HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV139927 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT T REVIEW
SUBDIVISION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DATE: March 23 , 1999
OV CMSE NO. : 4V 14---9 9-61 C �' J ( r► l 1
(office use only)
PROJECT: Villages at La Canada - Block A
SUBDIVISION/NO. OF LOTS: Lots 1 - 80
NUMBER OF MDDF T S/ELEVATIONS: Eight (8)
APPLICANT: Kaufman and Broad of Tucson, Inc .
ADDRESS: 5780 N . Swan Road , Suite 100 , Tucson , Arizona 85718
TELEPIKNE NO. : (520) 577-7007 f(r' -°��"���`�
PROPERTY OWNER:
ADDRESS: 2968 W . Ina Road , Suite 284 PHONE NO. : (520) 219-0150
Tucson , Arizona 85741
PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: The W L B Group
ADDRESS: 4444 E . Broadway Blvd . Tucson, Arizona 85711
DEVELOPMENT BOARD HEP:RI DP tE: A r p r i 1 13, 1999
SIGNATURE: DATE: 3/2 4/9 9
NOTE: This application shall 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 models from all four sides, front views only of alternative elevations, if any,
floor plans and a typical site plan. AT THE METING, applicants must have on hand
for presentation, colored perspective or rendered elevations of all four sides of
one typic l model. This rendering mist depict the exact type of landscaping
proposed for the project. Samples of paint and trim colors, roof and detail tiles
and photographs of similar products built by the same cccrpany are also requested,
if possible.
SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 18 CALENDAR DAYS IN
ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING DATE.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SUBDIVISION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DATE : April 23 , 1999
OV CASE NO. : OV
(office use only)
PROJECT: Villages at La Canada - Block A
SUBDIVISION/NO. OF LOTS : Lots 1 - 80
NUMBER OF MODELS/ELEVATIONS: Four (4)
APPLICANT: Kaufman and Broad of Tucson, Inc .
A ADDRESS : 5780 N. Swan Road , Suite 100 , Tucson , Arizona 85718
A
4
TELEPHONE NO. : 577-7007 FAX: 299-2725
PROPERTY OWNER:
ADDRESS: 2968 W. Ina Rd . , Suite 284 PHONE NO. : (520) 219-0150
Tucson , Arizona 85741
PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: The WLB Group
ADDRESS : 4444 E . Broadway Blvd . Tucson , Arizona 85711
DEVELOPMEN EW BOARD HEARING DATE: May 11 , 1999
SIGNATURE: . DATE: 4/ 23/99
NOTE: This application sha 1 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 models from all four sides, front views
only of alternative elevations, if any, floor plans, including
calculations of square footage of livable area, and a typical site
plan. If not already on record with the Town, a color palette,
including body and trim colors, and tile colors and style must be
submitted in an 8 .5" x 11" format. AT THE MEETING, applicants must
have on hand for presentation, colored perspective or rendered
elevations of all four sides of one typical model .
SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 18
CALENDAR DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
HEARING DATE.
fit ' i
L.
,
i
0*ft
i 1
1111
-
0 • ,•:: '
ihhi,,,4,44L614: 40
Illr 411It s _ 4'4: Pli iii& t ,
'"41 4611%°44g ' Ill ' 1
, .
MIMI
i i
I
.
11,1.4s i i sob.
4
4,
4.
•
14
t
•-, —...... ,
or
, I
4 \
4
1 f 11 %
1 " • '‘1,1
1 4 ; ..• '
I ,t
t ' C
01.11111011101111r i, f
i
11111!
\\
.
V 1
t II\'
7.: 1
\
\
iris i
, /
1 ( 11111) k
, .
. k
. ;11111 RI" '1
. a
-!,
)
000
•
;
4,
' !
1 ,
} -
dr
# s
? u•
-la iii.liat $
- I -
ii
,ate::
r'
MINUTES OF THE
ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Tuesday April 13th, 1999
CALL TO ORDER: 6:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present
Patti Jo Lewis, Chair
Mary Glueck,Vice Chair
Richard Underwood, Member
Jim Vogelsberg,Member
Verlin Smith,Member
Absent:
Nancy Mager, Member
Others Present:
Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner
Paul Nzomo,Engineer
Shirley Gay, Clerk
MOTION: MOVED, Seconded (Underwood/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-0 vote
(Mager absent) to approve the March 9th and March 16th 1999, Development Review
Board Meeting as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. OV13-99-24 Custom Home,C&C Construction,Desert Vista,Lot 107
B. OV13-98-59 Horton Homes,Rancho Vistoso 7F, Model 1602
C. OV13-99-29 Miller Custom Home,Rancho Vistoso 11 H&N, Lot 63
D. OV13-99-30 Pennell Custom Home, Ironwood Canyon, Lot 18
E. OV13-99-31 Garcia Custom Home, Fairway Village, Lot 56
F. OV13-99-26 Sigma Technologies Expansion Architecture
G. OV13-97-49 Oro Valley Retail Center Architecture Revision
H. OV13-97-40 Rancho Vistoso Ambulatory Center Architecture Revision
I. OV12-98-19 CDO Riverfront Park Landscape Plan Addendum (This item
withdrawn)
J. OV12-93-13 Canada Verde Apts (AKA OV Golf Villas) Garage Architecture
Valerie Feuer commented that item I had been pull and will be on the next DRB agenda.
Mary Glueck has a question on item B regarding the window on elevation A, B, and C in the
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2
front. There needs to be an arch or some architecture detail to match the style of other Horton
homes. Perhaps a condition could be added to add those features.
MOTION: Moved,seconded(Underwood/Smith) and carried by a 5-0 vote to recommend
approval of Consent Agenda items A, C thru H and item J subject to staff conditions.
MOTION: Moved, seconded(Smith/Glueck) and carried by a 5-0 to recommend approval
of Consent item B subject to staff conditions and stipulating on elevations A,B, and C add
architectural detail to front window.
REGULAR AGENDA
PREVIEW: OV13-99-25 THE INN AT VISTOSO ARCHITECTURE
The applicant had asked this item be withdrawn and expects to submit the architecture for
approval at the May 11 th DRB meeting..
OV13-99-22 THE BOULDERS AT LA RESERVE REQUEST TO REMOVE CHIMNEY
CAPS (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 9TH, 1999 MEETING)
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. She reminded the Board the applicant
is requesting that the DRB allow the chimney caps to be removed entirely, exposing the spark
arrestor. The DRB members took a site tour to the property to determine if the chimney caps
needed to be removed. Staff did not have a problem with the chimney caps being removed
however;they would support the DRB with the decision they made.
Member Vogelsberg commented that the caps did not add any architectural flavor to the building
and he felt they could be removed. He explained that the Town needed to find an approved
detail plan for future purposes. Member Smith supported the caps and felt they needed to be on,
he thought they looked good he commented the Town needed to have a plan approved for future
projects. Chair Lewis agreed with Member Smith, she felt the caps needed to stay on. Member
Glueck stated that the old caps need to come off and an better-engineered cap needs to go on.
Member Underwood was in agreement that the caps need to stay on.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager absent)
to recommend denial of OV13-99-22 The Boulders at La Reserve to remove chimney caps.
OV13-99-28 CASAS ADOBES BAPTIST CHURCH PORTABLE RELOCATION
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The applicant proposes to relocate six
portables that are illustrated on the amended development plan. The portables will be moved
from the Church's current location at Ina/La Cholla. The site plan gives the specific locations of
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3
the portables. There will be an 8'wide sidewalk between Building I, J, N, and 0, which will be
finished to match all other sidewalks in this development. In relation to the overall site, the
portables do not detract from the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval
of the architecture for the Casas Adobes Baptist Church Portable Relocation, with the condition
that the windows along all elevations be either recessed or popped out.
Jay Hanson,The Hanson Group,was present for any questions the DRB may have. He provided
a colored visual of the site and where the portables would be located. He briefly explained there
would be mini courts between the buildings and how the colors would tie into the existing
school.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager
absent) to recommend approval of OV13-99-28 Casas Adobes Baptist Church portable
relocation subject to staff condition all windows along all elevations be either recessed or
popped out.
Note for record: Applicant for item 2 joined meeting approximately 6:30 p.m. The Chair
allowed him to speak based on the Boards motion. Mr. Vanek, Construction Manager, Greystar
Services commented he would remove the chimney caps because of the liability but would agree
to putting on new chimney caps provided Oro Valley provide an engineered drawing detail and
secondly he will commence with the caps when other residents in the area had chimney caps
installed. Valerie Feuer commented Staff could not agree to those conditions but would talk
with the Planning Administrator and the Building Administrator and then get back to Mr. Vanek.
OV12-99-01 VILLAGES OF LA CANADA BLOCK A PRELIMINARY PLAT
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The proposed preliminary plat
illustrates 80 single-family residential lots designed with a similar lot size as the adjacent
existing Villages of La Canada. The proposed plat will be accessed from Congressional Way
and consists of a 55' buffer area along the western boundary. The western boundary will
include a Bufferyard D and part of the recreation area, which links to the main recreation area
at the southwest corner of the proposed plat. A 16' maintenance easement is located along the
northern boundary of the development. The 16' maintenance easement also runs along the
eastern property boundary of this development.
A 20' pedestrian access common area between lots 20 and 21 is implemented which will
provide a linkage between the proposed residential development and future commercial
development to the north.
The property development standards for the proposed plat are as follows: the setbacks are
front — 20', side — 5', and rear — 5'. The existing zoning is PAD High Density Residential
with a conditional zoning of Medium Density Residential. The maximum permitted
building height for this subdivision is 25' two (2) stories. Valerie Feuer commented that a
condition needed to be added regarding the pedestrian pathway be designed in such a way to
v,
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4
provide privacy to homeowners.
Paul Nzomo introduced the engineer's report into the record. Traffic impact analysis has not
been submitted yet. But in accordance with the standard traffic trip generation rates, this
proposed subdivision of 80 lots will generate 800 daily trips, compared to 1890 daily trips
from currently zoned, and approved development plan, for a 270 unit apartment. Two access
points will be constructed off Congressional Way, which will be connected with three internal
proposed streets. This project site generally drains from north to south with onsite generated
Stormwater runoff entering Congressional Way and the soil-cement to the east with both
flows ultimately reaching the CDO Wash. This project is affected by 361-cfs from vacant
land at north property line. This offsite runoff will be diverted into the soil-cement channel
along the east property line through earthen channel. The earthen channel will be lined with a
soil erosion blanket, covered with a thin layer of topsoil and hydroseed. The channel will be
irrigated to ensure vegetative growth. The onsite-generated runoff will be collected by slotted
drain at three onsite locations and conveyed into the soil-cement channel. Only 37cfs will be
discharged into Congressional Way, which is a better situation than pre-developed condition.
A grading waiver was approved in 1994 by DRB with the following conditions:
1. All cut slopes shall be benched every eight-(8) feet,providing a three-(3) feet bench.
2. Add a note to the general note stating that the proposed earthen channel will be irrigated to
ensure vegetative growth and shall be maintained by the HOA.
3. All cut slopes shall be undulating to match the natural terrain.
4. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1, nor shall slopes require jute mat, grouted riprap, or mechanical
means to hold slopes in place.
Mr.Nzomo stated that the grading waiver is still valid.
Charlie Hulsey, WLB Group representing the applicant commented he had no problems with
staff conditions and was available for questions. Member Smith asked about the common area,
what kind of path would be provided? Mr. Hulsey commented it would be DG and the path
would allow access to the future shopping center on the corner. Member Underwood asked
about the water runoff at the entrance of the Villages, he felt water seems to collect at that
entrance and he wanted to know how the drainage would be handled. Mr. Hulsey pointed out on
the site plan how the water would be channeled and how that should help that particular area.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Glueck/Smith) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager absent) to
recommend approval of OV12-99-01 Villages of La Canada Block A Preliminary Plant
subject to staff conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING CONDITIONS:
1. An addendum for the traffic impact analysis report is required.
2. All existing or proposed easements that affect or benefit this property shall be shown
on the plat.
3. All utilities lying outside of the road right-of-way shall be placed in utility and
maintenance easements.
4. Any offsite sewer easements benefiting this property shall be executed and recorded
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5
prior to recordation of the final plat.
5. All existing R.O.W.(s)/Easement(s) adjacent to the site shall be labeled. The
dimensions and recording information shall be specified.
6. All R.O.W and easements to be dedicated for this project shall be clearly identified on
the preliminary plat.
7. All offsite grading and construction of drainage channel shall require a written
permission from the adjacent property owner.
8. The applicant's engineer shall ensure that vertical and horizontal street design meets
the Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards.
9. Two copies of lot boundary closures calculations are required.
10. The applicant's engineer shall ensure all boundary survey bearings and distances
shown on the plan are consistent with the title report.
11. At least two ties with survey data to section or quarter corners shall be provided on the
plat.
12. Cross section A-A shall be revised to reflect 361-cfs offsite runoff as shown in the
drainage exhibit.
13. Recheck and correct the drainage area for concentration point 3E on the drainage
tables.
14. A revised drainage report is required,which shall address all drainage conditions.
15. Preliminary plat, grading plan and drainage exhibit shall be consistent with drainage
report.
16. Page 11 of drainage report shall be revised to reflect 361 cfs entering the site and a total
of 37-cfs only being conveyed into congressional Way.
17. Call out handicap ramps at all streets intersection.
18. The 35-cfs conveyed through 30" SRP pipe in to Congressional Way shall be
discharged within Common area A with an energy dissipater at the outlet, and allowed
to sheet flow into Congressional way as in pre-developed condition. No concentration
of flows is allowed.
19. Call out drainage easement between lots 32 and 33.
20. The grades for the street profile shall be adjacent to meet 14% driveway slope as per
zoning code.
21. Label all manholes and catch basins on the plat and grading plan.
22. Call out sizes of all storm drain on the drainage exhibit.
23. The length of storm drainpipe called out in the drainage report does not match those
shown on the plat, correct where necessary.
24. Call out size and length for the storm drainpipe at concentration point 2.3.
25. Indicate the type of lot drainage for each lot on the plat.
26. The lot drainage shown on the plat does not match drainage exhibit, revise
accordingly. Call out 10' maintenance access easement for the proposed drainage
earthen channel.
Illustrate on the plat how the access will be connected to the main streets.
27. Common Area "C" in general note 1 shall be changed to "Recreation Area."
28. General Note 2 shall state the Conditional Zoning as Medium Density Residential.
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6
29. General Note 12 shall be changed to 25' two (2) stories as the maximum building
height.
30. General Note 13 shall be amended to state; "Typical lot size is 7,085 square feet.
31. Pedestrian access is designed in such a way to provide privacy to adjacent
homeowners.
OV13-99-27 KAUFMAN & BROAD ARCHITECTURE, THREE MODELS,VILLAGES
OF LA CANADA,BLOCK A
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The three models proposed are plans
1579, 2045, and 2166, which are all single-story homes. All three models are designed in the
Santa Barbara Mission style architecture with the differences being in front façades and size. Plan
1579 has seven (7) different elevations. The difference in each elevation is the front façade.
Architectural elements include a wainscot trim along the front elevation,window popouts along all
elevations, gable vents, popout trim along the garage, and tile roofs. This model is well within the
maximum height requirement of 25'. The optional fireplaces show an approved Oro Valley
chimney cap.
The three models proposed are plans 1579, 2045, and 2166, which are all single-story homes. All
three models are designed in the Santa Barbara Mission style architecture with the differences
being in front façades and size. Plan 1579 has seven (7) different elevations. The difference in
each elevation is the front façade. Architectural elements include a wainscot trim along the front
elevation, window popouts along all elevations, gable vents,popout trim along the garage, and tile
roofs. This model is well within the maximum height requirement of 25'. The optional fireplaces
show an approved Oro Valley chimney cap.
Models 2045 and 2166 have similar architectural elements,but are larger pads. Each has five (5)
other elevations, which are similar with the exception of the front façade. The models shall
illustrate wainscot trims along the additional elevations.
Charles Hulsey,WLB Group, representing the applicant commented he had no problems with staff
conditions. He did ask staff could the wainscoting be dropped once they are past the rear yard
fence. Valerie Feuer replied yes. Chair Lewis asked Mr.Hulsey had he met with the homeowners
to work out any problems that may arise. Mr.Hulsey replied yes.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Smith) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager absent)
to recommend approval of OV13-99-27 Kaufman & Broad Architecture, Three Models
Villages of La Canada,Black A,subject to staff conditions.
PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS:
1. The color scheme must be consistent with the colors of the existing homes in the
Villages of La Canada.
2. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed by a wall to
provide visual screening and noise mitigation, and shall respect all setbacks.
3. A wainscot trim where visible shall be provided along the side elevations of each
model to ensure coherent design and treatment on all four sided.
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7
OV12-99-5 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL ADDITION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The Town of Oro Valley proposes to
develop a Town Hall Addition on-site. The Town Hall Addition is comprised of the
construction of a 9,650 square foot building, additional parking, and landscaping. The new
building will contain a public meeting hall, several conference rooms, and will house the offices
for the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The building itself will be
constructed adjacent to the Magistrate Court and the existing Community Development
Building. An additional 100 parking spaces will be added to the Town Hall complex. Ten Class
I bicycle lockers are to be added, which will allow for secure storage of bicycles for employees
who commute to work via that mode. All aspects of the development plan are in conformance
with the El Conquistador PAD. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Plan
for the Oro Valley Town hall Addition.
Paul Nzomo introduced the engineer's report into the record. Main access, to this proposed
addition will be through existing driveway off La Canada Drive. Additionally the site will be
served by a future proposed right in/out driveway off La Canada drive,just north of the Police
station. The proposed addition will generate insignificant traffic. This project site generally
drains from north to south. The site is not impacted by any off site runoff. The commercial use
of the parcel will require 5-year threshold retention to be provided. That is the volumetric
difference of the pre and post 5-year developed flows. The pond shall discharge the 2-year
pre-developed flows to help maintain downstream riparian vegetation. This site is not
designated as being in a Balanced or Critical basin according to Pima County's current map
Dated 2-17-87; hence no detention is required. However, detention basin will be provided to
maintain post-developed runoff to its pre-developed conditions. This detention/ retention
basin will serve as a Master basin for proposed addition and any future expansion. Grading
will be limited to the location of the new building, parking lot and detention/retention basin.
The preliminary grading plans for the proposed addition meets the requirement of chapter 15
of the Zoning Code.
Dino Sakellar, Sakellar Associates, representing the Town was present for questions. Member
Smith commented would this driveway be compatible for the future library. Mr. Sakellar replied
we feel we have a traffic plan adequate for this particular project. Member Glueck commented
that the Town needs a master plan for future Town projects. She felt the Town needed to be
looking ahead. Valerie Feuer suggested that DRB might want to add that as a condition if they
so desired. Valerie commented this project needed to move ahead as staff is cramped for space.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Smith) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager absent)
to recommend approval of OV12-99-5 Oro Valley Town Hall Addition Development Plan
subject to staff conditions and stipulating the Town works on providing a master plan and
traffic study for future projects at this site.
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8
OV12-99-5 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL ADDITION LANDSCAPE PLAN
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The landscape plan presented is in
compliance with the requirements of the OVZCR. The landscaping for this project is focused
on the landscape planters in the parking areas and the area immediately around the new
structure to be constructed. The plan calls for the use of a variety of southwestern vegetation,
including palo verde,mesquite, acacia, ocotillo, red sage, and prickly pear.
As the proposed addition is a 25% or greater expansion of an existing facility, the Town is required to
bring the current parking lot in compliance with the OVZCR. Several landscape planters will be
added to the existing parking areas, as well as the new parking areas, and will feature mesquites, palo
verdes, and fairy dusters. Additional vegetation will also be placed around the new building.
Moreover, Staff has also requested that additional vegetation be placed between one of the new
parking areas and the retention basin to provide additional screening of the drainage structure. The
landscape plan submitted by the applicant is in general compliance with the Town of Oro Valley
General Plan. The plan presented by the applicant is in conformance with Policy 9.1H, "mitigate
negative visual impacts of buildings and parking lots...add aesthetic charm, interest, and character."
Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed Landscape Plan for the Oro Valley Town Hall
Addition.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager absent) to
recommend approval of OV12-99-5 Oro Valley Town Hall Addition Landscape Plan subject to
staff conditions.
PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS:
1. Additional vegetation shall be added to screen the drainage basin from the new parking lot
on the south side of the site
2. The Class I bicycle locker area shall be identified on the landscape plan. A minimum 6'
clearance shall be maintained between the lockers and all vegetation.
3. Add plant type "LF" to the Landscape Schedule on Sheet#2.
4. The signature and seal of the registered landscape architect preparing the plans shall be
placed on all sheets.
STAFF REPORT
Valerie Feuer briefly discussed the issue of building additions that come before the DRB. The
Planning and Zoning Administrator interpreted that staff could make those decisions rather than the
Board. Member Glueck commented she would like to see the plans that are front or side additions.
Valerie reminded the Board of the upcoming Native Plant Salvage Ordnance Workshop on the 20th of
April.
04-13-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Underwood) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager absent) to
adjourn the March 16th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting at 7:30 p.m
Shirley Gay
DRB Clerk
ITEM q a
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 13, 1999
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Dennis Silva,Jr.,Planner I
SUBJECT: OV13-99-27 KAUFMAN & BROAD ARCHITECTURE, THREE MODELS,
VILLAGES OF LA CANADA,BLOCK A
BACKGROUND:
Kaufman and Broad request DRB architectural approval for three models in the Villages of La Canada
Block A subdivision. The preliminary plat for this development is in the DRB phase and the zoning
requirements are discussed below.
The conditional zoning is PAD Medium Density Residential (MDR), the building setbacks for this
subdivision are 20' front, 5' side and 5' rear; the maximum building height is 25'. There are 80 lots
proposed for this 18-acre site.
SUMMARY:
The three models proposed are plans 1579, 2045, and 2166, which are all single-story homes. All three
models are designed in the Santa Barbara Mission style architecture with the differences being in front
façades and size. Plan 1579 has seven(7)different elevations. The difference in each elevation is the front
façade. Architectural elements include a wainscot trim along the front elevation, window popouts along all
elevations, gable vents, popout trim along the garage, and tile roofs. This model is well within the
maximum height requirement of 25'. The optional fireplaces show an approved Oro Valley chimney cap.
Models 2045 and 2166 have similar architectural elements, but are larger pads. Each has five (5) other
elevations which are similar with the exception of the front façade. The models shall illustrate wainscot
trims along the additional elevations.
The applicant will submit a color palette for DRB review and approval at the meeting. The applicant must
ensure the DRB that the colors will be consistent with the existing homes in this subdivision.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE:
The proposed models and elevations provide a variety of housing types, in accordance with General Plan
policy 4.2A.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff finds that the architecture proposed by Kaufman and Broad is consistent with the surrounding
subdivision and we recommend approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit"A".
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit"A"—Conditions of Approval
2. Location Map and Subdivision site plan
F:\OV\OV 13\1999\13-99-27\ARCHDRB.RPT
EXHIBIT"A"
OV13-99-27
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MODELS 1579,2045,and 2166
VILLAGES OF LA CANADA BLOCK A
1. The color scheme must be consistent with the colors of the existing homes in the Villages of La
Canada.
2. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed by a wall to provide visual screening
and noise mitigation, and shall respect all setbacks.
3. A wainscot trim where visible shall be provided along the side elevations of each model to ensure
coherent design and treatment on all four sides.
2
OPT.14'XI2'GOy.PATIO
OPT.10'X8' WV.PATIO
TiL
1_1
I-T-1
omf:
111...
WWI
MIMI_ KITCHEN �,q�NDRY�
F�slaD BREAKFAST
MIMI
11
r MASTER
UND, I i i --- - BEDROOM
...,....,......
11 IC;t
, .._
318'I-GOAT 5 s O
_ ,
5Y5.O,1 FOAM PER STE
MFG.d IGBO RE&. I - .TH
i
O OVERHANG DETAIL =__
L
I I g
11 0 1, i 1
I e
I
t +
FAMILY 1 1 L`
_____-) ,
I Iig
1 1 BATH
I ,�
L_I__ BEDROOM 2
STUCCO 0 '
PARAPET— '
•
i
( T 'HTI
6
STUGC,O 1^RAPPEO Ga.; � - -.-- __
g
oPATIO PARAPET �x\ I PORCH DEN/STUDY
X
GARAGE
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 1579
OPT.F/P
WAR:RV.ORO
VALLEY CHIMNEY
GAP
Concrete Ills Roof i —1
1 1
5
1/ ---I --_
1
1 f T T
1 I
4 ii 1
I STUCCO
i I ■
I x.
i
\ r
Rear Elevation "A" Left Elevation "A"
M ®._
I I tr 4 l
+I• e�fioFar`i• --
I 1 P ' I 1 T� �J
d1 �• b'With
l 1 Co
' STUCCO
I
P 1 _
‘ • r 1 1 I
Front Elevation "A" Right Elevation "A"
4 ,
Kaufrnan f Broad
Plan 1579
file Roof
i T ! TTT T T T ' T T T T T T T' ? - T T T T f T -T T T T T T — T
F [ 1I1 1 1 7 / 1 1 ! ` j I � E I + i
i 1 f t
f t 1 ) i 1 1 t
' i j t • -.The Roof
_.....iiiiiiiiiiiii
t e t t ! t t c 1
a t F
E t ! i I . z t 4{ y t
S 1 . I 1 E t 1 �}gyp/u • F I` AA
5 A AAl1,1tr
t 1 ( +,- I e'PIOPCUT+I'
1 j 1 i rr .
IIIIIIIIFb'
I
I °
L I 1 i
t.+I'
r 1
r
Front Elevation "B" Front Elevation "D"
octets The Roof
N.
nlo Roof
12 I la
4.
, L n
+i 8'P OFYXtf+I' 77 +2' +r +7
d' I 8'PCPAJT+I• n
O' i O' O'— _ d'
j O' ,i i 1
t
j j
G !
+I' +I'
1
Front Elevation "C" Front Elevation "E"
Kaufman ? Broad
Plan 1579
Tile Roof
‘ T T T T T ' T T T T s T T l t , T T . ' T T T i T T T T T T T T T T r . T ' T T T { 7 T T T T T T T j T r
siiimio
' i i
AA
` 0.104000001000001 T "T
IIIFIPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
4 aUfAAAAA AA# AAAAAAAAAAA 0104". AAAAAA ' O. —_
Tie Roof
AA AA 1 i :
.
AAAAAAAIIAAAAAAAAA AAAIRAAAAA0ry AAA
AAAA0100 HgIAAAAAAi1IAAAAAAA1tAMMIR Wo" `�tAA s-
#IAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA � �t1AAAAA ' 011~"A � AAI i i11AAAA/IAAAA AAAAA ' t� A1AAAAAAAAA d wid
AAAAAA AAAAAAIm-' °, ' - 4Ml1IU1A 01104 �1000. - ab
8'mean-d• I2•AOFLur a.
o• r
o 1 j L11L1TL
1
Front Elevation "F" Front Elevation "H"
/ 10'PUE /
110'
\
—BLOGKWALL
:0
Z
111e Roof
___....„,.</..-C.,cciercte
12 :) r- L — — —
0 -1,. , 11
V7-
J
N
cr
NM
, .
+I' IT P°Paft+3• 1 ( �3. t •I• i. -A-I . ®I Le
7 . I
, • , — I ,
Front Elevation "G" 1 - -
X
/ 71' J
I10'
TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufman f Broad
Plan 1579
I
I I
I
II
I
I
MASTER
BEDROOM
t
OPT.::: _ =
iilil1ji PATIO MASTE
BATH /
1
2x8 PANTED I Q Q 01j
11
t,
MD. ra
0 I
3/8'I-GOAT 5 •
BATH 2 BEDROOM 2
5Y5.OMFOAM PER
irgi
MFG.3 IGBO RE&. -£"3:03.6,,U 1 i I tJ 410 I 111 i
I
I 1 I
O OVERHANG DETAIL J 1 r
, r
vr:
- FAMILY rt
!1 —< DEN/STUDY
,
t1
1 1
r 1 —^ , o
r1
u u
(i m .
PARAPE I-
I I\/I
I X I
,/\\,
,,
1`DNS -- /�,-_ -acs _ - �_ I ..
■
- -
12'50. ( i l�� -`� 'x 4 I
I _ o BEDROOM 3
S11 LO 1�6?APPED GOL.I = I - Z �I
i D I •
I KITCHEN ;o g II
y — ---
DE PATIO PARAPET �1� r 0 3 -
PORCH
I
1 z
•
i
DINING
GARAGE
Kaufman & Broad
45' Plan 2045
OPT.F/P
W/APPRY.ORD
VALLEY CHIMNEY
CAP
—' zracinr.rete TI.Root
i
5 `
L=
5
� )_ -T-- -�-, -- 1
rI
opett
r a I /6'
i I
If
i
Rear Elevation "A" Left Elevation "A"
_,..,- r`.—r•Ir-r—T r-*+---,. ,t w X', 'r TIb ROOF
• S = ' t i. ' I - i
. • t i ' 1 . 1 I i i , 3 s
i ! { 1 .1140
1
w 101101l -.
i) L _ +1. J L J l to PCPOJT+I'
'I+ +1'
Front Elevation "A" Right Elevation "A"
45'
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 2 045
Tie Rod i I ! ( i • i ! T i lli: The Roof
.,r AA1R AAAA011141 ► 1
t i 9MA1►:.�I11AAAAAAA INIMM IAAAAAC INIMPI wAA �A AA,►..
AAAAA AAl1/tAAAAAAAA 11AAAAAAi� �fAAAA : . ,:
AMA �� tilt, AAAAAA SAP • �4 -.a�AAIfAAA0�� R*11M A
�A�- �QAAAAA 010-AA AAAAA Ate,.
�� �s AAA 'NM � sstis , t ,� t : t . t i is _ r sc , ,
) `iAAAAAAAAAIMAAAAA� A
L i• 1 L 1 j e•ROFa,r+1' 1 l +1' J L J l re mew+1' 1
O o' to d o
+I' .,,
+p
+F-
i
Front Elevation "B" Front Elevation "D"
•
m Roof
7oncrote Ttle Roof
i 7 T T T 7-7 S i TT7Tri I T 'T T T t -r
l`T r- t l i
•
i s t '- A `''yy.�ys'y.1l. f
' ' t t i
12 ! �' r� ��5 i t I S �� I
l0i \ l 0.
-.41-0-0.0.- _
............. ;..
ro
L VI A. J l J l e'four+�' 1 L 7/ +r i L 1 l a'P POur A.
p1
0.
•
f
' A. F
+r-
I f •� �• f
,.,
, ,
Front Elevation "C" Front Elevation "E"
Kaufrnan fi Broad
Plan 2 045
,-Garree ilb Roof f
iIAAAA IAAAAAAAAAAI1RAAAAIAAAA
A
r1A
.1AA:40,00÷.
/1AARAA/ II A
immilltROWIA *s ►
'4.�AAAAAAAAAAA
MINIIIMININIIIIMIIII
mill r.
ct 1
O•
I
1 o
i A. E ��
Front Elevation "F"
/ 10'P11F /
110'
\—
BL >_
iii_._j——t11-——-4 ,
1 II
u1 jr-- li
1 71
II '
IL
11
f_
IVI r i= �. , ��1
IRI 1` •' y I kr
III 1 1 8J �� ,A I
w _ LL zl WI•
- ; __
— 1
20' J
_, ,__, :e--1 tee.-
t
;
i13'1, A
t I }}€
1
2 j, &ATE
/ / c
110'
TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufrnan & Broad
Plan 2 045
El
OPT.14'XI2'WV.PATIO
r — -- - -
LOPT_10%8' GOV.PATIO
7 _� ;.=._.,-_.yam_, ,�-., ..,� ._...,„,,
a >_�. .�,
r
MASTER
BEDROOM
s
BREAKFAST0
oPr. Q���
...•...,.,......•,.•....•....•..........•,.,.•...,...••.•,.,!.•.0.........0...0,,I ,I I 1011.0, 4.1.qt.I 14 1.1.44
MASTER
0
ill
__ ^� v O BATH
AAINTED 0111011 / MINIM \ ®) ,.__
4 \� FAMILY r
U.N.O. I
II IIix\
II
i'.[ I
I11
J:),3/8'I-COAT 5 S
5Y5.O/1"FOAM PER
MP6.a IG80 REQ. O o KITCHEN 11 n __�
R40 I1wI
OHO I > I
Illl ��
OVERHANG DETAIL j DEN/STUDY
K Mo O
r O o
tI
BATH
__
s
I
DINING
i ,,,........7._,<„,.,
-,-——— a
SMOW
PARAPE !IL! BEDROOM 3 - 1 o ix BEDROOM 2
.Lp
i:I:
n
--
i
12"50 LIVING I' MI:29
STUCCO WRAPPED GOL .....4
k
PATIO PARAPET ,_...__:_.y
o
1
i
/
12 GARAGE
p
Li .
E, \
Kaufman & Broad r 45'
Plan 2166
OPT.F/P
W/APPRV.ORO
data lib Roof1 VALLEY CHIMNEY ---
P 7
:.................... .-------
5
iEt'wide
' I- 4 °� I I �. STUCCO
1 s
1
Front Elevation "A" Left Elevation "A"
, ate'Ma Roof
.omaiiisigapiamiummitamilholuisk....
,.0111ANAA# AA� illAA�0 C.)
o witoHNlIrA11 isimm11t A llulio /4AAA 11~" �
I n +,- 1 i L a'PCPCUT+1. fl 44• J
O' 0' 1 i r
J ,
STUCCO
1
•
+2'
1 1 1
Front Elevation "A" Right Elevation "A"
.! 4$ /
Kaufrnan ? Broad
Plan 2166
I
eta The Roof
• --TeRoof
n 1
A
..�1�AA EMIR•, 5�
12
.....J...al'II=1.'I"..A111l.dill....... .06.41. 12 (0)
1 ��. -- ( C� 1T �l. LOIJ
I -
0
f i i 1 o.
I
ci.
0
IIll I 1 i
1
+r +2' 2' +2' `�` ' +r +2'
\
Front Elevation "B" Front Elevation "D"
eke The Roof
1E0 , • :The Roof
d l2` 5
,�M/NMIA a ice. �/�/R�� Ad
IAAAAAAAAAAAA �'4���I�I� 0 " 4
,,
j t 1 t 1
...„„,„_„______,,,___:_______„
f i i-----1,
0. M
o'
0
J 1 I I °' ,
111 1 I�
+2'+2'
+r1 ' +2' +2'
4 f 1 f 1 I 1 i f 4 i +2, 1 r2, f
Front Elevation "C" Front Elevation "E"
Kaufrnan f Broad
Plan 2166
W
y • .:nb Roof
,
t i _ j s , . . i t sue
.40011111111111WROMMIONM*110401. 1110110~ '.11.0411"..d.' ,,_e__\
« r3'
4
0'
r7
' ---] 1 I
o• i i o' � r o•
II° E r
1
rr +r +2' +2'
Front Elevation "F"
i I('1F
110'
\---
>L0CK ALL
t i '
1
1 �8 a
I — I
11/I
I/\I 13't
1
CS 1
K"7 i
i
MI • t �L t ` !
1
1Ili -L- ' \-i Wil---.14
1 . ,
2-1'
/ I LIE\
110'
TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 2166
• W
ITEM
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 11, 1999
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Dennis Silva, Jr., Planner I
SUBJECT: OV13-99-27 KAUFMAN & BROAD ARCHITECTURE, FOUR MODELS,
VILLAGES OF LA CANADA,BLOCK A
BACKGROUND:
Kaufman and Broad request DRB architectural approval for four models in the Villages of La
Canada Block A subdivision. The preliminary plat for this development is currently being
reviewed by the Town Council and the zoning requirements are discussed below. The architecture
for three single story models was approved by the DRB in April.
The conditional zoning is PAD Medium Density Residential (MDR), the building setbacks for this
subdivision are 20' front, 5' side and 5' rear; the maximum building height is 25'. There are 80
lots proposed for this 18-acre site.
SUMMARY:
The four models proposed are plans 2591, 2838, 2886, and 3094 which are all two-story homes.
All four models are designed in the Santa Barbara Mission style architecture with the differences
being in front façades and size. Each model also illustrates a typical plot plan to ensure that the
proposed architecture will coincide with setback requirements. Plan 2591 has three different
elevations. The difference in each elevation is the front façade. Architectural elements include
window popouts along all elevations, roof dormer vents, popout trim along the garage, and tile
roofs. All four models comply with the maximum height for this subdivision, which is 25 feet.
The optional fireplaces show an approved Oro Valley chimney cap.
Models 2838, 2886, and 3094 have similar architectural elements, but are larger pads. Each has
three (3) other elevations which are similar with the exception of the front façade. The models
shall illustrate wainscot trims along the side elevations. More pop-out windows must be added to
the side elevations in order to coherently design and treat all four sides. The additional
architectural elements and models will be specified in Exhibit"A."
The applicant must ensure the DRB that the colors will be consistent with the existing homes in
this subdivision.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE:
The proposed models and elevations provide a variety of housing types, in accordance with
General Plan policy 4.2A.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff finds that the architecture proposed by Kaufman and Broad is consistent with the
surrounding subdivision and we recommend approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit"A".
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit"A"—Conditions of Approval
2. Location Map and Subdivision site plan
F:\OV\OV 13\1999\13-99-27\ARCHDRB.RPT
2
EXHIBIT "A"
OV13-99-27
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MODELS 2591,2838,2886, & 3094
VILLAGES OF LA CANADA BLOCK A
1. The color scheme must be consistent with the colors of the existing homes in the Villages of
La Canada.
2. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed by a wall to provide visual screening
and noise mitigation, and shall respect all setbacks.
3. Models 2838, 2886, and 3094 shall have a wainscot trim where visible shall be provided
along the side elevations of each model to ensure coherent design and treatment on all four
sides.
4. Model 2886 must have another pop-out window along the right and left elevation in order to
enhance the project.
3
MINUTES OF THE
ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Tuesday May 11th, 1999
CALL TO ORDER: 6:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present
Patti Jo Lewis, Chair
Mary Glueck,Vice Chair
Richard Underwood,Member
Jim Vogelsberg, Member
Verlin Smith,Member
Nancy Mager,Member
Others Present:
Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner
Paul Nzomo, Engineer
Dennis Silva,Planner I
Shirley Gay,Clerk
MOTION: MOVED, Seconded (Smith/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-0 vote (Mager
abstained) to approve the April 13th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting
Minutes as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. OV13-99-32 Elwood Room Addition,Sun City
B. OV13-99-70 Dominion Homes,Naranja Ranch,Model 1750
C. OV13-99-27 Villages of La Canada Models 2591,2838,2886,3084
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Glueck) and carried by a 6-0 to Recommend approval
of Consent Items A thu C subject to Staff conditions.
REGULAR AGENDA
OV12-98-19 CANADA DEL ORO RIVERFRONT PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN
ADDENDUM-SITE LIGHTING-CONTINUED FROM APRIL 13TH, 1999
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2
McGann & Associates has presented a site lighting scheme for the CDO Riverfront Park, which
will include nine different types of light fixtures. While the proposed lighting scheme is in
conformance with the requirements of Article 6-7 of the Town Code, Staff earlier expressed
concerns over the type of lighting proposed and the hours of operation of some of the fixtures.
Staff has met with the lighting consultants hired by the Town, and they have satisfied Staffs
previous concerns. Staff had requested that the Parks & Recreation Administrator review the
lighting scheme proposed by this plan prior to submittal of the Staff report to Council. The Parks
& Recreation Administrator has reviewed the lighting plan, and her comment letter is attached
herewith. The Oro Valley Police Department has also reviewed the proposed lighting plan;
however, they do have some concerns and will meet with the applicant prior to Town Council
review of this project.
Valerie Feuer informed the DRB that the conditions have been met and Staff recommends
approval. Member Smith asked what condition and Valerie replied the concerns that the OVPD
had. The OVPD has met with Parks Administrator and Staff and those concerns have been
resolved. Member Underwood asked Anisley Reeder the Park Administrator did she feel this
would be adequate and compatible for the Town. Ms. Reeder commented that a meeting was
held with the neighborhood, lighting engineers and Don McGann. She felt that a good
compromise had been met between all parties.
Don McGann, McGann and Associates, representing the Town commented that what was being
done with the lighting issue was to balance the issues of Public Safety, esthetics, and how the
lighting is perceived by the adjacent area residents. It was based on photometrics of on field
lighting and still lighting, the four-pole eight lighting fixture system preformed well. General
area lighting, which includes lights around the playground, perimeter walk, and lights around the
parking lot will typically be on at dusk off at park closing time. There are five lights that will be
on from dusk to dawn for security purposes.
Member Smith asked Officer Trujillo was the police department satisfied with the plan.
Officer Trujillo, OVPD, commented the lighting plan is set up with computer control, which the
Police Department will have access to. He felt that a fair compromise had been reached between
all parties for safety purposes.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Glueck) and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend
approval of OV12-98-19 Canada Del Oro Riverfront Park Landscape Plan Addendum -
Site Lighting subject to Staff conditions.
OV13-99-34 CANADA CROSSROADS ARCHITECTURE
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The building height is less than 18 feet
from finished grade, which provides a building of a more neighborhood scale than the
commercial developments on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection. The
building style resembles territorial, using flat roofs of varying heights, portals, and divided pane
windows. Each building has a variety of storefront treatments, with different color and column
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3
elements defining each storefront. Arcades along much of the building front provide shade for
pedestrians and articulation for visual interest.
The storefronts on each end of Building A are painted stucco "Peddle Pusher", a cream color
(which shows up as white on the colored elevations). The storefront with arches and
wainscotting is split face block in a variegated "Santa Rosa." Slump block accents in adobe red
are used at the top of each arch. The remaining storefront is painted stucco "Buff Pill", and the
smooth finish pre-cast concrete columns are colored to match the slump block. The south
elevation, facing the residential area, is painted "peddle pusher" with adobe red slump block
above each of six rear employee entrances. Staff finds that the architect has designed a
commercial center that meets the intent of the neighborhood commercial zone. The arched
elements and colors provide consistency with the existing commercial buildings at the
intersection. A condition is attached to enhance the rear of the buildings by adding parapet trim
in the adobe red. Staff has evaluated the Canada Crossroads architecture against the General Plan
policies and finds that it meets Policy 9.1F, all sides of buildings should be coherently designed
and treated, and Policy 9.1 G, development proposals should incorporate means of reducing the
apparent size and bulk of buildings.
Sean Cullen, representing Burlini/Silberschlag, Ltd. was present for questions and provided
colored visuals. Member Smith asked what is the color of the roof Mr. Cullen replied it would
be the same color as the building,which is a cream color.
Jim Ruhman, 10380 N. Hacienda Hermosa, commented he had no concerns about the color of
the building. He did express his concern about the lighting. Valerie Feuer informed Mr.
Ruhman when the building plans came forward she would inform him so he could look at the
plans. Mr. Ruhman asked when the sidewalk would be in at Lambert Lane. Paul Nzomo the
sidewalk would be put in approximately two years.
Karen Stratman, 1707 N. Placita Caracol, she commented that the architecture looked good but
the reason she came was to voice her concerns about sidewalks on Lambert Lane.
Jerry Roberts, 10280 N. Camino Valdeflores, commented that the majority of the residents he
talked to liked the copper patina that is one the front of the building for signage and hoped that it
would be left that way.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Smith) and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend
approval of OV13-99-34 Canada Crossroads Architecture subject to Staff conditions.
PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS
1. All flat roofs shall be painted to match exterior wall color.
2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened.
3. Signage must comply with OVZCR and will be reviewed separately.
4. Parapet trim in adobe red shall be added to the rear of the buildings.
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4
OV12-99-06 CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CHOLLA
BOULEVARD
Dennis Silva introduced the staff report into the record. The subject parcel is 35.8 acres and its
existing zoning is R1-144 and will consist of a church and parochial school. Twenty-eight acres
will be open space and building coverage will be about one acre. A Conditional Use Permit for
the development of a parochial school on this site is currently being reviewed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. When completed, the parochial school would consist of grades K-8
and have approximately 220 students. Phase I will consist of the Parish Hall Sanctuary,
Reception Wing, Office Wing and Parking. Phase II will consist of a future sanctuary, the
parochial school and more parking.
Paul Nzomo introduced the engineer's report into the record. Access to the site is proposed from
three locations. There will one from Como Road, and two future access points; one from La
Cholla Boulevard and the other one from Limewood Drive. A traffic analysis was prepared for
this project. At full build out, the project is expected to generate 945 trips per day entering and
exiting the site. The commercial use of the parcel will require that 5-year threshold retention be
provided. The site has not been designed as being located in a critical or balanced basin;
therefore, detention for this site will not be required. Grading will only be limited to the
locations of proposed parking lots, buildings and driveways. The Town Council approved the
translational zoning for this property with the condition that no more that 30% of the 36-acre site
may be developed, which meets the intent of the UGB. The development plan complies with this
Town Council condition. Staff has reviewed the request for a development plan for this parcel
and recommends approval.
Valerie Feuer stated she had a condition that needed to be added. The parochial school will be
included in phase two only if the Conditional Use Permit is approved by the Town.
Member Vogelsberg commented that the summary reads that the future alignment of La Cholla
will encroach on the property, who would assume the cost of the alignment. Mr. Nzomo replied
that they are working with PAG to get funding for that project.
Charlie Hulsey, WLB Group, representing the Church of the Apostles stated there where no
problems with Staff conditions, he was available for questions. Member Glueck asked what the
phasing time would be. Mr. Hulsey replied that depends on the contributions to the church.
Member Glueck also questioned how the neighbors felt. Mr. Hulsey stated there are mixed
emotions about a church coming into that area. But with the amount of buffer area it can't be
seen from the road.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Glueck) and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend
approval of OV12-99-06 Church of the Apostles Development Plan, Located on the
Northwest Corner of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard subject to Staff conditions.
PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS:
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5
1. The development plan shall be revised to include pedestrian walkways within the parking
lots that would lead to pedestrian crossing of the main drive aisle at points midway
between the parking area entrances. This will lead to a more safe and orderly crossing of
the main drive aisle. It would reduce congestion at the parking lot access points and
improve safety.
2. The pick-up/drop-off area along the drive aisle north of the school shall be increased from
80 feet in length to 200 feet long.
3. An off-site watershed map should be provided.
4. A hydraulic analysis of the sheetflow affecting the western portion of the site shall be
provided (i.e. cross-section(s) and hydraulic rating).
5. The remaining portion of Como Drive and Limewood Drive should be paved with Phase
II of this development plan.
6. The conveyor channel at section AA is shown to have 2:1 side slopes with hand-
placed/dumped riprap. Rock riprap lined channels should have side slopes no steeper
than 3:1 when using the City of Tucson Standards Manual for rock sizing.The side slopes
should either be modified to reflect 3:1 steepness or a riprap stability analysis should be
provided to demonstrate the adequacy of the rock size.
7. More details shall be provided for the proposed outlet weir structures associated with the
retention basin at CP 4.3. This shall include demonstrating that the structure has
adequate capacity to convey the 100-year flow and that adequate erosion protection is
provided at the outlet.
8. The maximum ponding depth within the retention basin should be demonstrated and be
in compliance with the depth/ side slope requirements of the Stormwater Detention /
Retention Manual. The method of disposal of the retained runoff should be stated (I.e.
infiltration\bleeder pipe). The report should also provide calculations,which demonstrate
that the basin will drain within the maximum drain-time specified within the Stormwater
Detention/Retention Manual.
9. The design discharge of 72 cfs that was used for the channel at sec. AA should be
documented. This discharge value is not listed within the Table of 100-year Post-
development discharges.
10. Details shall be provided relating to the outlet points of drainage from the paved parking
areas (i.e. depressed curbs,erosion protection, etc.)
11. Hydraulic analysis should be provided for the at-grade crossing at CP 4.3 and CP 2.4,
which demonstrate all-weather access and appropriate erosion control.
12. A hydraulic analysis should be provided for the proposed 24"CMP at CP 4.7.
13. A revised and detailed drainage report is required addressing all drainage report
comments.
14. Improvement plans for Deceleration lane on Tangerine Road shall be submitted to Public
works for review and approval prior to obtaining a grading permit.
15. Delineate the watershed limits for each concentration point on the drainage report
development plan exhibit.
16. Delineate the limits of sheet flow, its depth and its hydraulic ratings on the development
plan.
17. Call out pre/post- developed water surface elevation cross-section at 100' interval for the
floodplain limits at the watershed for CP 2.
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6
18. The median for the driveway off Como Road and La Cholla Blvd. shall not extend into
R/W. please correct.
19. Delineate the limits for the Retention basin area and call out its ponding depth and slopes
on the development plan.
20. Call out in/out let elevations for all proposed storm drain pipes.
21. Provide a typical cross section for handicap parking space.
22. Provide documentation regarding the legal right of the church to have access over Como
Road and Limewood Drive.
23. Provide clear and legible copies of documents recorded in Docket 495,page 262.
Improvements to Limewood Drive need to be reviewed and approved by Pima
County Transportation Department.
24. In the location map, delete "Pima County" listed above the Naranja Ranch I
subdivision. That parcel is located within the Town of Oro Valley.
25. The following development standards shall be listed in the general notes of this
development plan:
➢ Setbacks: Front—50', Side—20', Rear—50'.
➢ No building shall exceed 25 feet in height. Steeples, spires, towers, and
architectural elements may be permitted up to 34 feet in height. Religious
symbols placed atop such structures are not included in the calculation of
building height, but are limited to a maximum height of 5 feet.
➢ No more than 30% of the 36-acre site may be developed, which will meet the
intent of the UGB.
26. Grading limits should be revised to reflect the phasing of this project.
27. Parochial school will be included in phase two only if the Conditional Use Permit
is approved by the Town
OV12-99-06 CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES LANDSCAPE PLAN, LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD
Dennis Silva introduced the staff report into the record. The subject parcel is located within the
newly annexed area of the Town known as La Cholla/Tangerine. The open space will be
preserved in its natural state, which will provide for a adequate buffer between the adjacent
properties, and the developed area will be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover. In
addition, a number of Palo Verde trees will be preserved in place in and around the parking area.
The parking lot islands will be landscaped as well as the perimeter of the developed area. There
will also be landscaping along the driveways and the proposed layout of the church and parochial
school. Staff has reviewed the request for a landscape plan for this parcel and recommends
approval.
Mr. Vint, architect for Church of the Apostles, was present for questions. Member Underwood
asked Mr. Vint what were they trying to accomplish with this landscape plan. Mr. Vint replied
they are trying to make it a sanctuary around the church and enhance it with a trail. Member
Glueck asked Member Underwood if he had any suggestions to replace the Scarlet Betony.
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7
Member Underwood commented he felt the Scarlet Betony would be okay provided it was on an
irrigation system. If it doesn't get water it will go dormant, but he felt it would be okay since
there wasn't that many of them.
MOTION: Moved, seconded Underwood/Mager and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend
approval of OV12-99-06 Church of the Apostles Landscape Plan, Located on the Northwest
Corner of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard subject to staff conditions.
PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS:
1. The Stachys Coccinea/Scarlet Betony must be substituted with another plant since it
may require substantial water. The plants used in the landscape plan must de drought
tolerant.
2. Per Section 14-207, all graded areas not landscaped, stabilized or developed upon
expiration of the grading permit shall be revegetated in conformance with the following
standards within 30 days of expiration. The treatment of all graded areas shall require
the approval of the Development Review Board.
PREVIEW: RANCHO VISTOSO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARCHITECUTRE
REPORT
Amphitheatre School District is planning to build a new elementary school on the eastside of
Woodburne Avenue south of Moore Road. The school is scheduled to open in July 2000.
Dr. Cathy Esposito, Associate Superintendent Amphi School District in charge of the
project. She complimented Staff for working so well with her.
Ron Epley, Architect representing Amphi School District presented to the DRB colored visuals
to give them an idea of how the school would look. The site is 9.4 acres, he pointed out where
the multipurpose auditorium would be, where bus drop off and pick up would be and other
locations. Mr. Epley also provided a floor plan of the school.
Member Underwood questioned if there would be enough playground for the number of
students they would have. Dr. Esposito commented yes there would be, but there is talk of the
Town possibly donating the five acre common area which would give more space for
playgrounds. Member Glueck agreed more area is needed for playground and possibly moving
the school further away from residential area. Member Mager asked if the Town donates the
common area to the school, would the public be able to use the park area.
Wayne Wiant, 76 E Marvel Canyon Road, commented he didn't want the school close to the
residents and asked that the Board to give the same consideration to the residents in Copper
Creek. Perhaps a barrier could be set up between the school and the residence.
Fran LaSala, Council Member commented this is a great opportunity to build a school in Oro
Valley that we can be a part of. Lets make it the best school that we can build. He agreed the
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8
9.4 acres is not enough space and would support giving the five acres to the school district. He
stated Council has made a commitment to work with Amphi School. This is a good
opportunity for the Town, Vistoso Partners and Amphi School to work together but it would
take cooperation on all parts.
Member Mager asked if the five acres is given to the school would it affect parking.
Mr. Eply commented that more than adequate parking would be available.
Valerie Feuer commented that this is a fast moving plan, Council will discuss giving the land to
the school at the next Council Meeting. Member Glueck asked would there be a wall around the
school and suggested making the school blend in with the neighborhood.
Dr. Esposito commented she appreciated input from the DRB and that there will be Focus groups
to get input from the neighbors as they want community involvement to make this a great school.
OV13-99-25 THE INN AT VISTOSO ARCHITECTURE
Valerie Feuer introduced the staff report into the record. The subject property is bounded by
Rancho Vistoso Blvd. on the east, Vistoso Highlands Drive on the south, and the Club at Vistoso
golf course on the west and north. The development plan and landscape plan for this project
were reviewed and recommended for approval by DRB on March 16, 1999. The building design
is a unique blend of southwest architecture with a Vistoso theme. Vistoso stone veneer is used as
a major exterior wall element in the main house and as accents on the casitas, and the entry tower
at the corner of Vistoso Highlands Drive and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. is echoed by the hotel entry
tower. Stucco wall colors will be "La Grand" brown for the field color and "Brazen" beige for
the accent. The variety of roof heights in the main building as well as the casita style guest
rooms help minimize the apparent size and bulk of the buildings. The building height of the
main building is 31 feet, which is allowed by the PAD. The entry tower is 39 feet high, which is
allowed to exceed the building by OVZCR. A PAD amendment was approved by Town Council
on March 17, 1999 allowing the height limitation to be exceeded on specific casita buildings.
Staff has evaluated the Inn at Vistoso architecture against the General Plan policies and finds that
it meets Policy 9.1F, all sides of buildings should be coherently designed and treated, and Policy
9.1G, development proposals should incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of
buildings. Staff recommends approval.
James Barg, architect representing the Raddison Group was available for questions.
Member Glueck asked about the inside of the main entry. What will be the focus point. Mr. Barg
commented that there would be a series of hanging lighting fixtures. Member Smith commented
about the parking spaces would there be enough. Valerie Feuer commented that overflow
parking would be provided at the Golf Club which is adjacent to the Raddison.
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Mager/Smith) and carried by a 6-0 vote to recommend
approval of OV13-99-25 The inn at Vistoso Architecture subject to Staff conditions.
PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS:
1. All chimneys shall have an Oro Valley approved chimney cap.
2. All flat roofs shall be painted to match exterior wall color.
3. All mechanical equipment shall be screened.
4. Signage must comply with Rancho Vistoso sign guidelines and will be reviewed separately.
OV13-99-33 FRY'S FOOD AND DRUG - WALL SIGN - LOCATED AT THE CORNER
OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CANADA DRIVE
In the spring of 1999,the Fry's supermarket chain acquired the Smith's supermarket store at the
corner of La Canada&Lambert Lane. Pearson's,representing the Fry's supermarket chain,requests
DRB approval of a permanent wall sign to replace the current"Smith's"sign located on the front
façade of the building.
The applicant first submitted an application for a wall sign and monument sign,with both signs
utilizing Fry's corporate red color. The DRB Agenda Committee denied the application on the
grounds that it was not complementary and consistent with the copper patina signage used
throughout the commercial center.The applicant then submitted a revised application for the
monument sign with copper patina lettering,which was approved, and requested that the red wall
sign be reviewed by all members of the DRB. The proposed wall sign is in conformance with the
OVZCR requirements for wall signs. The proposed sign will consist of individual reverse pan
channel lettering,painted a Mattews#42-212 color, also know as"scarlet red". The wall sign will
be halo illuminated utilizing a white neon lighting system mounted within the individual letters.
The sign itself will consist of an upper row of 4' high letters 21' long, forming the word"Fry's",
and a lower row of letters 1' high and 11'2 1/2"long forming the words"Food&Drug". The total
square footage of the sign is 96 square feet. Staff finds the signage,as presented,to be inconsistent
with the Town's General Plan Policy regarding community design,which states that the Town
should"ensure that the built environment is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the natural
surroundings"and, to accomplish this,"Earth tone colors and masonry/tile materials are strongly
preferred".
All sign colors are permitted, except fluorescent or iridescent. However, sign colors for permanent
signs shall utilize complementary and consistent color schemes subject to approval by the DRB
Agenda Committee or the DRB. Staff recommends that DRB not approve the red signage, and
recommend copper patina lettering to maintain conformance with the existing signage in this
commercial center.
Jerry Stutler, representing Fry's, commented after much consideration he has withdrawn his
application and will resubmit the application with revised colors to the Agenda Committee.
05-11-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10
STAFF REPORT
Valerie Feuer briefly discussed the design guidelines that were approved by Town Council,
copies would be available as soon as they were printed. She informed the Board that a lot of big
projects were up coming things will be getting busy. In June there will be a site tour of Lambert
Lane and La Canada the commercial corner.
MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Underwood) and carried by a 6-0 vote to adjourn the
May 11th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting at 8:45 p.m
Shirley Gay
DRB Clerk
OPT.14'x12' WV.PATIO
OPT.IO'x8'WV.PATIO I
0111011 ;
MASTER ,
' BATH i �, ' I I —
r tiinitn11us ,���
,..., q 0 * A
_.,_,_k„,
1 , -=
2x8 PAINTED MASTER Ir. FAMILY { °
FAtSIA BEDROOM -_ - KITCHEN ;_,�
uxo. /1-1 It
x/ OPT.F/F' IL
A
5Y5.ON FOAM PER
I
•
,,,%_ �> �> 1
MFG.t ICBO R G. l - ® ♦ x
= am J 0
j� it ;I I I I I I I OiiI�BO--- Q O
:___).
\/ 11:
I I I I I I I l i 1 i
d 1
C) OVERHANG DETAIL 1 I I I BATH 2 I I I I I i �-
[J-1: II \ I I I I I •
I \ I I I I I I ' \ �•'
WI
1 I 0 -
15-
L._______
a
BEDROOM 2 DINING 0
PARAPE
GAMEROOM
yj
STUGC� �'!
s Y. �,__ .v., ,.. , 1 3 GARAGE
i II
12'50. 1 E
sn)cco D GOL. I = 1� —
! BEDROOM 4 s. 1
BEDROOM 3 = LIVING ..„,
L 3111..., .„,
i __
5 =
}, FOPATIOPARAPETF ) ,....
-- _
\ PORCH \ /
XI IX
Li
I
I
58'-0'
Kaufrnan ? B roa
Plan 2591
z—Concrete Txe Roof
ri ,
. ,, ,
, Pctpcut
j 11 ___11 j
' I 1I -_ -
I11
r b'.ide
j i .1'
L 1 t
4
0111 12
'I FL
1 1
1 l
► ---
Rear Elevation "A" Right Elevation "A"
oPr.F,IP
WAPPRV.ORo
VALLEY GAMEY
GAP
:MIL IL t i i-I i ill 1 , s , I , ' t i t i : : . , . : 1 t • s 1 : ; : • : i 1 , : t . 1
AAAIRMN4AAA1 #AAA f1AAAAl1AA1MA MINI
f r • l iA tIRAAAAtM O4*Ok k0$HI IAtAAAAAIR AIR/t�AAAAAA AI�II/1AAA • I I 412
? i - t 1_, i , t t
4A'‘i40111 AAAwA +A AAAAJIiiiiiiAiiii ,
AMAIAAM11
+2' 1 J 1 r
rii.
1 ( I I
+I' d' p' `
�Q
1 +2' •I C +2' 1 ( I
+I'. .
l _ +r l f E_T
a
b'►brae
o +1'
Front Elevation "A" Left Elevation "A"
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 2591
..�1AMtAAAAA�A0..
12 A�A�►..tl�..� • •rn6 Roof
4� lam,;. . �14— ..
Zi
4' I a ,; t'
i i i N. 44.
1 1
Ir
1 n A. -
Front Elevation "B"
/ FIE i.
Ilo'
•
JEoO:NALL
al
In
,...,,.. %ltt�, , • Tie Roof
t—
c,�
A �, 11A MA..�
A/t!iui AAAM1tr.,. --
44 . !OIMMI1/tAR... AAAAAAAAAA1IAAAA*..► t-- i — — ——�
!itAAAAAAAAAAAAA
-,.,itA/MAIMIMAA► tAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAAI1AARr., a, — — _
0 I
la CT
.
0.
! �3 /
',.ir ---, n----.
'�. " GATE
C--- II
.1! m
1 Front Elevation "C"
/ zr ‘ no'
TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufman ? Broad
Plan 2591
7
OPT.105c8'WV.PATIO
i
I
.10
1
�tt �jj ]11111111
r---- 1 —� l ff j ti
1 \
►� s .4I BREAKFAST
2x8 PRINTED � �, :�...: I f r= - ,;_ _
....,,„,.,,,.._______.... .._
...
...._...._ .
2x&FAG A
__ _ _
, .
URO. i 4
1 MASTER ! 1
3 �� . FAMILY
3/8'MOAT s a I I BEDROOM ._ _
sYs.Cr FOAM PER I LAUNDRY -I r
MFG.1IGBD REO. g I I f GAMEROOM i� :$x\ill a
1 z s IL—-Il 1 r—i---
OVERHANG DETAIL i ' I KITCHEN FR,,, L
0 o o I I �9-
� " i lobo IIi
MASTE21,
R
.1 / ,,- f.4.yam �- �- -I. .. ___ T.FiP
S R .
BATH 1 v
QQ PARAPE _STUCCO R it__.1 t i IT1 ri: _ # v
R
1 I
piilIi
E0\ 0 i c)
8 a
BATH 2 y
12 sQ.
i
5T iK.C.OAPf�D COL. —
BEDROOM 3 it LIVING
BEDROOM 2
OPATIO PARAPET p
2 I �
GARAGE
1 PORCH
Jx
BEDROOM 4 . ><;;\
1 1
R.
i - -H
38'
Kaufrnan f Broad
Plan 2838
J
Cora*.The Roof
r
M
araoF ooRrs�
'C I t
1 i
C
,, J
R r-i -
1 i
1 tt
Rear Elevation "A"
Right Elevation "A"
OPT.F/P
W/APPRV.ORO
• - Tie Roof VALLEY CHIMNEY
GAP
\ H -1
12 ,.e�!!10'#A11�111tA 1101110111010010010o,
4 , r0040001AAAAAAIIA000400IAA/ ►. vErr
.,gAA1Rl1iA1lAAAAAARA41111 �,i 11t r,,
.,0eAAAAAAAAIIrAAAA011111/11" aaldll a110 IAAAAAA01114., I I
.,.�fIAA AA110114 MIAAAAAAAM 1 #RAAAAAIAIAAAAAAA010111 AAIR...
.0411WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiAAAAAAAAAAAMMORAAAAAAAAAAAOft, ,
i I 1
/ \
'v
l
A!M I 1 1 sTLYCo
(. I l 8'a yr+r ) try - '►rda� 1
•
t --- (
1 ' r I t
Front Elevation "A" Left Elevation "A"
x
Kaufrnan & Broad Plan 2838
s
Tie Roof
�— s i s a I i i s ; : } ' s I t i 7
i i
I I i t i I s s • ! i I if 1
MilI
0101 + i I i , j i T T
I i , j ; I ' AA E ', f , i i
i
\_ r
•
I i +2•
N [—_
+r 'I 0' r
a' +z. LI +1. 1
1 e'femur+I' 1
a.
+I. +r
\ 1 1 ■ ) ) r
Front Elevation "B"
/ 10'RW
110'
\--
7
BLOGKKALL
r
it
• - TYe Roof
.�11{11r1wil•1-..100111114110~.1ri1r�1� R�. , 1
A.�IrRAAAAtAA wsA1M' M
AAftAA1tA1RAAAAAAi,�AAAAIO,. 1, MI'Ilr
N�A 111100AAdiAAA10.4i11AAAAA AAA►. = 33'-6't
!,�AAAAAAAAAA#AAA►�411k**** AA 0 .. Et i
ltIlle AAi1►AAA %.i11 AAAAA billt.iAAAA �..
it it i . ;tom A I I 7 0
Jr x/ as \ t F 7 N I
/ l r r 1 J 'I, I IJ I
ui-
MI , !
nl ,
l, NIIIIR1 _
' I ao--to. -x-T—
._ , ,
_ ., -,
O.
4r
...1MMO wi11t#t II 1I
_,,iA1AAAAAAAAAAAAAIIAAAA�A1AA 20' f
` J r-- / l e•POP=+I' j 11
•
a•
l�
'
21
/ 3' (
+I' M 6ATF
Front Elevation "C"
110'
TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufman &? Broa
Plan 2838
OPT.12'x13'-6"GOV.PATIO
1
OPT.8k13'-6'GOV.PATIO
7
45'
j /
101 I
i
.0kw) ;ititititiiffla 1
i ......_ __
f, -
BREAKFAST
ir
2x8 PAWED
FAGSIA u.N.o.ii„„.„;
__ _-) $0 - DEN/STUDY 1
3/8"1-GOAT 5 •
BEDROOM 2 MASTER BEDROOM FAMILY
E1D k.,.
BATH -
I Al
5Y5.0/1 FOAM PER
MF6.d IG80 REQ.
F
C It
S
ATH '' 11`'\ 7 II
OVERHANG DETAIL : Cy :
1
o
1 11
,i3
'�� E.,t
KITCHEN �F1i i T
SIkM/ ►�I I ty
)\/PARR' ili
-4..- s-t ____-
---- Q$
•
i
X I 1
12'5Q.—� ! BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4 LIVING i,\i I
h
STUGGO VIRAPPED GOL., 1 fr w
i I X a inn
GAMEROOM rt
in
DINING i
Z
2 PATIO PARAPET /, ‘
J
1 . _
.-7,,:,
�-t ---- t- //\\ i PORCH YI,
O
„_
,,
,==,
[-- -I I- -I 5- ....,____ _____11 L_
1\ F.
li
GARAGE
1 ft
rt:
4i
F,
L_ — _J _ :
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 2886
1
I OPT.F/P
Concrete life aaoF WJAPPRV.ORO /
' VALLEY CHIMNEY /
1 GAP . 41010F1.17- ----__
' 1
H
- ll' ,
I i
'
n ,..._,
I , ,, pomt
6.,,� sneco5T T 4
._ .
, _
, i
r Left Elevation "A"
Rear Elevation "A"
/!,ate Tile
Roof
.0. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
,e40lAA AfM1MAAAA11411111AAAA .
L M• 1 1. - 1 i= -7+
o•
if. : t
1I i -
f f i ,' . i * \ al _
1 - .T
Ge
H H
II II
-' '- - . -. .+1* . I ---FT
,Front Elevation "A" Right Elevation "A"
451 r
Kaufman &? Broa
Plan 2886
•
, AAA,,oN.'no , 0 , fir, .
AAAAA/V `
. = -a-- _ , i j i AAA .NIAAA �, �U�1A� ,
.r L. 1,-- , ]tom '..'r
r r 11 , ,
12
I 4
, ----r-,-- -4-,---4-4-4--..' . -------"TA'
o.
I .
I ' I .i. j
, 44.
i ,
Front Elevation "B"
/ 10'FW /
110'
\--BLOGKWALL
4 . . +, 1 x
COC.Tl E Re2CF am,
<01011104404.41161111141
,AMOUIMINUMMIMIf �;
... ArAA ►,�A0A .•. iURA -�
1\/1 'I
A0tOMIO•`*�A1�RAAA 1RA�0 #MAAAAftItAAAA# hi.,- I>f I �/<sAAAAAAAA UNIUKI AAAAAAAAA111�AAAAAI�+�iU4tAAAAAAAA .0AI4AAA MIAAAAAAAAAAR0,.. I \I /�
-----r-- ,
',z
0 • \/1
U' XI
0 I
..0MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAAL,�.,-....,,.....,.,
o• b11A�lAAAAAAArIlAAA AAAAR►.: A WWW1111M 1..............„.„
..
, __
/ /
_ , ,
sm
1,0.
0. 0. 1 ��
®12 3,
27' - \ $'-8't
Front Elevation "C" '
no.
TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 2886
r
OPT.12k12'GOV.PATIO
1
OPT.'Orb'GOV.PATIO t
LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE ,�.- - ,;�zu I
-1 OPT.me Gov.PATIO ,-
1
f I
1 1 I
11
,1 BREAKFAST r
1 1
P mama
Co
raj,,
PAINTfl? OPT.F/P OPT_I^h' 1°i
Li FACSIA _ __ _ `� MASTER
i f' i FAMILY o BEDROOM
MD. E 1 ta-- 3 i� 1 i 1�1
1 1 -1 �� 1 ry
BEDROOM 4 GAMEROOM LIBRARY 1 I �y i i`i ` '
1 L.>�`_ pal �4�
3/8"I-GOATS • i _i__ __�_� •KITCHEN i10
151'5..f6 On'FOAM PER
1�S.d IGEO REQ 1
t
REF
I
OVERHANG DETAIL -
.
- E '
1 I 0
Clil r-
r �,,(lea.;, % s I Ix MASTER 1
BATH
BEDROOM 2
P ,i 7:0,
TUGC.OF_ .gayit
1 DINING
-11
[1:1)
`-.► BEDROOM 3 i _ g � LAUNDRYil-
1 I I O 7 r 1r;
BATH2 1 i ==
It®
I I .
,
12'5 . I
STUGC 0 WRAPPED WI_i _
�_ ? lilli -
X I I X \/ I 1 \/ i
,,\ /
1 PORCH /�\
® PATIOPARAPET �] — a�
GARAGE
e
1•■
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 30
r
RCAF DCi043R
12
YLNT
TTm
t
1 r
I j
/
lib..I ,
l
I
I
i
Rear Elevation "A" Right Elevation "A"
OPT.F/P
WAPPRV.ORO
VALLEY CHIMNEY
GAP
\ 4 _ __ . :.Tile Roof
4 12 2 ' '4*MAAl1A AA�A�AAAAAAAAAl�Us� ..
��ivAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA �.. � —
® i� •iA,AAar�AA01AAAAA0AAAAAAAAAAA#1.ft...
/ �r1AMMAlARAAM�AAgMAMAAftMA... =
® \_ -la 1
J li J
.r
rinal
f V
al 12
ry T, 4 17...tAAAM1AAAMR._..
t f ' cr
..,1AAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAr,..
U [ �.R: .. ; �_-
`'' 'r-I_—��—T S111000sYsi81
1J /b'
wide
. .,
1` r
4' • wil —
Front Elevation "A" Left Elevation "A"
/ 45'-01
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 30 4
,
.IMAM r. i ' ; i , t • TILE , -,
�.sf# AIIM A !►,�idrOWLsAMAM • .
n _.,M1AAAl1/010!M AMAAAIwi.1A11111AllAAAA Ate,_
tot .0101W'
NMIr i 1 A . �r
0
t.
>i 4 r O' , 11
ce
•
-------
I ��
Front Elevation "B"
/ 10'RE
HO'
\--
BL0GKWa-
C
] LL_1J
Ir ? f-,171 ,
1
ti,
,- I DI
rc 1 I � I
,[E Bali mi lAolialu i ukowio€11AAtl swilmoI I stein 6_,<,
.tM1R#ft1tAA0li�#AMA t
.4lillillllAltAl0100"" ``r1,0146 M 4;c Tu.E • t 1 '',
..>rL______LL __I
sAAMAAirIAAA� r`ll ''�AIAMAIMM#AAM
.�A11111001/..
0AAAAI11AAR"""�~ `� A'�MMAA�#�111AAAMAAI 44110~AM1AliO4.,. _< 27-4'
r- j cr In 1 0„.
- _.__. ,
0 ,..,.,_,..._...._,, _.„
, 1 i 14 '..
1 ) 1 Mk i 0 e 1 IMX
timmomm■ 1, 1 1fin'
; E
o• 6 - 1 . .. - . i e 6 6i. i
1 I
/ GAT:\
• �,f r o
FT" : , ,.;I y .. -..x., ::::,:.. .,..-:-.._
1 I
, . . .a. . ,
no,
Front Elevation "C" TYPICAL PLOT PLAN
Kaufman & Broad
Plan 3094