Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV139939 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT ARCHITECTURE DATE : / ? OV CASE NO. : (office use only) PROJECT: G/ G LOCATION: APPLICANT: � 6? P iv/F ADDRESS : TELEPHONE NO. : ( - ,) c 97evel PROPERTY OWNER: ;, , C'dwi1,�_r4?0,EJ ADDRESS : V 750 C i444/me, f/e//tc/f,---- PHONE NO. 2D 54(-0 —' l 7e7 PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: ADDRESS : DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ARD ING DAT : JO/Ui SIGNATURE: r DATE: 6--17- NOTE: This application must be accompanied by the required $150 . 00 fee and twelve copies of the plans, 11" x 17" in size, each to include dimensioned elevations of all structures from all four sides and a copy of the proj ect ' s site plan. The submittal must also include a proposed color palette for the project in an 8 . 5" x 11" format, to include color chips of body and trim colors and tile color and style, if applicable . Building square footage is also required. AT THE MEETING, applicants must have on hand for presentation, colored perspective or rendered elevations of all four sides of the structures. SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 18 CALENDAR DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING DATE. /475 , ep-,„ /17 4 Autt, liSa(9° - 4 e ) �-1 ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD June 8th, 1999 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: David Marsh,Planner I SUBJECT: PREVIEW: OV13-99-39 La Canada / Lambert Lane Commercial Center Architecture BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The development plan and landscape plan for this project are scheduled for review by DRB on June 8th, 1999. The Beztak Companies proposes to develop to a commercial center on-site,with a total of 132,422 square feet (SF) of commercial floor space. The proposed development will consist of a specialty grocery store, a drug store with drive-thru, a bank, restaurants, and approximately 33,000 SF for retail shops. The development will also feature a large number of sidewalks, links to the planned Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path, a pedestrian plaza with outdoor seating areas for restaurants, and several water features. The bank building architecture will be reviewed separately at a later date. SUMMARY: The design of this project is substantially complete and is being presented to DRB for review and comment at this time. The north elevation is included with this packet, and the other elevations will be presented by the architect at the June 8th meeting. The architecture is expected to be scheduled for DRB review at the July 1999 meeting. Attachments: 1. North Elevation F:\ov\ovi3\1999\13-99-3 9\Prev iewarchdrb.doc f:\data\wp\forms\rpt-drb.p&z , ... THE BEZTAK CC)/V\PANIFS PRCDPCDSED RETAIL CENTER SEAVER 'FRANKS AT LA CANADA & LAMBERT A I.' C H I i EA" I , CDRC) VALLEY AR'IZC)NA ,i :,5.N.4,1,erri..11 Wax:luison.AL.6712.: NORTH ELEVATION I/1 6" = 1'-0" • . , --=--------= . . ---- = - - -— - - s 7EE_ 3 3.-0'A F F F F '-•• ,, , . L...... _.iiii111111111111111111111111 _.....-,../. .:._..... .._ iiiliiiMiiikIlki - ...4111111111"... _rm., - ' ,h(,,-,;:.,, ,,,,,,,,,,..., : ...,„,.,- - 2-....MaX/7,...74.:%Will///. ' ..,i7.•;277,7,..7,7:7!•:, ' _ .-- _ - ••'' '''''•!.•./,''/,•••••//'-,Z 7,1Z,7:717 42,..:,'",_.-7.://7-- . _. . - . i , - -IREFE MI-, ,z, a --sloop 111111111M111111iiii -' •—. . ' 8-15---ill1111111.11M1 11U-111[11111' --=',.:- .''''illillulL11111117171.11L"ILL'ilm -00,4 iiiiIIIIr 1F;:1 911111111:''' . •- - - .' ' minimmimmi--........--.. , , - ,-7 .z.,..ki,., --- - ,* -- , -- Ihiti._ ii .• .4 4.4.4'4 *.".....,_; .....,'...:,-; _. .‘7,1200/7, :4.-,,i-.-ordt -‘.7.,/ ///./fii,'//' qa...,i//4,7,,.././/6/6a, ,./,,,,,, .//, ,,,,,fW•:„.:'„,';;/..%/,7;"!Vitif 2.'.,";//;',,7.:VA;..• v. , - 1.-,-''& ii• _-, •,..,. ..,...„. ,........-7.--•,--—•7,, ..,„,...fr--i ---___ ,,.....„------....„ , , . _ , „„....,-.-7.--....„ , - , . , -_-_,__,__,---i:-, _..r--:—___-7----. ••••-••1,u' . iii, r-L----...,, .2,-------'-',.. .7,7 • - ' " . I I I I fl 1-' I I.3, :._1,..i i,''a ,, 1,,,i i . ,_.. 1,.41 . ., ,./.,1 1 r„,, .,,i1.. . . 1 ; t-i--1-1 r ..i. -, i . ., ,). .‘i ,1,4 __,._.,.. ,z.„1',,,•`:'!, ( , .1' I• I '.1_ -1..1...1-'.%_ t/ a,--,.:'. '' . '': -. !'' -['.i.k. ((,4,-.17;7A_1-7/77771 r77;.'''.1 tiiiii6;j_-,..14A6pb!._i_i .:.p.gicouli',Tialwiii4:.;Yjesiaim.:,e--iiimilel:/-4.0.iiilat -lit t-1-4.iier" - inift.1::F.':7-2..10•1111'es;.‘:::ija.!: ,117•;;; - ' r-4011.101i4''---Ililinl. 1 . --"'' .:---''-41-1 1 "'' -I" ''.-- .4.1-1"....._'' ,,---2.,/M.,- -.11._:..-z-_......41... ...-...aginistiz:::In--3 .. -,,z430:-..-.4..,:...:',ztr---. .,•-....: -....1,•••,....:-..--_, ..e_• .,14__.__IA.•'_;±',..!!a:?:1: ...:ii, -.4 ..... --- -----=---- --_ __ - - =--__ _ -_ -- . • MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING Tuesday June 29th, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Patti Jo Lewis, Chair Mary Glueck,Vice Chair Jim Vogelsberg,Member Verlin Smith,Member Nancy Mager,Member Barbara Bell,Member kichard Underwood Others Present: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner Paul Nzomo, Engineer David Marsh,Planner I Shirley Gay, DRB Clerk MOTION: Moved, Seconded (Mager/Glueck) and carried by a 6-0 vote(Smith- absent) to approve the June 8th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting Minutes, subject to the following changes: Member Smith absent. Page 4,3rd Paragraph: "...La Canada Road expansion should read,Lambert Lane expansion..." Page 5, 2nd Paragraph: "...regarding the La Canada Road expansion should read,Lambert Lane..." CONSENT AGENDA , 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 A. OV12-99-22 Stone Canyon 2 Preliminary Plat, Golf Course Overlay Zone lots B. OV12-98-1 Stone Canyon Golf Course Landscape Plan Amendment MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Mager) and carried by a 6-0 (Smith absent) vote to recommend approval of Consent Items A and B. Member Smith joined meeting. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: OV12-99-7 GRADING WAIVER, LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER(continued from June 8, 1999 DRB meeting) Paul Nzomo introduced the staff report into the record. This project was continued from DRB meeting of 6/8/99 because it did not meet the Town of Oro Valley code. The applicant WLB Group In. is representing the owner's request to exceed the cut/fill provision of the Grading Ordinance. The property is abutted on the east by a golf course and soil cement channel, to the south by La Canada Villages Block A, to the west by La Canada Drive and to the north by Lambert Lane. The site has a good fall for the drainage as well as sewer fall. Hence, the site can be developed and meet all the above standards without a grading waiver. The Public Works Department staff has reviewed the grading exception request for this development and recommends denial because the project does not meet all the six standard criteria. David Williams, WLB, thanked staff for all the work that has gone into this project. He commented he had spoken with Mr. Nzomo about meeting the criteria and hoped to explain how the project met the six standards for the grading waiver. The project location is the southeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Canada. This site has been a part of Canada Hills since the original conception and zoned by the Town in the late 1980's for community commercial center. He pointed out where the shopping center would be and the three fountain areas along with the parking lots as well as pedestrian walkways and seating areas. There would be 125,000 square feet of building area. The front would have arch covered walkways. We have redesigned this site four times. We have also redesigned the driveways in order to meet staff standards. We are within the six-foot cut and the six-foot fill for eighty percent of this site. The grading waiver request is affecting 20 percent of the site. Mr. Williams pointed out what areas would be affected by the waiver. He commented that many areas in Canada Hills were built on cuts and fill that far exceed the six-foot cut. He provided photos of the site with different angles of the building in place to give the Board Members an idea of how it would look. Mr. Williams stated he spoke with the managers of the golf course showed them the plan and they had no objections to the grading waiver. Mr. Williams proceeded to explain how the project met the six criteria. The first criteria, relates to is the property buildable. Mr. Williams stated he felt the property is buildable. The second criteria, relates to minimum cuts and fills necessary in order to develop the site for commercial uses as planned and zoned, under sound and accepted engineer practice. We feel this is the minimum 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 necessary to allow the center to be developed given the constrained standards needed to live with for public safety purposes. Third criteria, we feel there are two isolated hills, we feel they are man made they are not natural slopes. The other projects around this property have been developed and have exceeded the cut and fill. The fourth criteria, we have redesigned this plan four times, our intention is to develop the subject property for planned accepted and zoned land uses. In order to respond to the unique conditions of this site, the design has been revised in several ways. We feel it's a hardship to require a six-foot compliance of cut and fill. Similar properties have had greater cuts and fills. The fifth criteria, this is not a custom home-site, it's a commercial center and most centers have floors of the same elevation. This design has been altered to respond to topographic features and adapted to build to the land as intended by Oro Valley's grading ordinance. The final criteria, we know we can't make everyone happy but we feel we have come up with a design that meets the intents and spirit of the Town's grading ordinance. The additional cut and fill requested will not be materially detrimental to the right of the property owners. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Rosemary Fruend, 10503 N. Fairway Vista, commented she lives next to this site, and when they moved to Autumn Hill it was to enjoy the views of the hills and the desert area. The hill has charm and a sense of privacy. There are homes who would look and see this development, I say we do not need another shopping center and the hills do not need to be leveled. Leave the hills alone. Vincent Baiocchetti, 989 W. Fox Ridge Lane, stated he served on a planning commission in another state for 13 years, he understands the function of planning and zoning enforcement's. The planning development is used by homeowners and businesses to determine if they want to move in a particular area. Waivers cause problems, he feels it's important to follow the plan, things should only be changed in extreme cases. Reason for changes are due generally for profit/construction costs. Rarely does the plan ever profit the town or the citizens. The hills are a unique screening, if you are going to en always err on the side of the community for no change. Bonnie Harris, 1212 W. Desert Greens Way, felt the land is buildable it does not need a waiver. She likes the hill as it is. The hill acts as a natural buffer to the homes that live around it and should be left alone. The Town makes rules and laws that we must abide by, only in extreme cases should a variance be granted and there is nothing here extreme enough for that variance. Rarely does the plan ever profit the Town. We have unique screening and I would like to leave the hill as it is. If the hill were to be taken down it would affect the noise and the lighting in Autumn Hill. It is not necessary for the Town to grant this waiver there is no reason to. Geo Jae, 10262 N. Hacienda Hermosa, he would like to see the grading waiver denied. People have been coming before this Board to make sure our hills remain intact and are not graded away. I would ask the Board to deny this waiver. Jim Ruhman, 10380 N. Hacienda Hermosa, commented he lives directly behind the northwest corner of the property. He asked the Board to support the residents. The developer bought the property as is, the objective of a grading ordinance is to require for post development plan to accommodate existing conditions. Please vote no to the request of the developer. Require them to 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 submit a plan that would require them to develop without the need of a grading variance. The challenge to the Board is hold the developer responsible to develop this property as close to as is, as possible. Please ask yourself could this property be built on without a waiver. I ask the Board to look strongly at the six standards that need to be met. I'm asking the developer to build to the existing land not the land to conform to the development. This land can be developed without a waiver. Russ Rumley, 11091 N Tapestry Drive, commented he had been in Oro Valley one year. He comes from an area in Colorado that is heavily zoned. He has seen how variances have been given and the neighborhoods have been sacrificed. What is the benefit of granting the waiver, what is really served by it, is it serving the community, who are the tenants. If no change is made what is the benefit of no change. He expressed he would like to see the site developed with the existing zoning requirements, and the waiver be denied. Rich Young, publisher of the Oro Valley Times, provided pictures for the Board which showed the views from the back of his home, several homes will be effected by this development, all seventy lots would not approve of this waiver. He commented that this developer bought the land as is at a cheap price because of the hill. Now they want to grade the hill. He commented that the developer would leave if they could not get the waiver,well I'm telling you the developer is not going to leave, that is just a bluff. Mr. Young stated he is for the development of that site but not at the expense of taking down the hill. Jerry Roberts, 10280 N. Cmo. Valdeflores, one thing that is not shown is the people that live in the Rancho Feliz area, when that project is built, they will be looking at parking lots. A lot of people will be effected by this development. I don't feel a grading waiver is necessary, build with what is there and work with the community, it can be done. I ask the Board to have the developer work with the people. Vote no on the grading waiver. Karen Stratman, 1707 Placita Caracol, commented when she bought her house she spent more time on her own landscaping than what been given to this development. What will the drainage do once the site is covered by a parking lot? Where is it going to go will the Town be responsible for the drainage? What about the added traffic volume. A lot of people will be effected by this development. She doesn't feel that the developer needs a grading waiver. No one wants to see parked cars, please vote no on this grading waiver. There are other possibilities. She would like to see variety and creativity for this corner. Walgreen's gave up their hill, why can't these developers do the same. The Walgreen's site looks very nice. Please vote no on this waiver. Bill Adler, 1720 N. Eagle Eye Place, commented we need to preserve and conserve. Mr. Williams tried to justify the need for the waiver by using the questionable judgment grading on other properties. Each project should be looked at on its own merits. Always trying to look at the opportunity to make something better than the past. I would say look at this property on its own merit. Consistency on its own is not a valid justification. It is possible to work out the issues with the residents. This property seems to be created with a specific retail use in mind. A specific retail use has space requirements which require a waiver. To me, that's granting a special privilege. The conditions on the property are unique they do not effectively deny improvements. The developer 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 needs to come back with a different plan. Only two of the six findings comply with this project. Four of the standards are not met and you can't justify the waiver. There are alternatives, give the developer a chance to come back with a different plan. Greg Kish, 861 W. Annadale, stated he accepts that that property will be developed as commercial. He is against the grading waiver. He asked are the peak heights consistent with the other projects in the area. He also expressed concern about the peak flows from heavy rains. Can the Town cover if a problem arises from the rain flow. Ro Young, 10421 N. Autumn Hill, felt that the developer was not listening to the people that they want something different. This can be a workable piece of property; the further back it sets the less impact it will have on the residents. There is also the issue of the telephone pole, I see there is another letter to come back to get the telephone pole again. The developer keeps coming back and back until they finally ware down the people and then get what they want. Valerie Feuer wanted to clarify that this is not the same developer as the Villages, the engineering firm is the same, but the issue with the conditional use permit and why its going back to the commission, is because there was an error, all the people that were required did not receive notice. We don't normally see issues keeping coming back, such as the issue with the pole. Ann Rose, 1161 W Desert Way, wanted to make one point; she is against the variance. Her point was to the developer, that this is an opportunity for them to establish some integrity. Work with the residents and make a change that would please all of the community. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Five minute recess. Mr. Hank Nelson, representing the developer Beztak, commented he has developed in Oro Valley since 1985, He developed the Village of La Canada, Rooney Ranch Center, and also the Golf Villas of Oro Valley. For the record in the Villages of La Canada the cuts and fills where much larger than 20 feet and much deeper than six feet. He would like to clarify a comment that was made by Mr. Young, we did not purchase that site for pennies on the dollar as a matter of fact we have not bought the site yet. It doesn't close until tomorrow. We will pay market value for the sight. It has been in the plan for Oro Valley from day one as a commercial site. When a Town creates a corner like this one and calls it a commercial center, there is an obligation to allow the site to be developed as has been ruled and named. It is true that you could build on this site. Would it be economically viable as a commercial center if you took out 20 percent of the dirt, I don't think so. We are allowed to cover 31 percent of the property with building floor, are plan as it stands today is 19 percent of the site with building floor. We may have to look at different uses, under the zoning code we are allowed to put single family houses if we wanted to, or apartments. Staff and others asked us to try and make a viable commercial out of it. I am here tonight asking to make this property developable for us, it is not developable now as is. It has 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 been in the plan from day one to be a commercial center and we feel like we have operated within the restrictions and now trying to capitalize on the opportunity. David Williams, WLB, we have appreciated the comments we have heard tonight and the time people have taken to express their concerns. It was stated that many homes can see this sight, if you have been out to the site there is only one subdivision that sits higher than the site. There are four or five homes at most that look directly at this site. The Oro Valley General Plan is one of the most intensive public input document this Town has undertaken and it's a very good reflection of where this Town wants to go. There has never been any other reason that this land would be developed as a commercial center. This is consistent with Oro Valley's General Plan. Commercial opportunities in Oro Valley are encouraged to make the most of the designated locations by constructing substantial attractive buildings with full improvements convenience and safety. This is the type of project that we are bringing to the Town unfortunately it needs a grading waiver and we feel that waiver falls within the standards. We feel the market is read to bring in tenants. We ask for approval of the grading waiver. Member Underwood commented he has lived in Oro Valley for fifteen years, some projects would have not gotten built without waivers. Member Underwood feels that the hill is ugly, the site is not viable without the waiver. But if the residents love it they love it. Is there any way to compromise the building, like shift things keep a part of the hill and create a nice seating area in back of the hill? We would have to grant a waiver for the rest of the site,but would it be possible to do something like that. David Williams replied we don't see it that way, we have looked at keeping the hill, we can go back and rework the plan but we have abandon the ideal of trying to save the hill. It works against the design and against the concept. Member Underwood commented that the grading waiver should tie to the architecture, we need to look at the whole picture. Member Glueck agreed with Member Underwood, the hill has an attachment to the residents,but she is not convinced that all six standards have been met. Why does something have to be so set in stone is there no room for compromise. David Williams commented that we are open to design ideas but feel there is a need to remove the hill. Member Underwood said what if the hill is re-engineered partly taken down and heavily planted as a buffer. Mr. Williams replied that the widening of Lambert Lane would eventually impact the hill. Member Smith stated that everyone knows its commercial but not necessarily a commercial center and would vote against granting the waiver. Member Mager felt the plan should be redone. Member Mager wanted to clarify with Mr. Williams, was she correct that WLB would rather not come back with a plan than includes the hill. Mr. Williams replied yes. Member Mager asked would the developer appeal to Council. Mr. Williams replied he did not know if they would appeal to Council, there is a good possibility if the waiver is denied. Our request is action tonight, we would preferred this be approved. Member Bell commented looking at the scale of the development to her it doesn't seem to fit. What is aesthetically pleasing, is there some way to work this out,possibly scale back to keep the hill. We should keep looking at this and keep it more viable to where the Town is happy and the developer is happy. Mr. Williams stated we are willing to come back but we are not going to make everyone happy. 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 Valerie Feuer explained that the alternatives could be. It doesn't look like anyone is willing to approve it as is. But it could be approved with conditions that would meet the design considerations. Secondly it could be denied but also with that denial, state those concerns and issues should the developer appeal to the Council those concerns would be a part of the record. Finally it could be continued, but that is not the desire of the applicant. Member Vogelsberg commented about the viewscape from the back of this building. Is there any way to design around it and maintain a part of the hill. Charlie Hulsey, WLB, commented can we move buildings, we have already been though that process. We have tried not to bring a plan that would not work, however we would like an opportunity for a work session, it will give the Board Members a better understanding of what goes into a commercial center. Member Glueck welcomed a work session as long as it's not a lecture but a discussion, she would consider a better plan. Valerie Feuer thought a work session would be valuable if the intention is to understand that process. If the Board felt that anything at all would come out of the session then have it, but for this project to continue, she felt they would not be getting anywhere. Member Mager felt it would not change her mind. Member Smith agreed with Member Mager it would not change his mind. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Mager) and carried by a 4-3 vote (No Underwood/Vogelsberg/Lewis) to deny Grading Exception Request for La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center Development Plan OV12-99-7. Discussion of motion: Member Mager wants it known that she has moved into that area of the commercial center and she welcomes it. She does not agree with this plan and does not support it and votes to deny as she felt it could be built without a waiver. Member Glueck asked if the motion is denied can an amendment be added if it goes to Council for appeal can there be a study session between DRB and Council before it goes to council so this can be discussed. Valerie replied if the person who made the motion and the secondary agree to that, then it could be added. Member Smith asked what does taking this to a study session going to do. He does not agree to amend the motion. He stated he felt it could be built without a waiver. Member Bell agrees it is a buildable site without the waiver. Member Underwood stated he would vote against it because he felt the site requires a waiver. Member Glueck commented she would vote against the waiver because the site is buildable, she is uncomfortable with the lack of compromise and besides all the standards have not been met. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued from June 8th, 1999) This item was continued from the June 8th, 1999 DRB meeting. David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. He briefly went through the report, as it 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 was the same information from June 8th meeting. He stated Staff recommends approval of the proposed Developed Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Kane Commercial Center subject to the approval of the grading waiver for this project. Paul Nzomo introduced the engineer's report into the record. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project. At full "build out", the project is expected to generate 12,174 daily trips if each parcel attracts individually. The proposed site will consist of a drive-in bank on the corner and two small office buildings on the south side of Lambert Lane. Driveways to the north align with existing driveways to the retail center on the northeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, except that the low volume on the eastern driveway is slightly east of the driveway on the north side. The site is affected by offsite drainage from the intersection of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. Under existing conditions, all the flows drain northwest to southeast through the proposed Villages of La Canada subdivision into the soil cement channel. The applicant has submitted an application for a grading exception request. The Staff does not support approval of the grading exception because the applicant has not demonstrated any engineering reasons to justify this exception. Member Smith questioned why are we even looking at this if the waiver has been denied. Valerie Feuer replied because the applicant has asked this to go forward and if necessary the Board can vote to deny this because you don't know what the final plan is going to look like without the grading waiver. David Willaims, WLB, was available for questions and understands the recommendation for denial. He felt they have a very good shopping center plan that is worthy of approval but it needs to be clarified that the denial is solely based on the grading waiver denial. He also stated that they do not agree with all forty-one conditions, but felt those could be worked out with Staff Member Smith commented about the conditions how can we approve the conditions if you only agree with half of them. Valerie Feuer replied if the item is denied then so are the conditions. But if the applicant is willing to work out the differences with staff then it could be approved with the conditions. MOTION: Moved, and seconded (Underwood/Smith) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Glueck- absent) to deny OV12-99-7 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN(continued from June 8th, 1999) David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. This item is continued from June 8th' 1999. Staff recommends denial of the proposed Landscape Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center subject to denial of the grading waiver. 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 Member Underwood feels this is a great landscape plan and should be approved. David Williams agrees with Member Underwood this is a great landscape plan and any details could be worked out with staff. Mr. Hulsey stated the palms would not be a part of the landscaping. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-1 vote (Smith no/Glueck-absent) to approve OV12-99-7 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan subject to staff conditions and stipulating if the Development Plan changes significantly staff can determine if it needs to come back to the DRB for reevaluation. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIIONS: 1. As per the requirements of the OVZCR, all loading bays shall be screened with a 6' high opaque wall. 2. All trash dumpsters shall be screened by a 6' high masonry wall and vegetation. 3. The Santa Rita Prickly-Pear located in the landscape buffer immediately adjacent to the bank ATM drive-thru shall be replaced wit vegetation with a 'vertical element' of at least 3' in height. 4. All palms used in this project shall not exceed 25' in height at maturity. 5. The 'stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 6. A direct path shall be provided across the 'stream element', between Building 1 and the physically disabled parking spaces north of Building#1. 7. As per the requirements of the OVZCR, all loading bays shall be screened with a 6' high opaque wall. 8. All trash dumpsters shall be screened by a 6' high masonry wall and vegetation. 9. The Santa Rita Prickly-Pear located in the landscape buffer immediately adjacent to the bank ATM drive-thru shall be replaced wit vegetation with a 'vertical element' of at least 3' in height. 10. All palms used in this project shall not exceed 25' in height at maturity. 11. The 'stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 12. A direct path shall be provided across the 'stream element', between Building 1 and the physically disabled parking spaces north of Building#1. 13. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the 8' wide asphalt path connecting the trailhead area to the Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path and to Building#1. 14. Conditions 1 thru 6, listed above, and any additional DRB conditions, shall be submitted with a revised landscape plan, prior to scheduling the plan for Town council. OV13-99-39 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER COMMERCIAL CENTER ARCHITECTURE David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommends approval subject to 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 staff conditions and stipulating any changes caused by the grading waiver denial go before the planning and zoning administrator. David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. This item is continued from June 8th' 1999. Staff recommends denial of the proposed Landscape Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center subject to denial of the grading waiver. The architecture presented for this project may be described as Mediterranean in style, with several Contemporary Southwestern accents, and is similar in some way to the architecture approved for the Oro Valley Retail Center. The proposed specialty grocery store and in-line shop building will be located on the eastern portion of the site, and will face La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The architecture of this building features numerous elements, including arcading, columns, archways, parapets, pre-finished metal roof elements, glass entry features, towers with and without stacked stone veneer finish, and a prominent entryway. The height of the proposed building will vary from 22' to 30', with 36' 8" being the maximum for the specialty grocery store entryway feature. The architecture complies with General Plan Policy 9.1A, that "building height and bulk should be in harmony with individual site attributes"; however, it does not comply with Policy 9.1F, that all building elevations should be "coherently designed and treated". Valerie Feuer stated that if the project is built the elevations are unlikely to change. Michael Soto, Seaver Franks Architect,provided colored visuals for the Board. He pointed out where the fountains were different shops,parking, courtyards and retail areas. He was available for any questions the Board may have. Member Vogelsberg commented about the metal roof. Some look great and some look terrible. He had reservations about metal roofs. He asked Mr. Soto if he had a sample of the roof and he did not. Mr. Soto replied he would not want to live in a Town where everything looked the same. Member Vogelsberg asked what would the spacing be on the bands. Mr. Soto replied 24 inches. Member Mager liked the idea of a metal roof Member Underwood like the rich look of the metal roof Valerie Feuer added additional detail to item four, and expected to be Copper Patina to be consistent with other shopping corner. Member Bell is pleased with the way the center looks especially the stone veneer. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Mager/Bell) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Glueck-absent) to recommend approval of OV13-99-39 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Architecture subject to staff conditions and stipulating the applicant provide a sample of the metal roofing to the agenda committee. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. "Mock" arches shall be added to the drive-thru area on the west elevation. 2. Additional architectural features, such as arch, columns, and varying roof elements, shall be added to the rear elevations to 'mimic' those features found on the front elevations of the buildings. 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 3. The "tower" located at the southwest corner of the drug store shall be shown on the site plan. 4. Signage is not part of the review, and shall be reviewed separately and shall be expected to be copper patina to be consistent with corner stores. S. The applicant shall submit a color palette for the permanent record. 6. A sample of the metal roofing shall come before the agenda committee for approval by staff. Chair Lewis reminded the DRB members that this was Verlin Smith's last meeting as he has resigned from the DRB Board. STAFF REPORT Valerie Feuer talked about the up coming agenda and asked the Board would they like to have two meetings for July as it will be a long agenda. The Board commented they would like one meeting for July as some of the members had other obligations. A second meeting has been requested for August 31st, 1999. There will a site tour July 8th at 6:30, meeting at the Safeway parking lot, transportation will be provided by Member Underwood and Chair Lewis. It is time for the Agenda Committee to change or renew members. The term is now six months and we are going to change that time to a year. We are asking for volunteers for the new term. We also have a new DRB member his name is Bruce Enger and he will be here for the July 13th DRB meeting. The last item Valerie wanted to bring up was the landscaping at the front of the Golf Villas. The rocks have not been moved yet. They did follow the landscape plan however, they placed rocks at their discretion. Our zoning inspector will work with the people at the Villas to get that issue worked out. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Glueck — absent) to adjourn the June 29th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting at 10:00 P.M. Shirley Gay DRB Clerk • ORO VALLEY PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD June 29th, 1999 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: David Marsh,Planner I Lax) SUBJECT: OV13-99-39 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Architecture BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The Beztak Companies proposes to develop to a commercial center on-site, with a total of 132,422 square feet (SF) of commercial floor space. The proposed development will consist of a specialty grocery store, a drug store with drive-thru, a bank, restaurants, and approximately 33,000 SF for retail shops. The development will also feature a large number of sidewalks, links to the planned Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path, a pedestrian plaza with outdoor seating areas for restaurants, and several water features. The bank building (Pad A) and Pad B architecture will be reviewed separately at a later date. The development plan and landscape plan for this project are scheduled for review by DRB on June 29th, 1999. The architecture for this project was previewed for the DRB at its June 8th, 1999 meeting. SUMMARY: The architecture presented for this project may be described as Mediterranean in style, with several Contemporary Southwestern accents, and is similar in some ways to the architecture approved for the Oro Valley Retail Center. There are two proposed structures as part of this submittal: a speciality grocery store and in-line shops structure, facing La Canada and Lambert Lane, and a structure containing small retail / professional office space and a proposed drug store with a drive-thru, facing Lambert Lane. These structures are described in detail below. The proposed speciality grocery store and in-line shop building will be located on the eastern portion of the site, and will face La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The architecture of this building features numerous elements, including arcading, columns, archways, parapets, pre-finished metal roof elements, glass entry features, towers with and without stacked stone veneer finish, and a prominent entryway. The entryway possesses significant vertical architectural features, such as archways, columns, inset windows, and serves to `break up' the massing of the building. The north elevation of this building will focus on a pedestrian plaza with an outdoor eating area. The height of the proposed building will be vary from 22' to 30', with 36' 8" being the maximum for the specialty grocery store entryway feature. The maximum height allowable by the PAD is 38'. The second structure will be ] ;d on the southern portion of the site, mid will face Lambert Lane. The structure will feature the same architectural elements as the first structure, with a greater emphasis on arcading, prominent entry ways, and stacked stone veneer finish. The structure will also contain a drive-thru facing La Canada, which will feature two tower elements and an archway over the drive-thru window. Staff has requested that additional features be added to the drive-thru area to add elements of architectural interest. The height of the proposed building will range from 22' to 30' for the tower elements. A small pedestrian court will also be featured between the east and southern structures. The rear elevations of the two buildings face the El Conquistador Golf Course and the Villages of La Canada, and a to-be developed subdivision in the Villages of La Canada respectively. The rear elevation of both buildings feature a minimal amount of architectural elements, including `mock' columns, parapets, an archway hiding the loading area for the stores facing the pedestrian plaza, and a small area of pre-finished metal roof. Owing to the visual impact of the rear elevations on the surrounding areas, Staff has requested that additional architectural features, such as arches, columns, and varying roof elements, be added to `mimic' those features found on the front elevations of the buildings. Staff has contacted the architect in this regard, and the architect will present an alternative elevation for the rear of the structures at the DRB meeting. A color palette and samples for this submittal will be provided for review at the DRB meeting. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: The architecture complies with General Plan Policy 9.1A, that "building height and bulk should be in harmony with individual site attributes"; however, it does not comply with Policy 9.1F, that all building elevations should be"coherently designed and treated". RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this item with the conditions listed in Exhibit A. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval. 2. Reduction of Site Plan and Elevations. F:\OV\OV 13\1999\13-99-39\archdrb.doc 2 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OV13-99-39 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER ARCHITECTURE 1. "Mock"arches shall be added to the drive-thru area on the west elevation. 2. Additional architectural features, such as arches,columns,and varying roof elements,be shall be added to the rear elevations to `mimic' those features found on the front elevations of the buildings. 3. The"tower"located at the southwest corner of the drug store shall be shown on the site plan. �n r ( 4. Signage is not part of this review,and shall be reviewed separately,, SAC '`' Nc) (-eir 5. The applicant shall submit a colour palette for the permanent record. ; 3 1/// METAL ROOFING STUCCO & CMU DECORATIVE METAL BRACKETS STOREFRONT WALL BASE & TRIM _._._ STONE WAINSCOT Ael .......muir v. '.. THE BEZTAK COMPANIES ORO VALLEY , ARIZONA PROPOSED RETAIL CENTER �� ANKS AT LA CANADA DR. & LAMBERT LANESEAv�J. INCFA , 352N.Moms War illms.A245712/5207954000 COLOR & MATERIALS 6/29/99 I THE REZTAK COMPtNiES PROP"jED RETAIL CENTER _ LAMBERT LANE AT LA CANADA DRIVE & I - - - - - - - LAMBERT LANE - azzzr ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA - - - -- - - - I � .... T11-177 � ;71 1= -Ec- -/---1 \\7 _ I I I I 11 111 1 1 01.7„.* ,,,,„___„„7„ I E 0' . k. 1 0) \,...__ .c.-7-_ _____. _ .....,..1 _16,, , , cp Oitilliutillimil � I1 IJ : 110) Qri III cr) o QI - - — i Z 1 — to Z u 111 111 (1111111 f — ; MOOD WOOS &--)-- �_ 0 IIIIIi (1II IflIIIIIn 11 J r- _) f r - ,.. IIIII UI ) IIUIIIIII , III J 40 3 I -- 1 I 1 1LL__n_r____ _ 14 f I I I Il I I I I f I 1 I 1 1) ;` « ._ T — � I 3 I � �_ -� l- s z � r �, I I cr, I r*os , woM , wo�a TT -,:, w (\i WIWI111 I E_ I ,_ (,) el smut one I CI 111 I U-T 1. I QL 0 Ao, V / I_ f� ---� �� _ Mit _AOAST �� ^7 y 0 PISM VIM OCT KIR CCKTR11C110M 1.■400' j JUNE 29,1999 = L J THE BEZTAK COMPANIES PROPOSED RETAIL CENTER AT LA CANADA DRIVE & LAMBERT LANE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA KEY NOTES I J 28'-I0"APP. /-22'-0 APP. 30'-0' APP I PAAVTED STUOGC z. EIPs:aavles i , -3 Eg g® / S. PRE-FlNIiMED METAL ROO, .§a1111ii18111l1II1k.2 / 4. PRE-.MI.MED ALUMINIUM 9`ORPRONT ii ii / E®®g `�' .. IAA NM)rim'.6RILJ Y` ...la��E�N��a���EI�o�P" "5�it 1 I EEi 1 1 a•p a ��R�� !1�' �liiiii�,. "^-'"' 6. .TACKED STONE A!�!!R ' , . T •ANrW000 RAPTOR IL S hMI$ " .^�+I'� y����14h .,�1IE .� wi. A. PAINTED CPU PILASTER 4 _ �i ' - 11" '_. -' 1 +f i PANTED GNU __ __ __ __ IQ.. TILL.IGGNT ■I-. 1■■■ Kill 1■■■ 1■■■ '1■■Isi 1■Ih mew I■■U 1i■■■' i■i1U■il II. METAL DOOR.PAINT -6 I-4 NORTH ELEVATION 36-8"APP. ,-30'-0'.APP ,-22'-0'APP. 5. /r 28'-m"A.P . 5 / lltt / 3 '-2 2 ,-24'-8"A.PP. r22'-0 APP. ��t 1 —1 l 3j "4Ih, "\I'Ih9 41 irlh `� Ill!-- fa Y `� ■n sib i.i`I ter, � a ii SE ,,i■s1 ■■1� -■■1 ' ■■■1 =- - -•=: i no ;.R _ Imam" ■■■ Ilii 11111111 j11�1 -- - 6 4 1 4 14, 8 4 WEST ELEVATION r-28'-12'A.P.P. r-30'-2"APP. /-3 /-25'6'APP. /2B'-10"APP. r24'-0"APP. 22'-m'APP. /-1 r'-3 5- . MILILM - _ - M 1 ! i ! 1 � 1 1 =, t t 1r r .: NL-LLLLS_► 1 a -• 1 1 1. 1 1 = lrIMII%, .vr 44 lrIIIIIMM' 44 'I 11 , _ . I =- I** ■IA ■■■ I I■■ ■■■ MIME MIN i��:� iMN* ■■i; diem i�ii'.= i.. _�'� ��� �N ��� � p � -I-• --.i'*,,,,--' 1111111 7-7;',7. 6 L6 \_4 `I 6 I--I NORTH ELEVATION 5EA%Ef��RAN PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/16"-1'-0" JUNE 29,1999 THE BEZTAK COMPANIES PROPOSED RETAIL CENTER AT LA CA N A DA & LAMBERT LANE ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA KEY NOTES 2a'-10"dFF. 24'-0'OFF. 3 / 30'-®"dsF. I PaRNT6&TUCa - 2. ■I'&CORNICII[ C5 7- 3 / i1 3. PRt-FlNI&NW MITA..ROO& 4 PRU-•N$MSD A.UM'NWM 9TORaRCNT �.1_' S. PANTS1•'ITAL 5111-1 i 6 B-aCIC®&TON!vim!!! "§orrcr- 3 1. uJOOD RAPIER TAILS &. PAW=cm PILA&T■! n%it .\1Iha .�111 `010 ! PANTS CMU Ilk I gberieriarl fgar-wila ra.M116'i II. METAL DOOR RAN* WEST ELEVATION -30-0"APP. /-24'-0'APR. �3 1 `-\ rio ,-20'-0'APP. ca 1 22'-0'A . ,--20'-0'AFF / � / f 2 10 i 2 i • .1 T‘i1 .,, Hák1hi1iI1 . Al Iliii i sum p�Mil ll� � � lIE_ ME II I ■■�I�MIS la �� ��'=1.7 NMI SOUTH ELEVATION -2e- AF+. T10 3 \-22'-0'APF. 2G-G �1.s ` '�Z-' 1 3� . a r ❑ r'` '` ..y Y I� /` +�' '511, ALI111,E 1 !�'„�r�j,;�I,�^t " „y+-.- .. _ III -.M�Y — ya_ �`' ��' „La �... r i .00 lrli _ v,,Iiiii 11, v,i I-.. Odin all l _ h{NI '444, '1�Ir ' I -8 -.1 "�.�'' , \\-: 8 j EAST ELEVATION SEAVEI,AFRANKS 1I:NE e9.'944 . ' -- LAMBERT LANE 'REUMINARY f - - - - - - - - - - - - - JOT FOR 7 �\ i -� CONSTRUCTION /J • OR RECORDING �, I I simmimmeennu \.\\I REVISIONS NO. DATE Crrfr: .........."-"Th J ! ullli � INII , , 6) I I I = = / 1 I ____ . -‘s. 4.-4**-w ,� 1-- — ...,.. ws. ikit. 4: . ii 3\\\\, ) t pm414 — r ■ • .,� y � '' { J l ) C _1\*A _ J I 1 -f 4212 GP 1 1 1 ri '' jIII 1 I 1 (s W ' r'• . 1 if. z Q ; - ► l � �1 . I g P r M. I { OflOHOHL [ I I -� 1, I 1 10 iv ■ npG _/ II ROOD STORE 7 (" Illi l l l l I l t 1 1 1 Ill I I l l l l l I I I I I 16 ': 2 : I "• I \�4 i _ _,, r , , , _ , ,, 1 .. ,. n n .. r4 .. n n V 4 V_ J H SHOPS 3 _ �� 1 r / , • 9 0 o—q� —� 9 0 o qL_e o sp o 0 o e-pi ID /4 L J: i. %S 1 I I _._. O IP /. I DRUG STORE I SHOPS 1 SHOPS 601OPS COURT I I I 1 1 i I I I 1 I 1 ,• •� Ce l" W Kii_.. () 1 1 1 1 1 C- ,, 1 Ce • (W.— 1 % wsiNsamr!rwmaamr■I-- I.,,." ("II ■ ■ w ■ a ■ •-■ • • r Z �N 89'N7'53"E 808.33' — W i L J Z QV t3 14 20 21 I W 15 16 17 13 19 I f� 12 _ - 1111111111101111.11 1 / 1 \_` -_� \ 22 ISSUE DATE 6-I5-99 / i --►OFF -- - V --_-- I I _ - .� i I �o� NO. I890 11 \� I 64 63 1 I 4.•4 43 I I 23 SHEET t i 1) II H II 11 1\ I I 1 EI9 's Wut iAl rsumimmimmime RELIMINARY 3�0'• �.F. 3 .OT FOR 30'_0 11 ,4.F.F. �3 / r-2 S 1-0" 4 C F CONSTRUCTION I. PAINTED STUCCO OR RECORDING ....nO...._ / i !sil l,,. ._ I i/ ,�,�, E!FS CORNICE s 0 �.F.F . 5. PRE-FINISHED METAL ROOF sommiummummo ��...,� -.AI..._ REVISIONS 5 _-�iifi=__ ___1i11INhIlHUIHIIIuIIIIIIIu tmniiinami _rralTnij: RE _ —1L"IT ii.J l., <<. ..Jfi1 4. PRE FINISHED ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT ►� DATE ni-i-±-1477.-i" -imi iiiiii ]litittititl ittti��... 5. PAINTED ED METAL GRILLE 6. STACKED STONE VENEER - N■■==■■!1■=-M ■■=#■ ■ i��.F_ r ___ _ `�__ _■Ili _ _ _ _ - ..- _ �__ _ _- Y_ Imo. • - T- WOAD RATTER TAILS - .._ ._... .._ ._ _ .-.-_. _....�L_.._ :.=..= ._ -:a_.�.''. ;�.r;:=•:�__�°-_- R ._- =. ;.:=r r °, i.� !!`, 8. PAINTED CMU PILASTER 6, 4 1 i S. PAINTED CMU �o 4 i WEST ELEVATION .�.,, /3 2 81-10" A.F.F. 3 O'-O II • ,.F.F. r 2 5'ro" _. II -2 8'-I O" ,4.F.F. /- / -.milli I IIhi.. _.�,l..._WE ll1J!l�IJ1 'llll!!!.I I�� f -© ,�.1=.1°. �l N -..dill ' ' •I i '-..iiifin...._ 11111110111111.._ .: 1Ti l J J l l ll 1 Z IIIiiitIIIII11 illlittitlliliiili _- ,,� tj[., 11.... ..� ... ia.■ G..l Gaa■ ia.a �.■i - ii.w ww■ r� ■r F— I 11�-_�i�_-il�i.-__ III--: -= =- ■■■==■■■■==_■■■■==■■■■==-■■■■=-:1■■r_-=.=_ _ -- =_ =-- = _ -- -_ -- -_ -_ - --- _- > ro i w J NORTH ELEvAT I ON ru 28'-10II „4.F.F. 30'=0" ,OFF - - ,. 3 2 2'-0' ,4.1<.1=. ...n��itllfli►�No..._ 2 8'-10" ,�.Io.le. ,, _ II /- 3 30 _O A.P.F...nu..._ 4 O �.�., Z f l� L 1. ;... .l f�J�\\\�»���»»��t l J(�lilll l____=_-__���..._- I \�,- V _....Ili�u..4_ i I i 1 is 7. ! • alai ■.a. ilia ■■.a- i■w ■■ i ■al ilia _Mai: .w■ Ii■a■ :51::: �I .:-,mou-_-,:ummi:-_,:link-immu:,:ium-:--mm.:,.-Inum::4:-Amm:-..:-.:-z-_--,:-,:-_-,-. 611. ., 1, !=i ‘40 �o • I < NORTH ELEVATION i WEST ELEvAT i ON 30'-0,1 9.F. i 24'-0' 4.F.F. 2 ...did- tu.�. 2 0'-O" �� i 4 2 2'-0' �4 .F. 2 2 0'-m l I :' '� 1 frr11 IIIIIIIlill►II1liIIII "/ ill F- LLJ On --:L f:-, .::-..7- \__ Ir— r- --- \_1 ro 9 --8 \-- g 8 -9 L8 oc SOUTH ELEVATION F- w UQ � Z i‘. Q U 3 20'-0' A.FF_ 7--2g'_011 ,4!.F. /-3 1 I► 2 3 .0 // , 1 H .11�,,,_ 2 2 -O �4 F at EB ( ® ® ® ® cJ1►t'JJ1 1UJ1110 . ISSUE DATE 6-15-99 I PROF NO. 1890 Ell i DRG SCALE i i ETI_L ! fT t___,X-1 ► iORMomemmemme \._dJ 1 SHEET • 6 I EAST ELEVATION A,Z 1