Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV130348 DEC-17-03 10:02PM FROM-Residential Concepts 6022584725 T-597 P.01/01 F-840 r{.»C v/-r,,,. 12/ A/2003 11:11 52074210; (. c��" ' i . �o Y,4,141 , e- i t .ri 'rFt„ 614"" Planning&Zoning Division 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Ora Valley AZ 85737 Phone:(520)229-4800 Fax:(520)742-1022 www.town ofo r ovalley.Corn APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT ARCHITECTURE DATE: 12-- l$-°3 OV CASE NO,: (office use only) PROJECT NAME: Coftsitr IA0u .�K r(ci SUBDIV151ON LOT# LOCATION!ADDRESS: 2 3 50 11•A-s Q -- ZONING g PARCEL NUMBER; LOT SIZE l 77,2GS 111OL4L NAMES OR NUMBERS APPLICANT; � A-!`. t.‘ Asf-e-,--LuA,... arc- C 4 _ _.__ ADDRESS: 1 d ----ts 7 3.7 l C Ac-c_E--7 , Az .l ? 7 .'-7 PHONE NO.;(sue)7 / 7-2-S 8 Z- FAX NO.:(5z ) - 2 2 1 g Z 6 Z- r; t ,,,, ` F - sse+M b(,C`es o ------;.CT PROPERTY OWNER:�, A ZD� ��5��c- �� cam, � ADDRESS:_ _ _ _�----- — --- - -- PHONE ONE NO.:E 7O Z.�Z$ 2- CC( 5 FIX NO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING DATE: _ . --- - SIGNATURE:T C4-' DATE: I Z- i$ -'6: — . — r -.ter Submittal Requirements_ I fees , 9, -��.One copy of 24x3fr elevations and floor plan 114 or VS scale t�,? t~�"���ki �.:�`� � .,,..'. r2- One copy of 2436 site plan 40 scale (Custom Lots Only) ,' `/.j, Typical lot lay out for subdivision t. --=t lids-lot f t analysis for subdivisions 140.Cut sheets for lighting(Ail Commercial Projects,Custom Homes,and Model Plans) ��-'} Fifteen copies of the following: e2,,,,,,.. `,: �i t ..,L, Dimensioned Elevations of all four'sides of all buildings and floor pfan(1 i"x 17"format) 2-,l`.rf1)v`t. ' _IA Commercial projects require color drawings or photographs of elevations(8'/"x 11"format) a ,�� List square footage of buldings t '1 f 1 .' ._.N Plan(Jrx 17"format) °' t tdit l'l Color chips of body,trim and roof tiles(8'A"by 11"format)Commercial and Residential Applicator's will not be accepted without all required materials. ,y. - ; 1WN OF ORO VALL.,Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 PHONE: 229-4800 FAX: 742-1022 RECEIPT ****************************************************************************** REFERENCE NUMBER: DS0300700 RECEIPT #03P00758 SITE ADDRESS: TAXCODE: DATE: 12/18/2003 TIME: 03:26 PM COMP TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT TYPE: DESCRIPTION: DRB SUBMITTAL CHURCH APPLICANT: COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OWNER: Notation: Receipt By: SG ******************************************************************************************* SG PAID BY: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 3512 270 . 00 TOTAL: 2 7 0.0 0 FEES PAID: Description Account Code Current Pmts Development Review Board 001-000-408 270.00 TOTAL: 270.00 Account#: Ending Balance: $ « 1---\ TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: January 13,2004 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: Susana Montana,Planner II OV13-03-48, COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE FOR A CHURCH SANCTUARY/MULTIPURPOSE ROOM TO BE BUILT ON A PORTION OF A 10.23 ACRE CHURCH "CAMPUS" LOCATED AT 2350 W. TANGERINE ROAD AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND COMO DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 219-42-014B. BACKGROUND: Architectural Management, representing the Copper Mountain Assembly of God church, seeks approval of architectural plans for a 7,610 square foot (sf) church sanctuary and multi-purpose room to be located on a portion of the approximately 10 acre Parcel No.219-42-014B. This property is located on the northwest corner of Tangerine Road and Como Drive, in the area formerly described as Tortolita. The church began the development process with the Town in 1999 with approval of a group home (0V8-99-2) on August 18, 1999. However, subsequent to that date, the area reverted to the County's jurisdiction where the Applicant received a Conditional Use Permit(CUP case number P21-00-012) for a group home and an approved Development Plan (case number P1200-103) for a 12,100 sf church sanctuary and a 5,694 sf, 12 bed group home facility, plus accessory parking. The CUP authorized a 12 bed facility that may increase to 20 beds after County (now, Town)review of its operations. The 12 bed group home facility has been constructed and is in operation. The Town honors the above-referenced County-approved land uses and Development Plan designs. The property was annexed into the Town in 2002 and a translational zoning to R1-144 (Single Family Residential) was approved, although the Town Council approved the County approved use permit and Development Plan for a church and accessory buildings. SUMMARY: The architectural style of the project may be classified as derivative Spanish Colonial style architecture which features a flat roof, an exterior wall finish of earth tone stucco or concrete masonry unit (CMU) painted an earth-tone, and Spanish-Colonial style fenestration and cornice treatments. The building exterior would be treated with a stucco "wainscot" finish and an earth tone wall cap. The tall, single story sanctuary structure has two portions that break up the mass and bulk of the building: The lower portion, at 18 feet, encompasses the entryway and service areas; the sanctuary portion features a building height of 28 feet. The taller portion of the room would accommodate the sanctuary worship function as well as, on occasion, a recreational gymnasium function. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The church sanctuary is proposed for construction in two phases: Phase 1 involves the current application for a 7,610 sf structure housing a lobby and vestibule, lavatories, kitchen, child care space and storage space; Phase 2 is to involve an expansion of the sanctuary/multi-purpose room space to the west of less than 5,000 sf. A separate TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Staff Report to Development Review Board, OV13-03-48, January 13, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Architecture review application would be required for Phase 2;the subject of this application and review is Phase 1 only. The following describes each of the elevations: Front: The building has two "front" elevations. The south elevation provides two entry ways which provide architectural treatments (cornices and windows) that break up the mass of the building. With the Phase 2 expansion, this south wall would serve as the main entrance and"front"elevation. The east elevation also provides a main entrance to the facility. The south and east elevations are joined in an arc and a public art piece is shown to be installed where these two facades meet. Both elevations are treated with windows, doors,wainscot, cornice and window molding treatments that break up the mass of the building. Rear: The north elevation is the "rear" elevation and would be viewed by homes to the north. This elevation is shown on the application as a large expanse of blank wall. The Applicant has since agreed to embellish this façade by adding windows and a large door to break up this expanse of wall. These features are described in Exhibit A as conditions of approval numbers 2 and 4. At the January 13, 2004 Board hearing, the Applicant would like to present revised drawings which depict how those conditions are proposed to be met. Left Side: The "left" elevation is the west elevation which is the area proposed for expansion in Phase 2. It is unknown how long it will take the Church to pay for Phase 1 and save for construction of Phase 2. As such, staff has asked the Applicant to incorporate architectural treatments into the west elevation that could either be salvaged and incorporated into Phase 2 construction, or could be destroyed. The Applicant has agreed to this and would like to present his preferred alternative to the Board at the January 13th hearing. Conditions numbers 3 and 4 of the attached Exhibit A would mitigate against this blank wall impact. COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS The building area, setback and height requirements of the County-approved Development Plan apply to this project and are as follows: The Sanctuary may be 12,100 square feet; The building must be set back 100 feet from any property line; The sanctuary may have a maximum building height of 34 feet,with a finished floor elevation at 2,781.5 feet(above sea level). The project is in compliance with the building area, setback and maximum height requirements approved on the County-approved Development Plan. Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) Because the Development Plan was approved by the County, and the Town Council agreed to honor the development therein, the proposed church sanctuary is not subject to the TRCOD standards. However, the sanctuary would be constructed more than 400 feet from the centerline of Tangerine Road and, although the taller portion of the sanctuary would be viewed from Tangerine Road, the architectural design, building materials and colors meet the architectural design guidelines of OVZCR Section 10-006 as described below: • S TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Staff Report to Development Review Board, OV13-03-48, January 13,2004 Page 3 of 5 Architectural Design:Buildings constructed in the Tangerine Road Corridor should be low and of colors, materials and textures, which blend with natural desert vegetation, Building Materials: Building materials that respond to community desires for southwestern and ranch-type design themes...should predominate the Tangerine Road Corridor. Building Colors:Building colors should relate to one another and the natural environment on the basis of pigment, color value and/or intensity. In the Tangerine Corridor, earth tones and pastels are encouraged. The lower portion of the sanctuary building would not be viewed from Tangerine Road as they would be obscured by the existing 18 foot tall group home facility. Eighteen feet of the sanctuary could be seen from Tangerine Road. The view would be of the south elevation's upper wall consisting of an earth tone stucco or CMU material as well as the rust colored wall cap. The proposed exterior finish and trim materials and colors comply with TRCOD. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The architecture complies with the General Plan's Community Design Element policies in that the design and color scheme will blend with the natural environment. In addition,with the addition of architectural elements that satisfy the conditions of Exhibit A, all sides of the building will be "coherently designed and treated" (Policy 9.1.F) and would incorporate features that"reduce the apparent size and bulk of buildings"(Policy 9.1.G). PUBLIC PRESENTATION: Pursuant to Resolution (R) 98-31, "all presentations before Boards, Commissions and Council of rezonings, subdivision plats, development plans, and planned area developments must be formatted to be shown on the Town's projection system or overhead system. The Planning and Zoning Administrator; however, may exempt certain projects." A presentation must be designed to insure that the audience, staff, and voting body can view the graphics. Examples of acceptable computer formats are Power Point, Arc View, a videotape presentation, presentation boards and/or overhead transparences. The applicant is responsible for the development,presentation, and coordination of all presentation materials. If an applicant does not conform to the aforementioned resolution, the item may be continued due to non-compliance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the architectural plans for OV 13-03-48, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Sanctuary at 2350 W. Tangerine Road, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to approve OV13-03-48, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". OR I move to approve OV13-03-48, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" as well as the following condition(s) OR I move to deny OV 13-03-48,based on the following finding(s) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Staff Report to Development Review Board, OV13-03-48, January 13,2004 Page 4 of 5 Attachments: 1. Exhibit"A" 2. Location Map 3. Plans 4. Elevations 5. Color Samples C: Applicant: Pastor William Seale,Fax: (520)229-9262 • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Staff Report to Development Review Board, OV13-03-48, January 13,2004 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A"to OV13-03-48, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Sanctuary 1. The Applicant shall submit revised Architectural elevations that satisfy conditions 2 through 5 within 90 days of approval of this Application; 2. The Applicant shall install windows, large entry doors and other permanent architectural treatments on the north elevation to break-up the mass of the building, as viewed from the residential neighborhood to the north; 3. The Applicant shall install either (A) a minimum of three windows on the upper portion of the west elevation that can be salvaged and installed on the west elevation of a Phase 2 expansion of the sanctuary; or (B) architectural features on the upper portion of the west elevation, such as faux window treatments, cornice lines, concrete or stucco "relief' or "pop out" treatments, or metal artwork or appliqué to "break-up" the mass of the building as viewed from Tangerine Road and properties to the west; 4. The wainscoting shall be wrapped around the building to tie all four sides together architecturally; and 5. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. 1 � a . n 3 z lv Xi ,� 0 W 21942014B +1{j} W TANGERINE RD to r 0V13 - 03 - 48 Location Map r r' ` LI. I `�-.• I J�' `K" ^+'�- _ • ...�� -1 _ ` _ari' 1441 j.R(F�1'rYLTl1�1-L I�ObIF1Cr — 6� U�I a ! t f t _ ,.� >+ •'�v� y- _ � -Aar-_ u r.-.1-�'L D o� -"Tuloo rN.741 0+� 1-bov N^E — ao ID' A� t AO r i +y - .. - -'_ '`'• _ •- a`A `t - ri - _ h�bCl� poD — GOB °Fri }�kT� �L�/• - _ ._: - la' s!-1acN r l`a�rur..1, rt el.v 1 Hy— Ca 1.-9z "•. s - l '-�"t`__�* * .fir.+ , • g It r'_ -_- _ • t i NORTH ELEVATION [R-/. ----5zTIo1si J_i f 9u1'F:r/e'-1-0" i B i Y - = GMu rrr•I--gG or. •rrucco rINISH oN I<loo,re...H, - —.1-.1" r 44,....C .. v� - � - * 1 4-._.,•41,;..z.`-ram `„ __ . - +t. • t• y- �. o 01 p M ;_ c M u fe r r, fu,115N oN I•IaoP Fr/•r4 5 !/,,fro r , 42 tl " tCC i a .�tfah .` r „ ,ii lit, rrcr .:'^' _ - �� r tl — Lo li it., ----. _ D® Ml '� rAte CI. ,1- :IF 1- _ -- - Y-- —_ _.. 6`�NI�" u�L Wd•Ir it T -- GDl.o fz 11 8 Q y - .� `- f-T GY N 1'1-r N Z E �I re-1-1 G as - I .� P 11 Q. < O >- SOUTH ELEVATION L r'.,r../LTiol�I -,, - �jL. G scu:,A-r o - I--� �"" . o { Li i . -1 � _'+- '., "' ', p1e-bL Gs-P — Gc Lo °all L� 0 c i ' _ - *"..ti- J . GM u pe 1 ri cr.., o� �irueao �N I1 oN �ooP rl E _ tol of �„ Z �: I I I Z 5p 0 .• { ±-+ r-1 :wt.,.•+ ----- -- �I r I GGTUI' NIGI: - GC Lo(� Ppn w \ V z q u'. _.i l ►/�a►�""c lam,,,. r't •-'a 'VS Q,ps 1-I,T ,T11F1•� E4.44,Ir,..I - GbL9� Iptl = I r -p 2!^ :� •sue•. ..` .. 7� 0. w. N I 1 ! I � r, .- A NI ,�-r4QpI. 1.16WIN — Go Le(L It� 0.. Z�_ ii . : -i �C:_I•111 IIMIN I i L 3 -• .j 1 r/i 1, �.Ialrt.iGoa _ coI- , a 1, `d U�7® � r _11,1 l r. a�_-�yN r �''� T ''I� :o r, 6@ y.}, el 6/r Cr4'L•aZINei i K r,, oN.E .dLUMR'I u01 rpPI�IL�4 a9 v N _. .AFT tx•11 t>11 oom I EAST ELEVATION L r�µ.T �,1v;'rior l ic.? .. _ ..,. MSE 1/1".1-0' • Sat 11) a: :- — � ,1- , •�f nrchlcnccurnl i iki:. .... - 4,-. -= -- -- - -, ,*4" ' 1 j [�. 4, ;' - ' +{ _ r GMu P.1 1(�P e� f rrui �INISN cri Lloob R.ori� - �IoR B !VI, 11 441.201 y. + -t� tY II II I 1 imroe RV 49 9884 [[ �=•1 y , L' .+. _ry x,•_ 9` •'"y '' "3 - GM u1 D6 r Nary G S uel o 11•11441 GN L' 1- u P I. 607 a3B 8881 ".-.- �•:'-.ri ti. _� �' �� - I I'' � r F 1'+A7P F�SM� _ G6r-or t/ I. /8DB78.88Y6 gommot r•_ e, t,�i'�•..#1- c • rz„� r ..,, . ` _ � scull�ty�u�ul, t+{oLvI - Goio� °E" i .:a" ►g.geS€�,�-•. .r i-•tr' ._ y .,3 �.:3 0 1 c N 1 rrC iu F4- MoI,DI NCt GGkQ(t • .... .._ --�.. .-_ .,-t ems'.- _ pPaMr _ —� F•�N� ic,FAL Wars c,oe,r - �Lo� brit • L��, WEST ELEVATION r�e:-,, �I- .�i Ti/%r a� ELEV mut:Ve_rowtiffiiiiii JAN 01'2004 400? 1 0 NW . ....—.... " 4•0091. > 0 -— — \ "ti 1 a . $ • • '.... 1..NI - nu wir loll ''_., 0 sr C-. iTI '' el I-- - • • - 0 .. ' •• " —I ‘ . . III . - 1E11: : - - _ .- - . • . _ s ,•L•ii.•• -' *- .. .1.1.-mri .0-- - Ni G•••) -., Do \ • m vb-, NORTH ELEVATION [F,e,1-17 g..i.vv4-r-101-1 ) A' . DO uraz:OF-iwr 7 0 , , .. • • • > / . • •i • , • •I ,,------..."`,..._. - _ _ 0 i 1 - • . ..• --- "'- _ _ 0 it • o It i C4 • 7---*----.... . ""--77--..: 77-''''..,F=7 i t IM n I ; .. : , 4-1 i .'1,i1, ,/ . ‘ 1 '4,..'1 la'- i el • • • 1 ' - i ..: .._ ,I! - , ,,1 , I, ,:i 11 ,. ;• : - .... - ...............,_- ....-. _ - --,.... ...."-A.....L-1_ - 'S'IR _ ... . . . _._. _ SOUTH ELEVATION L r,,,- ic.:L.-v, /Ac Ile,r4 ] _ . _ _ . . _ . --- 11111;IN-e-r-- 1 _ ... 11111 _.. ; -- •-• - . —.... _. ...• r : ....._.-.. 1' I '1 Allin 1"I 1111 i 11111111111*1111 I'I .. _ ., „ • 1 _ .:._ _____ _ .. ........ _....... .._____. . 1 --- ....__.. . . . .. . EAST ELEVATION t, rFe441 I,k.v4 1-10 r-' ---.Now•rmismiff....= son:lir- , •--. ‘1, r . 0- • 1 , am I ),,,ir..,.... ,r,„..,, ,-....., , ..I •, t , III ill 1 1 . . i . . P 1 1 1_-_i 1.-.1 1.-J • • i UPON.mi I I I I I r,,,,...iv.... . 1111 , -- =t1 e . 11111111111101111111111111111.111111111111111 1 '111111111111111113 -,i, --..- ....„., WEST ELEVATION I r f-it-14, 5,1---t•-•VAT!ot.4 _ ___ salt•We-r-ff irevisions Al 4 0 01 r - - otio r.,t-a'1' n h�UCG r,,,,.( o++ 1.106,12 rfiff.1/I — Gr>i- 'N doll MONNIMMI I 1.-_ —_— 1 i -0 o 1 f NORTH ELEVATION [ pi--r Ii..- .v,4-Ti or- J SCM-f:1/B.=1•-0• f - __ Gr.+u 1,1 l-1-1- tv v K .5,11,4_ 6) riN is1.4 nN. vtac� r ,„,, — ,,o aG 1 I _ 1i =-, - ._�� _ r,0;-�- la '- C +I,,.•I — ,,,,L� lip u _ 1 N _0 -C �. 4 —ter I _ F — — AMU_ pIr+ rstr�o �irJiSf} ©N bop rt1l 1��0� II�II N - r IIf tr r 1){ 'till 1 I ' 1 // ' '0 ,,,, LI, ., I w i ----- ------ -- SOUTH ELEVATION r ,� -i T \/4---1a 1`4- J o z SCALE:1/8"a 1'-O LL o Q >" Q o a 3 I T w §�__-- t a- GM U f -+-1, " o 'ULLO �1,► ,,4 oN I -�, ri,,,,, - fir- P) z z w w - - I_ +I 1I QQZ — - - -N,1 r rz/.L rl ire I.o p ►— C/] c -' ) o u Fl- 5 4. W ¢` . ice � T M , z IF _ IIt ' Ire-H: I - . r-., ,0 1 W-I 1 I/' IA 11`1/447ee'AT — Ge* 11. 11 .-e, - / --I------, L.____________ __if - - _ _ " t b.,amt. Last* ..,..,_„,._____...._ .._._ ________ . , ..4.--- u�G� CV/�E.r.- y`LINr� #. p -iL � N .�I-UMfI'1 Uu! r ./�ytLR4 _.._ k' 6'► N EAST ELEVATION m 1. "��.� n?'r \SttiPED AAA z ��„��F IGA tE °' SCALE•1/8.=1-0. �ti 24858 1 MICHAEL F. 1 HtLOERS 1' �Od pne• ' .6 1i , 117 - Gv�d - A _ - - -- - - --- I _ - 4�Vet • architectural ` f management o e_ f` r ' 1 11 4411 south rural road_� E M1.1 rmilT v mF, ./71;.Ie rtil.i4-4- 1►-o 17 rrAi w - ' °- - suite zal _1 z tempe arizona 85282 GM4 S-lN p 6 4'''O Itii _--.—._.___-- -: 1� �J 1 ��P ro..r _ I�P phone:60Z.499 9864 W Hit _"fT r rT`I' fax: 480.638.8826 ....._ _i �u�NE- �Ff151cN /¢ .-f 1T4/„1U.r LL r0L-V 1Hai — r_ I�l! DRAWN iL Rob D CHECKED BY. 9 1) ;AY D.CAMPBELL o —.ye —__ � y DATE: __..__... --......_._.-..--.... __ _.. --.-._-.._-.._�."— --._ December 2003 --- -_ -.__ -. 3 PROJECT VT: w \ RC-0226 WEST ELEVATION r ,';;�� ���v�> ��t� A e- 1-1 ��r . 14, - e.taT -- 6 ,, e e ,,r1► SHEET>r ► T _ ELEV SCALE:1/8-=1•-0 0esig— g #:OV12-03-27 MOORE RD. 23 21 revisions �S 95 544 L4 I A g N �i s Al ^ � Al 1 E of I 0 p a I (VACANT) (RESIDENCE) 9 - „. N b9°51'31°E 630' S� 5 00°OI'27"IN S.O' — — — � � t—F� o .�I T a .��. �.y LIMEYIOOD DR r___ _ _N 89.5650"E 124.46' / O l�r Z 1 / I O 1 / /'LIMITS OF 1 �TAN6EWNE-••. DISTURBANCE I / '/ ` I PROJECT LOCATION rc 1 / I MERIDIAN, IN ,R13E,bILA SALT RIVER i. 1 / j / 1 SITE LOCATION MAP W e+cioem TRAIN SCALE: NTS 1 ��` DUP�STER AREA PER 1 1 LIMITS OF / FUTURE I TOM ORDNANCE I D15 '" EXPANSIO NEW ' — I LEGAL DESCRIPTION SANCTUARYallf 4 e11�RACKS (6 STALLS) i 1 �_ ` 1 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE / t M SIDEWALK SOUTHEAST QUARTER SECTION 39 7115,RISE,&ILA S SALT RIVER i 1 i: �M .._ " ___, 1 MERIDIAN,PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA.EXCEPT THE EAST 90 FEET �'�''/� THEREOF,EXCEPT THE SOUTH 90 FEET AS SHONN IN BOOK T,PASE S r>s#ii. N • . v a! iti;g6 .. b9 OF ROAD MAPS. I 7 ..,• 13` I and THE SOUTH 485 FEET OF THE NORTH 460 FIST OF THE EAST 124.46 �f / �7/� tWit FAT OF THE SIN QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF 1 Q Jr- - 1,..._ .[/. 1 SECTION 33,TIISRI3E SALT RIVER MERIDIAN PIMA COUNTY, �? / 1K:] !S ARIZONA. 0i 'its : .�.t $1 4 / _ t / _ -DUS LANE •♦ 9 � / 4 ) STA61N&AREA* $I :.8 ; !/� ! -'i. ' FUTURE PARKING ' PROJECT o / _ /,/ EXPANSION • SCOPE 1CS / '_ / / Il �'4 , l \ / x1 1... V 1° ` /� �_.;... itt l I / a PHASE I O • HALF SANCTUARY 4 MULT1-PURPOSE g I _ '/ l_.. ./.// / /' i / / I • CLASSROOMS • RESTROOMS I / i �r / / f / / / 1 / i I Ln j / �/ l jt / PHASE II - FUTURE 0 1.Z 1 I I EXISTIi COMPLETE SANCTUARY I RILL COURT MULTI-PURPOSE = Z Pfr INb / • ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS X , f I ! r • -• ADDITIONAL RESTROOMS L.L. p �_ / ADDITIONAL PARKIN& Q [> 1 4—EXISTING`O OP/,. r' ,I l / l — I —I Q Fe4GE / /, // Q a / _ �, /`� 1 PROJECT DATA C � � / RETENTION / / Project Address: a I EXISTING % / SHAWIALK / DISTURDANCE 1T5 OP 111 2330 Y.I.T Ina Road C/] p Oro Val Qr. 1 BUILDING /%, / / L / / 1 > •eyr Q V C 1 / / _ ` / / 10 cc Zoning: — Q Z N 89°%50"E 124.46' I - / / S8 RI-144 I— C i / ��� ,/ I I Building Information: / PAGE 29902 / EXI5TIN6 FENCE — / 1 Now Sanctuary-Phase I 7610 5.F. W Q / / _ Phase II Budd Out ( )S.F. M 1— J -,J 1 ucp o.sies.to w p.a..weer mere iseregag Z O C 0 in / I 1 Parking Calculation a 1 ul 1 Church 240 Soots(2.%) �60 Stalls iala s a Q. 1 1 6 Empbyoos 9 Stalk 2 Stalls °m M S N I I Total Pl ovldsd 69 Stalk > 62 Stalk •O.K. na CO N O I Provided 6 Accosble Stalls > 3 Accosslblo•O.K. — W • I Provided S Bicycle Stalls > S Bicycle =O.K. 21 I S,,4.0 AR 4� l m to1 <<,4,,c,:\' AfE'.\.` i I I I , 24658 I MICHAELF. 1 I HIL e I .' Sign•0 ,,.' b o; ,;,, N b9°5T 31"E 630' Mor, NIT,',,!'. - ... __ r,l:, MO NM MN =111111•111MMI MEM MN aaa111M1111111•11 MN MN ass. all = -IIM- = 111111MIMMIM NO In 1111•101111.1•• aaa..aa0111. MI NIMINIIMIMMINI . MN 1=...MIMMI MS MN FD I"OD PIPE 3 ,SGN l6u.t0gl LL N if IYXX/,YXXI.XXX/XXX/..XXXJ.YXX /YY)C1yV_II ♦ ,,,,_ Y .v-- -- -- -- _ __ _ ____ ___ ___ N89 519r E TANGERINE ROAD architectural -- --------__------_—_---_—_-----_ �XI V PAVE__.--- _.�� management ROAD 2639 (BOOK 1,PASS 83 ROADS) 4411 south rural road SECTION LINE P. Z V7T.Y /7YV7YV)r7YY-i(79WJWZ/7 suite 201tempe.— — suite 2 ari:nna 85282 f H phone:802.499.9864 I fax: 480.838.8826 g IMMEniMiii DRAWN BY: t5 Rob D CHECKED BY: i NAY D.CAMPRELL O ATE: November 2003 u north PROJECT ID#: X �� COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD MASTER PLAN Concept Nr 0� ' SHEET#. r-1�P 1"=40' MMIN SITE Design Review #:0V12-03-27 0. THIS DRAWING A THE DATA CONTAINED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY Of ARCHITECTURAL MANAGEMENT&MAY NOT BE USED REPRODUCED.COPIED OR TRANSFERED,WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSCENT Of THE PROPRIETOR AND OR COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE. NOR SHALL ANY DATA OR INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN BE USED IN PART OR IN FULL FOR ANT OTHER PURPOSE THAN THAT DESCRIBED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS. > n / 8" I —1 rn _ r) I I I I ____ ___ ,_ _____ __ T L c I i X \_ - .../ a r m , i ... ____ __ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ .._ .,___ ___ ___ __ _ )). _ P r 1: o gi - /, \<::\\\<>.\\/'V.,', • /\14/\,‘,....__.(As., ,,,,\:\:\:-:>\:\‘‘,/,,,,\,,,,,,i,,,,/,\\:::‘,./.7.\\,:::\/,,, '.,/ 111111114111111111C __, ___ _ lb cn i (--- ____(. 0 immounii xi `,, cn 23 imi 0 ■ 17�: ------ Tirygmommi_A___71 LIT Z ` ■ r-I O v D2)rn o) aa_, o= cn I Zr c o V e 0'N ' 4. :T' ---4 ^- `: 1-2 Ifi mprojectdescription S n Jy0 C�.C�s�4 4iy =g 9AY,, COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD �m r" 8TLiFi °_ m m ; �,a �� NEW SANCTUARY '� p,]AN aw m 2350 W. TANGERINE ROAD. PIMA COUNTY 1 k..,uvrsr...0 / . � WALKWAY 110 (RAMADA) fr a BUILDING SETBAC SF=6,316 X 62'-11" CHILDREN'S `. 2778 Kt 2 / SCHOOL B } 110' FIN. FLOOR FIN. FLOOR ELEV ELEV=2782. /6 000 SF BLDG NEW SANCTUARY 17. 4 110' FIN. FLOOR ELEV. = 2781.5 12,100 SF, BLDG HT=34' MAX ROOF HEIGHT r:. .,�, ,. ...„ /� MAX 34' Pi, .►r1,,..�,� J ..,...„ -j- Vir 94-;-. 10" 2 -10 " 4 ,, 4 6' SI[ A CHURCH a• •;'. ,;,fz SEPTIC SYS. '� '_10"� . •`'� �''+ a. 6' SIDEWALK i`, ,!a 85 —55,. ,_-__ Lij 24'-6" , . R 35 '- �, 'I` DRAINAGE R35'rrio 178 - t '2)(45 L� ''�1�:� ' w 81 �i:� I /iii /4 NA (79)�� 24 R2' k .. R35 -4 ;:l. • 8 CURB /- ( it; lI 35 / I ' 9 R R 15 • 24, 7 it_ �. " " Ii I Of = ir _ —12 CURB , �-- 8 / 1 / � g / 7 /W 14' Off E"f v1 \ 6 7 7 = INA DRAGE R3, - E--` OPENING IN CURB / --,...... -........... R 5 '3'R3� �P (See Grading plan) ' •' j �2"AC OVER 4"�C� 7 -... 1-'( tlit.t!alW.,,....,141.,... . Es (78) _______-----4- . . ; — W- DRAINAGE #z F 5—FT HIGH WALL (77) 64' - _ •'.. i`=';,.4.,,,. 7 • t,. ' : YARD 20'-5" rz'. 4 ----r ,S;>y`r,�� r Alkimp„.__ 4 1 p► K•, ARETAKER►�_ . :.,.,; ..f�.. . 20' x� : 74, 'tax:, 41.ND SPRINGBO a RD ` �' t BOUNDARY i 'i� 5,694 S// 50' i 1pr i W / " CURB ' / 6 SIDEWALK SPRINGBOARD f 1 g SEPTIC SYS. - COURT W 1 PIIIKVAr5g_.,,,I 93' 8 / 75'—g' r Ink ? x 0 FIN. FLOOR am' ELEV. = 2777 5 4" DIA - AX HT = 18' 4,0, 0 " FIRE LINE ....1 li F- 4 I / DRAINAGE • —'"'��I •k / j,, 31'-4" �� 24 11- };t / 114'-5 R25 _(77) t --- 100' CSA BLDG SETBACK --) 7 / A 8 GY , ' 212' R2 I t. i , DRAINAGE _ ( 6) i / i . v E pRO ,'ALLEY WATER COMPANY THE DISPOSAL S\ 'EMS. SEWAGE DISPO OPMENT WILL BE SERVED B TWO 0�, _SITE SEWAGE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM , o I w 1 WATER: THIS DEVEL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SERVED BY T -PURPOSE EDUCATION BLDG.MEMBERS SHALL BE PER THE BU Z ; ' z 2) THE PROPOSED THE NUMBER OF -' SYSTEM #1 WILL SERVE THE SANCTUARY AND MULTI-PURPOSE SIZING, c RESIDENCE. FOR SYSTEM PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT � I -� SERVE THE SPRINGBOARDCALCULATION. TYPE 2 GRADING 9' D I LIMITS. SEE PARKING WILL SERVE AS THE I OCCUPANCYWHEN APPROVED, OFFSITE= 0.52 AC a, � � -014B. c � THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NUMBER AREA: �ON SITE=4•26 AC, 4) ASSESSOR TAX PARCEL NUM 10 23 A RES.01DISTURBED �, THE DEVELOPMENT PARKING SPACES REQUI 20' � THE GROSS AREA OF AREA = 4 �g AC. "� � I 5) CALCULATION 000 SF) + CLASSROOMS(4 URBED I)\, -- 3 �' so' EXIS ING ROW TOTAL DISTURBED PARKING + OFFI CES(1, 6' i� USEASSEMBLY AREA(4,000 SF) 4,000 SF/50 163 REC wER 4HABc - S R6) PARKING. oBUILDING: FIXED SEATING + 1 ,000 SF/300 + 3 REC R SANCTUARY 4,000 SF/ 50 20 REC � ` ' 3 RE, a ; , 10 EMPLOYEES / 4 (31 ' SPACE PER BED ©20 BEDS 189 SR I o I (VACANT) GROUP SHELTER: 1 2 o EMPLOYEES / PARKING SPACED REQUIRED. 9 �, I6 TOTAL PROVIDED: 196 SP I - ,I TOTAL PARKING SPACED ' PROVIDED) 7 C12 50 SP ACES) 1+4: 5 REQ D, s cuRe o, , (1+ 1 PER 2 RACKS REQ D I P: ES ' EQ'D o i BICYCL A 1 PER 15 SPACES 1 (12 X 45 R ) � � s' ' '; 'I BICYCLE SPACES: ,�i. � LOADING: LOW _/ I I Lp G N p T E S 24' F R M I T T I N '-8" P TED IN ACCOF 1 , ,� SERVICE AGENCY, AND IS PERMITTED SERVICE , 2' o I TINE ZONING = SR CHURCH AND A COMMUNITY ZONING CODE. THE COMMUNITY R3 l I 1) EXISTING PROJECT IS A r OF THIS 4 � 2) THE USE E 18.17.030D3 OF THE PIMA COUNTYAS APPROVE[ � ' SECTIONS 18.09.020 AND FACILITY. USE PERMIT P21 -00-012 I WITH SHELTER FAC CONDITIONAL CLASSIFIED AS A GROUP USE IS SUBJECT TO 3AGENCYFOLLOWING: o' w COMMUNITY SERVICESUBJECT TO THE m > 3) THE `� a _ Q10, 2001 . THIS PROJECT IS e o' APRIL -v z RD CONDITIONS. STANDARD MINIMUM SITE: TEN ACRES; FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE; I A) 100 FEET W' B) MINIMUM SETBACK: FEET; . i — � �h z� HEIGHT: ONE STORY OR 18 15 PERCENT o o C) COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES: AS SHOWN ON THE CONS 0 N N D) MAXIMUM LOT gE CONSISTENT WITH THAT I o w w QSPECIAL CONDITIONS: PROJECT SHALL 100' vQ ,� � AND LAYOUT OF THETOTAL DESIGN APPLICATION. SERVICE AGENCY IS LIMITED TO A D \tiV-- 0o 3) A) THE APPLIC20 BEN WITH THE C.U.P. FOR A COMMUNITY pTAL OF TWENTY ( )J SUBMITTED USE PERMITLICATI APPROVALTO A MAXIMUM T INCREASED THE FACILITY TO PROVIDE Ft IN WALL �� B) THIS .CONDITIONALFIRST YEAR AND MAY BE \ \ o THE ANY FUTURE EXPANSION OF RE-NOTIFICATION OF SURR( OPENINGSFOR Grading Plan) o Q (12) BEDS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. NEW C.U.P. APPLICATION, SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TC (See °- APPROVAL BY THE N SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE = --- � ' RESIDENT POPULATION NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS, ETC. TESTIFIED BY THE I PROPERTY OWNERS, N THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. LIMITED TO AGES 8-18, AS \ RECOMMENDATION TO S SHALL B E 2776 S THIS CAST ACK I �, A E OF THE THE GROUP--HOME OCCUPANT HEARING. AGENCY ONLY, IN x \ �- THE DOCUMENTS AND AT THE PUBLICCOMMUNITY SERVICE SUBMITTED ' THISSUBMITTAL DRAINAGE PERMIT APPROVAL IS FOR A CO AND BY THE DOCUMENTSSTATE APPLICAI ICONDITIONAL USE THE PUBLIC HEARINGTHAT ANY I D) DESCRIBED AT IN THE EVENT SHELTER AS D PIMA COUNTY CENTER OR TREATMENT GROUP HOME/SHELTER REQUIRED TO NOTIFY A DRUG REHABILITATIONAPPLICATION TO PIMA COUN 1 \ ' OWNER. THE OWNER TO LICENSE THE FACILITY AS T Y MADE TO SUBMIT A NEW C.U.P.FULLC.U.P. PROCESS, INCLUDI 1 J �UBSEQUEN L cN h,l I BE REQUIRED �� c, ,Q ,Ft�'T TO THE o o C HEIGHT: ONE STORY R 18 LL I; g F- N N i } COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES: 15 PERCENT OY� Q� D) MAXIMUM LOT g o i SPECIAL CONDITIONS: NT WITH THAT AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT LAN �' AND LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSIST \ggcL o �- A) THE DESIGN w NSERVICE AGENCY IS LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF TWELVE , \ \ �, J SUBMITTED WITH THE C.U.P. APPLICATION. COMMUNITY \ \ . a- v THIS .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR A MAXIMUM TOTAL OF TWENTY (20) BEDS AFTER o a- B) THE FIRST YEAR AND MAY BE INCREASED TO A OF THE FACILITY TO PROVIDE FOR A LARGER o (12) BEDS FOR APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. ANY FUTURE EXPANSIONRE-NOTIFICATION OF SURROUNDING • RESIDENT POPULATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A NEW C.U.P. APPLICATION, ALL BE ESTABLISHED TO MAKE A PROPERTY OWNERS, NEW PU BLIC HEARINGS, ETC. AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SH ) AGE OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. TO AGES 8-18, AS TESTIFIED BY THE OWNER IN ! \ \ � THE THE GROUP-HOME OCCUPANTS SHALL BE LIMITED� „ THE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS AND AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AGENCY ONLY, IN THIS CASE FOR A D) THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL IS FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICEDOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DESCRIBED AT THE GR OUP HOME/SHELTER AS PUBLIC HEARING AND BY THE . ) ) SWNER. THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PIMA COUNTYIN THE EVENT THAT ANY STATE APPLICATION IS EHABILITATION CENTER OR TREATMENT PROGRAM. IN SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO LICENSE THE FACILITY AS A DRUG R O.U.P. APPLICATION TO PIMA COUNTY TO EASEMENT THIS EVENT, THE OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A NEW 1 ACCESS CONTRO • L BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL C.U.P. PROCESS, INCLUDING KT PC_�- - ADDRESS THIS MORE INTENSIVE USE AND SHALL , / / D �� ADJACENT PROPERTYOWNERS, NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOTIFICATION OF T THIS P 4) A REGISTERE D ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR MUST CERTIFY TH ROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIALNAL INSPECTION/CERTIFCATION OF _.. WITH THE APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO A REQUEST FOR —/ — ..N 12 CONFORMANCE OCCUPAN CY, RELEASE OF ASSURANCES OR MODULAR PERMITS. E CONVERTED TO OTHER USES UNLESS IT CAN o � 5) AREAS AND SPAC ES DESIGNATED FOR REQUIRED PARKING WILL NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT SUFFICIENT ON SITE PARKING EXISTS. THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF 6" BE � NO FURTHER SUBDIVIDING OR LOT SPLITTING WITHOUT 6) THERE SHALL BE 277• SUPERVISORS. 2772, 5PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 18.77, SCENIC ROUTES. THIS APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE THE ZONING OFFICE WITH THE _ _ -�-- - 7) THE - - PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, 8) ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.77. PROVIDE A COLOR1 ,, PROPOSED COLORS AND WALL FINISHES THAT ARE IN RING AND CORRESPONDING COLOR CHIPS. a RENDE TO TANGERINE ROAD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, AND ,I I THERE WILL BE NO FINAL INSPECTION UNTIL IMPROVEMENTS CONTROL DIST. ` 9) , I .. ACCEPTEDi Fr BY PIMA COUNTY DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND FLOOD , ; i ! 3 Cornerstone Engineering APPROVE • BY THE I. BDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE g D D R E S S 9257 E. LaPaima Drive Tucson, AZ 85747 F / �� 4 „, _,,, - 277 F 574-8399 `.I.. .i�l i . . . ./�..� i 404 6 D TE La SUBDIVI - • COORDINATORmr A}t ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH AND <11 ____- COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY SPRINGBOARD HOME DEVELOPMENT PLAN �` l'k� THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE _.'_. ��4�.*�' �/ THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF T11 S R13E, GILA & SALT RIVER �� 2�°��� *c°.- SOUTHEAST QUARTER SECTION 3 3 e . P 1200—�03 � I a `� uX ' '' MERIDIAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. IA .' •1 OF • •RIZ.. 1"=40' :z- v H SHEETSCALES VERT. P21-00-012, P1200-103 COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD COLOR "A" COLOR "B & C" ... HORIZON PLUM GH50 COLOR "D, E & F" DOOR & WINDOW FRAMES • • ' '" t ' ra r rr: ^ , — " •' , , `1- , , • ° 'd _ '4111MI` '414 . - 12/18/2003 12:28 6022331102 CITY LIGHTS INC PAGE 01/01 ''';' .WIESE111 r, y ' LAMP LUMEN FACTOR H W D :... } ,4;;;. 11'i# ; TQ130 13W_..QUAD 860 NP.F 8 7 7 , — "- T026T 26W TBX 1800 HPF 8 7 7 •' TO213 2-13W PL 1600 NPF 111/2 10 11 • QUAD W 3600 1`F 11 1/2 10 _ �` , 0226Q 2-26 W .. ,,.... _ 11 - \TO232T 2-32W TBX 4400 HPF 111/2 10 11 _. :is-4. TO70M 70W MH 5500 HPF 111/2 10. 11 , TO100M 100W MH 9000 HPF 111/2 10 11 �. `1 =`;. STANDARD FEATURES 4,1... •Construction-Solid Brass •Wet Label f. .•,..M'Page •Fiaislaes Available-7.,2, ,3456> , ,7,89(SeePa S l) �'• �•• •Lens-Opal Polycarbonate _ r7,t?k,': ",t •Voltage 120 , eGff?g M.0 ti151-10):3--' LUXOR r.'/1 POWER ITEM# LAMP LUMEN FACTOR H W D LU13Q W..� 13W ,QUAD 860 NPF 10 15 10 LU26T 26W TBX 1800 _ HPF 10 _ 15 10.. .> LU213 2-13W PL 1600 NIT 13 3/4 19 3/4 13 112 . , LU226Q 2-26W QUAD _ 3600 HPF 13 3/4 19 3/4 13 1/2 •' . LU232T 2-32W_ TBX 4400 HPF 13 3/4 19 3/4 131/2 ,,.. LU7OM 70W MCI 5500 HPF 13 3/4 19 3/4_131/2 LU100M 100W MH 9000 HPF 13 3/4 19 3/4 13 1/2 _. ,, ,, - ,, ,, . ,.k,‘ • .1 - STANDARD FEATURES . •Construction-Aluminum •Wet Label ':,1 Finishes Available-1,2,3, , ,4567$, , ,9(SeePa ge 1) ,., . • ■Lens-Opal Polycarbonate •Voltage,-120 GLENDALE POWER `•i ITEM# LAMP LUMEN FACTOR H W A GL13 13W PL 800 NPF 7 11 9 '• GL26T 26W TBX 1800 HPF 7 11 . 9 G1213 2-13W PL 1600 NPF 7 161/4 9 GL22 22-26W „QUAD 3600 HPF 7 161/4, . 9 GL232T 2-32W TBX 4400 HPF 7 161/4 9 GL7OM 70W M 5500 HPF 7 161/4 9 ` ;; GL100M 100W MH 9000 HPF 7 161/4 9 • '• r STANDARD FEATURES .: i ' ••Construction-Solid Brass •Wet Label �r'; . •Finishes Available-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9(See Page 1) ..,7.;,,, •Lens-Opal or Clear Polycarbonate •Voltage-120 ORDERING INFORMATION (REFER TO PAGE 1) All products are manufactured in the U.S.A. 0 1 ATARliqr_ 12/18/2003 12:28 6022331102 CITY LIGHTS INC PAGE 01/01 '.,'f .IlIZEMIll POWER �•,w,,•b.. y •; r. .4 1 �M# LAMP LUMEN FACTOR H W D �..i,./. .:.. 4 T013Q 13W QUAD 860 NPF 8 7 .... 7 ' 26W TBX 1800 HPF 8 7 7 T0213 2-13W PL 1600 NPF 11 1/2 10 11 ' 02 62 Q 2-26W .QUAD 3600 MT 11 1/2.�10 11 : •:> \TO232T 2-3 W TBX 4400 HPF_ 11 1/2 10 11 dr.; 1070M 70W MH 5500 HPF 11 1/2 10 11 ,\ • TO100M 100W MH 9000 HPF 11 1/2 10 11 t, FEATURES ,,„' '' STANDARD •,� ;,�;�•:.< •Construction-Solid Brass •Wet Label r, . eel'a e ;:' ' ` Finishes Mailable-1,2,3456789, > , , , > (See S 1) ', • , •Lens-Opal Polycarbonate '' r::•: •Voltage-120 CC.frg ifkouts:51-7;,/), LUXOR -- v POWER ITEM LAMP LUMEN FACTOR H W A LU13Q 13W QUAD 860 NPF 10 15 10 LU26T 26W TBX 1800 HPF 10 15 10 ,•.'; LU213 2-13W PL 1600 NIT 13 3/4 19 3/4 13 1/2 LU226Q 2-26'4V QUAD 3600 HPF 13 3/4 19 314 131./2 _ •, LU232T 2-32W TBX 4400 HPF __13 3/4 19 3/4 13 1/2 LU7OM 70W MCI 5500 HPF 13 3/4 19 3/4 13 1/2 . ' LU100M 100W MH 9000 HPF 13 3/4 19 3/4 13 1/2 . x`:� _, .r M.. ;" 4311 •' STANDARD FEATURES x •Wet Label . •� •Construction-Aluminum. :: .; .. ', • •Finishes Available-1,2,^', ,45678, , , ,9(See Page 1) • — . ',, •Lens•Opal Polycarbonato •Voltage-120 GLLNDALE POWER •':<< ITEM# LAMP LUMEN FACTOR H W A GL13 13W PL — 800 NPF 7 11 9 '• GL26T 26W TBX 1800 HPF 7 11 9 ' ' GL213 2-13W PL 1600 NPF ,7 161/4 9 G L226Q• 2-26W C!UAD 3600 HPF.. ._ 7 161/4 9 �� GL232T 2-32W TBX 4400 HPF 7 161/4 9111111111 GL7OM 70W .Mil 5500 HPF 7 161/4 9 GL100M 100W MH 9000 HPF 7 161/4 9 r STANDARD FEATURES . •Construction ► •Wet Label I j .7:-• . •� -Solid Brass : • " .,. •Finishes Available-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9(See Page 1) . . •Lens-Opal or Clear Polycarbonate " •• ••l •Voltage-120 . r<< ORDERING INFORMATION (REFER TO PAGE I) All products are manufactured ir,the U.S.A. 0 SC, P. , MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: 6:03 p.m. PRESENT: Jim Vogelsberg, Chair Mary Caswell, Vice Chair Clark Reddin, Member (6:05 p.m.) Richard Feinberg, Member Al Kunisch, Member Conny Culver,Member ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Senior Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Craig Civalier, Development Review Division Manager Robert Conant, Planner II David Ronquillo, Planner I Kristina Curry, Secretary H ABSENT: Jeff Weatherford, Member REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 9, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Kunisch seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. (Member Reddin arrived immediately thereafter.) 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA 1. OV6-03-03, NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, REPRESENTING ADAIR FAMILY INVESTMENTS, REQUESTS APPROVAL TO CO-LOCATE A TIER I MINOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON AN EXISTING 40' MONOPOLE,LOCATED AT 421 N. COOL DRIVE, BETWEEN ORACLE ROAD AND NORTHERN AVENUE,PARCEL 225-141-92C David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record. He reported residents' initial concerns regarding health, safety, and aesthetic impacts, but also commented that no further concerns were raised with the 2nd noticing of the project. Staff recommended approval for co-location of the Minor Communication facility. Vice Chair Caswell inquired if the DRB had the option of requiring the pole to be painted a light blue, so as to be less offensive. It was answered affirmatively. Member Kunisch asked if the health concerns raised had been investigated. Bayer Vella noted that health issues were beyond the Development Review Board's purview. He encouraged focusing on the aesthetics and design of the project. Member Feinberg recalled staff's comment that the pole would be an improvement and lessen impact; he questioned in what way. David Ronquillo replied that the canisters would screen any additional antennas, leaving only the extension visible. Michael Elias of Techritech emphasized that the pole would be extended the minimum amount allowable without creating interference with the existing carrier. He added that co-locations were encouraged by most jurisdictions, as well as the stealth application use of canisters. Vice Chair Caswell asked the applicant if he would be opposed to painting the pole a sky blue. Michael Elias responded that the only complication to painting the whole entire structure would be the possible need to remove the panels from the existing carrier's portion of the pole. As this would render them inactive for a period of time, they would need the existing carrier's agreement. The applicant stated that he would have no objection to painting the pole sky blue in part or in whole. Member Culver observed that this site was built to its capacity. She noted that future sites should be located elsewhere and have full stealth applications. MOTION: Member Feinberg moved to approve OV6-03-03, Nextel Communications, Minor Communications facility. Member Reddin seconded the motion. Vice Chair Caswell amended the motion to stipulate that the whole pole, or at minimum the extension, will be painted a sky blue. Motion carried 6-0. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 2 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 2. OV13-03-46, MR. GEORGE COUSTON, REPRESENTING UC UGET BUILDERS, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE FOR A CUSTOM HOME TO BE BUILT ON LOT 8 OF THE WILDERNESS ESTATES SUBDIVISION IN LA RESERVE (LA RESERVE, PARCELS 0 & S) LOCATED AT 1774 E.. PUSCH WILDERNESS DRIVE EAST OF N. LA RESERVE DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 220-08-0640. Bayer Vella introduced the staff report into the record. He noted that the design issues relating to the garage have been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the architectural plans subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". Staff Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit revised Architectural elevations that satisfy conditions 2 through 7 within 90 days of approval of this Application. 2. The Applicant shall install a protruding column between the 2-car and 1-car garage doors with a design that would make the 1-car garage door appear offset or at a different plane as the 2-car garage; 3. The Applicant shall paint the garage doors the same color as the house. 4. The Applicant shall install a visually prominent, architecturally-cohesive metal wrought iron porch railing above the garage that will be painted a terra cotta/rust color; 5. The Applicant shall build a masonry entry courtyard "pony wall", 24 to 36 inches in height, with a portal wrought iron gate in the same color as the porch railing. The wall shall begin no further than five feet from the garage front corner and shall encompass the stairs/entry porch to the house, as a means to moderate the visual impact of the garage; 6. The Applicant shall install multi-paned windows and glass doors throughout the front elevation to draw the viewer's eye to these architectural treatments and, thereby, minimizing the visual prominence of the garage doors; and 7. The Applicant shall install a cap spark arrester on the chimney top. Vice Chair Caswell inquired if the other homes in the area have the same degree of slopes, which was answered affirmatively. MOTION: Member Culver moved to approve OV13-03-46, architecture for a custom home, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". Member Kunisch seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 3 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 3. OV13-03-47, MR. GEORGE COUSTON, REPRESENTING UC UGET BUILDERS, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE FOR A CUSTOM HOME TO BE BUILT ON LOT 12 OF THE WILDERNESS ESTATES SUBDIVISION IN LA RESERVE (LA RESERVE, PARCELS 0 & S) LOCATED AT 1631 E. BUCK RIDGE PLACE, SOUTH OF E. PUSCH WILDERNESS DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 220-08-0680. Bayer Vella introduced the staff report into the record. He noted that the design issues relating to the garage have been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the architectural plans subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". Staff Conditions: 1. Should final grading and engineering plans for the subject house require design changes that alter the elevations of the home, as reviewed by the Development Review Board on this date, the Applicant shall submit a new Architectural review application which reflects the new design, to be reviewed by the Board; 2. The Applicant shall submit revised Architectural elevations that satisfy conditions 3 through 7 within 90 days of approval of this Application; 3. The Applicant shall install a brick cap on the parapets throughout the plan to strengthen the Territorial architectural style and character of the house; 4. The Applicant shall paint the garage doors and roof the same color as the house; 5. The Applicant shall install on the north wall of the garage one (1) 18 inch by 36 inch window at the 8 foot building height; 6. The Applicant shall install on the east wall of the garage three (3) 12 inch by 12 inch windows at the 8 foot building height; and 7. The Applicant shall install a cap spark arrester on the chimney top. Member Kunisch inquired if the south elevation's mechanical doors would face the street or the side yard. George Couston representing UC Uget responded that they would face the side yard. Member Culver asked the applicant if he felt confident that he would be able to meet all the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". He responded affirmatively. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to approve OV13-03-47, architecture for a custom home, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doe Approved on 2/10/04 4 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 4. OV13-03-48, COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE FOR A CHURCH SANCTUARY/ MULTIPURPOSE ROOM TO BE BUILT ON A PORTION OF A 10.23 ACRE CHURCH "CAMPUS" LOCATED AT 2350 W. TANGERINE ROAD AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND COMO DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 219-42-014B. Bayer Vella introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended approval of the architectural plans for OV13-03-48, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Sanctuary at 2350 W. Tangerine Road, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". Staff Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit revised Architectural elevations that satisfy conditions 2 through 5 within 90 days of approval of this Application; 2. The Applicant shall install windows, large entry doors and other permanent architectural treatments on the north elevation to break-up the mass of the building, as viewed from the residential neighborhood to the north; 3. The Applicant shall install either (A) a minimum of three windows on the upper portion of the west elevation that can be salvaged and installed on the west elevation of a Phase 2 expansion of the sanctuary; or (B) architectural features on the upper portion of the west elevation, such as faux window treatments, cornice lines, concrete or stucco "relief' or "pop out" treatments, or metal artwork or appliqué to"break-up" the mass of the building as viewed from Tangerine Road and properties to the west; 4. The wainscoting shall be wrapped around the building to tie all four sides together architecturally; and 5. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Bayer Vella noted that this was the first phase of development, with expansion along the western elevation occurring at a future date. Staff's primary concern was to break up the wall mass along the northern elevation, which faces the neighboring residences. Color renderings of all elevations were passed out and labeled as Exhibit `B". It was recommended to amend condition#2 of Exhibit "A"to read"The applicant shall ensure that the features depicted in Exhibit`B"are implemented." Mike Hilgers and Reverend Seale addressed the Board. It was noted that the features surrounding the windows and doors are constructed of concrete that can be permanently pigmented. Wainscoting would also be added to all four sides of the building. MOTION: Member Culver moved approve OV13-03-48, architecture for Copper Mountain Assembly of God, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A" and `B", color renderings . Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 5 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 5. OV12-03-29, MMLA, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 360 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED IN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10 AND 11 PARCELS B AND C NEIGHBORHOOD 10 AND PARCEL AC NEIGHBORHOOD 11 ALL LOCATED NORTH OF MOORE ROAD ABUTTING THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE RANCHO VISTOSO PAD,PARCEL 219-900-02G Robert Conant introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB recommend that Town Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 and 11 Parcels B, C and AC, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A", "B" and if mass grading occurs, "C". Staff Conditions for Exhibit "A": 1. No more than two (2) reduced setback homes shall be built next to each other, per the PAD Amendment for side entry garages. 2. Two-story homes shall be restricted as follows: • No more than two shall be built adjacent to each other along major streets. • No more than three shall be built adjacent to each other along interior streets. • Shall not be built on corner lots. • Shall not be built along the golf course(s). 3. The front setback will vary for two (2) abutting houses. 4. The side entry garage shall have an articulation (window) on the side facing the street. 5. All saguaros shall be preserved in place, except where street construction prevents the preservation in place. Transplanting shall be on the site. 6. Garages shall constitute no more than 50% of the front façade of the house and the garages will not project more than five (5') feet in front of the house. A General Note shall be added to the plat so stating. 7. All property owners within the project shall be notified by written disclosure of the flight patterns for La Cholla Airpark. 8. All lots abutting tee boxes shall have a disclosure statement recorded with the deed stating that noise and language may be a nuisance. 9. The building setback line for lots 12-18, 19-21, 308-31 land 311-314 shall be 150 feet off the centerline of the 1st, 10th and 1 lth green. Protection for said lots shall be a 2-foot masonry wall with 2-feet of wrought iron fence, measured from the finished grade. Additional low vegetation which will reach a minimum of 4-feet in height at maturity shall be planted on the course side of the fence for additional protection. 10. The building setback line for lots 311-314 shall be a minimum of 75-feet off the centerline of the 1st Tee Boxes. Additional low vegetation, which will reach a minimum of 4-feet in height at maturity, shall be planted on the course side of the setback line as a buffer for noise nuisance. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 6 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 11. The building setback line for lots 301-308 shall be a minimum of 200-feet from the centerline of the driving range and additional low vegetation which will reach a minimum of 4-feet in height at maturity shall be planted on the course side for protection. 12.Items 1-11 shall be placed as general notes on the Preliminary and Final Plats. 13. Phase lines for grading per Section 15-409 of the OVZCR shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. 14. Moore Road and La Canada Drive, per the approved plans of October 9, 2003, shall be completed prior to the issuance of a type 2 grading permit for this project. 15. The regional detention basin for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a type 2 grading permit for this project. 16. Provide recorded temporary grading easements for offsite grading improvements. 17. Label figure 2 as such in the drainage report. 18. Correct the figure callout from 3 to 4 in sections 3.1 d and 4.4 of the drainage report. Staff Conditions for Exhibit"B": Delete Condition 11 on Exhibit A and replace with the following: 1. Lots 302-307 shall have an undisturbed area of 30-feet off the rear property line. The undisturbed area shall be augmented with landscaping as follows: • Three (3)trees(24 inch box minimum) per 100 linear feet. • Low shrubs which at maturity shall achieve a height of 4-feet minimum. Lot 301 shall have an undisturbed area of 30-feet along the rear portion of the northeast property line (shown on the Preliminary Plat of golf course encroachment). The area shall be augmented as stated above. The details shall be shown on the Landscape Plan. Staff Conditions for Exhibit "C": 1. No certificates of occupancy shall be granted by the Town for any lots in this subdivision until Moore Road, La Canada Drive, Pebble Creek Drive and Desert Fairways Drive have been constructed per the paving plans accepted by the Town Engineer on October 9, 2003. 2. All infrastructure associated with the construction of this subdivision shall be completed in one phase within one year of the date of the issuance of the grading permit for this project. 3. Lots where homes are not being constructed shall be hydro-seeded no more than 60days after the completion of the infrastructure improvements. 4. All hydro-seeded areas shall be irrigated until the vegetation has been established. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 7 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 Bob Conant raised the question of whether or not additional insulation and sound mitigation could be required in homes going into this area, because of their close proximity to the La Cholla Airpark. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, responded that such matters could be decided later in the process, perhaps during Building review, but that it was not a platting issue. Member Kunisch observed that Exhibit "A" included supplying a disclosure regarding the flight patterns of La Cholla Airpark. He questioned if a disclosure regarding errant golf balls should be supplied as well. Mr. Conant responded that, as it was standard practice for golf course communities to supply such disclosures, he felt it would be unnecessary to include it in the Preliminary Plat. Member Culver inquired what measures could be taken to mitigate the side to rear lot views. She observed the grid formation of the layout, and questioned if the streets could be more curved. Mr. Conant responded that the design would need to be restructured in order for that to take place. He added that the site allows 6-8 units per acre, but that the developer had reduced the density to 3 units per acre. Given the lot sizes, he felt that the developer had been sensitive to views and the golf course. He added that the top half of the plat adjacent to Stone Canyon would contain larger lots. Valerie Feuer of MMILA made a presentation to the Board. She reported that the project was actually six separate parcels, but that it was the applicant's intention to treat it as one development. She stressed that development would take place concurrently, with each parcel containing a different "product" and builder. The reasons for mass grading included the need to move dirt to level areas and to put infrastructure in place. She added that the location of the recreation area was recommended by staff. As to the side to rear yard issue, it was noted that this occurred on large lots up to '/2 acre in size. She felt that the issue could be resolved with proper placement of the house on the lot. She noted that the grid formation aided in the reduction of side to rear lots. Member Culver questioned why the recreation area was located on the outer edge of the development next to open space. She brought attention to the danger posed by wild life and recommended locating the park more centrally. Valerie Feuer noted that the location of the recreation area on the concept plan had previously been approved by Town Council, DRB, Parks and Recreation, and Police. Ms. Feuer asked if the addition of wrought iron fencing and further review by Officer Schuh in the Police Department would ease concerns. Bayer Vella reported that the location of the recreation area was chosen for its proximity to the trail in the Riparian Area. He disclosed the need to turn houses so that there would be "eyes" on the park. In addition, he felt that fencing with a self-closing, self-locking gate would be an improved safety feature. It was noted that this would not be a good location for a tot lot. The applicant said this recreation area would feature a basketball court, a ramada, and benches. Chairman Vogelsberg questioned the applicant's concern regarding hydro seeding. Dick Mayes, president of the Rancho Vistoso Property Owner's Association, responded that hydro seed mix contains weeds, which blow into neighbors' yards. Additionally, a fire hazard is posed in the summer by dried out plants. As to the issue of mass grading, he advised that it would eliminate complaints from new property owners regarding dust (with adequate watering), equipment noise, and traffic from dirt movers. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 8 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 Craig Civalier informed the Board that hydro seeding was added as a condition per the code. He stated that an alternative, such as a maintenance plan, could be submitted for consideration. Dust control was said to be of primary concern. Vice Chair Caswell inquired how many homes were sold on average within the Rancho Vistoso community. It was answered that Pulte Homes sold an average of 8-10 homes per month, with other builders averaging 6-8 per month. As such, the lots would be built on at this rate. Vice Chair Caswell observed that often the final lots to be built become dumping spots and eyesores. She inquired how the applicant would police this issue. Mr. Mayes responded that the burden would be placed upon the builder, with the Ranch Vistoso Property Owner Association overseeing. Chairman Vogelsberg inquired about the traffic impact and major access points of the development. Dick Mayes reported that La Canada Drive would provide north-south access to Moore Road. He noted that the improvement plans includes finishing off Moore Road to the western boundary and to the east to tie in with the existing Moore Road. In addition, he noted that the roads were overbuilt to handle increased traffic. Chairman Vogelsberg further inquired when the La Canada extension from Tangerine to Moore would be constructed. Craig Civalier answered that construction would begin in April 2004. Chairman Vogelsberg opened the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 5. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place in Oro Valley, asserted that the recommended encroachment on the golf course should be rejected. He stated that public hearings before the Planning Commission and Town Council indicated that citizens wished to exceed minimum industry standards, including more separation. He urged against the proposed 25% reduction in set backs. Additionally, he did not consider the size and location of the recreation area to be equitable, and voiced concern regarding traffic impact. Chet Oldakowski, 11706 N. Via de la Verbenita in Oro Valley, observed that the size of the lower lots would be approximately 5,000 square feet. He disagreed that 300 homes with such size lots placed in close proximity should be labeled "medium density". Nancy Martin, 11780 N. Via de la Verbenita in Oro Valley, urged the developer to set aside land for schools. Chairman Vogelsberg closed the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 5. Craig Civalier noted that traffic studies had been completed for Moore Road and the La Canada extension, and it was found that they would be more than adequate to accommodate increased traffic. Bayer Vella informed the Board that the Golf Course Overlay District is on the staff work plan to review standards. Member Feinberg agreed with Mr. Adler that the code requirements for space should be adhered to. He voiced concern that an encroachment habit was being established. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 9 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 Dick Mayes informed Board members that, at the time the golf course was being developed, the standard setbacks were 350 feet. He noted that the developer voluntarily allotted 400 feet for setbacks. A year after the development was approved by Town Council, setback standards were increased. He stressed that development was not encroaching on the plan that was originally approved. Member Kunisch commented that he had not seen a problem with errant golf balls in Rancho Vistoso. He believes that traffic congestion will be alleviated with the La Canada extension. Member Culver expressed her belief that the Golf Course Overlay District standards should be upheld. Member Feinberg agreed. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to recommend that the Town Council approve OV12-03-29, Preliminary Plat for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 and 11 Parcels B, C and AC, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A", `B" and "C", with conditions #3 and #4 of Exhibit "C" removed and a maintenance clause added. Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion. Member Culver amended the motion to include a review and approval of the recreation area by Officer Schuh. Motion carried 6-0. Recess: 7:55 p.m. Reconvene: 8:04 p.m. Member Culver stated that she had erred in her vote, and requested a second vote. MOTION: Member Culver moved to reconsider that the Town Council approve OV12-03-29, Preliminary Plat for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 and 11 Parcels B, C and AC, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A", `B" and "C", with conditions #3 and #4 of Exhibit "C" removed and a maintenance clause added; Officer Schuh to review and approve of the recreation area. Member Feinberg seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-4. VOTE: Member Reddin Nay Member Feinberg Aye Vice Chair Caswell Nay Member Culver Aye Member Kunisch Nay Chairman Vogelsberg Nay F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 10 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 6. OV12-98-22A, WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EIGHT (8) SINGE- FAMILY LOTS WITHIN STONE CANYON II, LOCATED ALONG TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN DRIVE, RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 PARCEL B Robert Conant introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that DRB recommend that Town Council approve the Stone Canyon II Preliminary Plat for lots 134 and 397-403, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"A". Staff Conditions: 1. Conservation easements shall be recorded with the Final Plat and with the deeds to lots 399-403 for all no build areas. Any proposed changes or adjustments to the conservation easements involving areas that are not deemed significant by the Planning and Zoning Administrator may be accomplished administratively; otherwise they shall be reviewed by the Town Council. 2. Stone Canyon II is supplied by the water utilities H-Zone. Any lot above the Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty (3,120) foot elevation (contour) may not receive adequate pressure to meet minimum design criteria as set forth in Arizona Drinking Water Rule R-4-502 and R-18-503. Lots within the area controlled by this condition shall not be released for Building Permits or construction until such time as the water infrastructure is constructed and operational. 3. Add missing bearing and distance data for the proposed lots per the closure calculations on the Preliminary Plat. 4. Correct the invert elevations for the culvert crossing Blazing Canyon Trail for lots 134 and 135. 5. Complete the recording data for the slope and drainage easements. 6. Correct the table of Finished Floor Elevations for lot 399 on sheet 1 to match the Finished Floor Elevation for lot 399 on sheet 4 and hydrology addendum. 7. Correct Detail 3/1 to match the Stone Canyon 36-foot Private Drive Easement detail accepted by the Town of Oro Valley Development Review Division as of 12/20/00. Charles Holsey of WLB made a presentation to the Board. He described the development as a "clean up process". MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to recommend Town Council approval of OV 12-98-22A, Stone Canyon II Preliminary Plat for lots 134 and 397-403 Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A". Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion. Member Culver requested an amendment to condition #1 regarding the conservation easement; the amendment was declined. Motion carried 5-1 (Culver opposed). F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 11 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 7. OV12-03-13, ORACLE ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING LINAKER PROPERTIES, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A DENTAL OFFICE, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND MAGEE ROAD, DIRECTLY EAST OF THE CHEVRON GAS STATION,PARCEL 225-142-460 David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the Development Review Board recommend approval of the Development Plan for this project with the conditions in Exhibit"A" and Exhibit"B", engineering conditions. Staff Conditions for Exhibit "A": 1. Provide a Keynote on sheet#1 depicting the location of the required bicycle spaces. 2. Revise general note #2 to depict the setback standards as depicted on the approved RidgeView Plaza and the Pima County Standards. 3. Keynote#11 must be added in the Key Note section on Sheet#2 4. General note#6 must be revised to provide the correct setbacks as specified in this report in order to comply with the approved plat and or Pima County Code. 5. General note #7 must be revised to specify a maximum building height of 24' as specified in the approved RidgeView Plaza Plat (Book 8 Page 78). 6. Provide a Keynote on Sheet#2 depicting the 15' landscape bufferyard requirement. 7. Revise General Note #8 regarding the required parking calculations to conform with the Pima County Code requirements. 8. The wall depicted along the northern portion of this development must provide the same color, texture and design of the existing wall on the north side of the office complex located directly east of the subject parcel. Staff Conditions for Exhibit "B": 1. Clarify delineation of Town of Oro Valley/Pima County limits on the location map. 2. Provide the Development Plan scale within the title block on sheet 1 and state the contour interval for the Development Plan on all sheets. 3. Provide an elevation datum of verifiable monument within location map vicinity. 4. The design vehicle shall be SU-30 5. Correct the elevation difference to allow access to trash enclosure. An existing spot elevation of 2604.39 is shown immediately outside of the trash enclosure. The proposed elevation of 2605.40 will not allow the trash collector into the enclosure. 6. Add stop sign and stop bar to exit lane F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 12 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 7. Provide spot elevations to ensure a maximum cross slope of 2% for the sidewalk at the front entry to the facility. 8. Show a pre and post Q100 values at all concentration points on the Development Plan. 9. Correct the spot elevations of the south water harvesting area to approach a near level overall elevation that a. may provide collection and capacity required by the hydrology report and b. allow a broad crested weir for overflow 10. Correct the spot elevations of the north water harvesting area to approach a near level overall elevation and add spot elevations to describe the overflow sheet-flow towards the parking area. Applicant shall meet with staff for clarification of water harvesting criteria and storm water detention requirements. 11. Add the Town of Oro Valley's project number (0V12-03-13) to the cover sheet of the hydrology report. 12. Provide and show on the Development Plan sized openings (from hydrology calculations) for the curb and/or site wall a. For surface drainage of southwest parking area to meter runoff and allow complete drainage of the parking surfaces. Revise section 4.2 of the hydrology report accordingly. b. For overflow drainage of the north water harvesting area 13. Correct page 4, paragraph 3, 1st sentence to read "... existing condition" rather than "... developed condition." 14. The north water harvesting area does not function as part of the first flush treatment for this site as described in section 4.3 of page 5 in the hydrology report. Revise the hydrology report accordingly. 15. Include a storm water detention summary table listing the volume of storage required, the basin outlet discharge rate, pipe size and type, velocity and the basin water surface elevations and add to the Development Plan and to Drainage Figure 3. 16. Provide Q100, velocity, and WSEL values for the existing wash to the north on the Development Plan. 17. Provide a first flush basin maintenance schedule within the hydrology report and add a reference to the maintenance schedule in the general notes on the Development Plan. 18. Correct Typical Parking Stalls detail. A 17' minimum stall length with a 3-ft. overhang is required. Delete compact detail. 19. Provide a statement from geotechnical engineer regarding recommendations for maximum slope and slope stability. 20. Remove Sheet 5 from the Development Plan. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 13 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 Craig Civalier noted that Exhibit "B", which was passed out at the meeting, was delayed due to a drainage report which was just received. Various Board members agreed that it was detrimental to the applicant for staff to deliver information at the last minute. Mr. Civalier noted that none of the conditions will change the outcome of the site. Bayer Vella added that the DRB could stipulate that all conditions must be met before the project is reviewed by Town Council. Peter Salogni of Oracle Engineering reviewed the engineering conditions in Exhibit `B" and stated that they were basically housekeeping issues. He affirmed that the conditions could be met before the project is reviewed by Town Council. Member Kunisch mentioned that he had attended the Site Tour for the dental office. He observed that a path exists to the north of the building leading to townhouses. He noted that a fence would be built in this location, and questioned if a gate could be added so that residents of the townhouses could retain access to the shopping area. Peter Salogni responded that the dental office would store pharmaceuticals, thus security was an issue. Additionally, there would be liability and ADA accessibility considerations due to the steep wash that the path passes through. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to recommend approval of OV12-03-13, Development Plan for the proposed Dental Office, with the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B", and the added requirement that all engineering conditions must be met before the project is reviewed by Town Council. Member Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 8. OV12-03-13, ORACLE ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING LINAKER PROPERTIES, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A DENTAL OFFICE, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND MAGEE ROAD, DIRECTLY EAST OF THE CHEVRON GAS STATION, PARCEL 225-142-460 David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the Development Review Board approve the Landscape Plan for the proposed Dental Office with the conditions in Exhibit"A". Staff Conditions: 1. Additional landscaping must be provided in the landscape island entering the site. 2. The wall depicted along the northern portion of this development must provide the same color, texture and design of the existing wall on the north side of the office complex. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 14 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 Chairman Vogelsberg inquired if the irrigation system could be retrofitted to utilize reclaimed water, which was answered affirmatively. MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell moved to approve OV12-03-13, Landscape Plan for the proposed Dental Office, with the conditions in Exhibit "A". Member Feinberg seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 9. OV13-03-41, SEAVER FRANKS ARCHITECTS, REPRESENTING LINAKER PROPERTIES, REQUESTS ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL FOR A DENTAL OFFICE, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND MAGEE ROAD, DIRECTLY EAST OF THE CHEVRON GAS STATION, PARCEL 225-142-460 David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the Development Review Board approve the proposed architecture for the Dental Office, with the condition listed in Exhibit"A". Staff Condition: 1. The courtyard area in front of the building must provide additional planters and/or benches. A minimum of two planters and two benches must be provided. Rick Hutch of Seaver Franks Architects addressed the Board and made himself available for questions. Member Reddin observed that the north elevation of the building had a bank of windows which face a wall. Mr. Hutch replied that the windows were provided for patients to view the landscaping. Member Kunisch observed that there would be a door leading to the common area in the back of the building. He questioned if the plan had been reviewed by Officer Schuh for security purposes. Bayer Vella noted that it had been transmitted to him with no response, but added that he would have another opportunity to review it at the Building Code stage. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to approve OV13-03-41, Architecture for the Dental Office, with the conditions in Exhibit "A". Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 15 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 10. OV12-03-18, STANTEC CONSULTING, REPRESENTING METAMORPHOSIS LLC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 46 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 36.8 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF NARANJA DRIVE BETWEEN NARANJA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE, PARCELS 224-281-590, 224-290-33A, 224-290-35A, 224-290-360, 224-290-360, 224-290-37B, 224-290-38C, 224-290-38B, 224-290-37A, 224-290-40A, 224-290-39A, 224-290-42D, 224-290-41B AND 224-290-42C Bob Conant introduced the staff report into the record. He noted that the plat had been reviewed previously by the DRB, and was approved by Town Council in November 2003. At its prior DRB review, a condition had been added to create a recreation area. The recreation area with a play structure and picnic tables has been supplied, and moved to a more central location. Staff recommended that DRB approve the Landscape Plan for Canada Del Oro Estates. Vice Chair Caswell inquired if families with children would primarily occupy the houses. Bob Conant responded that, as the lots are quite large, the houses would likely be purchased by families with grown children. It was noted that the tot lot would be suitable for grandchildren. Warren Thompson of Stantec addressed the Board and made himself available for questions. MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell moved to approve OV12-03-18, Canada Del Oro Estates Landscape Plan. Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 11. OV12-03-20, STANTEC CONSULTING, REPRESENTING SOMBRA HOMES REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 33 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 43.75 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NARANJA DRIVE APPROXIMATELY % MILE WEST OF FIRST AVENUE, PARCEL 224-281-580 Bob Conant introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that DRB approve the Landscape Plan for Pusch Ridge Vistas II. Warren Thompson of Stantec addressed the Board and made himself available for questions. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to approve OV12-03-20, Pusch Ridge Vistas II Landscape Plan. Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004\1-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 16 1/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 12. EX-PARTE CONTACTS Agenda Item 12 was opened and closed without comment. STAFF REPORT Bayer Vella reported the need for a Study Session regarding the following: • Sign Code • DRB Bylaws • Schools A special meeting on a date other than the regular meeting date was agreed upon, possibly occurring during the third week in February 2004. It was requested that three DRB members stay after the close of the meeting to speak with Citizen Planning Institute students. Vice Chair Caswell, Member Culver, and Member Reddin volunteered. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to adjourn the January 13, 2004 Development Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 9:02 p.m. Chairman Vogelsberg seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted by, Recording Secretary, Kristina Curry F:\Minutes\DRB\200411-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 2/10/04 17 JPLLEY 14// TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 0 ` . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �► f. 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 • A 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737- (520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319 A Parks and Recreation SUN D ED 1g 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 January 22, 2004 Reverend William Seale Copper Mountain Assembly of God Church P.O. Box 68737 Oro Valley,AZ 85737 Fax: (520)229-9262 RE: OV 13-03-48, Architecture for a sanctuary/multi-purpose room at 2350 W. Tangerine Road,Parcel No. 219-42-014B. Dear Mr. Seale: At their regular meeting of January 13, 2004, the Development Review Board unanimously(6-0) voted to conditionally-approve the architecture for the Church sanctuary at 2350 W. Tangerine Road. The Board approved the architectural plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit revised Architectural elevations that satisfy conditions 2 through 5 within 90 days of approval of this Application; 2. The Applicant shall install windows, large entry doors and other permanent architectural treatments on the north elevation to break-up the mass of the building, as viewed from the residential neighborhood to the north; 3. The Applicant shall install either (A) a minimum of three windows on the upper portion of the west elevation that can be salvaged and installed on the west elevation of a Phase 2 expansion of the sanctuary; or (B) architectural features on the upper portion of the west elevation, such as faux window treatments, cornice lines, concrete or stucco "relief' or "pop out" treatments, or metal artwork or appliqué to "break-up" the mass of the building as viewed from Tangerine Road and properties to the west; 4. The wainscoting shall be wrapped around the building to tie all four sides together architecturally; and 5. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. www.townoforovalley.com January 22, 2004 Rev. William Seale OV 13-03-48, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Church sanctuary Page 2 of 2 To satisfy condition number one,please submit one full size(24 inch by 36 inch) and one 11 by 17 inch copy of the revised plans which show how you intend to meet all of the conditions of approval. Please ensure that the plan and elevation changes are consistent. Once staff certifies the revised plans as accurate and complete, you may make your submittal for a building permit. I will send you a certification letter which you can attach to your building permit application. This development will not require installation of public art which meets the requirements of Chapter 4-504.F. of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised(OVZCR). Please disregard the instructions of my letter of January 21, 2004 in this regard. I look forward to reviewing your revised plans. If you have any questions,please feel free t call me at 229-4814 or email me at smontana@orovalley.net. Sincerely, Susana Montana Planner II Attachments C: Shirley Gay,Dee Widero, TOV PLLEY- A it? �� TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 0 o� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT p. Planning and Zoning • Building Safety r� ► 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 # J► Oro Valley Public Library A AA 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737• (520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319 AP `r - ,� Parks and Recreation SUN D ED�g 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 Reverend William Seale Copper Mountain Assembly of God Church 0 P.O. Box 68737 4104.4 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Fax: (520) 229-9262 ()/ci RE: OV 13-03-48,Architecture for a sanc ary/m i urpose room at 2350 Tangerine Road,Parcel No. 219-42-014B ves, Dear Mr. Seale: ,14 At their regular meeting of January 13, 2004, the Development Review Board unanimously(6-0) voted to conditionally-approve the architecture for the Church sanctuary at 2350 W. Tangerine Road. The Board approved the architectural plans, subject to the following condtions: 1. The Applicant shill submit revised Architectural elevations that satisfy conditions 2 through 5 within 90 days of approval of this Application; 2. The Applicant shall install windows, large entry doors and other permanent architectural treatments on the north elevation to break-up the mass of the building, as viewed from the residential neighborhood to the north; 3. The Applicant shall install either (A) a minimum of three windows on the upper portio of the west elevation that can be salvaged and installed on the west elevation of a Phase 2 expansion of the sanctuary; or(B) architectural features on the upper portion of the west elevation, such as faux window treatments, cornice lines, concrete or stucco "relief' or "pop out" treatments, or metal artwork or appliqué to "break-up" the mass of the building as viewed from Tangerine Road and properties to the west; 4. The wainscoting shall be wrapped around the building to tie all four sides together architecturally; and 5. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. www.townoforovalley.com January 21, 2004 Rev. William Seale OV 13-03-48, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Church sanctuary Page 2 of 3 To satisfy condition number one,please submit one full size(24 inch by 36 inch) and one 11 by 17 inch copy of the revised plans which show how you intend to meet all of the • conditions of approval. Please ensure that the plan and elevation changes are consistent. Once staff certifies the revised plans as accurate and complete, you may make your submittal for a building permit. I will send you a certification letter which you can attach to your building permit application. Please note that this development will require installation of public art which meets the requirements of Chapter 4-504.F. of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised(OVZCR). As background to this requirement,the Town policy is to provide public art that"provides a sense of place and an identity to the project. It should bring the community together and provide a source of community pride. At its highest levels, art soars and transforms those who experience it." As you can see,those are lofty goals and the Town Public Art Review Committee (PARC) and the Town Council take public art installations very seriously. The Town Council,upon recommendation by the PARC,must approve the public art prior to issuance of a building permit for the sanctuary and the artwork must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the sanctuary. The Town public art requirements are attached, as is a flow chart for the review of the public art proposal. The cost of the production and installation of the public art must equal or exceed the "building construction costs"of the sanctuary. I enclose an example of the construction elements that constitute the building construction costs. Your application for the public art proposal must include a similar cost breakdown for the sanctuary. We look forward to your submittal. Please submit a public art proposal that includes a cover letter, construction cost estimate,renderings of a proposed design, and an estimate of the total art cost. Since we do not yet have a landscape plan for the sanctuary,please provide a site plan and elevation indicating where the art work will be placed on the property. Please also show a section detail drawing of how the artwork will be attached or otherwise installed in place. Planning staff will transmit copies of the aforementioned items to the PARC for their review and approval. In turn,PARC will provide a recommendation to Town Council. PARC meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of each month. We will need your submittal two weeks in advance of their meeting. Town Council meets every first and third Wednesday of the month; however, we need the PARC recommendation and Council copies of all materials at least 20 days prior to the Council meeting. As you can see, it is prudent to get started on securing the artist and contract for the artwork as soon as possible. January 21, 2004 Rev. William Seale OV 13-03-48, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Church sanctuary Page 3 of 3 If you have any questions,please feel free t call me at 229-4814 or email me at smontana@orovalley.net. Sincerely, Susana Montana Planner II Attachments C: Shirley Gay, Dee Widero, TOV le 919 V Chapter 4 SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS c. Provide a schedule for the implementation of the accepted mitigation plan. Town aff and b - State Hist• Preservatio ` 1 - : 'O)sha - i ew •- tigation plan. Efforts ill - made to co - - eview within 21 working days after the time of submittal. Plans requiring re• ew by SHPO may take longer. 'ublic Art Provisions 1. All new commercial employment related projects, as well as all existing developments that propose 25% or more expansion and/or change in use shall contribute 1% of the building construction cost towards public arts projects. 2. A note shall be included on the development plan that states that the applicant shall be responsible for allocating 1%of the cost of all private projects to provide funding for public art. 3. Public Art Review Committee a. The Public Art Review Committee shall be composed of 3 to 5 members, appointed by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Members shall include at least one artist, one architect, and one private citizen. b. A color rendering or model shall be reviewed by PARC,and a recommendation for the design and location shall be sent to the Town Council for their approval. c. The public art must be approved by the Town Council within 90 days of the issuance of building permit. 4. All financial arrangements are negotiated between the developer and the artist(s)and should be verified in a written agreement. Copies of the signed contracts between the developer and the artist(s)shall be submitted to the Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Administrator for certification as complying with the dollar amount prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Completion of the artwork is required before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued. 5. The installation of the artwork will be done in a manner that will protect the artwork and the public. Continued maintenance of the artwork shall be the responsibility of the owner. /4/ 6. Individual owners within a commercial center are encouraged to contribute to a coordinated art project for the entire center. Art shall be constructed upon the completion of 50% of the commercial center based on the approved development plan. 7. Public artwork: a. Shall be defined as art accessible to public viewing at least forty(40)hours each workweek. b. Shall be on-site and preferably on the exterior of the building. Art my be located within the building in a retail or hotel project,but not in an office project. c. Shall be permanently affixed. 4 - 34 5°4 pr Chapter 4 SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS d. Examples of the kinds of art projects to be considered as public artwork include,but are not limited to: sculpture — freestanding, wall-supported or suspended; murals or paintings; earthworks, fiberworks, mosaics; and building features and fixtures, like bike racks,benches, fountains or shade screens, which are unique and/or produced in limited editions by an artist. A portion of the 1%may also be used to construct performing art facilities used for and by the public for the promotion and production of the arts. e. The following generally are not considered to be art, and,therefore, should not be offered to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance: ordinary directional or standard such as graphics or color-coded location indicators; mass-produced or standard "off-the-shelf' playground equipment, fountains, or statuary; most art reproductions; ordinary landscaping, which normally would be associated with the project; and the services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain artworks over time. 8. For commercial projects where the total building construction cost is$500,000 or less,the owner may elect to contribute the 1% ($5,000) to the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund or any specifically approved art project in the Art Fund or to an approved joint art project planned for the development that contains the contributor's building. For commercial projects where the building construction cost is$10,000,000 or more, the owner may elect to contribute that portion of the 1% over $100,000 to the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund or to any specifically approved art project in the Arts Endowment Fund. 9. Art projects may have a small plaque not to exceed 80 square inched in size identifying the work, artist and contributors. 1. .ography - show existing contours at 1 foot intervals labeled frequen y: 2 foot or 5 foot contour inte • may be used in special cases. Extend contours 100 feet outsi. + e property line. 2. Show boun..t ines,bearings and distances with at least two t to section corners or quarter corners. 3. Clearly indicate exist' ; and proposed easements on an. •jacent to the tract with their dimensions and purpose,giving recording •• a of existing easements 4. Show existing and proposed sire- on an. .a jacent to the tract with their names and right-of-way widths. Give recording data of existin - et;show typical section for proposed streets. 5. Indicate existing and proposed. ities on . adjacent to the tract, showing size and materials of piping. 6. Other conditions on ' tract:watercourses,houses,barns, -cks,fences,walls,wells,tanks,irrigation laterals and other-•id ificant features must be shown on the deve . ent plan. 7. Other con • ons adjacent to the tract affecting design of the subdivision, bdivision names,book and page an s .ate of adjoining plats;unsubdivided adjacent areas labeled as such a d zoning designations. 8. Show proposed lot layout with approximate dimensions. Indicate typical and minimum lot sizes and setbacks. 4 - 35 Public Art Procedures r�., , (for applicants) iy r F Commercial/ Employment No Project PARC—Public Art Review Committee Public Art not DP=Development Plan Yes required TC=Town Council C of O=Certificate of Occupancy BP=Building Permit New or>25% expansion I Yes No and/or change in use Submit Public Art Proposa ♦ Staff review Submitted to staff when receive building Artist presents to PARC permit. Includes cost estimate from artist; cost of construction; color rendering or For commercial projects where the total model;and details and building construction cost is$500,000 or No Approval engineering specs less,the owner may elect to contribute by PARC the 1%($5,000)to the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund or any specifically approved art project in the Arts Endowment Fund or to an approved Yes I joint art project planned for the development that contains the contributor's building. For commercial TC Hearing projects where the building construction (within 90 days of BP) cost is$10,000,000 or more,the owner may elect to contribute that portion of Deny Approve the 1%over$100,000 to the Oro Valley Public Arts Endowment Fund or to any ♦ specifically approved art project in the Continue r Arts Endowment Fund. Submit artist contract V and proposal Depends on reason Art inspected for Meets Code & No completion and TC approval compliance with approval IYes 1 ► Approval to proceed May receive C of F:\Admin PZ\ORG-FLOW\Public Art Flow for applicants.doc 03/12/03 )WN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION 11,000 N.LA CANADA DR,ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Phone: (520)229-4800 Fax: (520)742-1022 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ART REVIEW NOTE: PUBLIC ART REVIEW COMMITTEE(PARC) MEETS THE 1sT MONDAY OF THE MONTH DATE: OV CASE NO.: OV5 (office use only) PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: PROJECT ARTIST: ADDRESS: PHONE: SIGNATURE: NOTE: This application must be accompanied by the following to be deemed complete: • Seven (7) copies of the Development and Landscape Plans, 11" x 17" in size, each to include the exact location of the public art • Seven (7) copies of colored renderings or photographs, 8.5" x 11" in size, with discemable dimensions. Each side of the public art must be depicted. • Seven(7)copies of the Artist's Biography • One(1)copy of the Building Construction Bid • One(1)copy of the Artist contract that specifies total cost of the finished piece. • One(1)copy of Structural Engineering Specifications, if necessary. • Fees Applications will not be accepted without all required materials. SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 14 (FOURTEEN) CALENDAR DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED PARC MEETING DATE. \\OV PZD\PZI\Adniin PZ\FORMS\Public Art Application.doc Afrirt D.G. CON_.__-:T10N PROPOSAL 1�, A - CONlT*ucnoN,1NG E)6°.\ • BUDGET BREAK DOWN . BID:TABULATION Project NAME: Report Date: Aug 14,2003 Location: Bid Date: 7/23/2003 Owner: Scheduled Start Date: U-- - : � •._B, DGET BREAK DOWN Site&Buildings Site S.F. . - .F. Retail S.F. INIIIIIMPtal Shops 62,235 5,154 5,444 Total Improvement Cost WA WA WA BID.SIaEAK DOWN,.. Company: DG Fenn Construction,Inc. Sits Big'O" Retail Shops Total Comments Contact Person: Daniel G.Fenn Phone No: 602-944-4800 Ranking(1=lowest bid) Preliminary Plan Dated • Project Duration(calendar days): Completion Date: SITE IMPROVEMENTS: 01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS: Supervision 4,280.00 8,360.00 7,360.00 $ 20,000 Auto Expense 171.20 334.40 294.40 $ 800 Temporary Power 866.70 1,692.90 1,490.40 $ 4,050 Temporary Water 149.80 292.60 257.60 $ 700 Temporary Toilet 154.08 300.96 264.96 4-$ 720 Temporary Fence 128.40 250.80 220.80 $ 600 Office Rental 256.80 501.60 441.60 ~$ 1,200 Telephone/Fax Lines 128.40 250.80 220.80 $ 600 Temporary Dumpsters 642.00 1,254.00 1,104.00 $ 3,000 Miscellaneous Labor 160.50 313.50 276.00 $ 750 Rough Clean Up 256.80 501.60 441.60 $ 1,200 Final Clean Up 470.80 919.60 809.60 $ 2,200 Dust Control 214.00 418.00 368.00 $ 1,000 AS Builts&Close Outs 160.50 313.50 276.00 ,$ 750 Plans&Specifications 256.80 501.60 441.60 $ 1,200 Hotel&Subsistance 1,109.38 2,166.91 1,907.71 $ 5,184 02000 SITEWORK: Material Testing Allowance $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 10.500 Lay out&staking $ 6,000 $ 6,000 DGF Site/Pad Prep.&Grading $ 13,000 $ 13,000 Old Desert Asphaltic Concrete Paving $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Best Add 3"Asphalt over 6"ABC @ Drive $ 4,036 $ 4,036 Best Stripping&Signage $ 2,545 $ 2.545 Arrow Extruded Curbs $ 1,790 $ 1,790 DGF Plant Salvage and Relocations $ - $ - Landscaping&Irrigation $ 16,722 $ 16,722 Sol Design Wet Utilites $ 9,000 $ 6,880 $ 3,770 $ 19,650 Old Desert Dry Utilities $ - $ - Rip Rap $ 1,500 $ 1,500 DGF 03000 CONCRETE: S Soils Poisoning , $ 625 $ 575 $ 1,200 SOS Concrete Formwork/Reinforcing $ 27,600 $ 20,200 $ 47,800 Conc W/Love Cast In Place Concrete Curbs $ 6,750_ $ - $ - $ 6,750 Conc W/Love Concrete Hardscape w/Ramps&Stair $ 3,177 $ - $ - $ 3,177 Conc W/Love Misc Site Concrete $ 27,996 $ - $ - $ 27,996 Conc W/Love Trash Enclosure t$ 3,377 $ 3,377 Conc W/Love 04000 MASONRY: S$ - Building Masonry $ 82,896 $ 56,095 $ 138,991 Kerr Anchor Bolts $ 350 $ 350 $ 700 DGF Site Masonry $ 19,770 $ 19,770 Kerr 05000 STEEL: $ - Structural Steel&Roof Ladders 5 5,100 $ 1,800 $ 6,900 DKB Handrails $ 4,350 $ - $ - $ 4,350 DKB Trash Gates $ 2,250 $ 2,250 DKB Standard Form DGF Bid Sheet.Xds Revised-12/19/97 IAA • ... . ':: : BID B K DOWN .Company: DG Fenn Construction,Inc- Site - Retail Shops otat Comments Chain Link Fencing $ 500 S 587 _ : 1,087• Canyon. '06000 WOOD&PLASTIC: f Rough Carpentry Complete $ 18,900 $ 19,000 $ 37,900 DKB Hardware $ 350 $ 350 $ 700 DGF Finish Carpentry&Millwork $ 4,138 $ - $ 4,138 Crown 07000 THERMAL&MOISTURE PROTECTION: Waterproofing $ - $ - , Building&Roof Insulation I $ 1,995 $ 295 $ 2,290 Hutchins Built-up Roofing W/15year NDL $ 9,373 $ 9,190 $ 18,563 Match Sheet Metal Flashing,Coping&Trim $ 700 $ 700 $ 1,400 DBM/DGF • Roof Accessories $ 975 $ 975 $ 1,950 Mitchell Joint Sealers/Sealants/Caulks $ 100 $ 2,094 $ 1,125 $ 3,319 AKJ 08000 DOORS&WINDOWS: Hollow Metal Frames/Doors/Hardware $ 6,200 $ 5,800 $ 12,000 Kelly Brothers Y Rod yip Doors $ 12,878 $ 12,878 Cornell Access Doors $ 75 $ 75 $ 150 DGF Alum.Storefront Frames/Doors $ 9,220 $ 15,970 $ 25,190 JGlass Unlimited Labor to Install Doors and Frames $ 1,200 $ 840 $ 2,040 DGF 09000 FINISHES: Lightgauge Framing&Gypsum Board $ 7,500 $ 4,300 $ 11,800 Match Three Coat Plaster $ 6,253 $ 16,600 $ 18,450 $ 41,303 Moreno Ceramic Tile $ 1,384 $ 1,384 $ 2,768 FalboS , VCT Tile $ - $ - Rubber Base $ 500 $ 500 DGF Acoustical Ceilings $ - $ 180 $ 180 Babby Painting $ 875 $ 10,190 $ 4,425 $ 15,490 Tucson Seal Concrete Floors $ 2,332 $ - $ 2,332 Charles Court FRP Paneling $ 811 $ 668 $ 1,479 Babby 10000 SPECIALTIES: Bath Accessories $ 625 $ 625 $ 1,250 Partitions&Access Bike Racks $ 85 $ 85 $ 170Exterior Systems Splash Blocks 1$ 350 $ - _$ - $ 350 4 DGF Address&Signages `$ 150 $ 600 $ 600 $ 1,350 DGF Fire Extinguishers ,$ 300 $ 250 $ 550 1Pyrotactix Knox Box $ 500 $ 500 $ 1,000 DGF Concrete Bench .$ 426 $ 426 Wausau 11000 EQUIPMENT: -- NA NA NA 12000 FURNISHINGS: NA NA NA 13000 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION: NA NA NA 14000 CONVEYING SYSTEMS: NA NA NA Lift Equipment By Doorman _$ 27,809 $ 27,809 Doorman 15000 MECHANICAL/PLUMBING: Fire Protection $ 5,739 $ 7,045 $ 12,784 Mohave Plumbing $ 26,500 $ 10,540 $ 37,040 Match Add Hand Sink in Work Bays _$ 800 $ 800 DGF HVAC $ 24,300 $ 15,500 $ 39,800 DBM 16000 ELECTRICAL: Electrical Complete $ 13,900 $ 36,000 $ 30,600 $ 80,500 B-Cap OTHER: OTHER: 'OTHER: OTHER: 1 OTHER: SUBTOTAL SITE&BUILDINGS: $ 177,723 $ 376,764 $ 251,757 $ 806,244 GC's Overhead and Profit $ 13,862 $ 29,388 $ 19,637 $ 62,887 GC's Builders Risk Insurance GC's Liability Insurance $ 1,916 $ 4,062 $ 2,714 $ 8,691 GC's Total Sales Tax 9,559 20,265 13,541 43,364 Sub Total 203,060 430,477 287,648 921,186 GC's Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL BUIDLINGS: [$ 203,060.39[$ 430,477.37 J $ 287,648.43 $ 921,186.191 Standard Form DGF Bid Sheet.xis Revised.12/19/97