Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
OV100607
�1 . . ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-06-07 Hearing Date: July 25, 2006 Agenda Item No.: 2 Prepared By: Patty Hayes,Zoning Inspector REQUEST: Copper Stone Development LLC, request for variance from the allowed building height of 25', to allow 34' in height in an R-S zone. Subject Property: (parcels #225-11-1970; 225-11-1980; 225- 11-1990) located on the west side of Oracle, between Hardy and Calle Concordia, Oro Valley,AZ, 85704 REQUEST SPECIFICS: The specific request is to increase the building height from the allowed 25' in an RS zone to 34'. The applicant proposes to build two office buildings,both two story. NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified by mail of this hearing. The property is posted with a notice of hearing and the hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial. Staff has received, via the applicant, four letters in support of this request. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: On-site: Vacant property-zoned R-S South: Suntree Village apartments—zoned R6 East: Across Oracle Road—zoned R-S West: Shadow Mountain Estates—zoned R1-36 North: Catalina Crossing apartments—zoned R-S SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property consists of three rectangular shaped vacant parcels totaling three acres within the Shadow Mountain Estates subdivision. The property was incorporated as part of the 1974 original Town limits. The west property lines border a 20' alley and a R1-36 zoned subdivision platted in Pima County in 1959. The south property line borders an apartment complex platted in Pima County in 1984 and then annexed by Oro Valley in 1984. The north property line borders an apartment complex built in 1984 under Pima County standards. SUMMARY: Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows a 25' building height which may be limited by the Development Review Board and Town Council to one story when abutting an R1 district per OVZCR section 23.7.C.4. • The applicant submitted a concept plan to the Development Review Board (DRB) for the June 13, 2006 meeting for guidance regarding the one story vs. two story issue. • The DRB supported allowing the two story building. See attached minutes. • The applicant states they contacted neighbors regarding the height variance. • The apartments abutting the south property line are two story. • The apartments abutting the north property line are three story. The first floor is partially at basement level. • The western property line abuts 20' alley and single family single story subdivision. • The site slopes down more than 20' from Oracle Road to the western property line. • The applicant proposes to build the buildings with a finished floor elevation 16' below Oracle Road and terrace the parking. • An increase in building height does not increase the allowable development FAR. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO, Neighborhood Commercial/Office and HDR, high density residential. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding properties. • In summary, the proposed two story office complex is allowed in the R-S district, meet other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. The Board of Adjustment must consider the following findings in making its decision: A. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district; and B. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; and C. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and D. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; and E. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. Please see the applicant's response to the Board of Adjustment findings (Attachment A and B). • CONCLUSION: Staff analysis of the variance to allow the proposed office development located on Oracle Road is that the required findings are met. In particular, the proposed two- story office development will fit into and should not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, or deny] OV 10-06-07, a request for variance to: 1. Exceed the 25' building height by 9' to allow total height of 34'. ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA application 2. Location and Concept Plan 3. OVZCR attachments F:\ov\ov10\2006\10-06-07\REPORT.doc arch More, FAI Planning and Zoning Administrator . OWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 PHONE: 229-4800 FAX: 742-1022 RECEIPT ****************************************************************************** REFERENCE NUMBER: OV1006-07 RECEIPT #06P00189 SITE ADDRESS: TAXCODE: 225-11-1970 DATE: 04/27/2006 TIME: 12:03 PM COMP TYPE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TYPE: ZV DESCRIPTION: COPPER STONE PROFESSIONAL CENTER-HEIGHT VARIANCE APPLICANT: COPPER STONE DEVELOPMENT OWNER: THOMAS CAM Notation: HEIGHT VARIANCE Receipt By:DRM ******************************************************************************************* DRM PAID BY: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 1152 600 . 00 TOTAL: 600.00 FEES PAID: Description Account Code Current Pmts Board Of Adjustment 001-000-408 600.00 TOTAL: 600.00 Account#: Ending Balance: $ ... APR 2 i lift Olik ,, LE,Aa?off TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION , . t-:'► 1.�, i 11,000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 A,, %i Phone: (520)229--4800 Fax:(520)742-1022 �ouNDED'�9�� BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR: X Zoning Variance Note: Submittals are due by noon _Zoning Interpretation _Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: 0 Ul o-G(o-c 7 NATURE OF REQUEST: ____Eacy_f_aLSILLLDI LEG 1--1-•ei7H--r- 6 Th-ALA -..5_,..zyL) , _____ APPLICANT: 1"1 1y _ 1_7- C- PHONE: 7W- - 7, FAX: 4 - Atm-s d 39 ADDRESS: 5 r o OWNER: 3 Z 7 0 fri LAAIL L.L C; ADDRESS:____ o_ I_ J___1ST t/. 1 Tf Z. /AT. i,tt>D,��l A S S 71 E, W 7- s 1/35- or to c Ob. PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: i J & P 16 Z.Z. 1 I / 70 lfAaat Moult r Ai 8'5 rAl ,5attri! 101, PARCEL#:n-51 I I ga LEGAL DESCRIPTION: zit t RRo �5�1`( �►nGfi CURRENT ZONING.: s APPLICABLE FEE: t Apa, b ATTACHMENTS:- E S/ 1,C401)L.P l i iti 1 CPUE m 5/ L'oar ES l or P_mr ./W) 15 FL.dve_ ) oerz/ice I E Lev olio'JSJ ewe? SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE Er"--no - - 2'‘V---- 4/07/o/„. D avt M 1fktf_,cH i. • Exhibit A SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE t .��m , 2 Section 21.6 I Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) F '' A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district? Response to item 1: Parcel numbers 225111970, 22511980, & 225111990 know as "Property" fronts Oracle Road, which is a major arterial access. This Property lends itself to special circumstances. The property located to the north is a 3 story apartment complex. The property located to the south is a 2 story apartment complex. Neither these properties, nor their inherent zonings, require buffering, and the subject Properties use will be consistent with intent of the RS zoning. The final property to the west (back) is a single family residence which is screened by tall, dense, mature trees along with an easement. Neither the views nor use of this property shall be inhibited. The increase in the height from 25' to 34' will have no affect on the buffering effect of the property and will not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding properties. The increase in height from 25' to 34' will also have no effect on the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the surrounding properties. The granting of this variance by the Board would not be detrimental to the buffering this zoning is to provide. Since the Property drops off 27' from the NE corner to the SW corner, and the zoning allows for a 0.28 FAR if all of the building is located behind the halfway line from the front of the property, there is not enough visibility from Oracle Road for a commercial building. Because of the FAR and the lack of depth of the property, this requires a 2 story structure which allows a footprint small enough to still provide the required 36% landscape area. There are no other R-S 2 story office buildings in the vicinity for a comparison to be made. 4/27/2006 Page 1 of 4 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE Section 21.6 I Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that were not self imposed or created by the owner/ applicant? Response to item 2: The Owner has not created any special circumstances. This property complies with R-S Zoning and is a buffer to the residential district to the west. The R-S zoning which allows General Office and/or Medical buildings but limits the height to 25' imposes restrictive circumstances unlike the adjacent properties which are apartments and residential housing. The special circumstances were caused by the same items discussed in the response to Item 1. This project will not negatively impact the intent of RS zoning. 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? Response to item 3: The R-S zoning allows certain property rights which are being followed. However, the request at hand is asking the Board only to allow a building that conforms to the industry standard office building height, which is 34'. This is shown on our building section included with this submittal. The building we are proposing, CopperStone Professional Center, is a Class A building which will be occupied by professional businesses requiring tasteful and professional display of their signage. The 34' height adds to the commercial purpose for general Project visibility and signage visibility and will accomplish this in a discerning way as well as allow the necessary structures above the ceiling to accommodate these businesses with the proper required screening. The reason for the 34' height is Office and Medical buildings must be flexible. Unlike residential or multi-family housing, commercial space must allow for changes in the interior walls and ceilings to accommodate the different occupants. The 34' height allows greater open space and fewer columns as a strong ceiling structure may be added to support the weight. Businesses will also have different demands as to electrical, duct work, plumbing, and lighting that a 25' height limitation would not allow for. The subject property will 4/27/2006 Page 2 of 4 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE Section 21.6 I Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) generate revenue for the neighborhood and add to the aesthetics that make Oro Valley what it is. Commercial office space also requires 10' ceiling heights, plenum space for lighting, air conditioning, fire sprinkler systems, electrical conduit and plumbing in the space between the ceiling and the bottom of the structure. This is necessary to make it useable. Building with 10' ceilings heights cannot be done within the 25' building height restriction. 4. If granted, will the variance impose such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located? Response to item 4: This application is not requesting the Board to rule in favor of any special privileges that would be inconsistent with the surrounding properties or the RS zoning. The buffer zone requirements associated with R-S zoning will not be affected. There is a 3 story apartment complex zoned R-4 to the north of this lot and a 2 story apartment complex zoned R-6 to the south. The design of the 2 story building, which is the subject of this variance request, is consistent with and in character with the buildings in the vicinity. It will be situated between these two multi-story complexes. The adjacent properties will not be affected by this variance of this RS zoning as far as the purpose of it. There is SFR zoned R1-36 to the west (or back) which the Property will buffer from State Route 77. 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding properties? Response to item 5: The minimum necessary variance to afford relief is the industry standard of 34' for Office & Medical buildings. This R-S property is not creating an obtrusive structure and will not negatively affect the neighbors. In fact, it will act as a buffer 4/27/2006 Page 3 of 4 SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE Section 21.6 I Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) protecting the R1-36 SFR from Oracle Road, a major 6 lane arterial road. The granting of this variance will not impede views from other properties since dense mature trees in an easement separate the Property from the properties to the west. The building use is office and medical and will be unoccupied and quiet at night. 4/27/2006 Page 4 of 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ` , •F `" Additional Information ESTIMATED COST CHANGE The estimated incremental building and land cost change to be allowed to build a two story building 34' high under the 0.28 FAR versus a one story building under a 0.25 FAR is an increase of . a pr imately $535,000. /4/ Daniel ' . W ite, P.E. 4/27/2006 } Exhibit B Revised Response to Board of Adjustment Application for Parcel Numbers 225-11-1970, 1980 & 1990, CopperStone Development LLC. This is a request of the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance to the height limit of 25 feet in the RS Zone, to allow a height of 34 feet, on property west of Oracle, and between Hardy and Calle Concordia. Item 1, Special Circumstances: This property has the classic reasons for a variance. There are special circumstances created by the topography of the site. The site slopes significantly from Oracle to the west, and the propose offices will be, at minimum, 16 feet below the Oracle Road grade. By increasing the height, this office complex will be only 18 feet above the Oracle Road grade, well below the 25 feet normally allowed by code. Item 2, Self Imposed Hardship: Once again, this is a classic case of not having a self-imposed hardship. The code requires a minimum 100-foot setback from the Oracle Road right-of-way(which is a 100 foot half right-of-way), leaving the most easterly point of the development some 16 to 24 feet below the Oracle Road grade. If this project were on the east side of Oracle, the topography rises, and this building, set back 100 feet from Oracle, would be much higher, even without a height variance, than is being proposed. The hardship is created by the topography and is not self imposed. Item 3, Is the Variance the Minimum Necessary for the Preservation and Enjoyment of Substantial Property Rights? The requested variance is the minimum necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the currently zoned property rights. On either side of this site are existing two and three story apartment buildings. These buildings, and the required setback for a two story office, shield the site from visitors to these proposed offices. Again, as noted above, if this office complex were developed on the east side of Oracle at the permitted height of 25 feet, it would be substantially higher than even if it were on grade on the west side of Oracle. Even with approval of this variance, this office complex will only be 18 feet in height from the Oracle Road grade, and will be more equal to the apartments to the north and south. Thus, the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve and enjoy the property rights. Item 4, Special Privilege Inconsistent With Other Properties In The Vicinity As noted above, the granting of this variance will bring this site on par with the other buildings on the south and north of this property, as well as on equal footing with those that are allowed to the east. Approval of the variance will provide consistency as opposed to special privilege. Indeed,the granting of this variance will still leave this site f ti at a small disadvantage to the properties to the east and others along Oracle in the same zone, as the total height will still be less than had this site been at grade with Oracle Road. Item 5, Not Materially Affect the Health, Safety and Welfare of Surrounding Properties? As discussed earlier, there are already two and three story apartments to the east and west. This office development will not affect their health, safety and general welfare. It may provide a place of employment for some of these, or other nearby, residents and, thus, reduce their current commute. With regard to the single family homes to the west, we have met with these neighbors and all but one back onto the two and three story apartments as their homes are either directly behind the apartments or are on an "eyebrow"which orients their homes toward the apartments to their south or north. The one resident directly behind this site, at our meeting on June 8th at Town Hall, indicated her major concern is drainage, not the height. This office complex will set well over 100 feet from her home and will actually buffer her home from noise created by Oracle Road traffic. This office complex will be separated from her rear yard by a drainage ditch created by the developer of her subdivision, a public alley, 35 feet of bufferyard which will be heavily landscaped and include a 6 foot masonry wall, then 64 feet of parking and parking isle, then a 5 foot sidewalk along the building. In addition, she has a substantial screen created by trees in her back yard. When combined with our 35-foot landscape buffer, which will also include mature trees, she will have her view "lifted" and it will minimize any view of the offices. She will still have views of the Catalina Mountains over this "lifted"viewshed. Thus, the noise reduction and the screening will increase the health, safety and welfare of her home. Finally, this project will be required to handle all increased drainage created by the development via on-site detention and retention. Our engineers will work with the Town Engineer to make sure that this, or any other neighbor, will have no increased impact of drainage and may have improved drainage. Supplemental Information: Approval of this variance will not only bring equity to this property that is necessitated by the topography,but allow for a much higher quality office complex. The increase in height will allow higher ceilings,which are more desirable by office tenants, which is the same desire as home-buyers seeking high ceilings. It will allow a variation in the roof- line,making this project more visually pleasing to everyone. And, it will allow enough of a parapet to adequately screen duct work and HVAC equipment that are needed due to the fact this site is so much lower than the Oracle Road grade. )._ . . u .._ . _..., . r.. .. , . W. E. m 0 m 0 -*----o- • 0 • 0 acoir/115"4-altz-5- ,j.,7e rP.7,t nee hbv 1.1.9.17 ,rrd 1.....7,C•olsr S rs E _s,Derr*PI—, /4__ •l ale,•_ __ lCy�ONNCORO/A s+ '""" - - i O4 rS /` 05 1. 02 cc) 40 , or. ,412) g)//6 s i//s 1,//! X /// t°/oe IF'.•107. I 5 ,'' 4 ' 2... g`./+. ' ''• (, 1 i w"" n" .z._. r { :.'t ,S 31z,a c . ..�;•► o'r' o e -T....... ....�. CALH . //7 • •• Mg : //3 I/O /09 '• /04 t):,,3�•6 :~_� `b , 1= i, P. i_ .. '""� (VISTA DEL ORO TOWNHOUSES) ), tQ�! rso, @�-® Zo ',o`� •, 7 SEE RESUB in.*. eeer, alit. .. '.7 1 £ `•'BK.25 .e,tis srpue4 v ''' PG.58 ®`'®, ®• 51 ;.'� /0 4109p .•."r. ��i q/�5 a,revr TRACT, •l00 is./0/ 37,/02 ; /CS / 1 /,,,03 ` ✓r` L,S 0 re e I • V C 1. 1::::::',,,,..),,, ae a7 .i 64,• ,,- CD .°t es. py ,r r: i42 A 9 150 . t3D r`rO r f`/ID2 !y ,fr 9ah0)'' s,^ p IGI �� u �k seP o yi • e � n!``A 'V ne,e 1,. ... I�� ),, e n� '.- e �) y 9� 15•DiC .� LOCATION PLAN i. „• •:a"�a, c., •�/2 e.' 456 • Secrio+r 24.T-/2-S.,le-IS-E. 010Z,.... w••'n �. ®,.�� �.`. 1 O,M..Cowes ,Aelronw ° .4o.e o/GAT/ON ` +'... • \r,. pro r• ,We Me carte. enne erwws of Me h dshome 0n Mel'hal,4, e; - '. . .,, . t . ORO VAL-LETee,re*tones.h+the se44.isle+*Vself/lord in Me tour er n `._•� W �T^1M*+n M.e,n,one hrrrey dean*,re Me roe,/'the...She fe-ew. d/ •`'"•.,°• ,••,,. •••• •,•_•, ®-Pam'COUh`i l'a!;slieeh,nvdi,oniyi anddroinwge eoxenrnh es dirpno,d on ! ,A.�', r �'- } 17 tad all.s//YhhJy r,sewrnlo p,ANA.ere dee...4d/Sr l./r Oo21.3. ) v/ensb//afian end ensinl.Av,e.ddeerl,ae slihhir,lefe•Mer..i/h r; /(v / *n 000..p.e!5'aerial vvreMesd ewrmrnl en each slew al said / •=s :. SEE 4,z I*v,end resume.,fur traits,Mess•eem;a!,en Pea ar cod ' 6 -. , ..-*.._. \ 0 0 pose tines,•nlhin 1M Xandoelet oP/his s*Adie" n en/0 . ••"�'." = y7:.'S�7 ,i V in soOdwn to Me peeve,ea raper/Mingrwvyi 0.0,i' 4,"•n•.� RESUB !ew si./f none..tee s nel.✓e/dolr and caurw,eue01 rises t 62 ..4- /i"::: :.'� vi , se**nereen.euena,•ne•esnaeue Met Pe ah*rid m Sleeks Aft.e:9ie*' /1 f , r•4•:0 4 . Me ogvrare!of Me Seers'el.Superrisers. 1 A 1 ``J •z the Arista Zeno,Title end lies/Cwnpny.on Arizona CArerfilian• .0 2 �� �� •i, , (,O, or Mush.,wwir Thus/wpe*enanl N!sss2•r ' 9 • 14 4 10 1BK d W./kie,Yee o es,aenl •'.. •'� PG 77 ik..,, ,,,,..,,` • r,. .„, ,..4T,„ ,, ,° ' _ MAP 163 r ,: „,,,,,.= , , ZONE RI-36,R—S 1 Yam.' 22. 1-� © s L' I ;i, 'M ROAD 8800 — N. r ✓ sire:,,...e.,, r-- _........ ...._ _ •-r eat»-T I ;••ce. .- S'lele of.Irizone 1 No' — e.•,.*o yr'J2-,.r. Gaanlr per'Imo SS lrr: D [ 74a inslramenl was/'ilea el Me eel...ere o/Jehn ell lerlete,✓cc* cvsid nl 1PPROVAL S •*-�Me Arrsone Loos!rifle Tens.Company a Co-eorel•on,,n/larl oPMep f P.bh, e1 AtTe.•.Z�-,Mis et`?Ny of l y,:- /13f. Tnee l.� M. a.<h' A-rQ — I .e•..•.ea.av Owre O A/Y.YA S//LeuGfb �.�.:nF�t✓eer 'V T Y ENO/NEER �ii�i►.ii�i�iiiiii►i►ii <,.w re.- oF SUPERVISORS MAP 1 3 •.9aore4.,I(apervirar,herby ee,%y hf*f lh.i pAf.uaa i ZONE C R-1 NO H.D.Z. q Sesse*-Wears aP P/rna Ceunly,544 eP.(rrrcrw,on Xs D,re IT/ON of SURVEY ESTATES' t survey of properly shown cm this plot wax 'cn,haorch /9s9. _ / a e//YG/A SOSO/V/S/OA OF THE SOUTff WAIF OF i'"` z r`T/o�_ti-/..`m- SECTION 24 T-/2-S,R-/3-E.€ 6 S.R.a.4 M. heyeslreed Lana':urveyvr LY/NC/ WEST OF THE TUCSO/e-FLORENCE/IYW NoTES \ \. ;, to/MA COUNTY, AR/ZONA 0. : 'e+"reA* - ...- MARCH 13, 1959 Sw CLOYS.0#/L T*Ni) AL;P/aler.-Arra•,e,,..,r',., .,..,,.,,-•e••....•..•_, bIOnI.On4cote Architects -Engineers ,/,..eesemawl' FLOOD PLAIN APPROVAL REQUIRED Y 'Tucson, Arizona Ana tonstt�NO s/.f,/eo,r.«enl v FOR LOTS i-6,20,21,23-39,49,49, — �,a (pgpva n 52,53,55-57,59,60 `t �` -14�.. ' ♦Sorvey.Msn.,n. . . G/1-r9-' • F9 72 ♦ci 29•70 SO-$90 , ... Y BOOK/3PAGEJ1 )— 11;i-g,-.4.--.r./*1•',4 4*.* -'',-I#-.I-...--P • E P y e ncor ia r :O*rVli•1'i7o `lI-'- '''''_-_I_ i.i 1-.`‘;-''•I*:'j*_'W_.-L._*_','- Y.- *. : .I'1,."; • 1 Wit,# + t 4' #4 + ;;Y , 1 JLt ,+ • r §, i,. .. ■. , p .4. V _ .' , •, ems: 4 r F� y t. iii ot 'i 1 ... 11 F 3 «�a it, ' ` bj • irii, lir'e • ' e \ i ♦ ,, ar *ti s • • ■r� k+ el • ....,,, .• , ...., f, 4,:.;,.., *. - - „ff.,. 4 . „." * ,;. * r • rillilkilfir •• $ , , :C. '. , 'r 1 sr '14ce :: ra r F - I 0, li, . "-- I i , 4:-.' ../11.fr.,,... 'I'::ft'•:' : 1:::. : :, - * 44:rt s a �r. eit .4 . i # 1 NIP -gh • -.... 4,, ,. , : ' ' 1 „, , ' '''' (**/* 1 Ar' .......,- . 4 i i$ A rod e ct i to aR0 dkil {�c41- • iy�- 4 ti r ' ' '''''' i t f 3411t&h..4 afilINC • ; ° + � � ■ ' • 1r'i- ;;• "-;1- " ' +i{ vF ry ` ' _ r w ° aSr , y - - * ' +O4� • f ,,,,,, �iFt , �i!..y .g • '/ ,M ' 1 .,� r 4„"i r , s ,1 _— a t lio- • ii / .- :.oy i , • - �' x a, :r `-_+`... - -i:+.c'w i #.. 4.;r t • r > f / I - .a, y■ - d4 , `' _ • '•. �E?/'ry'a .#GAF r► �' *• °• « i. t tt +iw'r y ---_+„+ '' r�i. :a,.,,f e 1:14 '. .. i r ,!k fop er•"'uj4. '`'.3 p ,1+ a+- •, .'.$ 4 /' ,..— - y f -is.1 i r ,� ' s :', f _ '- a, +' 'qj r•. - i•• - t41.-k ,� �t _ ' " *0 _y ;( r via. " �. ' •,.x..•iyyy.' •P.i, s. ,r•, • .f.o+ + ri r • ' �$ 'y.� ` ate M , z.�Y,vL ' i F r ` ,r }'. „raw. �, -� `�' rF # • ,< `�Ys.�+�'R '#' id F - -k :, r tif. 1. t'■ ' 'A E awl _ i • /r,r. t '• "e` ; 414 yam' '�■` 4'' .� i2 • ` w',yt, , _ ''-,_ _ r . _--,.r f— 4 r ,}T 1, s , ,• ,�� "t.+. ' ' ,��t]� gir�� A• _ F -T_ . ,- �31 45• �'Y. ,• .• +�' A `aJr'• -1f- 'T ti. ! :I" f■ �6s .:-:.F • - sue. r ;,{; /y� . '� �«��• •} �r-, ,d fir. .s+r ,•� + ` 1. ,� f. . raceRoad . . • ..: 7 iii trard Road .1} $�j 4�` 4r'.."7- •� . y.� ���RRdddrtd _��■ • 'A ., •..•"� ♦�.4 '`-' ••'! „',` ,.....rt....sue,+... �, �$ ��,� - _.._- ...,,•, �'` 4. �_ ��. ‘• � � �! •r�' -': ,iry 7 x ___ 1 1 1 / / / i ) 11111 imill , i - R-4 ilIl i 7 1 ------ ______ / . Immi i i , i ) 1 ?' mis R-S R1 -36 Fi iitil 1 / / 1111 ______ _.....„..,_ : _______ / z _...., __-________,1 T _______ ___, ___________T7 7 --\\Jr-- _ 1 ________, f S, n , I-- ).--/ _ Y� 'g 8�3 k � �ti ______7„----1.) --,Li __,.,„::77„4 / fr--------- , ,,,,,, f-----,_ . R-6 / , Y N ' '''''f• . c__,,,,._ _ / y / / , c.„ -jz -/-----__ 4T' , , , / / , '-v - — /-------- _..,,, (..„,,....; c_., T________ ____ 1 � II , / Cb so 11,00 2622 654 Y'X In 4, oe '-- U ~~---- , 6de � nmoom��~ 4 i e a yd . Cory _____ _ _______ _______________ _ _______ _20 SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 378.73' _ —/ , • 1 C.."°/: .: ' I _._ 10' BUFFER 1"-/- NORTH . ..... . /, ' ..., / _ TRASH STONE RETAINING WALL.:--- ,C2), SITE SECTION ! (N) Z nn of % cr. � -�, o �.4 Qti Q' cr �� ‘ illiht '''`. - ''''--,.: -,- 441 ,/ v ,...,..._'.._.'.,-...'_— .. 4 LJ' -,,- (,0L,:o,;m mod` rtr r C) ',.,,� ; Q :10 /w / !v7`). ie ,\ •� • QCV lqw 4' .e ''" ---- (;\ (t- A --..........1,4,10 "----......„ .';,? ., /gym �,r, �` itl S/ V ��';`h�ti, Srgl o� `�`:� , . , . i *V,. /Q j'IS .7k. CikA4til iiii- ,--,1::1(alz--, ' Q Vfr 17"-IP, kr T-t, . ,.. - --, At, ,-4 411,0 , 44 ,-- ,_._/.0 ,,,t; Je, /7/', ,' r.......\,icts.,-, ,, ,,..‹..,, cliv , IL ,-,, ;,z' j 2\ oz -______:.�, SITE SECTION __i____4_ •, ,„,,,"640,470 CI) / CS) • r-- •/ 24'DRIVEWAY /i........__ /. -•� 10'BUFFER.`, G-`20'SETBACK` ' di PROPERTY LINE 378.73' PLOT PLAN SCALE 1" = 60' • DRAWING NO. 1 RICHARD M GREENE CopperStone Professional Center — ILDER ARCHITECT/BUILDER CopperStone Development LLC !4651 N. 1st Ave. #200A, 520-808-3700 POB 3715, SAN, DIEGO CA 92163 Tucson, Arizona 85718 PREPARED FOR VARIANCE (619) 295-4339 DATED APRIL 27, 2006 ___ __._+r....w____+. .►.m..r .,w.wrV+r+..r......w....w.er....vw.++rwµwwxr _____.uw.W++-w..I. ..wv-....Hw.w.w.✓ 1 rraa..awry.vsr+.r arw....rwwiFN•r'sRrWiw.H:a.+ww�)W'a2.r'l:iY..YrW..M'Xra'vJJ:Wtw4•w.v wxvav+a��awwawrw r+rn.+..wr..rw.wa.w...wn..�r�u..��.r�.wsw•e.a.xr..rwruao.a.�a•.xr Ana vn ..e v.r�•+swan.rnv..r�.�rrV.vvru.+awsv..sa..e�arw__M�rrrr.�..�...w.a.-x.sw.e..an�awv-. • • • t ....._ __ __. ..._..,..... . . . . ...... , .. ______ \,, . I.r - --r•- al--• .___. ' 71_ t.-7-p_L--.\-- • , ‘: : -• . ' , STAIR • ...1 - • . • , . _. ..: . .... i , \ . • \ \ . •J I ..,...... : i. P201, --'--- ::-..7:-.._.-.;........... ,-•...4-- -- - ••- 1-- ------. , .---i---. t t>- ,•< • ,>- , a . ' . ' _1 `<0 - • \ . - . I 'cal , - • , lu , ce -a Li., - • . , . - .0 Lu ' > , • . , 1 • '>I - • c.). . c.) 1•o• i .L 7-1". . _ .... r _L..... - . • . ‘ . ...- , . -.1. . . . . , I, ... . , • -9,110.25 SF USABLE SPACE . • :. q,11025 SF USABLE SPACE, .it• . • .-, t . , 70. ,I\ , A . , • , • - ..-A . . " . ‘ it, i .., . • ' \ 74 • . . . .: . , to ' , . • • • 1,204': •16 • i• _ • 4.1•* • * 14 STAIR -4--- 7 . . • As STAIR STAIR, - - ilb .....,\ , . .. .., • . . ilo..r.a..,. . a .. •____S_T__O_N__E__ RETA_N__NG WALL 0. i :i..=... : . Illik. , '-'.1 . ,.•• ';-' -, -. :,,•• L LAN ONE RETAILL' *dr ' •,,, op :.? . ..1 . MI NMI, • 'V 7 '`'W..''''•1 -.71-. -- .- l'1614/4111144,41Nkh,' A. 11114*. - - ' . 1E-77-7-.: . ' - -. - 1S FOOR P . ST NING WA ' - 400 - lip by ik . . • -, - '• ....-''' . . ' .. • . \ • ''-772-".......V.MT.V.t....11...../Wv**(Wwwwwv• ' . • . ,C.... . . . { .1`. . ' • / :V 0 , l : / . i . . I --/'. I ' fdd01 31) , •f-- - "------ -- -.--'...'.7.. ..-.‘, , . ---- -.--+- ---') CopperStone . Professional 'Center DRAWING NO. 2 RICHARD M GREENE ARCHITECT/BUILDER CopperStone Development LLC 4651 N. 1st Ave. #200A, .520-808-3700 . POB 3715, SAN DIEGO CA 92163 _ 'Tucson, Arizona 85718 PREPARED FOR VARIANCE (619) 295-4339 ' DATED APRIL 27, 2006 — _......„___ - , • „... _..,-,-----1 STAIR 1 1 STAIR ". T I I A . ,-......_, SA\IR — i T. ' . - - . .. . _ its _ _. . ,.. . • ‘ < 10,833.5 SF USABLE SPACE ___I it < , 1• .... ..CZL191 I , < . > ELEVATOR 'Ya 8t1 ELEVATOR 0,0 , , >- Lk' . w. i ".........__ . . 9 : <I > • .k.1' , o 1 u: t ti, I .<T - , 1 10,833.5 SF USABLE SPACE u.., i_ Lt4 ,1-1- co . , 120 _ COVEREb WALKWAY • COVERED WA- LKWAY ....11•,,,,1 -51147T---- , I Li STAIR t1 I 1 STAIR _ j ,- 1I__ _ --1 , . -STAIR 4 . , I ......_I • , . • • 2 N D FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1" = 2 0' ' I . . . • • ! ' C o p p e r St o n e Professional 'Center DRAWING NO. 3 i: RICHARD M GREENE .: ARCHITECT/BUILDER CopperStone Development LLC 4651 N. 1st Ave. #200A, 520-808-3700 ';' POB 3715, SAN DIEGO CA 92163 . Tucson, Arizona 85718 PREPARED FOR VARIANCE i •, ( DATED APRIL 27, 2006 (619) 295-4339 . . __ _ _ _ _. , • .: _1 - t TOP OF PARAPET r v SIGNAGE HERE 1 ______ __ _____ I _I ' STUCCO WALL -""_"" ---- f n: " • • f ANOPY CEILING LINt_ L� Nt c J , ,..__ra 1 4 --7 t - . I ia_i EL .PLANKDOJR GLASS' o. t . --, elliM,in- � ' ,1 ��,: HAN14-DRAI FINISH FLOOR- , • 4 STAIR, t _ , ,. r d STUCCO• ....--COPPERI tn ,. • ,� ,Il CEILING LINE- O ' ' i 1 , '.,. "".ter. 3 o 411M911110L O AP*Mb H .aa � -- . � I _ LOB R 1 d ` ELEVATION / SCALE 1" = 10' ,.? _____.,. �xz. � c Center DRAWING NO. — RICHARD M CopperStone ProfeSsionaI ARCHIT CopperStone Development LLC 4651 N. 1st Ave. #200A, 520-808-3700 ECT/BUILDER PREPARED FOR VARIANCE , POB 3715, SAN DIEGO CA 92163 • Tucson, Arizona 85718 (619) 295-4339 ..._....r._,__. DATED APRIL 27, 2006 . • TOP OF PARAPET •-•;,,,,,, ._., i ,. __.., .. .-.. • g?---:-.-___ .. 4 SIGNAGE HERE ' ' • , . 4t • •' TOP OF ROOF! . • - ,igs. , . ROOF TRUSSES tirighlh z4.1 Apr 0 k • FritiMilifilitinnrdi.1 i . •ci) . . . • . . . EXISTING TERRAIN-- ............. ,- • — • ' .14 SUN SHADE . , • . 40. . . • 2 STORY BUILDING 19, 944 SF ---, „et • ....;*Cbt....•............011.me....;71. ; , . . ; -• . L 2668.2rN ., "L....A . __ .........._ ............. /00, If__..............................4 i ____ ..... ... . . __ . _ ...,... .. - ' • • - - -- - ' 4 ra4,,:41.1'4 '!',,, .i -"*.' CEILING LINE . 1111°1 — • . .-- • --- ---- -2• ' Al _. EL 2639._,. EL 2641 4, , EL644--,,y, , . EL 2650, ORACLE ROAD EL 2631 .71( • ••-) - • '••• ''-' - I I - EL 2634 --' • I I . i • . • 9 ,-;.- - i _ : . SITE SECTION • 0 . ! • , . '. , NORTH END SCALE 1"= 60' HANDRAILI . • . . --FINISH FLOOR"- If' . - , 1 --------- • - - - --------- ii , --— . ,COPPER 2'_, . . . - -TRUSSES " . . (2 STORY BUILDING 19, 944 SF EXISTING TERRAIN ....0,... _ ....... CANTILEVER SUPPORT T-- , :,...- , . • 'T I ----• .. ,. EL 2663, • Ht: - . Irt • 0 . UTILITIES & DUCTS ' -I- a 0 __z.,: • ,,...;• .. __--- gllngljillPljillIllit .. . , 4.,..t.....16 , LIGHT WELL ' ;:in. ORACLE --- ' : - E L• 26430,4, EL 26332 t - ,, 1,,.,..! 2 ..EL_262. .}., _.., - .1.4* s . ,..--, .,. - . - . . -_. •- ROAD .• k- ----"'-' EL 2629f-.. , CEILING LINE: . I , • -STUCCOT• 1 SITE SECTION SOUTH END SCALE 1"= 60' sED ri . SECTIONS . . . . • SCALE AS NOTED WALKWAY . ....,- ‘• • 1.1.1111111.111111111Y,:- :717, __ r ___ _ __, ..,..._,........ .. ..... .. .,... .ilCopperStone 'Professional .:Center DRAWING NO. A ! RICHARD M GREENE , . WALL SECTION • CopperStone Development LLC 4651i N. 1st Ave. #200A, 1520-808-3700 _ PREPARED FOR VARIANCE ARCHITECT/BUILDER . POB 3715, SAN DIEGO CA 92163 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" I. Tucson, Arizona 85718 DATED APRIL 27, 2006 (619) 295-4339 - ___ .._. _ .._._ _ . ...._ ...._ . •-i _. ■ . planning 270 North Church Ruenue, Tucson Arizona 85701 (520)628-1118 fags:628-7637 J U L 1 0 2006 July 6,2006 Ms Dee Widero Senior Zoning Inspector Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Road Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Subject: Oracle/Hardy Office Variance Request: Support Letters Dear Dee: When my clients met with Sarah and David to discuss their plans for the offices between Suntree Apartments and Catalina Crossing Apartments,they indicated that the requested height of 34 feet is an"industry standard"for two story offices. Sarah asked that they provide some back-up to explain and support that"standard." I am submitting four letters from professionals in the field of office design and construction that explain the need for this height for a"Class A"type office of two stories. Essentially,what modern upscale office users demand are high ceilings. Upscale residential users also demand these high ceilings,I might add. These letters address the needs for such a height. We are also working on an exhibit to show how this particular property drops off significantly to the west of Oracle and will result in a finished floor elevation of some 16 feet below the actual grade of Oracle Road. Thus,the effective height of this proposed office complex will,even at a 34 foot height,be only 18 feet above the Oracle Road grade. This is a pretty minimal height and will help prevent vehicles traveling along Oracle to look down at the HVAC and other roof equipment. Finally, as noted in our application material,we have had a Registered Land Surveyor check the heights of the adjacent two and three story apartments whose roofs range from 25 feet to 35 feet from grade. Sin rely, Carl Winters Principal Enclosures: Letters (4) Cc: Ms Sarah More,FAICP w/enclosures Scott and Devin Welch 06003 planning • landscape architecture • urban design • deuelopment consultants RICHARD M GREENE ARC H ITECT/BUILDER • PO Box 3715, San Diego, CA 92163 • (619)295-4339 • June 24, 2006 CopperStone Development, LLC 4651 North First Avenue, Suite 200A Tucson, AZ 85718 Re: Building Height of Proposed Office/Medical Building in Oro Valley, AZ After careful consideration it is apparent that your proposed structure will need to be at least 34 feet high. My conclusions are based on the following information and the well established and accepted current building standards as well as my 35 years of architectural practice in Arizona and Southern California designing similar facilities. To assure that the spaces will be acoustically usable, have the proper air flow over and around low office partitions and full height walls in larger spaces and be aesthetically acceptable in volume, the ceiling heights must be at least 10 feet high. This is the common industry standard height for a first class office/medical space such as the proposed CopperStone Professional Center. The minimum dimension in the ceiling spaces will need to be no less than four feet. This applies to the first and second floors. This ceiling space is required to house the necessary mechanical/electrical equipment and the structure. To adequately conceal the roof mounted mechanical equipment, the parapet wall and/or mechanical screen around the building will need to be at least four feet high to conceal the roof top mechanical equipment. This requirement is partly a result of the natural grade at the building footprint location being approximately 16 feet below Oracle Road at the east property line. Good construction dictates that we must set the first floor level adequately above grade and provide a satisfactory roof slope to avoid water problems. The 34 feet building height is therefore an obvious conclusion. Please contact me if you or the Oro Valley Planning Department requires further assistance. Thank you, Richard M. Greene, Architect Licenses Numbers AZ-6458, CA-05423 FILE: ARCHcopperstone062406.doc . CHESTNUT CONSTRUCTION June 28, 2006 Mr. Scott Welch DSVV HOLDINGS 4651 North 1 s` Avenue Suite 200A Tucson, Arizona 85705 Re: Copperstone Professional Center Dear Scott: As we have discussed, most two story buildings that we have built in the Tucson Area have had a minimum building height of 34-foot from existing grade to the top of parapet. This allows you to have a maximum 4-foot parapet around your roof perimeter which protects your service personnel from accidentally falling off the edge of the roof, and hides your mechanical equipment from view. It also gives 15-foot floor to floor. This allows you 2-foot for structure, 3-foot clear for above ceiling mechanical, fire sprinkles and electrical and 10-foot clear ceiling height. A good example of a two story building similar in height would be the Stantec Building in Rio Nuevo that was completed several years ago. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, CHESTNUT CONSTRUCTION CO . ORATIO Robert K. ' ey Vice President nth pr,...4SWe t)iN'tial4s0i366414r. Built On Service 5997 Cast Grant Rnud ' Tustin. Ari?nna 85712 ' (520)733-3300 ' FAX (52.0)733-330! www.ch stnutc:onstructinn.corn ' ROC 0E3-I-085682 RUt• #13-090919) 07/05/2006 21:50 5208850267 WELCH PAGE 02 07/05'/08 16:19 ' "520 2091 BURLINI SILBER 2002 Burlini/Silberschlag,Ltd_ Architects and Planners 4400 East Broadway Suite 400 Tucson, Arizona 85711-3553 520-323-1996 FAX 520-323-2091 July 5,2006 Mr. D. Scott Welch 10825 E Escalante Rd Tucson, AZ 85730-5503 Re: CopperStone Professional Centre B/S Project#06103-S Dear Scott: I did some research on past projects completed by our firm as well as two recent projects now under construction, to determine heights of 2-story office buildings. The completed project is Joesler Village at the northwest corner of River Road and Campbell Avenue. It has two buildings that are 2-story. Building "G", on the western end of the site, has a parapet height of 31' 4" and a tower height of 33'8". Building "C", which is centered on the site, has a parapet height of 31' 0". The HVAC units are on the roof and protrude above these heights by a couple of feet, on both buildings. One of the newer projects is a partial 2-story office building at Stone and the Rillito River, just north of Tucson Mall. The parapet height for the 2-story portion is 34' 0". The HVAC units for this project are located on the first floor roofs. The second unfinished project is Rillito Crossing near the new bridge at Alvernon and the Rillito River. We have two buildings on this site that are 2-story. Both have a parapet height of 29' 8". To hide the HVAC equipment, we provided a portion of peaked roof that goes to a height of 37'0". Scott, I hope this helps in determining the heights of your buildings. Please call If you have any questions. V- truly yours, 1l Wayne D Silberschlag,AIA Burlinl/Sil'erschlag, Ltd. Oxford REALTY ADVISORS June 13,2006 Ms. Sarah Moore Town of Oro Valley Re: building ceiling heights Dear Sarah, Pursuant to my conversation with the developer of the planned project called Copperstone Professional,we have been involved in the beginning design stage of close to 1,000,000 square feet of new office projects in the last 6 years. To summarize,all the new office and medical projects throughout the City of Tucson,Pima County and other areas within Tucson proper have ceiling heights of 9'6"to 10' clear. All tenants and buyers of new class"A"offices are paying the higher rents or purchase price and expect this. I could list the projects from Desco's Skyline Esplanade to Venture West's La Cholla Corporate and they would all have these ceiling heights. Although none have been contemplated, if a project attempted to have 8' to 8'6"ceilings they become functionally obsolete and are relegated to a lower class and lower sales or lease rates. The developers of office projects could not proforma the rent or sales prices based upon poorly designed, lower ceiling height building and therefore could not proceed forward with the project based upon the costs associated with new construction versus the lower prices. We would be happy to go into more detail if you feel it is necessary. Sinc y. D E. Marsh 6340 N. Campbell Ave., Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Phone (520) 232.0200 • Fax (520) 232.0300 February 8, 2006 Daniel White Physical Resource Engineering Inc. P.O. Box 36985 Tucson, AZ 85740 Fax: 690-1769 RE: OV12-05-36, Formal Comments for the Copperstone Professional Center, located on the west side of Oracle Road between Calle Cancordia and Hardy Road, Parcels 225-11- 1990, 225-11-1980, 225-11-1970 Dear Daniel: Thank you for submitting a formal application for the proposed office development. Our aim is to resolve any issues and reiterate comments that were discussed at the Development Review Committee meeting of February 3, 2006. The following comments are based on a formal review and will hopefully assist you in preparing a future submittal; Major Issues • The intersection by the main entrance creates too many traffic movements (consolidate into a four way intersection). • There is not an adequate area for vehicle and fire turnaround along the west side of the property (north and south sides). The area along the east side of the buildings (north side) is also a concern. • Per Code, provide a passenger drop off point separated from the main drive aisle. It should be located in the center of the building area. • As specified in the R-S, Residential Service District, the Development Review Board may limit the building height to single story when an R-S District abuts a single family residential area. Further details will be provided at the meeting this week. F:\OV\OV 12\2005\12-05-36\correspondence\formal.comments.doc • A minimum 30' bufferyard is required along the west and south property lines since it is categorized as a public alley and treated as a "steet". It may be prudent to seek abandonment of the alley along the south side property line. Furthermore, the design and treatment of the bufferyard along the west side property must include: 1. A minimum 5' high continuous screen wall (offset) approximately 5' from the property line. In areas adjacent to the dumpsters at the end of the drive aisles and where headlight glare may potentially shine to the residential homes, vegetation must be provided to grow a minimum of 8' in height. 2. Dense vegetation will be placed between the property line and the screen wall to soften views of the wall from the residential homes. 3. The detention basins or any rip rap (if necessary) must be shifted towards the center of the buffer yard. It must be located on the east side of the screen wall and not visible or accessible from the residential homes. An overlapping tree canopy must be provided along the full length of the property line. Development Plan • Provide the adjacent conditions on the location map • Provide general notes 12-18 as applicable (temporarily refer to section 4-504C of the previous code). All general notes must be numbered. • The scale must be depicted on the lower right corner of each sheet. • Provide a general note regarding the public art requirement. • The ORSCOD requires that along the west side of Oracle Road no buildings over 18' or other structure may be placed within the 300' view corridor (label the view corridor on the plan). In this case, the designated corridor encompasses almost the entire site. Based on the visual analysis provided the Planning & Zoning Administrator will determine if a view corridor will be required. Further details will be provided at the meeting this week. • A minimum 10' landscaped area must be provided on all four sides of the building. Sidewalks may be included within this area provided that the planting area is at least 4' wide. Design Guidelines • Pedestrian sidewalks/connections should be established within the site. Specifically, along the east side of the buildings connecting to the parking area and to Oracle Road. • Multiple building projects should encourage courtyards or gathering areas. Because of the large office complex, it would be beneficial to incorporate such an amenity within the internal building areas. • The design of the detention basins should appear natural looking and blend in with the natural environment. Staff recommends that the number of basins be minimized to achieve an adequate vegetative screen along the Oracle Road frontage and the adjacent residential homes. Further details will be provided at the meeting. F:\OV\OV 12\2005\12-05-36\correspondence\formal.comments.doc General Comments • Label the plan as "Development Plan" on the top center of each sheet. Remove reference to "Site and Utilities Plan/Paving and Grading". Both these plans should be combined. • Provide the distances from the adjacent access drives to assure the spacing requirements of the ORSCOD are met and to determine if any flexibility exists. This is critical because the main entrance needs to be reconfigured. • A "lot combo" will be required to combine the three lots. This may be approved administratively by the Town and must be recorded through Pima County. This must be achieved prior to final certification of the Development Plan. Provide a general note on the plan. • Will the individual offices and/or office buildings be bought as individual condo units in the future? If so, staff recommends that a preliminary plat be achieved as part of the Development Plan process. • It is my understanding that a neighborhood meeting is tentatively scheduled for next week. I will provide you with specifics at our meeting with regards to the typical landscaping/screening treatment requested by residents in previous projects and satisfying their concerns. • The recorded subdivisions section (book and page) on the top right corner of sheet one is not necessary. Delete this from the plan. • The dumpster area on the east portion of the site may create traffic hazards as garbage trucks enter and exit the site. The trucks may not be able to maneuver adequately. • Label the square footage of each individual building and story. • The architectural elevations require a separate application process and must be approved by the Development Review Board. Staff recommends that this be reviewed concurrently with the Development Plan. Site Resource Inventory • Label any areas that are categorized as 100 year floodplain and 15-25 percent slope. If none, specify this on the plan. Native Plant Preservation Plan • Identify the proposed grading limits and calculations for total area to be graded. • Label the location of temporary nursery for plants to be TOS. • Revise the approval block to specify"Planning &Zoning Administrator". • Staff would like to discuss further preservation of additional vegetation along the Oracle Road frontage, based on the ORSCOD requirements for "significant vegetation". There are numerous trees that meet these criteria (in good shape) that are not specified on the plan. I will set up a site visit with the landscape architect to discuss this in detail. The detention basins should not impact any healthy vegetation along the frontage. Landscape Plan • Provide the scale and contour interval on the lower right corner of each sheet • ORSCOD requires that re-vegetation be at minimum density of 1 tree per 1500 sf. and 1 shrub per 100 sf. along the perimeter areas. F:\OV\OV 12\2005\12-05-36\correspondence\formal.comments.doc • Provide the calculations for each bufferyard as specified in the Code. • Provide the Oro Valley case number on the plan. • Show sight visibility sight triangles where applicable • Provide the applicable general notes of this section (temporarily refer to Section 14-204 of the previous code). • Label the location of any screen walls on the site. Other Agency Comments Engineering Oro Valley Water Golder Ranch Fire Tucson Electric Power Arizona Department of Transportation Miscellaneous The aforementioned comments must be addressed in letter form and all agency comments must be acknowledged. The resubmittal must include 28 full size copies, 28 11" x 17" copies of the Development Plan and Landscape Plan and 28 copies of the response letter. In addition, 2 revised copies of the Site Resource Inventory and Native Plant Preservation Plan are required. The resubmittal is due by February 16 at 5pm in order to proceed with the project schedule. Please contact me at 229-4817 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, David Ronquillo Senior Planner cc: Shirley Gay Scott Welch, 885-0207 Greg Shiann, 877-8079 F:\OV\OV12\2005\12-05-36\correspondence\formal.comments.doc 06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 19 parking by 2 feet, and increase the slope of the parking from the middle of the building to the north about 5 feet. There are still slopes in the rear to allow for planting and buffering between the site and the neighbors, and there still is alleyway. With these changes, the elevation is at 68. The lower tiers are 57, then 65, then jump up to 73, and then about 81. Applicant has tried to blend this into the building and take advantage and stair step this up on the hillside. Applicant elaborated on the cross section diagrams displayed. With these changes, the staff report originally had Applicant requesting a maximum cut of 15 feet, and that was reduced by a foot. There is an isolated cut at the retention detention basin area. The original request for fill was 16 feet and is now down to 13 feet. Member Johnson asked if it would be possible to raise the last tier parking at the far rear end of the project. Applicant pointed out that that was already at 5%. Chair Caswell interjected that she believed that Member Johnson was looking at the packet from May 11th, and asked Applicant if Member Johnson's questions would be answered by the new information. Joe Andrews indicated that he would like to stand corrected based on a comment from Zoning Administrator More earlier. If DRB opens the public leafing and continues this item, DRB should probably leave it open until the next meeting so that that hearing can be held again at that time. Basically, DRB does not have to close the public hearing. Chair Caswell commented that since staff report isn't the correct staff report, it would it be beneficial for DRB to ask for a staff report. Mr. Vella responded that staff would provide a new staff report prior to the continuance date. Member Panas commented that with all due respect to Mr. Peyton, he would prefer to continue this to our June 29th meetirig. ms I�p`Fk,�'a•�Yb �,SY Mr. Andrew said that before DRB dontiiues, he would like DRB to open the public. Chair Caswell confirmed with the recording secretary that there were no blue cards submitted. Chair Caswell noted that she was;keeping the public hearing open until the motion. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend continuance until the June 29, 2006 DRB meeting, to allow Applicant and staff the opportunity to provide updated materials. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion. Motion`'carried 6-0. 14. Preview, OV12-05-36, Develop IT LLC, representing owner and applicant, requests preliminary review of a Development Plan for the Copperstone Office Complex, located in proximity to the northwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcels 225-11-1970, 225- 11-1980 and 225-11-1990. Applicant Carl Winters, 270 North Church, Tucson, gave a presentation. This project is between two apartment complexes. One of the reasons for the request for a study session is that, based on discussions with staff, Applicant is requesting that the project be allowed to be a two-story F:\MINU TES\DRB\2006\06-13-06 Draft Minutes.doc Draft minutes to be approved 06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 19 office building, partly because the site where the building will be is on average 16' below the Oracle Road grade. Even at the normal 25' Applicant would only be 9' above grade. In this case, project has two and three story apartments on either side. Applicants have met with the neighbors and noticed everybody within the normal 600 feet. Three persons came: a representative from Suntree Apartments, a neighbor who does look directly at the site; and one who looks out at Suntree Apartments. The neighbor who looks most directly had a concern about drainage. There is a very heavily vegetated area, and none of the neighbors on the other side look over in the direction of the development. Effectively, this proposed project will help screen noise from Oracle Road. Architect Dick Greene, from San Diego, presented elevations and overlays showing how the line of the curb along Oracle Road corresponds to the height of the building. In order to blend in a residential area and into the landscape, Applicant has designed:a building that looks smaller, by breaking it up into smaller elements that jut it in and out. On the rear view, which has an overhang, Applicant sees no need to light up the back of the building at night. Vice Chair Sturmon asked if there was any chance that drivers would see any of the air conditioning equipment on the structure's roof. Applicant explained the screening for the air conditioning is set back, and would preclude anyone from seeing the units. Vice Chair Sturmon asked if such a large array`of windows on an east sunrise line would create glare onto Oracle, and asked Applicant what type of reflectivity or tinting would be needed. Applicant said that there are sun shades that extend out all along,and the windows are set back. Vice Chair Sturmon asked if signage might be placed up on the face of the building to identify the offices. Applicant said he is aware that there is a very restrictive sign code. There is a plan to have the signage stand out in front of the building. Applicant doesn't know if they will simply have signage on the building and/or on a low profile sign. Member Panas commented that no lighting at the rear of the building might be a concern from a safety standpoint. Applicant said he'didn't mean to imply they had no lighting, there would be lighting both on the buildings and low lighting in the parking lot. Member Johnson commented that he liked the scale, residential feel, and color scheme on this project, but would,have problems with signage and identification of the building. He suggested using some type of common directory that identifies the project, and a local directory down on the site. Applicant pointed to where they would include some public art and which will also show the identity of the property. Applicant hopes to bring in some copper ore type of stone. Mr. Vella stated that as a preview item, there is no action required at this time. The purpose of placing this item on the agenda was to give Applicants guidance and direction, particularly with regard to the Board's viewpoint of having this be either a one-story or two-story building. Chair Caswell commented that, based on what she was seeing and the fact that the site does drop considerably at the site, she doesn't feel a two-story building would be inappropriate. She also F:;MlNI''T'I.S\DIM 2006 416-1;-06 Draft Min.utes.doc Draft minutes to be approved 06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 18 of 19 said that the design is a good one. Her only concern at this point was making sure that CPTED is taken in consideration with regard to the lighting and landscaping. Member Zinkin asked what the height code was for these buildings, and was told that it was 25 feet. He asked about reflectivity issues on the west side, for the setting sun. Applicant said they will also have sun shades along the west side. Member Johnson commented that with the scale of Oracle along there, a one-story project may not be compatible. Since the site is so much lower than Oracle Road, drivers might be looking at rooftop equipment if they were only one-story high, and does not think that is appropriate. Member Johnson asked if the recess shown in sections, and asked if that was shown only in the end units or if it was typical all the way across. Applicant replied that the treatment goes all the way across the building. Vice Chair Sturmon said he liked the proposed landscape, but at the same time asked Applicant if they anticipated needing all of that first floor area,or could they use some of it for parking. Applicant said they had originally designed the building in that fashion, but the cost was prohibitive. Vice Chair Sturmon asked if it would be.appropriate to think about bringing the buildings up a bit, and the parking more to the rear. Applicant replied that regulations require that the site has to be cut through the middle,with half of the parking in front and half the parking at the rear. e'°Mk cY bsybkk.R�.bk�Y^R`T`Y bs Member Zinkin said that the project's two propose flagpoles,if to be seen from Oracle road, would have to be rather high. Applicant feels that the flagpoles are important these days, would like to include them, and though they will be subtle, they will be visible from the parking lot. Chair Caswell asked Applicants if they had received adequate guidance, and Applicant said yes. Chair and Board thanked Applk nts for their presentation. 'stp'y y * y�3}R� .cx Fe, q8 m„bb` ".D'KiY`dp FM's 15. Discussion and possible action-regarding election of a Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development:Review Board.(DRB). Chair Caswell said.the Board could take action now, although the DRB guidelines state that an election would have to be held again in August. She suggested a discussion to perhaps continue this for when the new members are on board or make a decision this evening. Member Zinkin suggested that Vice Chair Sturmon chair the next meeting, and that this issue be placed early on the August agenda. In response to Chair Caswell's inquiry, Mr. Andrews said that since the item reads "discussion and possible action" it is possible that the Board could take no action, so Board could decide to take no action and place it on the August agenda. Member Panas suggested that we could place it on the June 29th agenda, especially since the two new people are not going to be familiar with the existing members. Chair Caswell said that F:`MINUTES\DR:13`,.2006\06-13-06 Draft Minutes.doc Draft minutes to be approved 06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 19 of 19 while that was true, there would be two more persons influencing the decision. Mr. Andrews interjected that if a chair is elected on June 29th, the Rules state that the Board will again have to elect in August. A decision was made to request staff to place this item on the August agenda. 17. Recognition of Chair Caswell and Member Johnson for terms of service as Development Review Board (DRB) Members. Members of the DRB and staff expressed their deep appreciation and thanked Chair Caswell and Member Johnson for their tremendous contribution to the Board, ;Chair Caswell and Member Johnson thanked DRB members and staff for their support."4 i k, tX'trYy'19y. Y ADJOURNMENT ,9. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to ADJOURN the June 13 2006, Development Review Board Regular Session at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. Prepared by: V akrinda Asper,r,Recording Secretary ;RY � .A ck 6 Y , 4S a r$ :,:'X�� {ayw..xx.'X c .a 4''r a*ar x'X1,"a'r; 0Y'i.w�'xk .kY° a . *aa g"x 'S"k*k .,k"Y ask s m k'w Yk 'yYa'Y kkx 4 k Yka a k,�Y sy X' a k Y k 4 4 Ak *'k..xl{ 4{kX M hs.,%k� :S Y a R� Yh„N . ' .P'k�A4 \ g` fk b k w 4 X. x« 11,tr YF rk'4*+xa aaa'ZS,aa. gay '1 MSr*aek Y°ed,s. +�kk �•aauyry a'k�"ua. {';o'�k u'w »'w, T' ,k Y�aae ti 'r'vxy a`w', Y k v'ks,�, rx wxti,°.hs., $ Yu"°fin.*w4r{ 4 a°aa"Y k k �y: "X,y 'v a'hy 'maa'v^, k��i sq,., ����be �aa .V:Sk{°Yi k .°. Y X'aY`.rya 4 e k°"ua a� s..'. kaak��, k, Y xaa 4:, r�*y F:`MINU'I'ES\DRB\2006'\06-1 3-06 Draft Minutes.doc Draft minutes to be approved • A minimum 30' bufferyard is required along the west and south property lines since it is categorized as a public alley and treated as a "steet". It may be prudent to seek abandonment of the alley along the south side property line. Furthermore, the design and treatment of the bufferyard along the west side property must include: 1. A minimum 5' high continuous screen wall (offset) approximately 5' from the property line. In areas adjacent to the dumpsters at the end of the drive aisles and where headlight glare may potentially shine to the residential homes, vegetation must be provided to grow a minimum of 8' in height. 2. Dense vegetation will be placed between the property line and the screen wall to soften views of the wall from the residential homes. 3. The detention basins or any rip rap (if necessary) must be shifted towards the center of the buffer yard. It must be located on the east side of the screen wall and not visible or accessible from the residential homes. An overlapping tree canopy must be provided along the full length of the property line. Development Plan • Provide the adjacent conditions on the location map • Provide general notes 12-18 as applicable (temporarily refer to section 4-504C of the previous code). All general notes must be numbered. • The scale must be depicted on the lower right corner of each sheet. • Provide a general note regarding the public art requirement. • The ORSCOD requires that along the west side of Oracle Road no buildings over 18' or other structure may be placed within the 300' view corridor (label the view corridor on the plan). In this case, the designated corridor encompasses almost the entire site. Based on the visual analysis provided the Planning & Zoning Administrator will determine if a view corridor will be required. Further details will be provided at the meeting this week. • A minimum 10' landscaped area must be provided on all four sides of the building. Sidewalks may be included within this area provided that the planting area is at least 4' wide. Design Guidelines • Pedestrian sidewalks/connections should be established within the site. Specifically, along the east side of the buildings connecting to the parking area and to Oracle Road. • Multiple building projects should encourage courtyards or gathering areas. Because of the large office complex, it would be beneficial to incorporate such an amenity within the internal building areas. • The design of the detention basins should appear natural looking and blend in with the natural environment. Staff recommends that the number of basins be minimized to achieve an adequate vegetative screen along the Oracle Road frontage and the adjacent residential homes. Further details will be provided at the meeting. F:\OV\OV 1 2\2005\1 2-05-3 6\correspondence\formal.comments.doc July 21, 2006 Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Town of Oro Valley RE: OV-10-06-07 Hello Dee, Just one question on this case; The applicant is asking for a variance to exceed the height requirement in the R-S district of 25 feet (table 23-2A). I looked at the Oracle Road over-lay district and the limit there seems to be 18 feet (24.5.E.3.e.i, pg 176) with an additional requirement that the "Buildings should be low and clustered with varied setbacks..." (24.5.F.1.a.i, pg 180). Wouldn't the more restrictive regulations apply? If so, wouldn't it be fair to not hear the case, return his application fee and allow for a re-submittal? thank you john hickey member, Board of Adjustment 1 • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) Audrey Smith, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 2006 @ 3:00PM OV10-06-07 - SUBJECT PARCELS 225-11-1970; 225-11-1980; 225-11-1990 was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues; that was first made on the 11th day of July 2006 and the last publication thereof was made on the 11th day of July 2006 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to-wit: 07/11/06 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley : fri .ow IA / xParty $m ff E ' 0 \i--Ki\ by -.....--- , , Legal Advertising Manage Subscribed and sworr befo pthis 11th day of July 2006 . ,�, .2>s JAMIE. C. MACIAS t-i\ i'�� \ �� (.�_ ..r - `�, Notary PuDll.-Arizona y c r tne t State of Arizona vc.� 4,; -�� �, h�����: Wes► r,� Public, in and �o, County a. Pima, � Arm , ` ;%i Pima County Expires 02/04/08 r — -k_ My commission expires: �. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE O VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In'accordance with Sec.21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,July 25,2006,commencing at or after 3:00 p.m.The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-06-07:Qopper Stone D v fnn ment LL r est for variance to the flowed building height nr 25, to al- in height in an R S zono Subject Property• (parcels #225-11-1970 225 1 y 1 Aun 225-11-1990) located on the west amide of Oracle between H rdy and Oalle Concordia Oro Valley AZ Site plans are available for review dur- ing normal business Hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall,Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person,by agent or attorney,and the petitioners must appear or be repre- sented.Any person seeking further in- formation on this request for a variance may contact Patty Hayes 229-4853 or e-mail:ph rovaIIPv net _REQ:Sarah More,FAICP Planning and Zoning Administrator PUBLISH:The Daily Territorial July 11,2006 hrjul25ov10-06-07 a.s NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, commencing at or after 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-06-07: Copper Stone Development LLC, request for variance to the allowed building height of 25', to allow 34' in height in an R-S zone. Subject Property: (parcels #225-11-1970; 225-11-1980; 225-11-1990) located on the west side of Oracle, between Hardy and Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ, 85704. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Patty Hayes 229-4853 or e-mail: phayes@orovalley.net Q: Sarah More,FAICP posted: 7-6-0 6 Planning and Zoning Administrator time: 3:3 0 by: drm x.. , §• • $ i ,, . 4 F <d .,p''.> � a')•'., .��:;j.q.. :.j,!F:d'vi;r,.�r J'K: a 4ye',u' 'hk+,"roe i " , ' f , n'. i::: �""" .;rlaa�" , 4'"'n L yz,, �., :may;<.. f ,'t;,e ,..i%x,: ,(,t`t/; .'"-j.,:}i;,' "> ev.. M �.,.k �,�,.. .MGM'"ci"`Y`o i'$' w,•,. :.<, H aii, • Rd ,. ,. „ ,,-; ':—:''''',:.',4:,,:4.4.u., ...:ems':. �i%✓rc,«n':,...", ,j� ,F 6 ) « r 4.....awr. s,, 4 Atilt ---, 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 3 Minutes on the property other than those that were self imposed. He explained that the applicant's substantial property rights could be enjoyed using other options and did not believe Criteria 1, 3 and 5 had been met. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair Schannep—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler— aye Member Kessler— aye Chair Martin—Nay Motion carried to DENY Case No. OV10-06 08, 4-1, with Chair Martin opposed. 2. CASE NO. OV10-06-07 Copper Stone Development LLC, request for variance from the allowed building height of 25', to allow 34' in height in an R-S zone. Subject property: (parcels 225-11-1970; 225-11-1980; 225-11-1990) located on the west side of Oracle, between Hardy and Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ 85704. Chair Martin swore in the witness. Carl Winter, the Planning Consultant for Copperstone Development, explained that the request for a variance from 25 feet building height(table 23-2A) to 34 feet building height. He used the overhead projector to review the site plan. Dick Green, the architect for the project reviewed the site's elevation and explained that the company felt it was very important that the existing terrain remained in tact. He used the overhead projector to review certain aspects of the project such as the spacing between floors, drainage, lighting, screening,parking and the parapet. There was discussion regarding the placement of the air conditioning unit and alternatives for the location of the unit; and the height of the proposed building, and what type of offices would be opening in the building. Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reported that the specific request was to increase the building height from the allowed 25 feet in an R-S zone to 34 feet. She added that the applicant proposes to build two office building that would each be two stories. Staff finding of facts: • Current R-S zoning allows a 25 foot building height which may be limited by the Development Review Board and Town Council to one story when abutting an R1 district per OVZCR section 23.7.C.4 • The applicant submitted a concept plan to the Development Review Board (DRB) for the June 13, 2006 meeting for guidance regarding the one story vs. two story issue. • The DRB supported allowing the two story building. • The applicant states they contacted neighbors regarding the height variance. • The apartments abutting the south property line are two stories. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 4 Minutes • The apartments abutting the north property line are three stories. The first floor is partially at basement level. • The western property line abuts 20 feet alley and single family single story subdivision. • The site slopes down more than 20 feet for Oracle Road to the western property line. • The applicant proposes to build the buildings with a finished floor elevation 16 feet below Oracle Road and terrace the parking. • An increase in building height does not increase the allowable development FAR. • The General Plan designation for this parcel is NCO,Neighborhood Commercial/Office and HDR, high density residential. However, the underlying R-S zoning prevails over General Plan designation. The proposed use is also compatible with the existing surrounding properties. • In summary, the proposed two story office complex is allowed in the R-S district, meeting other zoning code requirements, and are supported by staff. In conclusion, staff analysis of the variance to allow the proposed office development located on Oracle Road was that the required findings are met. In particular, the proposed two-story office development will fit into and should not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. Chair Martin opened the public hearing and swore in the witnesses that were intending to testify. Sue Brinley, 9020 North Shadow Mountain Drive, stated that Mr. Winters' and the architect had been very accommodating, however, after the June 27th meeting she was distressed after receiving a letter identifying the request for variance would be changed from 25 feet to 34 feet. She stated that she had concerns because there was no guarantee other changes would not be made. She explained that there could be more of a compromise made regarding the height of the building and hoped the drainage would not be a problem in the area. Chair Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Winter stated that the drainage was required to meet the code standards. MOTION: Member Schannep moved to APPROVE Case No. OV10-06-07, a request for variance to include the lighting and parapet height relocation as negotiated with the neighbor. Member Parisi seconded the motion. Discussion: Member Hickey stated that he could not see any circumstances or conditions on the property that would preclude constructing 40 thousand square foot of anything, therefore believes Criteria#1 had been met. He expressed concern with the height being driven by the engineer as well as the placement of the air conditioning unit. Vice Chair Schannep supported the motion and stated that he was very sensitive to the property rights of the neighbors and appreciated the applicant's working with the community so diligently. He suggested that by repositioning the parapets walls on an angle could help preserve the views of the mountain. 07 25 06 Board of Adjustment 5 Minutes Chair Martin explained that the topography in Oro Valley has been an issue in a number of cases, but in this case all 5 criteria had been satisfied. He stated that to enjoy property rights he believed that visibility would constitute as a component. Member Kessler stated that she supports the motion because the proposed structure would be compatible with the surrounding building, so for continuity it would be sensible to have the building approximately the same height as the buildings to the north and south. She agreed that the criteria had been met. Roll Call Vote Vice Chair—aye Member Parisi—aye Member Kessler—aye Member Hickey—nay Chair Martin—aye Motion carried, 4-1, with Member Hickey opposed. Chair Martin recessed the meeting at 4:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 4:26 p.m. 3. CASE NO. OV10-06-09 Robinette Architects,Inc._representing Frank and Mary Engle, request a variance from the required 18' building height, up to 23',when measured from natural grade on a custom graded lot with a greater than 6% slope. Subject property: (parcel#220-07-0530) located at 11321 N. Charoleau Drive, Oro Valley,AZ 85737, in the Palisades Point subdivision. Lee Pettit, representing the Engles explained that the expiration of the pre-annexation agreement for Palisades Point will prevent this project from being developed to the standard of the existing neighborhood and adjacent properties, specifically with regard to allowable building height. reported that the current zoning requirements would not allow this project to blend with the t would existing neighborhood context and would severely limit the views from the property, and have a negative impact on the property value. He explained that only a very small portion of the project exceeded the current 18 feet-0 inches building height requirement, whereas the entire project was in conformance with the original development standards. He reported that the Oro Valley Development Review Board and the subdivision previously approved a 2-story version of the project, which had a greater overall building height than what was currently being proposed. He added that the project had not been through the permitting process and that the request would be to obtain a variance from 18 feet-0 inches to 22 feet-0 inches maximum building height. In answer to a question from Member Kessler, Lee Pettit reported that the majority of the community was developed and the existing homes were built under the old zoning rule requirements. Senior Zoning Inspector Dee Widero explained that the Engles were requesting approval to build a home on a custom graded lot with an average cross slop greater than 6 %per cent. She reported that the proposed height overall was 15 feet 6 inches in height, with the foyer being visually the highest point at 17 feet 9 inches in height on a 6 inch foundation. She explained that the southwest portion of the home, ranges from 11 feet to 14 feet in actual height; with an Jp,L qR LEY , TOWN OF ORO VALLEY o Q- ti COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT o -9 Planning and Zoning•Building Safety p 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 Oro Valley Public Library 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319 Parks and Recreation -,,, I), 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 °UNDED 1g1 July 26, 2006 Copper Stone Development, LLC. Devin Welch 4651 N. 1st Ave, #200A Tucson, AZ 85718 RE: Case No. OV10-06-07 Parcels 225-11-1970, 225-11-1980, 225-11-1990,request for variance from the allowed building height of 25' to allow 34'. Dear Welch, At their regular meeting of July 25, 2006,the Board of Adjustment voted to approve your variance request. Please continue working with the Town's planner Mr. Ronquillo to resume the development process. The following requests were made by the board: • The applicant is to lower the parapet and lighting height as much as possible. • Note: Outdoor lighting is reviewed during the building permit process. For additional information on your case file,please contact the Clerks office, to receive a copy of the minutes from this meeting. Linda Hersha,will be happy to assist you 229- 4744 or E-mail: lhersha@orovalley.net. Sincerely, Patty Hayes Zoning Inspector Town of Oro Valley � / - ..� C: File -,26 C: Carl Winters, 270 N. Church, Tucson, AZ 85701 www.townoforovalley.com Page 1 of 1 Gay, Shirley From: Ronquillo, David Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:56 PM To: Gay, Shirley Subject: FW: Copper Stone Development Case No.OV120536 For file. From: Brinley1212@aol.com [mailto:Brinley1212@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:50 PM To: Ronquillo, David Subject: Copper Stone Development Case No.OV120536 Variance request Case No. OV 10-06-07 Development Project#OV120536 Dear David: At the Board of Adjustment meeting on July 25, 2006, concerning the request of Copper Stone development to raise the height of proposed buildings from 25'to 34' I took issue with the rear parapet wall. The architect, Dick Greene, had told me that he could lower it about 18 inches. I did not find that an acceptable compromise and brought it before the board. Mr. Greene came forward and said that he could do better and lower it a few more feet. I felt this a more reasonable compromise. I would like it to go on record that we, (Betty Carroll & and my husband & myself),would request a 4 ft. reduction in the wall or the overall height of the bldg. It would be our desire that this condition be stated on the development plan at your next meeting. I have spoken with Craig Civilier in Engineering and he has assured me he will oversee the drainage issue with regard to this project. We so appreciate your help in protecting our residential rights. Please advise me of any further action that we need to take or any meeting we should attend to insure our request will be acted upon. Sincerely, Ed & Sue Brinley Betty Carroll 9020 N. Shadow Mtn. Dr. 9030 N. Shadow Mtn. Dr. Oro Valley AZ Oro Valley, AZ This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield. Any infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Technology Division 07/27/2006