opinion of the Average Retail Price of a Subject Lot...................................................$410,000 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 23 Estimation of Absorption and Appreciation The subject property is anticipated to be improved with 9 custom home lots. Due to the number of lots and their estimated pricing, the time frame over which the subject is absorbed should be relatively short. Our analysis of absorption within this section suggests that there would be good demand for the subject proposed 9 lots. Overall, it is anticipated that absorption would be equal to 1 lot per month from completion of the site improvements, although, pre -sales of lots at the subject project could be undertaken during the development process, as demonstrated by the reservation of the 9 lots. With respect to appreciation, the retail price of a typical home site would likely trend forward to reflect the passage of time over the sell -out period. Due to the period estimated for the subject's absorption, appreciation of about 5.0% per year is applied in this analysis. This rate of appreciation is considered appropriate considering the recent and anticipated activity in the market. Estimated Development Costs, Selling Expenses and Closing Costs The expenses that are anticipated to be incurred over the projection period include development costs, real estate taxes, sales commission/advertising, closing costs, and miscellaneous expenses. The other costs associated with the development of a property such as the subject, including developer's profit and overhead, have been accounted for in estimating the retail price of the typical lot. A discussion of each of these items follows. Development Costs: According to the developer the cost attributed with the development of the subject lots totals $750,000, of which $90,000 have already been expended. These costs include both hard and soft costs such as, excavation, clearing and grubbing, street and utilities, surveys, et cetera. The developer of the subject property, Mr. Martinez has indicated that it would take about 60 days to finish the lots. Within the Cash Flow the remaining development cost of $660,000 ($750,000-$90,000 = $660,000) was divided over a period of two months. Real Estate Taxes: As discussed in the Site Description section of this report, the subject property is presently vacant land that is preliminary platted for the near term development of a subdivision suitable for development with 9 custom home lots. As stated, the real estate taxes are estimated at $86.85 per lot per month (based on 2006 FCV and 2005 tax rates). However, as the sales of lots progress, this monthly expense would be reduced. Advertising/Marketing Fees: Given the size of the subject project a minimal 1% advertising expense was considered warranted. This marketing fee will cover advertisement of the subject project in magazines and _ other types of media. Closing Costs: Closing costs are typically borne by the developer. These costs include items such as, escrow fees, title policies, recording fees, commissions, discount points, etc. For the purpose of this analysis, these costs have been estimated as a percentage of the lot income per 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PACE 24 period. Analysis of the market suggests that about of 7% of the lot income is appropriate for closing costs. This amount has been applied in the cash flow analysis. Miscellaneous Expenses: Ownership of a project such as the subject typically entails unexpected expenses. These expcnscs can relate to maintenance costs within the project, administrative fees, -- etc. Within this analysis a deduction of $1,000 per month has been included to account for miscellaneous expenses. Developer's Profit: Developers profit is a measure of expected return for investment and risk in a project. This analysis utilizes a 10% rate of return which is sufficient to attract developers to this type of project. Estimated Rate of Return for Discounting Process .� Subdivision projects such as the subject differ significantly from improved properties with respect to the quantity of cash flow and timing. The risk characteristics associated with the ownership of a project similar to the subject are greater than other real estate investment alternatives, and a higher rate of return is typically demanded within the market for investments of properties similar to the subject. According to Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey, 4th Quarter 2005, the range in discount rates for land development, including developer profit (entrepreneurial profit), are between 12% and 25% (for free and clear entitled properties), with an average of 18.15%. The report indicates that with respect to residential housing even though interest rates have been creeping upwards single- family housing demand is expected to remain strong in high growth areas such as Arizona. This - is coupled with the growing market of retiring baby boomers who continue to drive single-family residential construction. -- As the subject property reflects a proposed 9-lot custom home site subdivision anticipated to be developed in the near future, a discount rate range from 15% to 18%, was considered appropriate. With consideration given to the preceding range, a discount rate of 16% was considered to be appropriate for the purpose of reflecting the risk involved with the current market. This level of return is considered to be sufficient to attract a potential developer to acquire the subject property. The preceding information has been utilized in order to develop an opinion of the market value of the subject property. The tabulation on the following page summarizes our Discounted Cash Flow Analysis calculations. __ 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 25 Number of Lots: Total Est. Retail Value of Lots: Estimated Monthly Lot Appreciation INCOME Total Number of Lots: Lot Sales: Lot Pricing: Total Period Income: EXPENSES Development Costs Real Estate Taxes (per lot per month): Advertising/Marketing Commissions & Closing Costs: Miscellaneous Expenses: Total Expenses Per Period: PEREODICE INCOME Developer's Profit NET PERIODIC INCOME: PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS Discount Rates: (Annual Yield Rates) NARANJA RANCH ESTATES DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW OF THE PROPOSED 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS "AS IS" 9 $410,000 0.58% Month Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Ap 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $410,000 $412,392 $414,797 $417,217 $419,651 $422,099 $424,561 $427,038 $429,529 $432,034 $434,554 $0 $0 $414,797 $417,217 $419,651 $422,099 $424,561 $427,038 $429,529 $432,034 $434,554 $330,000 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 782 782 695 608 521 434 347 261 174 87 - 1.0% $0 $0 $4,148 $4,172 $4,197 $4,221 $4,246 $4,270 $4,295 $4,320 $4,346 7.0% $0 $0 $29,036 $29,205 $29,376 $29,547 $29,719 $29,893 $30,067 $30,242 $30,419 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $331,782 $331,782 $34,879 $34,985 $35,093 $35,202 $35,312 $35,424 $35,536 $35,650 $35,764 ($331,782) ($331,782) $379,919 $382,232 $384,558 $386,896 $389,249 $391,614 $393,993 $396,385 $398,790 10% $0 $0 $41,480 $41,722 $41,965 $42,210 $42,456 $42,704 $42,953 $43,203 $43,455 $331,782) ($331,782) $338,439 $340,510 $342,592 $344,687 $346,793 $348,910 $351,040 $353,181 $355,335 INDICATED VALUES TOTAL PER LOT 15.0% $2,210,219 $245,580 16.0% $2,194,694 $243,855 18.0% $2,163,994 $240,444 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis Conclusions, Bulk Value The Discounted Cash Flow Analysis "bulk" is based on 11 monthly periods, which is considered reasonable in the current market. The average retail pricing of the lots, as well as the estimated expenses and projected returns, are considered to be reasonablc by similar subdivision projects in the Tucson area. Based on our analysis, the indicated market value "as is" of the proposed 9 subject lots is between about $2,163,994 and $2,210,219, equal to a range from $240,444 to $245,580 per lot. Based on our analysis via the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, with emphasis on a discount rate of 16%, the subject's "bulk" market value "as is" is estimated to be equal to about $243,855 per lot, or $2,194;694, rounded to $2,195,000. OPINION OF THE "BULK" MARKET VALUE "As Is" VIA THE DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS..............................................................$2,195,000 The market value noted above is based upon a typical marketing time and exposure period of less than 12 months. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 26 1 NARANJA RANCH ESTATES DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW OF THE PROPOSED 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS "AS IF COMPLETE" Number of Lots: Total Est. Retail Value of Lots: Estimated Monthly Lot Appreciation Total Number of Lots: Lot Sales : Lot Pricing: Total Period Income: EXPENSES Development Costs Real Estate Taxes (per lot per month): Advertising/Marketing Commissions & Closing Costs: Miscellaneous Expenses: Total Expenses Per Period: PEREODICE INCOME Developer's Profit NET PERIODIC INCOME: PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS Discount Rates: (Annual Yield Rates) 9 $410,000. 0.58% Month Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Fe 8...................7 ..•.•:....-.......� .•....... 5...................•.4...:.-....-..:...3:...•......•.....• 2 .•........•.•.. ..i.•.•:... -. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $410,000 $412,392 $414,797 $417,217 $419,651 $422,099 $424,561 $427,038 $429,529 $410,000 $412,392 $414,797 $417,217 $419,651 $422,099 $424,561 $427,038 $429,529 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 695 608 521 434 347 261 174 87 - 1.0% $4,100 $4,124 $4,148 $4,172 $4,197 $4,221 $4,246 $4,270 $4,295 7.0% $28,700 $28,867 $29,036 $29,205 $29,376 $29,547 $29,719 $29,893 $30,067 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $34,495 $34,599 $34,705 $34,812 $34,919 $35,028 $35,139 $35,250 $35,362 $375,505 $377,792 $380,092 $382,405 $384,731 $387,070 $389,422 $391,788 $394,166 10% $41,000 $41,239 $41,480 $41,722 $41,965 $42,210 $42,456 $42,704 $42 $334,505 $336,553 $338,613 $340,684 $342,766 $344,860 $346,966 $349,084 $351 .12 INDICATED VALUES TOTAL ' PER LOT 13.0% $2,923,276 $324,808 14.0% $2,911,338 $323,482 15.0% $2,899,471 $322,163 RECONCILIATION — "AS IS" BULK VALUE The two methods of analysis that were considered appropriate for use to estimate the "as is" market value of the subject property were the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis and the Sales Comparison Approach. Each of these methods is considered to reflect the motivations within the market place. The following is a summary of the value indications via each of these methods: Sales Comparison Approach Analysis.......................................................$2,220,000 Discounted Cash Flow "As Is" Analysis....................................................$2,195,000 Overall, both approaches provided good indication of the market value of the subject property "as is". However, as the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis is considered most relevant to potential buyers, the Sales Comparison Approach was given lesser weight for developing an opinion of the market value of the subject property "as is", bulk. Based on this conclusion, the "as is" -bulk market value of the subject property is estimated to be $2,200,000. Pricing of the property at this level should allow for the property, if necessary, to sell in the current market given the good demand for well located residential land in the area. OPINION OF THE "As Is"- BULK MARKET VALUE OFTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY.........................................................................................$2,200,000 The market value noted above is based upon a typical marketing time and exposure period of less than 12 months. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 28 RECONCILIATION — "AS IF COMPLETE" BULK VALUE The three methods of analysis, Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, Cost Approach, and Sales Comparison Approach, were considered appropriate for use to estimate the "bulk" market value of the subject site, "as if complete". Howevcr, as we were unable to uncover recent comparable sales of for use in a Sales Comparison Approach "as if complete" this approach was not developed in this report. The two approaches that were developed, the Cost Approach, "as if complete" and the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, provided a good indication of the market value of the subject property. The following is a summary of the market value indications of the subject property via each of these methods: Cost Approach "As If Complete" ... ......... ...... ........ .................... .................$3,150,000 Discounted Cash Flow "As If Complete" Analysis...................................$2,910,000 The Discounted Cash Flow Analysis and the Cost Approach are considered to provide a reliable indication of the "bulk" market value of the subject lots, "as if complete", However, as the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis is considered most relevant to potential buyers, the Cost Approach was given lesser weight for developing an opinion of the market value of the subject property "as if complete", bulk. Based on this conclusion, the ."bulk" market value of the subject lots "as if complete" is estimated to be $3,000,000. Pricing of the property at this level should allow for the property, if necessary, to sell in the current market given the good demand for prime residential land in the area. -- OPINION OF THE "As IF COMPLETE" -"BULK" MARKET VALUE OFTHE SUBJECT PROPERTY.........................................................................................$3,000,000 -~ The market value noted above is based upon a typical marketing time and exposure period of less than 12 months and is subject to the following Extraordinary Assumptions. It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the "As If Complete" market value contained within this report assumes completed lots, and that the subject lot infrastructure, including the extension of utilities and roadways, will be completed in a professional manner and in accordance with the provided preliminary plat. It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the cost figure associated with the development of the subject lots, as provided by the developer, is accurate. We reserve the right to change our opinion of the market value of the subject property should these development costs vary. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE APPRAISERS, INC. PACE 29 ESTIMATED MARKETING AND EXPOSURE TIME The market value estimates contained in this report are considered to reflect current pricing in the market. Our analysis indicates that if placed on the market at the indicated pricing, the -- subject property should be able to be sold in a reasonable time period (12 months). The estimated marketing time for the subject is dependent on a number of variables, yet if the -- property is priced at a level set forth in this appraisal, it is reasonable to assume that there would be demand to purchase the property within a marketing period of not more than one year. ESTIMATED EXPOSURE TIME Exposure time is defined as the period of time required to market a property prior to the date of appraisal (historic). Most land, if properly priced, has been selling in less than one year. If the subject were marketed at the appraised value prior to the date of value, exposure time should have been less than one year. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATEAPPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 30 APPRAISERS' CERTIFICATION WE HEREBY WARRANT AND CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, The statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, which are used as the basis of my analyses, opinions, and conclusions, are true and correct. We have no responsibility for legal matters, questions of survey, opinion of title, soil or subsoil conditions, engineering, or other technical matters. Any sketches prepared by me and contained in this report are included solely to aid the user of the report in visualizing the property and its location, and are not necessarily to scale. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. We have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report and, further, we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. James S. Bradley, MAI, has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. We certify that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Every have inspected the subject property. Each individual has the appropriate knowledge and experience required to complete the assignment competently. Credit should also be given to Mr. Amos Koren of this firm who assisted in the gathering of information utilized in this analysis, inspections, and in the preparation of this report. The value conclusions drawn, however, is our own. James S. Bradley, MAI reviewed the completed report for content and appraisal theory. Further, no one other than the undersigned formed the analyses, conclusions, and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report, unless such participation by another party is indicated by the co-signing of this report by such other party. We certify that the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PACE 31 APPRAISERS' CERTIFICATION (CONTINUED): Each finding, prediction, assumption, or conclusion contained in this report is our personal opinion and is not an assurance that an event will or will not occur. We assume that there are no conditions that are not apparent relating to the real estate, subsoil conditions, or structures located on the real estate, which would affect our analyses, opinions, or conclusions with respect to the real estate. -- The data gathered in this appraisal process (except data furnished by the client) and the appraisal report itself remain my property. With respect to data provided by the client, we shall not violate the confidential nature of the appraiser -client relationship by improperly disclosing any confidential information furnished to us. We are, however, authorized by the client to disclose all or any portion of this appraisal report and the related appraisal data to appropriate representatives of the Appraisal Institute, if such disclosure is required, to enable us to comply with the bylaws and regulations of said Institute now or hereafter in effect. This appraisal report shall not be quoted or referred to in any report or financial statement of the client or in any documents filed with any governmental agency without my prior written consent. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially the conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, references to the Appraisal Institute, or references to the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or other public means of communication without my prior written consent and approval. Based upon the data and discussions contained within the attached report, it is our opinion that the "as if complete"- "bulk" market value of the subject property is as follows: OPINION OF THE "AS IS" BULK MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ASOF MAY 15, 2006............................................................................................................ $2,200,000 -- OPINION OF THE "AS IF COMPLETE" BULK MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ASOF MAY 15,18 2006....................................................................................................... $3,000,000 The marketing time for the subject property is estimated to be no more than twelve months based on the above value conclusion. The exposure time, also premised upon the prior value -' conclusion, is also estimated to be less than 12 months. The "as if complete" bulk market value of the subject property is also premised on the following Extraordinary Assumptions. It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the "As If Complete" market value contained within this report assumes completed lots, and that the subject lot infrastructure, including the extension of utilities and roadways, will be completed in a professional manner and in accordance with the provided preliminary plat. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 32 APPRAISERS' CERTIFICATION (CONTINUED): The developer of the subject property has communicated with the appraisers his estimate of the anticipated construction costs associated with the development of the subject lots; however, the appraisers were not provided any documentation detailing the costs to finish the lots. Therefore; It is an Extraordinary Assumption: of this appraisal that the cost figure associated with the development of the subject lots, as provided by the developer, is accurate. We reserve the right to change our op' ' is of the market value of the subject property should these development costs vary. -- JAMES S. B LEY, MAI ;IID . EVE Y President — eal Estate Appraisers, Inc. Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certified Gen Real Estate Appraiser Arizona Certificate #31343 Arizona Certi to #30432 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 33 COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc. is in the business of helping clients make informed decisions regarding a variety of real estate related issues. In the course of our activities, we utilize numerous sources of data to enable us to make the most informed judgments possible to best serve our clients. Our industry standards demand that professional appraisal organizations not only utilize the data appropriately, but that such data be acquired through appropriate means. The following list, although not all-inclusive, contains the names of numerous data services to which we support and subscribe. COSTAR/COMPS, Inc. — Maricopa, Pima & Pinal Counties (all market types) Arizona Business Gazette (weekly business magazine of Phoenix area data) Arizona Journal of Real Estate & Business BizComps (Business Sale Statistics) Commercial Leasing Update (Phoenix & Tucson market data) First American Real Estate Solutions (FARES) - Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai & Yuma Counties (plat, ownership & sales data) Host Report (Smith Travel Research, lodging data) Inside Tucson Business (weekly Tucson business newspaper) Korpacz Real Estate Investor Study (national investor survey) Landiscor - Phoenix & Tucson (maps, various residential & commercial market data) — Market Source (monthly investor publication from The Appraisal Institute re cost information) Marshall & Swift Valuation Service (commercial & residential) Metropolitan Phoenix Housing Study (since 1986 to current) Metropolitan Tucson Land Use Study (since 1986 to current) Multiple Listing Service (MLS) of Tucson, Green Valley and Sierra Vista Meyers Group - Tucson residential & new home construction data (since 1986 to current) Real Estate Valuation Magazine (quarterly publication for real estate appraisers) _ RealData, Inc. — Maricopa & Pima Counties Multi -Family Housing Data (since 1986 to current) Space Finders - Arizona Mobile Home Park Directory The Arizona Daily Star (daily morning Tucson newspaper) The Arizona Mortgage Press (monthly publication of Arizona Association of Mortgage Brokers) The Business Journal (weekly publication for market data) Valuation Insights & Perspectives (monthly magazine from The Appraisal Institute) _ Wide World of Maps - Maricopa, Pima & Coconino/Yavapai Counties 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC PAGE 34 QUALIFICATIONS OF JAMES S. BRAMY, MAI State of Arizona Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate #30432 (10/31/2006) State of Colorado Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate #CG01321969 (12/31/2005) State of New Mexico Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate #000784-G (4/30/2007) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1988 - Present KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc., as Principal Appraiser/Consultant, President since 1996. 1985 - 1988 Greenberg Chin and Associates, Inc., Real Estate Consultants and Appraisers, as Associate Consultant/Appraiser under Neil O. Kleinman, MAI 1983 - 1984 Real Estate Broker in Grand Junction, Colorado, working in commercial sales and property management 1981 - 1983 Real Estate Broker in Cortez, Colorado, in residential and rural sales PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS Member, #9888 of the Appraisal Institute (MAI). The Institute conducts a voluntary 4 program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. Mr. Bradley received his designation in 1993 and is certified under this program through 2009. Licensed Real Estate Broker, State of Arizona Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Tucson, Board of Directors (Former Member) Certified Commercial & Investment Managers, Affiliate of Tucson Chapter (CCIM) FORMAL EDUCATION -- Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, University of Arizona, with major in Marketing/Advertising, 1984 Certificate of Achievement in Real Estate, University of Colorado, 1981 PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION — All required classes to obtain MAI Designation and in conformance with the Appraisal Institute's requirements for continuing education. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 35 Qualifications of James S. �fffdley, MAI (continued) SEMINARS/CLASSES 2005 • Evaluating Commercial Construction #ABA-0204-331 • Fair Housing #5129 • Environmental Hazards • Disclosure ' 7 Hour USPAP Update • Re -Appraising, Re -Addressing, Re -Assigning #ABA-0404-354 • Statistics Review with Appraisal Applications • Forces Affecting your Appraisal Practice Panel Conference • Building Transferable Skill Sets • Overview of the Hospitality and Wine Industries • How Capital Markets are Influencing Real Estate • Technology in New World of Commercial Real Estate • Conservation Easements 2004 • Real Estate Update/Forecast 2003 • Real Estate Update/Forecast • Pima County Commercial Real Estate Market Forecast Competition • Analyzing Distressed Real Estate • 1031 Exchanges #ABA-0903-298 • Introduction to GISApplications for Real Estate Appraisal • 15 Hour USPAP Course • Appraisal Consulting: A Solutions Approach for Professionals • Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices • Know The Exchange Game III • Online Small Hotel/Motel valuation • Feasibility, Market Value, Investment Timing: Option Value SCOPE OF PRACTICE Appraisal practice is classified into three categories estimating market value for: 1) Mortgage loan 2) Private negotiation purposes 3) Consultation Clientele includes private individuals, corporate organizations, financial institutions, and governmental agencies. Experienced in the appraisal of both residential and commercial properties. Primary fields of experience include industrial, retail, residential (subdivisions and master -planned projects), multi -family housing and office facilities. Work has been performed in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and California. Primary service area includes the entire State of Arizona. 10250-061 K8 REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INc. PAGE 36 Qualifications of James i-.wadley, AW (continued) QUALIFIED AND ACCEPTED APPRAISER FOR lsT Bank Yuma 1" Centennial Bank 1" National Bank of Arizona I" State Bank 40/86 Mortgage Capital Corporation Advance Capital Affinity Bank ALC Financial Corporation Alliance Bank AmBanc Commercial Lending American Family Financial Services American National Bank of Freemont American Sterling Bank Apartment Lending Corporation Arizona Business Bank Arizona Land Department Artesia Mortgage Capital Corporation Aztec Funding Bank of America Bank of the Southwest Bank of Tucson Bank One (now JP Morgan Chase) Borrego Springs Bank Business Development Finance Corp. Business Loan Express California Bank & Trust Canyon Community Bank Charter Bank Mortgage Churchill Mortgage CIT Group City National Bank of Florida City of El Mirage Colonial Bank Commercial Federal Bank Community First National Bank Community National Bank Compass Bank Cooper Financial Credit Suisse First Boston DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy Desert Hills Bank ENT Federal Credit Union Exchange Bank Fennimore Craig First Bank of Arizona First Horizon Construction Lending G.E. Capital GMAC Mortgage Intervest Mortgage Investments Irwin Union Bank Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. KeyBank L. J. Melody & Company La Jolla National Bank LendAmerica Liberty Federal Bank M&I Bank Meridian Bank Mesch, Clark & Rothschild Monticello Bank' Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. Navajo Nation Economic Development Navajo Nation Oil & Gas Navajo Nation Shopping Centers Northern Trust Northwest Medical Pacific Crest Bank Palm Desert National Bank Paragon Partners PCV/Murcor Real Estate Services Plains Commerce Bank RBS Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. San Diego National Bank Sonoma National Bank Southern Arizona Community Bank Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance State Farm Bank Sundt Companies Sunrise Mortgage Sunstate Bank University Physicians Tucson Electric Power US Bank Valley Bank of Arizona Wachovia Washington Federal Savings Wells Fargo Bank Western Ban 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPWSERS, INc. PAGE 37 — QUAL&ATIONS OF DAVID A. EVERY State of Arizona Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate #31343 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 2004 - Present KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc., as Commercial Real Estate Appraiser and Valuation Analyst, Tucson, Arizona 1999-2004 Andrew J. Briefer Real Estate Advisory Services, Inc. dba KB Real Estate Advisors, as Consultant and Valuation Analyst, Tucson, Arizona 1989 - 1999 Mesa Airlines, Inc. dba America West Express, as Phoenix Station Manager, Phoenix, Arizona PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 2005 - Real Property Valuation Course 104 — Part I by the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona — - Real Property Valuation Course by the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona — - 2005 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) by the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona 2004 - Real Property Valuation Course 103 by the Arizona School of Real Estate and — Business, Scottsdale Arizona - Real Property Valuation Course 104 — Part II by the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona — 1999 - Real Property Valuation Course 101 by the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona - Real Property Valuation Course 102 by the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona - Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) by the Arizona — School of Real Estate and Business, Scottsdale Arizona Arizona Land Market: Issues Facing a Growing State, Arizona School of Real Estate _ & Business SEMINARS/CONTINUING EDUCATION 2005 - Pima County Real Estate Research Council 2005 Real Estate Forecast 2000 - Real Estate Appraisal Review Workshop by the Federal Highway Administration, Phoenix Arizona 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 38 Qualifications of David A. Every (continued) -- APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE/SCOPE OF PRACTICE • Clientele includes private individuals, corporate organizations, financial institutions, and governmental agencies. • Appraisal assignments include industrial properties, improved and vacant land, detached single-family residences, townhouses, large and small residential income properties, office and retail buildings, hotel and motel properties, as well as numerous special use properties. • Experience in preparation of reports for conventional lending, SBA, litigation work, eminent domain work, consultations and appraisal reviews. • Appraisal assignments have been completed in Pima, Maricopa, Cochise, Yuma, La Paz, Coconino, Navajo, Mohave and Pinal Counties within the State of Arizona. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. PAGE 39 ADDENDA 1) Letter of Engagement 2) Subject Maps and Exhibits 3) Zoning Ordinance 4) Subject Photographs 5) Definition of Market Value 6) Assumptions and Limitations 7) Appraiser's State Certification 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA C— Commerce Bank -�_ of Arizona Facsimile TO: KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc. 5235 N. Sabino Canyon Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85750 David A. Every -- FAX: (520) 545-0001 PHONE: (520) 545-0000 FROM: Barbara A. Sadler, SR. V.P. PHONE: (520) 797-4169 FAX (520) 797-4180 RE: Property Evaluation Request DATE: May 11, 2006 Commerce Bank of Arizona is engaging you to perform a property evaluation based on a "As If Completed" Cost Comparison Approach on the following 9 Lot Subdivision located east of Shannon Road on Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona and known as Naranja Ranch Estates as shown In the preliminary plat, as proposed for development. Borrower(s): JREM, L.L.C. (Jason Rulney & Emil Martinez) Address/Legal: 2840 and 2860 W. Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona Parcels 224-11-0490 and 224-11-0450 Purpose: Residential Land Development --, Loan Amount: $1,495,000.00 Purchase Price: $2,300,000.00 Interest to be Appraised: Fee Simple Appraisal Report Due: 6/1/06 Appraisal Fee $TBD Number of Reports Required: Three Originals Deliver Signed Reports To: Barbara Sadler, SVP Commerce Bank of Arizona 2285 West Ina Road Tucson, AZ 85741 i have the Preliminary Plat approval, Soil Report and Geotechuical Engineering Evaluation. Broadway Office !na/La Cholla Office 3805 Lanl Broadway Blvd. - Tucson, Arizona 85716 M5 WCAL Tna Rd. - Tucmin, Arizona 85741 520-325.5200 - Fax 520.327,0513 520.797.4160 - Fax 520.797.41 NU -- www.commcrccbankaz.com SUBJECT MAPS AND EXHIBITS 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE A PPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA -- STATE MAP l- Saws U nrr• LL9/ V (. "06" . ' .I rr Iq�• T V n� 4. 1 eruw�.,p MAS 3A /I y .i /� MCA f� ��)y a �•I �j tW �,� ^ � : -i t ! + .J ,�,.y i 1 �I � •ram � M..�Y�.i "r �' �. , ' / �r e.w• .rikl.�' :I 1..•' i ltl ,.,.. I "�. 1. d: ` Yn•.� . VOW.' C 0 C 0 I N 0'�" �!.--x:rs�.,:IL .r.�..�„ • pirfa•II• , rq . /�""• '-•wal•�..w• •1 Y/� �FJ ..» 1•Ir..r .W„y„ 'o�rllr •• �v�'�;• ul '.1..•�.•A.�• I• ! r.Y�r�'.1''Si 6n} ps}1 "y ! 1' A V A P� i. I _ i..r/n: �l{.b'lll•...Oy I W MfllrtfR Y •:,.... ��.Ww �,�• ....r•• t•1.. fi w�tnr SL JfA..I N roll -- .�...... .• • 4'ti uli.ra. �r.� o-�''•.fr•r':? . .... ' Z ' wr• �• fly "!'...-Cl...ld.! � �. �` .._ .,.. �• lin;Y I iR 1 r� r w. pir• i I 47 / A' G Al fn fry. ' n 'r. ' t: •+ o�., is .... p �' t� A r•1. , Y '�...1n.r�. W.1IIY.�;•� „S:.,b• : •t: 1r S .1 ti... u. ter. ! .6 y n r.f"'s�r v 1 — t: • c. Ir n"' ! j,. Low �•'•IF nil►Qr • :i+r•Pwt� •y ._:.1" `' .:i ! fri • I m n1 A R I C P A`""'�. �` :•� :... ; C•R A'H•A .�. � 1... a•.I,b' S,1 n 1 STATE OF ,•..; rya :a 1 hw ARIZONA O PMOFA}1X c.... _.•.— ...... .. . i�-`y_ •' r--�° cj. :� ,f.fl/'�. T'Iw f C �.) lml ' •S C `•i fjN 1 , rr a e,, . w.wr w _w •• -, _+•r•' oil I . 0 4 Yli.w• ., ew ,•p•r«• r pr•or rw +r •,w.rrs n NEIGHBORHOOD MAP "N O-Nr M,ARANA 30 31 oo, ks. FARAi\!1. 7 44 L 1360ON &A OWM" 21VI 4r T(irtolha • 1280ON -34 44 SUBJECT �- AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NEIGHBORHOOD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ZONING MAP Oro Valley Zoning Code R1-144 FLOOD PLAIN MAP wimu APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 COUNTY, pp.. p ' F Jf/I MAP NUMBER 04019C1020 K EFFECTIVE DATE: RTE FEBRUARY 8,1999 NARANJA K M K F Fedud Em PWY A1=4 at A{.F�T z O Z LYNNE PLACE TIW 1..n edfalal eppy a • poNm of ll,..ppr♦,vlvrono.E Ilwtl m.P K yl wv...tnwl.tl wing F�.l(TOrrUM 7A. mFP tlpw Iwl M.cl FNnpw Y. Clmtn fp pN 1 twl potlwl nbmwpn .pw� lyypnvl Flout 1 - 'a Prop�m .ee. m.w oM<k IM FE. Flootl M.p Sla. N rrnw. m.v.l.m• pw FLOOD LEGEND LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED DY 1W_YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No bale Mod •Isrlulaw d•wmned. ZONE Al Bw Mod 6-1;i—dowminad. ZONE AN Flood dpda of 1 b I few (—Iy amaa =10. Wr Mod Whdwr ZONE AO Flood depda d 1 b I IM W gy ahe•t Bow dpnE wraw: --p dap. dawl .1 For area d A.W fan Modin& waouua aW dawmYud ZONE Alit To b• you ud ftan mo."u now by F•dual Mod pa•alon ay— wdx mnnruaipn ro bait Mad WM . dw•mwwd. ZONE V forW ford wit wdo.4 h..d Iw. .oioft ro bw flood •la-im. dewmined. ZONE vt CO" Mod with vekwAy hw d IwaVa b-L bans Mod olamwlF d•t —d. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Amd - Stf mar Mod; ura .a m ihm I{owd -all, ss• dgklr .( 4na Ihw 1 loa a wiN Malrut• ueu Iar dwl 1 uluata mi4; and ama. lununed hl k— Oont 100 . hkd, OTHER AREAS ZONE X Neat wwmkwd la h• nulkrl• Sdd-rar Boodpla. ZONE D A— n -a.ch 1kd haaatd. •r• uldawrrj wl UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS ldend0ad IaemJiW 100erwPf 198) 1990 hwaed Neu C—W banlar ueu lore normafly lmtOd wmli. m .4posN to Special Flood Huard Neu. Floodplsln Bounday Flwdwsy Boundary Zonn D Bolddary BOwduy DMdinp Sp•ciW Flood H—d Zoro•, and Boundary Dlddln0 Naas of DPfxaM Cowl B•s• Flood Ef wsw— Wdv, Sp•al•1 Flood wand APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 100D NATIONAL FUDD DISUIUBCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANR 1020 OF 4700 • aww roaw raw rwu .,at rlwrtw CLIPaMY f t^n�6 L"4l sure MAP NUMBER 01019CIOID K EFFECTIVE DATE 8,1999 Fadead E—sency Muelsmew Asncy wm w M r W now a • 0e 1.1 s tM •oo....k...rc.a nova mww a w•a ntr•a•e Wrlp F-MIT OnUnL TNs maP Pit. nd mast etwnpw x •m•ntlm•nl• .men m W lane h••n mww •�b•wWnt b tn• tlab on tM ktl•YIImL FY tM IwlMt praduellaaatmwkw weaut NW am�Floo•WWrrc• ►,swwm eoatl map eMck tM FEMA Fleotl Mrtl 91w• x www mrc Irm•.por i GENERAL NOTES '. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR t H WGIC RAU OF !KS SYgM9a I! 3U9 AQMC L ARTSMIG XHIM IC-144 NARAN]A RANCH ESTATES..:: a ARAL NAPIER a REatomAL 1Ps - a • ^��°�a'�"'�"°`'"'a"""""wtx' w" THIS YM. An a LOTS 1'THRU 9.AND COMMON AREA "A" ' . Somom (AIMED SECER'lAS sm ON . '3NALIa1 ART, A RAF IEEaQD IN/mT 32 AT PAGE 3L on Am•' A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL NO. 2Z4=11-045b, DKT. 540Z, .PG: 484 AND . FLATS,rIWA ouIIL AL H KAaHc a sND LITE Is H aIOFAY a. ,. `roll NO. ZZ4-11=0490, DKT: 5949E PG. 874 1 i K RAW v iawtio and uftT Is /NA morr RIVET WANT" rDaQAPQ.ie-12r.. WPM AS A STAIALM SMM an - w ►Alva" a .'PARCEL • • • (ALL STREETS ARE PItNATE) • • . a A HAAIOP[ LOURD APPADl IRS .nr v H ma • •11[ InAIDa ALIMRa1T a LA Oa1A S1D. APPR01 3Y ARN •• mCE w ►AEMNI w TAIILWN[ 1aAa DBI n3wnR 0 fA1W, .11M .: .. . Ta' 1K RBIYUY A[0.7MD FIAT IVDH FR am FRoasF n AF1l I 1 N IS Oat a. MVbP W1Ua • MOIL• TIC{ HOI,k HY RO EONmT OCCUR AS IT WAS 06TnID FUMM ALL APO COHIMN m H IDENTIFIED KW WAAR MAIN ERa4mR3 R �PIyL K A[oI1RER m aIaT.K Dot[SnG nAE 3naImDL lTSE1'S, ' SR - - — - TMWQK low C00TALIC0LIL PQAMW HAS eMaoaln H MN ■ l ILMnQCi m H TOTE uaTD AOAQ PROJECT N H eOATrt ; • • CDYWRO u LIVING AATAS FMLL Y Ohl1• 44SE ' am" ELL W4DAM m How RAGE a RD UNL{L IT; IIIOIIS9PQ ,' 3L On HIM FDIIATIER LOT VIE TOl N-tAA )s w V. CLAD RL . . AID ASSOM HAn1AESS 101.H rW v ROmll . • SL FIRE Va"YE OGAHE ID m M WRO.4D WATER TERM a. 1.0C CFO I Mon 10 FEAT MD1IDnM WALL WE INSVLIID AM IH IOMQ FATR m M'$ .Ii D . D. ' . • �, OANxAa HILL NOT K kAM4 NSiLHBID P aS11AC1ED,NE10Tf.1K:.•, • APpROUAL w H CPO VOAIFY IDHI CAROL •pWNAQ.Mtn womiTTBIE NA=. DELIVER/ m M 91L 1CYONlT •• • FARL Its OA-1I-WSC • ' Qna 1RMa1 AME COOmFI® CwaanatE YAIENEAIS I IAAIaC • nN0A,1 A'/AS) '4A l 'l AIAAM 1MAINABI fTSTO•S m K CMSIBIICim ACMOIIIC'' m AIPROISD MNS.M1a m H ISfuAAaE w AM MlOili RwgT3 HASS TOR VMS R=InilM m K arsTaR OEav/ HIM paflWNlT PAvta IRA 2TA-31A W= LOTS LOf 01$RLOl. E m K D[ARMMD "OR x PAEMG 1 . (HwwaW 9aa %MI . � • fNDU H ARM w aw UAt1L'l AmAtH ALTO 1maAL FEII LQS PPYTI FROM - FMLTL *L • . AFFRTO a CMHEI M TEAL MT a A ma,.m m aSOC1ATIOl CALL K FPOED m ACCEPT MEWIAOLTIV 10 . .. ��yyyl '3a APPRPER WRITmert PLAAS ell: lE AEIInI® MOI In rINAL FIAT .w • , /2 IM 1 ►t q Q .. • YAMnNAIRL mmAL WILTI ILA YT OF P1OMTE SAEiE 01AIMIGE • • ARIIDTAL • . RA j3A-I1-01 G . LAEHDLTS a mO@I AREAS .j.y� 3L• UlPIOELID ■M DE.Po ULITAnAM NAeUiOAmAY Mmecz AX s WEmnFo AS ApAOAR HABITAT TRUE.K [13"Ann RI .-+ (Sa61R0Y 1mIAl5 L a' .. : m . • 16 KiiP fw4L 15 RrTa 1t9P Arm a D Wx,' AS A CRSDIUAnR [AElart AID NETL It)WW NRsn�o OOPI > P11L A n/A0 FEAR FOR ANY •I • iL ApnWa IAPSOOaIT PLAINS eLL K KOO FOUR m FNAL MT �,0. . .MI ROA MT AD YOLITT MMN03 A mAMnON m►AeI 14PX A'L MRCN H 2111"Taa HAS KDI R1U1T® SF' R� O3 Lot 3 N- . - • U. HART" MMM VALDDM KIWT IS IR.. SEPARATE"EpOET .' 1 x xDA[DANDQ ASSOaAnM HILL AQDT RE4ETBBIUfi iDM H I. aJAATII RY..Ohll-OB . .. � Q TYPICAL to aII IS 14LDm M R MIi LET aII /.COD IS n: ' MiR1MUCH 6 K MrMGEm IUP04AN HARDLY N M NOISmIiD 1k �SENSap3 AOlta L l - I ' AK-L700 SC• M. ROM. lef aII Y•tDa $.CBI: AK-LRs >< R ERA¢ . . Fu A a/ASi �2 ►I •y ' N Duitalli KUAR MOCaQe R. , lA3IIDaa INWOS m AR¢T TIN AAloMot . .. IQl7 ¢I AARETL RA O W 0 RW Q ' ' ROE N FEET NEAR 30 MET ^ 1 mmoom sNLL HAVE COQTsENT ruaa1 on T EAMITS llll TIN • - • • . ' rA0Aom . ' g ►AWLING PROVISIONS F C RAGE I UPI + M . ESPLE ROw-10 mu IWIP1ENT i P H. z -Ii-0W 3A A OLSAARI OR A RN PAII ENO OBIT 37 UFCS " T EIN1 15 ARD FOR EQIDIIF FADE LIES H ATIISSAIRI' � i' - QUMca ROD L U P'2 �, !t MONO I EACA - M • ID.N ►ARDRD .. 31 1113 R0 4D AND A T . WOA05 ARC aHw Mn HILL K ROUOVED AND ALL NCNAO ►NC LTAa. - I can AfAA2) POWs ' Lr[Splrz NQOOm. sAWAADL AND BARREL urn 1NNL K sulADm .OB O�Iw65GI0L s3DQ 09130 .' NsWDrIXLso •.I roimu •A Irmaa ninm X7-L2-a 1•04. L a a IL a a 1.IO FIVE A-�- Tl6RTr sm"m A •' TER LOT NAM - — eIXf 6 WAT ,"m Wml 1DI LINE'. O. ' as SLIM am RIDENT LINE U'IAafRC ►AEADI — "Mum v we • - .R� =na LE ROO N[ OIBICOR OF FEET ♦ 0 I� FEAT NIRART FYAWAD PAD PA m ROM ami ELL BE A OIL iQlTl-•'JEER WAm RAN a VALID = IF IN IQHT DOSONO TERMMOaMi = -TFM NEP IONT CO PNE REAR _ OOSANG WAta .,SZ "AM %win '• 110-nl ROW NET J MUTE FIE 'KY iDBI' POLCUTILIITYV —gymQum.Kv - 1'% NEW MCAnn s:^..... AMPE NO47-4F . • IEOAAm is LID MIT- I W -13.30 ' AD ME -PARTED Ran. FORLAIDSCAnNG rAFOSS Q EOPMAIO FIRanA WILL K 0=0 Oi H RIPARIAN MNUT LIME POOL. 1%. OA-11-M - i pffma A on" FACE" _4SOT NSWufi . ❑ R PFDESTAL' • -1 PER C OUT WEST. l/A _E23 AAO WAL K VIOLATE ME1DLt 1 ►AAta HL 224-11-0410 P2 LEI R • ►t ' /FEYArz as Lab AI. H CAIAa w EACH HPIE fwl COCaSf w. MO 11DTE 11N1 wx v H ( eLL.A DAVEO a HOTIs -elI - O!r � lIIn.�tS,T IOMWI Know 0. HILLS a FEAUC SpIET, D BILES sCEIT+ MIAL wLMOR ROOTAGE: - IRnL f a/E) Im. ' Y • 17. GAS ' ' , SWNIR3T OAS COPAIR .AL WAN YAT PInJECT RO IqR 1NM RK FRl ER ffPn a A IDu3E ►Alm NA Oh11-D 10 r .. •' DFLSOC - 1YCaR1 OLLNIC IOAFA mPMT MNL cL _ cQ/osr Q A URIE PLEAT MRSOTvnna KN (MM) MIL L ILANITTEll AT H U E . % n ►1 ium� oA c� a wlTa� OWNER/DEVELOPER SHEET INDEX • WATER • - on UALLIr WARN UTILITY - TOOMPE - O.E. NET . u v nCLYIAMT MAY O'ER OW rAILT icelD CDC ARTICLE 144 K' M N IN FR iR KCREATIMAL INROIOaRn POLL K PAM m H TOR tDI P /// ,. / ':O tic ' � - 3rn BI W Raa SEAL In •. aQT • •"'m sAELI 1a Mr unuDO THAT HILL K NIGE R. Q>aDa I IE]ILT a TITS a RQ TWLET FUR TEE SHALL E NASD R x FINAL LP 0"t, / I aKFL ERA, 31h11�SA m Ia701 AT OYQ . 9E17 I-� �" YE[I • A •. -mxim Yw1 eLL K RLLOCATED P NRXCO AT Ho Olp'R m H Wok •: •Q DmR suLL tt PR TOR v M VALLEY ITNDAIDS R As APPROVED %63 • O • RIRMT ' • ' FORD EAIET ON n. mMTL'- 0. Hf REIQOY[WT eLL K SOnEI YY H M UAUT WAnl DIRIfi Na . n H mR.O671®1. • . 17 1H A. NOD H TOR Cr IL YA1LL ITS SlAIE3P6 FILL COLESS M .O2 OI �d1J4 fiAALi a aa-lm In. (5m) BIM 7 WISH LIInA 4 9mGWAss 71Q N ' TAX 1349IFQCO . HAS @ a "111D a MYDIO M ASSMFD IW-SAS WAmE DAPLT I AND ASS11 J I AND AS906 MAAfIEss N H EVERT 6 FLDmIMa NJO . • .. 'H NIfLIP w'IBIAA RRSIMf3 S SmP WAEN mper"L 94ALL K ERRAND AHD EARL eYA1AN mmmo 47. ➢p3 AHCIAaa fiwl K Maf W H PR�HD LC a Ai N WROS a ., •. t W4A•• . I \ Pam An. Nffi 7� . - - • awMa nTEl1Ei' • • Il. UnunEi eLL BIT LAAMU HIDER M N mITIMEANGE MN AI®7N IONEURAnP L1>YSSIR.AIE•[N Wa�L OOCII IFR •. •• ��• .' Ai FIAT WW r S ConcDnD 10 M APRpVER WATER 9T0.T a TOR AUE AH FIR MOECnOa 00En I"AAT R 1�IAIOIT. R1A11 K p61ALII0 IRO(Km ' a ROR m COdMEIE NAMOAL DELIVERY m THE GEE. arrRAMr ' ` Ohn-Lew . ►2 lot R �l . D Lppgk,,Q -APPROVALS - E0� A Nam: . II A ORAINAa IE]'gi NLf Iml FEWAI® AVO 9L9OfID m x N1II v OUD OVER SEPARATE COWL MXn CDMSKICAM Onla TMILEAS AM CNBOOED COMMO E HA.PLO Ra a aE RIOT K APPROVED A x AIR FLAT mAISOLL. • •CAR / 4q, SAITAn SCARS HILL K IDnC xL APPIIOEDVIEWPAIAM AQSERO✓OSPOLLKINSVIUDAID N Ema 0• nf1 11 I ' r2 • ►I `J. " rlANaxG alECml,• . 04-aE mul m mROnaL "TERIN NUVERY m H NIL 1 LHI•f • I K. ALL STEER ARE ►IIIUAM . rt SrAM QL GSOEWII EAmI MS 4KOER. [aDxGSpin SaFI[ rEil a PIPE RDOORE) A O00IMILTausi CARLUARM AREA WNL N6TNL M APMO•m N MAOC silum Eo . VALLEY IPM DAINEEN EAU. D1 AL EE =IS ISFNLT7f or IEWe a am ICLSTOEO PINFESERAL CIVIL .. An" AAOVODN � �IlETL - E DDIMn ne ESRDA; iR H AMA Or SEALS Ost11EER1xC 9INL I GRAMM IH OMIIK UAT ALL SOAS aERA11RI FR LTOS OMWOERT ll. ILIPPARr IwTET aa6 WALLK INSTALIfD Al' [AR SORT MEaa11R BIER ONSTNKnam a NER ppADIATs ALLOR PASSAGE v VEHICLES RILL _ - _ �- - ----- ' .• I SEAT p0A0AFD w ACODAMa aR H RLWRAIDAtir AS E71RD1 Mr STIDOUIU MPA CUKSMCOM 91NL K QLAALT Wns>m MM AR L 1/T' F - . - R P IC A. w0 REDS .. e 8 IN H S7n WEAL Am RO wED� No ACWTID iDOODUNS/MEtF71DNi.41 IwKm cum.-AQ M wenNL IS A K KW LID GET H foP1 MQIADE w m STAR a RO • �R �Q _ SL UA'�APIN BOLL CMST a LOW NO Oa: N0 LOP PQIAR A ua-G y .. NCAroODRA , Tal oa A 9 31314 AYPHIIN[A1LA'sOL00. d ' IALM PRIOR m H ATQOT FOR ANT 1AWIRO rpelTs ANom MD K AnrA: a AALRM� - PA AJe MGIS SELL K KaSKo Mvm x "AYYOCEAD AAFIAHma DISTRICT NO. 10 ' ! s IMSPLCOR 3a Amon nK NTARAn6 ACES ROADS POLL K IKIALLID 110 N SERVICE III-Z17=0 D. H sQls aGNFDI a< A[Re R Ol1R Kasme PoRMSSAOIAL cm. WDIIEDI FIT DOERnA N H AEA Or SOILS D� .-- swl . MOR m WELSDRE MI[AAL DELIVERY 10 WE ESE RE -IN all in, E ,,K THAT ALL YAT[IOA3 NIUDD R I." W. WAITE AM IR OWTWNNa ew H ACED RMs. rtflnanaK H-DTmuND FAREOIH0 3.Cm 3WAFE FEET a TIRE FLDa CALCW ATIX W ALL NAVE M AIP.W AJIWATIC THIMEN SIM JOST+LLm SMO) L H YAWN ' . ' • aRnnCAnLRS. IN Will% An TO K RECEIVED A H im DFINm1 an mim KDA rm A DHOuNO MM M AwpAOC FATDQFA SLSIEx IS T EOa EP 3oP IW ttO � � PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR - a H me v Pro UALLET MUM A x Amur FIRE FINAL COMTEa AD FIE FLJAa OF ASDA ACE1 1/, ww"ARY STIM FOES SOLL K INSTAUL9 AT [JEER snoxT INUASECOM HCA ... NARAN]A RANCH ESTATES 5 Al. H ►R FESRMAL ["OVAL w etDA SHALL WWI 13 BITPD., u R �^ �uT� y"I°�° K �",�IP�IEU eTM M APmVQ ADDRESS, � �''.••�+ ♦ LOTS I THRU 9 AND COMMON AREA 'A' , RAM ARCS W) COMrf IN "InNO naY ALL W901ERE MA WR[Hl R NAVE eml cDxsRR c BID, PSI®, VISTA LID FIG _ T 3 a r t A 0Es1AMIi1ON OF FARM HQ SrA-11-WSO. W. SA03. m N• AHD i I II� m MO. Rhll M90, DAT. SRO!• K. SERA ,,� • �' �1 nlrArz IR sAl51MIIN nFACRAIAxa eT VOL ACWTED PLANE TOO AGE Tt aSS1wRANL WnfIGnMfMRInNC AND HAS-0JIIIKWD AwAnOn OFilC13OM>e,i•0-i. R•l]-A. C:a0. R.►aN., nw COUNT'.N S I DIAMAGS H m K KmVED R H IM v On VALLEY A NINMIL e 8 Ds*o;inonL k -'O- • •'" COIIM i"WAL-r' Hp. I',DfOflidO uy�M1B ' F • O Qp w FIST (I) 1E00 FMR m H FEWEST rR COROFiGA3 w CLVA•CY ! Mllp/L71 RMq u1>PEcnR Erc H �,AMMI a NeIC RODS NO H IFliAa CrASAANNOS DWI "NOm NPAS 1NnlMMD TO K USED SCA{E no ---- DATE: N.NW 0y_i �^`� a yWw ►S '+ KYIs@ SHEET 1 OF 4 ' • p 1 FTR SALES PAPOSM IF r"GI IS AW H AWVE FOUA44 k QdAA +NF ME [m A Kl:t]Rw In EAQI PHAX .. ... J •(,�, � 'i�; ;''" �_s; , l L � -�• . �`��' .yam � � � � -�•• �, - ; � •�(.v.�� N. X Ni ;:'.'...J NOT scar �1 �t� _r'_.i �� . %?; •S•:�; '':. ' ` : �i ) Dow -74 X. , .. --� � � - '�. fir- - :•x•: • _ 1 • � it ,! cam- ' • ', •t �\.� '• :�:•:�� % —� i� :•�': • ,.�',. _ _________ ____�_ -_-_-� __ - ___ Aim / � -� \i!W- .,. `� •, • • j :::�' ::':•:.. ' :• �� - PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR (D an avnc stm NARANJA RANCH ESTATES _� ! _ _ �+g,.+ •fir• LOTS I THRU 9 AND COMMON AREA A' • AEswoms,cn o. r..cn no. a•-aaw, an. s.e:, w u• +,�o + � • PpRiICN 01 6+CTlOn I�. T•1)�5. R-1+i.6 • L L L • n.. IIM• LAIelfl, N CONM At NfEAVAL- l FO07 _ �•^• • ' rD: p !P sw miL. c:w ov_ �' Coiweo Bpiieeip 6Oenbprtnnl Nt 1 F1 D„ A j, h 'r ' w>E aciuN �• ,.:_.�.v.»+.•r.,.+.>.� n,a...F ►� � a'Na: u'a SHEET 2 OF 4 in 14- AMMEMINNIM116.- CmudD &Cksorrg I DuOlqxmAt tc Ikor a 01— 6, jr M-Am o—, ky FM M M W C5.32 AND ;7--- UY — SHEET -S-OF 4 N W W N W Z l 1 r O L01 Wm IT PAIIJO RVM SEP°C IISW l9�'�➢N�robF°�� . GONTUM INTERVAL- 1 FWT 7 a ro IiO CarmadoE'�K 1In A� 1>rMa� IM�N/>*IN PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NARANJA RANCH ESTATES ,.- 3 - LOTS 1 TMRU 9 AND COMMON AREA 'A' mmolYl.lu� w on if. �H •r• N AMiG AFVlmonwstRDox 7S.T->1-S. �-Ui. G.�LR.40. r.. nYA CwOft1, - SUL- t40 O`(—�— a r °amseg°"°"` SHEET 4 OF QW bl C101 cm JOS S0.: wl]0 ZONING ORDINANCE 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.1 Districts and Boundaries Thereof CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23. 1 Districts and Boundaries Thereof A. Division of Town into Districts; Enumeration In order to classify, regulate, restrict and separate the use of land, building and structures; and to regulate and to limit the type, height and bulk of buildings and structures; and to regulate the areas of yards and other open areas around and between building and structures; and to regulate the density of dwelling units, the Town is hereby divided into the following districts: 1. Single -Family Residential Districts R1-300 Single -Family Residential District - 300.000 sq. ft. per lot R1-144 Single -Family Residential District - 144,000 sq. ft. per lot R1-43 Single -Family Residential District - 43,560 sq. ft. per lot R1-36 Single -Family Residential District - 36,000 sq. ft. per lot _ R1-20 Single -Family Residential District - 20,000 sq. ft. per lot R1-10 Single -Family Residential District - 10,000 sq. ft. per lot -- R1-7 Single -Family Residential District - 7,000 sq. ft. per lot 2. Multi -Family Residential Districts R-4 Townhouse Residential District R4R Resort District R-S Residential Service District R-6 Multi -Family Residential District 3. Commercial and Other Districts C-N Neighborhood Commercial District C-1 Commercial District C-2 Commercial District Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ May 2005 77 CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.1 Districts and Boundaries Thereof PS&C Private Schools and Church District T-P Technological Park P-1 Parking District .. POS Parks and Open Space 4. Planned Area Districts PRD Planned Residential District PAD Planned Area Development 5. Supplementary Districts HDZ Hillside Development Zone ORSCOD Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District ._ B. Purpose of Districts 1. R1-300 Single -Family Residential District This district is intended to promote and preserve rural, single- family residential development. The district permits airparks and other uses that are compatible with the large single-family lots _ predominated by open space. 2. R1-144 Single -Family Residential District This district is intended to promote and preserve suburban -rural single-family residential development. The large lot size permits agricultural uses and promotes open space. ~^ 3. R1-72 Single -Family Residential District This district is intended to promote and preserve suburban -rural single-family residential development, with lots large enough to accommodate on -site sewer systems. 4. R1-43 Single -Family Residential District This district provides for low -density residential development with lots large enough to accommodate on -site sewer systems. 5. R1-36 Single -Family Residential District -- This district provides for low -density residential development. 6. R1-20 Single -Family Residential District 78 May 2005 Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.2 Effect of Districts Section 23.2 Effect of Districts A. Effect of Establishment of Zoning Districts No building or land shall be devoted to any use other than a use permitted in the zoning district in which such building or land shall be located with the exception of the following: 1. Uses lawfully established as of the effective date of this comprehensive amendment. 2. Conditional uses when allowed by permit in accordance with the zoning district in which such building or land shall be located. 3. Analogous uses as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 4. Accessory uses customarily incidental to the permitted uses. Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses The Table of Permitted Uses in this Section sets forth the uses permitted within the base zone districts. A. Uses Permitted by Right A "P" indicates that a use is permitted as a matter -of -right in the respective zone district, subject to compliance with all applicable regulations in this Code. B. Conditional Special Uses _ A "C" indicates that a use category or specific use type is allowed only if reviewed and approved in accordance with the procedures and standards of Section 22.4, Use Permits. C. Ancillary Uses An "A" indicates that the use is permitted as ancillary to the primary uses within the district. D. Uses Not Allowed A blank cell indicates that a use type is not allowed in the respective zone district, unless it is expressly allowed by other regulations of this Code. 82 May 2005 Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Sin le-Famil Multi-Famil Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- Rt- R1- R1- R1- Rt- R1- R1 S R- R- R. R. C- C- C- ADDL 300 144 72 43 36 20 10 -7 D 4 4R S 6 N 1 2 8 P 0 REGS H C S 6 RESIDENTIAL USES Residential Community residences P P P P P P P 25.1.E Dwelling units, multi-fainfily p P Dwelling units, single- family P P P P P P P P P P P. '23.6(D)(1) Home occupations P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.2.0 Mature adult retirement quarters I C C P Model homes C C C C C C C C C C C Single-family dwellings having either party walls or P p walled courtyards Site -built, site -delivered dwelling units, single-family P Temporary real estate offices P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.0 Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ May 2005 84 CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses TABLE 23.1: PERMITTED USES Sin le-Famil -1 Multi- amily Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- R1- I R1- R1- R1- R1- R1- R1 S R. R. R. R. C- C. C. S T- P ADDL 300 144 72 43 36 20 10 -7 D 4 4R S 6 N 1 2 & P 0 REGS H C S 6 Public, Business schools or similar Institutional, Civic private schools Cemetery, including C funeral chapel Church Community buildings and recreational facilities, private, not -for -profit, such C C C C C C C C C as athletic fields and boy's clubs Community buildings other than hospitals, parks, and playgrounds Flood control facilities and water recharge areas General Aviation Airstrip P Golf course (except miniature golf course or C C C C C C C C commercial drivina ranoe) Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ May 2005 85 C P P C P P P P C C C P P P i•i�i�� SMON C L 24.6 25.1.J 1 CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses TABLE 234: PERMITTED USES Single-Famil Multi -Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE 111- R1- R1- R1- R1- 111- R1- R1 S R- R- R. R- C- C- C- S T- P ADDL 300 144 72 43 36 20 10 -7 D 4 411 S 6 N 1 2 & P 0 REGS H C S 6 New utility poles and 25.1.N above ground wires C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Community -owned recreation facilities and buildings other than P P P P P P P P P hospitals Fire stations and rescue 25.1.1 facilities P P P P Post office substation P P P 86 May 2005 Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses TABLE 23.1: PERMITTED USES Sin le-FamilyMulti-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE 111- R1- R1- R1- RI. 111- 111- R1 S R- R. R- R- C- C- C- S T- P ADDL 300 144 72 43 36 20 10 -7 D 4 411 S 6 N 1 2 & P 0 REGS H C S 6 Private college or university having a regular P curriculum Private garages P P Private schools having a curriculum equivalent to P public schools Private tennis courts P P P P P P P P P (unlighted) Public parks and P recreational facilities Zoning CodelOro Valley AZ May 2005 87 i CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.3 Table of Permitted Uses TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-FamilyMulti-Family Commercial Other USE CATEGORY SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 111- 144 RI- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R7- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C- 2 S & C T- P P 0 S ADDL REGS Visitor Accommodation Boarding house or lodging house C C C 25.1.T Guest ranches P 25.1.T - Hotels/motels P C P 25.1.T Resorts P 25.1.T Short-term rental properties C C C Timeshare units C C C 25.1.S AGRICULTURE USES Agriculture Farms and ranches C P C C C C C C Marketing of products raised on the premises P 25.1.M Plant nursery C C P OTHER USES Other Antennas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 25.1.F Major communications facilities C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 25.1.F Minor communications facilities P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P p p 25.1.E Motion icture roduction_J_ P ACCESSORY USES Accessory Uses Accessory buildings and P P P I P P P P P P I P I P P P P I P P I P P P 25.2 Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ May 2005 95 CHAPTER 23: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 23.4 Table of Dimensional Requirements Section 23.4 Table of Dimensional Requirements All primary and accessory structures shall be subject to the intensity and dimensional standards set forth in the following Tables 23-2. These intensity and dimensional standards may be further limited or modified by other applicable Sections of this Code. Additional regulations and rules of measurement are set forth immediately following the table. A "'" indicates that these additional regulations and rules of measurement are applicable. TABLE 23-2A: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Residential) Zoning District Minimum Property Size Minimum Lot Area Yard Setbacks (feet) Building Minimum Distance Addl Regs (square feet) Height Between Bld s Area Width Front Side Rear feet R1-300 300,000 300 50 20 50 34 10 23.6.8 R1-144 Rl-72 144,000 150 50 20 50 18 10 • 23.6.0 R1-43 72,000 150 50 35 50 22 10 • 23.6.D R1-36 - 43,560 150 30 20 40 18 10' 23.6.E - 36.000 120 30 15 40 18 10' 23.6.F R1-20 - 20.000 80 30 15 30 18 ft. or 2 1 o • 23.6.G stories R1-10 - 10,000 80 25 10 25 25 ft. or 2 10, 23.6. stories H R1-7 - 7,000 70 20 7.5 20 25 ft. or 2 10' 23.6.1 stories 15• SDH-6 - 6,000 50 20 • 0" side) 5 • 25' 18 • 20 23.6.J 2n0 side R-4 1 acre _ 25 feet or 10 • 50 acres 2 stories 23.7.A R-4R prior to street _ 25 feet or 10 dedications 2 stories' 23.7.8 R-S _ 25 feet or 10 • 23.7.0 5 acres 2 stories' 23.7.D (residential) 1 acre (business and R-6 professional - 30 20 20 25 feet or offices or 2 stories • 23.7.D other permitted or conditional use Zoning Code/Oro Valley AZ May 2005 98 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA .� g� z . - � wm � /\ � \ w e V\ »\2, \��. ~� � � <� �• � .¥�� . / .�� ƒ�\ \��: _�i: �I� ��;� �� \�� ¥ G�� ! \��/�>..� . . ��».�,<. , �&��. azy, / � � . �� K �w �� a « � ��f � .< . � pa\� ». / ~?.c. � ��7�� ^ .._ \ .: �;� �� \�� . / t.•�� \;<. .. ,:. . . � «w�: . :v ,.§ A < &f-' �.« .� .. ...�� «:�<�.a... . -- \°r� y�+Z�� i. � � � .... :/.�.��w\�� . \... SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Top Photo: Front View of the subject property. Bottom Photo: View from the subject property looking east. 10250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE -4 PPRA ISERS, INC. SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE 1250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA Definition of Market Value I� Market value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) Buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; (3) A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. Dollars or in terms of financial _ arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale Z Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) 1250-061 KB REAL ESTA TE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATEAPPRAims, INC. ADDENDA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS APPRAISAL This appraisal is for no purpose other than property valuation, and the appraisers are neither qualified nor attempting to go beyond that narrow scope. The reader should be aware that there are also inherent limitations to the accuracy of the information and analysis contained in this appraisal. Before making any decision based on the information and analysis contained in this report, it is critically important to read this entire section to understand these limitations. This appraisal is not a survey. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries of the property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless otherwise noted. No survey of the property has been made by the appraiser and no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Any maps, plats or drawings reproduced and included in this report are intended only for the purpose of showing spatial relationships. The reliability of the information contained on any such map or drawing is assumed by the appraiser and cannot be guaranteed to be correct. A surveyor should be consulted if there is any concern on boundaries, setbacks, encroachments or other survey matter. This appraisal is not a legal opinion -- No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature that affect title to the property nor is an opinion of title rendered. The title is assumed to be good and marketable. The value estimate is given without regard to any questions of title, boundaries, encumbrances or encroachments. We are not usually provided _ an abstract of the property being appraised and, in any event, we neither made a detailed examination of it nor do we give any legal opinion concerning it. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all -applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report. A comprehensive examination of laws and regulations affecting the subject property was not performed for this appraisal. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined and considered in the appraisal report. Information and analysis shown in this report concerning these items is based only on a rudimentary investigation. Any significant question should be addressed to local zoning or land use officials and/or an attorney. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. Appropriate government officials and/or an attorney should be consulted if an interested party has any questions or concerns on these items since we have not made a comprehensive examination of laws and regulations affecting the subject property. 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (CONTINUED) This appraisal is not an engineering or property inspection report. This appraisal should not be considered a report on the physical items that are a part of this property. Although the appraisal may contain information about the physical items being appraised (including their adequacy and/or condition), it should be clearly understood that this information is only to be used as a general guide for property valuation and not as a complete or detailed physical report. The appraisers are not construction, engineering, environmental or legal experts, and any statement given on these matters in this report should be considered preliminary in nature. The observed condition of the foundation, roof, exterior walls, interior walls, floors, heating system, plumbing, insulation, electrical service and all mechanical and construction is based on a casual inspection only and no detailed inspection was made. For instance, we are not experts on heating systems and no attempt was made to inspect the interior of the furnace. The structures were not checked for building code violations, and it is assumed that all buildings meet applicable building codes unless so stated in the report. Some items such as conditions behind walls, above ceilings, behind locked doors or under the ground are not exposed to casual view and therefore were not inspected. The existence of insulation, if any is mentioned, was found by conversation with others and/or circumstantial evidence. Since it is not exposed to view, the accuracy of any statements about insulation cannot be guaranteed. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, sub -soil or structures that _ would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for the engineering that may be required to discover such factors. Since no engineering or percolation tests were made, no liability is assumed for soil conditions. Sub -surface rights (mineral and oil) were not considered in making this appraisal. Wells and septic systems, if any, are assumed to be in good working condition and of sufficient size and capacity for the stated highest and best use. We are not environmental experts, and we do not have the expertise necessary to determine the existence of environmental hazards such as the presence of urea -formaldehyde foam insulation, toxic waste, asbestos or hazardous building materials, or any other environmental hazards on the subject or surrounding properties. If we know of any problems of this nature that we believe would create a significant problem, they are disclosed in this report. Nondisclosure should not be taken as an indication that such a problem does not exist, however. An expert in the field should be consulted if any interested party has questions on environmental factors. No chemical or scientific tests were performed by the appraiser on the subject property, and it is assumed that the air, water, ground and general environment associated with the property present no physical or health hazard of any kind unless otherwise noted in the report. It is further assumed that the lot does not contain any type of dump site and that there are no underground tanks (or any underground source) leaking toxic or hazardous chemicals into the groundwater or the environment unless otherwise noted in the report. 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (CONTINUED) The age of any improvements to the subject property mentioned in this report should be considered a rough estimate. We are not sufficiently skilled in the construction trades to be able to reliably estimate the age of improvements by observation. We therefore rely on circumstantial evidence that may come into our possession (such as dates on architectural plans) or conversations with those who might be somewhat familiar with the history of the property such as property owners, on -site personnel or others. Parties interested in knowing the exact age of improvements on the land should contact us to ascertain the source of our data and then make a decision as to whether they wish to pursue additional investigation. Because no detailed inspection was made and because such knowledge goes beyond the scope of this appraisal, any observed condition or other comments given in this appraisal report should not be taken as a guarantee that a problem does not exist. Specifically, no guarantee is made as to the adequacy or condition of the foundation, roof, exterior walls, interior walls, floors, heating system, air conditioning system, plumbing, electrical service, insulation or any other detailed construction matters. If any interested party is concerned about the existence, condition or adequacy of any particular item, we would strongly suggest that a construction expert be hired for a detailed investigation. This appraisal is made under conditions of uncertainty with limited data. As can be seen from limitations presented above, the appraisal is based on an analysis of many sources of _ data. Every attempt has been made to confirm the data as reliable and factual, however, there are a number of limitations with respect to data including: a lack of certain areas of expertise beyond real estate appraisal methodology and techniques; the inability of the appraiser to view certain portions of the _ property; and the inherent limitations of relying upon information provided by others such as: income and expense data; comparable sales data; and engineering analyses. This appraisal is an estimate of value based on an analysis of information known to us as the time the appraisal was made. All values shown in the appraisal report are projections based on our analysis as of the date of the appraisal. These values may not be valid in other time periods or as conditions change. We take no responsibility for events, conditions or circumstances affecting the property's market value that take place subsequent to either the date of value contained in this report or the date of our field inspection, whichever occurs first. Opinions and estimates expressed herein represent our best judgment but should not be construed as advice or recommendation to act. Before relying on any statement made in this appraisal report, interested parties should contact us for the exact extent of our data collection on any point, which they believe to be important to their decision -making. This will enable such interested parties to determine whether they believe the extent of our data gathering process was adequate for their needs. 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (CONTINUED) Appraisal report limitations Appraisal reports are technical documents addressed to the specific technical needs of clients. Casual readers should understand that this report does not contain all of the information we have concerning the subject property or the real estate market. While no factors we believe to be significant but unknown to the client have been knowingly withheld, it is always possible that we have information of significance which may be important to others but which, without limited acquaintance of the property and our limited expertise, does not seem to be important to us. Appraisal reports made for lenders are technical documents specifically made to lender requirements. Casual readers are cautioned about their limitations and cautioned against possible misinterpretation of the information contained in these reports. — The liability of KB Real Estate Appraisers, Inc., its employees and/or agents is limited only to the Client who paid the fee and to the amount of the fee actually received by the firm. Further, there is no accountability, obligation or liability to any third party. The appraiser(s) should be contacted with any questions before this report is relied on for decision making. This appraisal was prepared at the request of and for the exclusive use of the client to whom the appraisal is addressed. No third party shall have any right to use or rely upon this appraisal for any purpose. There are no requirements, by reason of this appraisal, to give testimony or appear in court or any pretrial conference or appearance required by subpoena with reference to the property in question, unless ". sufficient notice is given to allow adequate preparation and additional fees are paid by the client at our regular rates for such appearances and the preparation necessitated thereby. This report is made for the information and/or guidance of the. client and possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it a right of publication. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the written consent and approval of the appraiser. Nor shall the appraiser, firm or professional organization of which the appraiser is a member be identified without the written consent of the appraiser. It is suggested that those who possess this appraisal report should not give copies to others. Certainly legal advice should be obtained on potential liability issues before this is done. Anyone who gives out an incomplete or altered copy of the appraisal report (including all attachments) does so at their own risk and assumes complete liability for any harm caused by giving out an incomplete or altered copy. Neither the appraiser nor this company assumes any liability for harm caused by reliance upon an incomplete or altered copy of the appraisal report given out by others. Anyone with a question on whether their copy of an appraisal report is incomplete or altered should contact our office. 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (CONTINUED) Values and conclusions for various components of the subject parcels as contained within this report are valid only when making a summation; they are not to be used independently for any purpose and must be considered invalid if so used. The allocation of the total value in this report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The separate valuations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. ` In the case of limited partnerships, syndication offerings or stock offerings in real estate, Client agrees that in case of a lawsuit (brought by lender, partner or part owner in any form of ownership, tenant or any other party), any and all awards or settlements of any type in such suit, regardless of the outcome, the Client and all parties will completely hold harmless this firm, its employees and/or agents in any such action. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. Arizona -specific considerations Special consideration must be given to properties located in Arizona with respect to seismicity/subsidence. Seismic activity in Central Arizona is rare but does occasionally occur. A more common geotechnical manifestation has been the development of subsidence cones caused by pumping of groundwater. A geologist should be consulted if there is any concern regarding these matters. Due to the historic nature of the American Southwest, properties within Arizona may be subject to archaeological ramifications in regard to Native American remains (specifically the ancient Hohokam and — Anasazi settlements). Should a report rendered by a competent archeologist specifically identify significant archeology, and quantify the cost of data recovery, we reserve the right to alter the valuation estimate. Virtually all land in Arizona is affected by pending or potential litigation by various Indian tribes claiming superior water rights for their reservations. The amounts claimed and the effects on other water users are largely undetermined, but the claims could result in some curtailment of water usage or ground water pumping on private land. The state's new Ground Water Management Act may also restrict future ground water pumping in various parts of the state. Given this uncertainty, neither the appraiser(s) nor his representative(s) can make warranties concerning rights to or adequacy of the water supply with respect to the premises, although the sale of premises include such water rights as are appurtenant thereto. Extraordinary Assumptions It is an Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the "As If Complete" market value contained within this report assumes completed lots, and that the subject lot infrastructure, including the extension of utilities and roadways, will be completed in a professional manner and in accordance with the provided preliminary plat. 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (CONTINUED) The developer of the subject property has communicated with the appraisers his estimate of the anticipated construction costs associated with the development of the subject lots; however, the appraisers were not provided any documentation detailing the costs to finish the lots. Therefore; It is ais Extraordinary Assumption of this appraisal that the cost figure associated with the development of the subject lots, as provided by the developer, is accurate. We reserve the right to change our opinion of the market value of the subject property should these development costs vary. 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA APPRAISER'S STATE CERTIFICATION 1250-061 KB REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, INC. ADDENDA STATE OF RRIzONA r: APP-R-A-J-8AL �� .� BE IT KNOWN THAT FAMES S o BRADLEY HAS MET AIL THE REQUIREMENTS AS A Certified General Real Estate Appraiser In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes In witness whereof the Arizona Board ofApprai al and on authority of the Board ofApproisol, State caused to be signed by the Chair of the Board of Arizona. 9.=-.and the Executive Director This certificate shall remain evidence therec' ` unless or until the some is suspended, revoke or expires in accordance with the provisions law. CERTIFICATE NUMBER 30432 EXPIRATION DATE OCTOBER 31, 2006 ✓ ecutive Diectol s o pro e SRALL REMAIN PROPERTY OF ARIZONA BOARD OF APPRAISAL I I I III I� � � � �-_ � + I I ■ ■ ■I � � �� n t i� t \ t i�c..,, � STATE OF ARIzONA -ff-t I �AL �f OARID OF- - R-AI BE IT KNOWN THAT DAVID A. EVERY HAS MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.AS A Certified General Real Estate Appraiser In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes In witness whereof the Arizona Board of Appraisal and on authority of fhe Board ofApprolsol, State caused to be signed by the Chair of the Board of Arizona. This certificate shall remain evidence thereof unless or until the some is suspended, revoked or expires in accordance with the provisions of law. CERTIFICATE NUMBER 31343 EXPIRATION DATE TUNE 30, 2007 SMALL REMAIN PROPERTf OF ARIZONA BOARO OF APPRAISAL k-7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462, Arizona State Statutes, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A RECREATION AREA IN -LIEU FEE PROPOSAL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 7, 2007 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV12-06-03B, JREM, LLC REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A RECREATION AREA IN -LIEU FEE PROPOSAL FOR NARANJA RANCH ESTATES, AN 11 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION; LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE SHANNON ROAD AND NARANJA DRIVE INTERSECTION, PARCELS 224-11-045A, 224-11-045B, and 224-11-049A. A minimum of 5,637.18 square feet of recreation area is required; however, the applicant wishes to utilize the optional in -lieu fee method. A complete description and map are available at the Town Hall, Planning and Zoning Department. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. For additional information, please contact Jill Manion -Farrar at 229-4814 or jmanion- farrargorovalley.net. Buyer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Posted: 2-13-07 Time: 1:30 p.m. By; sg F:\OV\OV12\2006\12-06-03B\TC.in-lieu fee Public Hearing.doc L-7 Page 1 of 1 Gay, Shirley From: Vella, Bayer Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:42 PM To: Chapman, Diane; Gay, Shirley; Moran, Debbie Subject: legal ready F:\OV\OV12\2006\12-06-03B\TC.in-lieu fee Public Hearing.doc 02/13/2007 Re: OV 12-06-03B In lieu = Page 1 of 1 Gay, Shirley From: legals.azbiz [legals@azbiz.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:27 PM To: Gay, Shirley Subject: Re: OV12-06-036 In lieu fee Thank you. Jamie Macias Legal Advertising/Billing Representative Legal Advertising Department THE DAILY TERRITORIAL Phone: 520.294.1200 Fax: 520.295.4076 Email: legals@azbiz.com URL: http://www.azbiz.com/daily territorial/ Public Notice Ads ONLINE: http://www.publicnoticeads.com/ From: "Gay, Shirley" <sgay@orovalley.net> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:58:26 -0700 To: Legals at The Daily Territorial <legals@azbiz.com> Conversation: OV12-06-03B In lieu fee Subject: OV12-06-03B In lieu fee one day only regular ad. confirmation please. Thanks Shirley Gay Development Coordinator 520-229-4849 sgay@orovalley.net 02/13/2007 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) Jamie Macias, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - - RE: IN -LIEU FEE -PROPOSAL MARCH 7, 2007 @ 7:OOPM OV12-06-03B was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues; that was first made on the 16th day of February 2007 and the last publication thereof was made on the 16th day of February 2007 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: 02/16/07 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley ,f.k . •e , rrM 1Al,}d r Yrr S V..r '�^� .. V. L , Legal Advertising Manager Su ibed and sworn to before me this 16th day of February 2007 . Q.0'j".'L "a ROBBIE JONES Notary Public in and for the Co my of Pima, State of Arizona Notary Public - Arizona Pura County My commission expires: Expires 11/01/03 -1~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORETHE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462, Arizona State Statutes, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BE- FORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A RECREATION AREA IN -LIEU FEE PROPOSAL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 7, 2007 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, 11,000 N. La Cafiada Drive, Oro Valley, Ari- zona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV12-06-03S.JREM.LLC REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A RECREATION AREA IN -LIEU FEE PROPOSAL FOR NARANJA RANCH ESTATES. AN 11 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION: LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE SHANNON ROAD AND NARANJA DRIVE INTERSECTION, PARCELS 224.11.045A. 224.11-045B. and 224-11-049A. A minimum of 5,637.18 square feet of recreation area is required; however, the applicant wishes to utilize the op- tional In -lieu fee method. A complete description and map are available at the Town Hall, Planning and Zoning Department Members of the public are Invited to at- tend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. For additional in- formation, please contact Jill Manion -Farrar at 229-4814 or Imanion-farrar0provallev.net. PUBLISH: The Daily Territorial February 16, 2D07 hrmar7ov12-06-03B a.s Gay, Shirley From: Manion -Farrar, Jill Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:42 PM To: 'Jason Rulney' Cc: Gay, Shirley; Moran, Debbie Subject: RE: Naranja Ranch Estates (OV12-06-03) Hi Jason, I wanted to give you an update the latest information I have learned for your project. Planning has minor clean up issues on the final plat. However, Public Works has several issues that they have discussed with Paul Nzomo this week. Paul is in receipt of redlines and has discussed with Paul Keesler about a resubmittal date of Feb. 13. Public Works anticipates a shorter review time barring any major issues brought up by other agencies. Once the resubmittal is approvable, we will be able to schedule it for a Town Council meeting. In the meantime, the recreation in -lieu fee has been placed on the March 7 agenda. Jill Manion -Farrar Planner Town of Oro Valley 11,000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 (520) 229-4814 (520) 742-1022 (Fax) jmanion-farrar@orovalley.net -----Original Message ----- From: Jason Rulney [ Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:41 AM To: Manion -Farrar, Jill Subject: RE: Naranja Ranch Estates thank you! -----Original Message ----- From: Manion -Farrar, Jill [mailto:jmanion-farrar@orovalley.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 AM To: Jason Rulney Subject: RE: Naranja Ranch Estates It is an internal meeting. If there is any potential hold up issues, then we will schedule a meeting with Paul Znomo ASAP. Separately, I am scheduling the recreation in lieu fee for the possible Town Council meeting, which is the March 7th meeting. Jill Manion -Farrar Planner Town of Oro Valley 11,000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 (520) 229-4814 (520) 742-1022 (Fax) jmanion-farrar@orovalley.net -----Original Message ----- From: Jason Rulney [mailto: 1 To: Manion -Farrar, Jill Cc: Emil Martinez Subject: RE: Naranja Ranch Estates Is this an internal meeting? If not, I would like to send Paul N. or attend (what time)? -----Original Message ----- From: Manion -Farrar, Jill [mailto:jmanion-farrar@orovalley.net] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:30 PM To: Jason Rulney Cc: Paul Nzomo; Emil Martinez Subject: RE: Naranja Ranch Estates There will be a DRC meeting on the 9th (this Friday) to determine if the final plat can go to Council. It is usually a 10 minute meeting for agencies to state if there are additional items that need to be taken care of prior to making the Council agenda. Agencies have until the 8th to provide comments. Jill Manion -Farrar Planner Town of Oro Valley 11,000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 (520) 229-4814 (520) 742-1022 (Fax) jmanion-farrar@orovalley.net -----Original Message ----- From: Jason Rulney [mailto:jason@sazmortgage.com] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:52 AM To: Manion -Farrar, Jill Cc: Paul Nzomo; Emil Martinez Subject: Naranja Ranch Estates Hi Jill, I want to ensure that we will be on the agenda for March regarding Final Plat. Are you waiting on anything from us? Are we missing anything? Jason Rulney Southern Arizona Mortgage Services, LLC 3275 West Ina Road, #275 Tucson, AZ 85741 Fax (520)878-0600 2