Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV130076 -i— • ,---, i N 1, .c. , • I Fl • . . . . . . 1\k‘c...Avi e_ 1 .: _. , . k _,. ..-. .. : . ... .. . ___ __:),,,,,,„....4.1.....e.,t.t • - • '..1?. t.... R :. ......„, ti.y. `.... i • _ r'(� F �. i?I,N. Ailt, ph 0 . r }_ems_ _�f: f 41 iga, rv..., • ,t • - • •=ter It • • '- i -42,• • J - ' E 0 LIN T Ry CLUB . • :: I i k, ., . , ...?............:,..: :....:: L. .... 4. .,.,... .7.?,....„..,f.:...1•..,...,............ .. ... .•4 Via• :-"-•••'-; - - • Zo. ..°°/°.;..121‘;.. 41......°.gA' L P ANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT .. TOWNF R VALLEY, ARiZONA t , r.. I Developed By Atlas Glenex, Ltd. 10000 N. Oracle Road .: 1 .. Oro Valley, Arizona PREPARED BY THE WLB GROUP, INC. 2.939 E. BROADWAY TUCSON, ARIZONA 85716 JUNE 1983 1 OPDTh1ANC E NO. 79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TCWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARI ZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF ORO VALIE'Y ZONING MAP BY REZONING THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY ANNEXED ED IN THE 'IO1N OF ORO VALLEY ANNEXATION ORDINAL NUVBER 73; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THERE ITH, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona annexed certain real property pursuant to statute by Ordinance No. 73, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona has considered at a public hearing the appropriate zoning districts to be applied in translation to the area annexed by Ordinance No. 73, and have made their recommendations known to the T1own Council, and WHEREAS, a document identified as the El Conquistador Country Club Plan has been submitted to fulfill the requirements of a Planned Area Development, NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona: SECTION 1: that the Zoning Map of the Town of Oro Valley as adopted by Ordinance No. 58, and as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended to include all that certain real property annexed to the Tb'n of Oro Valley by Ordinance No. 73. SECTION 2: that zoning districts R1-144, R1-43, R1-36 and Planned Area Development are imposed on that certain real property-as shown on the attached Zoning District Map Number Two, which is by this reference incorporated herein. SECrIO_N 3: with reference to that certain area designated an Zoning District Map Number Two as Parcel II, the document identified as the El Conquistador Country Club Plan is approved as and adopted as the area plan document subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. The density number of 6500 units as identified in definition M, Section II of the El Conquistador Country Club Plan shall be reduced at the rate of eight (8) units per acre of any non-residential building and belated parking as development site plans are approved. Density reduction does not apply for golf course, clubhouse or other recreational facilities or amenities. 2. Offices and retail uses as identified in Development Area C and Development Area D may include, with the exception of hotels, those uses permitted in he C-2 Commercial Dis l ict, Article 8-7, of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Conditional uses shall require a use permit. n ui t. ,xiteis ano western lawn witn equestrian activities are permitted in Development Area D. Permitted appurtenant uses include small 4 retail shops, restaurants, cocktail lounges with live music and/or patron dancing, day nursery, game center, health studio or fitness center, satellite receiving earth station, and stable and equestrian facilities and exhibition arena. 4. Equestrian and stable facilities as permitted in Development Area A and Development Area D are subject to the following conditions: A. The stable property shall contain a buffer strip 20 feet wide, maintained as a solid landscape screen, adjacent to all surrounding_ residential property. B. All pasture and animal storage areas shall be enclosed with fences or walls of a minimum of 4'6" height. C. All laws applicable to the public health must be complied with for the entire period of operation of the stable. D. All stable, activity, and pasture areas that are not grassed shall be treated for dust control as approved by the Town COOncil. E. Adequate parking shall be shown on the site plan. 5. Whenever the plan boundary abuts any single-family residential district (R.1) or an alley abutting such district, a set-back of 25 feet shall be provided for single-story structures and an additional depth of 10 feet shall be provided for each additional story. 6. No structure shall be built over 18 feet in height above the existing natural ridgeline elevation as shown on the designated Planned Area Development ridgeline map dated 11-16-83. 7. No structure over two stories shall be built cn the property west of and adjacent to the Development Area D which is on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lambert Lane and La Canada Drive. 8. Development site plan and subdivision plat approvals shall be according to Articles 4-3, 4-4 and 4-5 of the Oro Valley Zoning Ordinance Revised, and require owner's approval prior to application for such approval. SEC 1CN 4: with reference to that certain area designated cn Zoning District Map Number Two as Parcel IV, the following exceptions to zone R1-43 will be allowed: 1. Horses may be allowed on Lots 1 through 36 and 42 through 45 ONLY of the Saddle Valley Subdivision, as recorded in Pima County Recorder's Office, Book 36, :-a7e 36. 4 2. Lots 41 , 43, 44, 45, 47 and 49 shall have a mir.i.m.r) lot area of 36,000 square feet as platted. . SECTION 5: that the conditions, exceptions, and mcdi and adopted by this Ordinance Number 79 are not to be considered as approved modifications, or revisions to the Oro ValleyZoningexec amendments, but apply and are limited to those specific Code Revised as a whole,er T� only. parcels in Zrning District Map SECTION 6: that all ordinances and herewith be and the same are herebyparts of ordinances in conflict repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 7: this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, subsection, sentence, e, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitu ion word such holding shall not affect the validity of the rerrainin tg portion of ut of t , ordinance. this SECTION 8: Any person found guiltyordinance shall beltY of violating anyp�-ovision of this 5u.ilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed three hundred dollars for a pericd not to exceed three months, or by both such fine and by prissa nt Each day that a violation continues shall be a separate r1Sle as herein above described. offense punishable SECTION' 9: WHEFEAS, it is necessary for the res P ervation of the peace, health and safety of the Town of Oro Valley, to exist, and this ord• Arizona, an emergency is declared Ce shall become inrnediately operative and in force fran and after the date of posting thereof. PASSED AND ACCPTED by the Mayor and 1twn Council of the Arizona, this 17th day of November, 1983. Down of Oro Valley, APPRVED this 17th day of November, 1983 by the affirmative vote of three of the members of the Ztan Council of the fourths �bwn of Oro Valley, Arizona. • S. ENGLE, OR ATTEST: K THRYN E.'ARISTRCNG TO4N CLEITT APPRCYJED AS TO FORM: RCHARLES G. OLL:NGER, TCwN ATTORNEY K,\T A A NHS i c•►�Pub: Oro Valley Voice December 2E, 29, 1983 January 5, 12;tat Y 984 The KVLB Group TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I . INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEFINITIONS 2 III. PLAN AREA 4 IV. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 4 V. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 5 VI. DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND USES - 5 VII . TRAFFIC PLAN g VIII. SITEWORK REQUIREMENTS 10 IX. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS 10 X. DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN 11 XI. ENERGY CONSERVATION 14 XII. SIGN CONTROLS 14 XIII. PLAN ENFORCEMENT, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES . . 15 Exhibits: J _ • _ - A Tortolita Community Plan B Concept Site Plan C Traffic Plan D Major Pedestrian System E Screening and Plant List T e B coup . EL CONQUISTADOR COUNTRY CLUB A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF ORO VALLEY , ARIZONA • Developed By: Atlas-Glenex , Ltd_ 10,000 North Oracle Road Oro Valley, Arizona 85704 Prepared By: The WLB Group, Inc. 2939 East Broadway Tucson, Arizona 85716 August, 1983 T e B coup I. INTRODUCTION The El Conquistador Planned Area Development is prepared in accordance with the provisions of Article 10-3 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. The stated purpose of a Planned Area De- velopment is to enable and encourage the planned development of large tracts of land which are under unified ownership or control so as to achieve land development patterns which will maintain and enhance the physical , social and economic values of an area. Such areas may be provided with a combination of land uses in- cluding a variety of residential types, commercial , technical and public areas designed in accordance with modern land:planning principles and development techniques, and arranged in such a manner so as to be properly related to each other in the connunity, with a planned thoroughfare system and other public facilities. The Planned Area Development District and procedure were estab- lished to provide a land developer with reasonable assurance that specific uses prepared from time to time in accordance with an approved development plan would be accepted by the Town, and to provide the Town Planning Commission and Mayor and Town Council with a long-term proposal for the development of a given area. The El Conquistador Country Club Project is ideally suited for the provisions of a Planned Area Development due to its unified owner- ship or control , and its size consisting of approximately 850 acres. The purpose of the El Conquistador Country Club Plan as outlined below is to establish a Planned Area Development and to identify the specific exceptions and modifications to promote the develop- ment as provided for in Section 3-115 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Traditional zoning and other land use plans allow a wide range of uses, yet provide few performance standards for development. It is the purpose of the El Conquistador Country Club Planned Area Development (the Plan) to provide predetermined performance stan- dards and prescribe specific uses. The standards and uses specified in the Plan and any resulting modifications to the Town's property development standards will produce a living environment, landscape quality and lifestyle superior to that of existing standards while maintaining a sensitivity to the surrounding land uses. - 1 - e (‘IILB roup., The El Conquistador Country Club Plan delineates all allowable uses within each development area, and the standards , conditions and restrictions within the development. The Plan also prescribes the procedures for review, adoption, and enforcement. It is the intent of the Plan to provide for development of the area so as to be compatible with the adjacent development provided for on the Tortolita Community Plan, Plan No. Co13-76-2 as approved by the Pima County Board of Supervisors on May 3, 1982 and the re- quirements stated herein. II. GENERAL DEFINITIONS - The terms and definitions used in this Plan shall be those as defined in Article 2-1 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised with the following exceptions : A. Developer - An individual or entity who acquires or leases development areas as defined herein, in the El Conquistador Country Club Project, for the purpose of development in accordance with the .Plan. B. Development Areas - Areas A through D, as described on the Concept Site Plan are designated subareas of the El Conquis- tador Country Club Project having specified permitted uses and regulations covering the development of those uses. C. Owner - Atlas-Glenex, Ltd. , 10,000 North Oracle Road, Oro Val ey, Arizona., their successors or assigns. D. Plan - The plan for the El Conquistador Planned Area Devel- opment. E. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised - Shall mean the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised as adopted by the Mayor and Town Council on March 13, 1981 by Ordinance No. 48 or as it may be amended. F. Building Height - Shall be measured as described in definition 59 of the Oro_ Valley Zoning Code Revised. No building in- cluding rooftop mechanical and solar equipment shall exceed three stories or 38 feet in height. - 2 - T e B • Group G. Floor Area - Floor areas as used 'to determine floor area ratios and parking ratios shall include the gross horizontal areas of the floors within any exterior walls of the building on, above or below grade excluding areas used for elevator shafts, stairwells or mechanical equipment rooms. H. Concept Site Plan - A document which shows the tentative distribution of land uses within the Plan Area and is included in the Plan as Exhibit B. All Development Site Plans shall be prepared and submitted for approval in accordance with the 1 uses shown on the Concept Site Plan. I . Development Site Plan - A document which will pfovide the information necessary for the Town of Oro Valley to review and approve and shall include plans for the location of buildings, energy conservation, parking areas, traffic circulation, landscaping, areas and treatment of refuse collection, fire hydrant locations , and utility easements. The Development �^ Site Plan shall conform in all basic aspects to the El Con- quistador Country Club Plan and the Concept Site Plan. • J. Useable Open Space - Includes co(iiiilon area open space; yards, courts, deck areas, landscaped areas, balconies, ramadas, and porches which are useable and accessible for recreational purposes. It does not include areas used for driveways or parking, but does include the golf course area. r, K. Restaurant - Shall mean a public eating place, in or outdoors, with or without service of alcoholic beverages. •� L. Definition of RAC (Residences per acre) - Shall be defined as 1; residential units per 43,560 square feet. 1 - -= - M. Residential Densities - Densities may be used or translated into any development area from another provided that the total designated number of 6,500 residences allowed within the entire Plan Area is not exceeded. Maximum residential den- ;_ sities are not limited within a specific project or devel- opment subarea. N. Tortolita Community Plan - Plan No. Co13-76-2 as reviewed and adopted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors on May 3, 1982. - 3 - T e B Group 0. Office - A .pl ace where professional or semi-professional services are provided, or a particular kind of business is transacted excluding retail and wholesale trade as a principal use. Support retail functions such as athletic clubs, phar- macies, restaurants and other limited uses not to exceed 25% of the gross floor area, are permitted as secondary accessory uses to offices. Banks and savings and loan institutions shall be deemed as office uses. III. PLAN AREA The Plan Area consists of the El Conquistador Country Club Planned Area Development contained on approximately 850 acres. The con- figuration of the area is fairly regular in shape and consists primarily of vacant acreage. The area is bounded generally by Naranja Road on the north, Lambert Lane on the south, La Cholla Boulevard on the west, and the Monte de Oro Subdivision on the east. The area is bisected by La Canada Drive. The development of the El Conquistador Country Club Golf Course is in progress and is contained within the Plan Area. IV. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES The major objectives of the El Conquistador Country Club Plan are: A. To provide a planned development so as to achieve the desired land development patterns which will maintain and enhance the physical , social and economic values of the area. B. To provide for residential development that constitutes a residential environment of stability compatible with the surrounding area. C. To provide commercial , recreational and non-residential uses so that such development will be appropriate in area, loca- tions, and overall planning for the purpose intended. D. To provide for the efficient expansion and use of support services, roads and utilities , and other public services. - 4 - T e 8 Group E. . To generate substantial tax revenues. F. To create a high level quality development in the Town of Oro Valley which maximizes architectural , landscape architectural and site development controls. V. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES In order to achieve the development objectives, the following • policies shall be applied in the design, management, and regulation of development within the El Conquistador Country Cl orb Plan Area: A. Qualitative standards of development are incorporated into the plan to provide imaginative and efficient design and manage- ment. r- B. Residential areas shall be protected from non-residential development areas. C. The design and control of pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall be coordinated to provide safe and convenient access throughout the Plan Area. VI . DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND USES Development of the various areas as shown on Exhibit B will be in accordance with the policies and intent stated herein. The project will provide for a planned mixed-use development that is in harmony with the General Plan of the Town of Oro Valley. The uses and development within each area, together with the limitations on such, shall be as follows: A. Development Area A (1 ) Uses Permitted - Residential dwelling units together with all accessory structures including recreation and social center buildings provided however, that common wall units are permitted; golf course, clubhouse and related golf course facilities , equestrian and stable facilities. - 5 T e B roup (2) Building Setback Requirements: (a) 25 feet adjacent to the Plan boundary or development areas of lesser density. (b) An average of 20 feet where abutting any public streets. (3) Average Minimum Useable Open Space Per Residential Dwelling Unit - 500 square feet. (4) Maximum Height - Three stories or 38 feet except when a structure is within 25 feet of the boundary of the Plan Area, in which case the height shall not exceed two stories. (5) Required Parking - Shall be in accordance with the required parking schedule as described in Section VII of this Plan. B. Development Area B (1) Uses Permitted - Residential dwelling units together with all accessory structures including recreation and social center buildings , provided however, that common wall units are permitted; golf course, clubhouse and related golf course facilities. (2) Building Setback Requirements: (a) 25 feet adjacent to the Plan boundary or development areas of lesser density. (b) An average of 20 feet where abutting any public streets. (3) Average Minimum Useable Open Space Per Residential Dwelling Unit - 500 square feet. (4) Maximum Height - Three stories or 38 feet except when a structure is within 25 feet of the boundary of the Plan Area , in which case the height shall not exceed two stories. - 6 That page 7 of the El Conquistador Country Club Planned Area Development, with respect to Develcnt Area D be amended as follows: (5) Required Parking - Shall be in accordance e with the required parking schedule as described in Section VII of this Plan. C. Develcpuent Area C (Uses Permitted - Residential dwelling units, cariercial and public offices, service retail uses, restaurants, recreaticnal facilities, provided however, that carman wall units are permitted; golf course, clubhouse and related golf course facilities. ,) Building Setback : (a) 25 feet adjacent to the Plan bogy or development areas of lesser density. - (b) An average of 20 feet where abutting any public streets. (3) Average Minimum Usable Open Space Per Residential Dwelling Unit- 300 square feet. (4) Maxilrum Height - Three stories or 38 feet except when a structure is within 25 feet of the boundary of the Plan Area, in which case, the height shall not exceed two stories. (5) Required Parking - Shall be in accordance with the regairalparking schedule as described in Section VII of this Plan. D. Develc puent Area D (1) Uses Permitted - Residential dwelling units, commercial and public offices, service retail uses, restaurants, recreaticnal facilities, hotel ; golf course, clubhouse and related golf course facilities. _ _ (2) Building Setback : (a) 25 feet adjacent to the Plan boundary or development areas of leer density. (b) An average of 20 feet where abutting any public streets, AND, ADDITIONALLY, WITH REGARD TO VILLAGE 16 ONLY, THE FOLLOWING SHAD, APPLY: 1. FRDNT YARD SETBACKS MAY BE REDUCED 'ID A MINIMUM OF 12 YEEX FOR HCNES WHICH INCORPORATE A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE ONLY. AMENDED 3-28-90 -7 Ord_ (0)90-7 2. CORNER LOTS SHALL ricer BE FT 3.GIBLE FOR THE SETBACK IIDDIFI CATI ON. 3. ANY LOT WHICH INCORPORATES THE REDUCED srmAcKs SHALL BE ABUITED ON DOOM ITS RIGHT AND LEFT SIDES BY A 1{ NBtM OF TV) CONSECUTIVE I17I'S NCH UTILIZE 20 Etar SETBACKS. 4. NO TWO LOTS DIRECTLY OPPOSITE EACH OTHER CN THE SAME STREET MAY INCORPORATE THE RE X3CED SETBACKS. 5. ANY TWD-STORY SEGMENT OF A GIVEN [WELLING UNIT MUST BE SET BACK AT LEAST 20 1 i f ETCM THE FAT PROPERTY LINE. 6. WITHIN THE LIRIVESAM S I1 i VISIBILITY TRIANGLE OF SIDE WIRY GARAGE HOMES SHALL BE LIMITED TO 30 INCH MAXIMUM HEIGHT. 7. THIS PAD AMENEMENT SHALL APPLY ONLY VILLA -16 OF CA RADA HILLS. 8. THAT A GARAGE OF A HOUSE WITH A SIDE ENTIZt GARAGE MAY NCir Arur THE CRIVEWAY ON AN ADJOINING IDT. -7A- T e B Group (3) Maximum Total Building Coverage - 80% of lot area. (4) Average Minimum Useable Open Space Per Residential Dwelling Unit Excluding Hotel Rooms - 300 square feet. (5) Maximum Building Height - Three stories or 38 feet except when a structure is within 25 feet of the boundary of the Plan Area, in which case the height shall not exceed two • stories. (6) Required Parking - Shall be in accordance with the required parking schedule as described in Section VII of this Plan. VII . TRAFFIC PLAN The traffic plan for the El Conquistador Country Club Plan Area consists of the dedication of the necessary right-of-way for public streets, private streets, pedestrian systems , parking and off- street loading requirements. Roads and streets within the Plan shall be constructed by the Developer and shall be subject to the Town of Oro Valley review during the development plan process, and shall be subject to either the Town of Oro Valley requirements or, r in the case of arterial streets, the standard Pima County Highway Department requirements. A. Dedicated Streets - Dedicated. collector streets within the Plan shall have a maximum right-of-way of 80 feet and be constructed in accordance with the Town of Oro Valley stan- T1 _ dards. The major arterial roadways , Naranja, Lambert Lane, La Cholla and La Canada, shall have right-of-way widths as required by the Pima County Highway Department and shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Pima County. B. Private Streets - All other streets shall be privately owned • and maintained and shall have not less than 24 feet of pave- ment, and shall meet the Town of Oro Valley requ i remer,=s fcr private streets. a - 8 - T e B roup� C. Traffic Study , A detailed Traffic Study shall be prepared and submitted for review to the Town of Oro Valley upon completion of the first phase of residential development. The Study shall be updated as each increment of 250 units of residential development is completed. The Study shall project estimated traffic volumes and patterns and provide for the necessary traffic signals and pedestrian linkages. Maximum separation and protection of pedestrian access routes from vehicular traffic arteries shall be provided along with the provision for pedestrian circulation routes within the Plan. D. Parking Area Requirements (1) Single family detached units - 2.0 spaces 'per unit. (2) Townhomes, condominiums and multi-family units: Studio and one bedroom units = 1 .5 spaces per unit. Two, three and four bedroom units = 2.0 spaces per unit. (3) Non-residential uses: Office - One space for each 300 square feet of floor area. Retail - One space for each 250 square feet of floor area. Restaurant - One space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Lodge/Hotel - One space for each room or rental unit. E. Parking Spaces - Perpendicular parking spaces shall provide a minimum width of 8.5 feet and have a stall depth of 17.5 feet from the traffic aisle to the wheel stop. An additional 2-1/2 feet clear shall be provided beyond the wheel stop for vehicle overhang. F. Landscaping - All streets and parking areas shall be land- scaped as provided in Section IX, Landscaping Requirements. - g - • T e B roup Inc. VIII . SITEWORK REQUIREMENTS The El Conquistador Country Club Plan Area will be developed so as to preserve the natural character and aesthetic values of the area. In lieu of average slope computations , development considerations shall include: A. Evaluation and planning for soil conditions and foundation bearing values. B. Minimizing the external visual impact of the proposed devel- • opment. C. Minimizing the potential for erosion, flood hazards , or scars. Development within the Plan Area will accommodate these consid- erations by: A. Providing foundation and footing designs prepared on a site- specific basis for the various soil conditions by a Profes- sional Engineer. B. Providing for development of slopes and ridges by the use of innovative hillside and hilltop development methods while protecting the area's natural character and resources. De- velopment of slopes and ridges include: (1) Minimizing all areas of exposed cuts or fills. (2) Filled areas will be sloped to approximate the natural slopes and conditions. 3 Disturbed areas will be revegetated to provide a natural 9 appearance. IX. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Plant Materials, ground cover and irrigation techniques shall be utilized throughout the Plan Area in a manner that enhances low water consumption and provides an aesthetic quality. Y.L - 10 T e B Group A. Perimeter Landscaping - The perimeter of the Plan and along all major roadways shall be landscaped so as to meet or exceed the Town of Oro Valley standards , but in no case shall land- scaping have a depth of less than five feet. Additional perimeter landscaping shall be provided of varying depths within any excess right-of-ways subject to approval by the Town of Oro Valley. B. Street Landscaping - Landscaping shall be required along all dedicated public and private streets. C. Adjoining Public Streets - Shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of five feet from the property line. A minimum of 5% of the total area of abutting parking lots shall be landscaped. No landscaped area shall be less than 50 square feet in size. D. Landscape Maintenance Plan - Shall be reviewed and approved as hereinafter provided. fl E. Lighting - Parking lot lighting shall be screened, cut-off t off type luminares and shall meet all Town of Oro Valley require- ments for parking lot lighting. F. Walls and Screens - Walls and screens shall be a minimum of three feet in height and shall conform to the requirements of the Town of Oro Valley. G. Plant List - A list of acceptable drought-resistant and native plants is attached as Exhibit E. Only such plants or alter- natives acceptable to the Town of Oro Valley may be used. Ii f =-_ X. DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN All Site Plans, planning studies , documents and specifications shall conform in all basic aspects to the requirements of the Plan, and when approved, shall authorize the development of the land subject to the applicable codes of the Town of Oro Valley. The Concept Site Plan, attached Hereto as Exhibit B, shows the tenta- tive distribution of land uses within the Plan Area. It should be understood that this exhibit is conceptual only,y, and is intended as !:- a development guide. Plans for development may be approved that vary from this plan, but in all cases must be in conformance with the uses and development standards specified herein. - 11 - , e -VLB Grou A. Submittal Requirements - Prior to any development occurring in a development area, a Development Site Plan shall be submitted by a developer to the .Owner, and after its approval , to the Town of Oro Valley for its review and approval . Development Site Plans and details as outlined below showing primary building locations and heights , parking layout, access and landscaped areas are encouraged to be submitted for a pre- liminary review at any time prior to the final Development Site Plan submittal . B. Contents - The Development Site Plan shall be prepared by the developer in accordance with the requirements specified in Article 4-5 and Section 10-303 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, and shall also include the following - (1 ) Landscape and Maintenance Plan - A landscape and main- tenance plan shall be prepared at a sufficient scale so as to show the location, size and species of all plant material , and the proposed water or irrigation system to be used along with a maintenance schedule. Li (2) Floor Plans - Floor plans of the first floor and any basement or subsurface parking of all buildings shall be prepared to evaluate adequate circulation. The flcor plans shall be fully dimensioned and uses indicated El thereon. Floor plans for other typical floors shall also �� be submitted. (3) Elevation Renderings - Renderings shall be prepared so as to depict views of typical sides of the proposed buildings and structures. Perspective drawings may be submitted in place of elevations. (4) Sign Plans - A plan shall be prepared showing the loca- tion, size and lighting sources of all signs and all other advertising devices. (5) Lighting Plans - A lighting plan shall be prepared for all parking areas and vehicular and pedestrian circula- tion areas to indicate the type and size of all lighting structures , and illumination levels and specifications. r _ { - 12 - e B roup� (6) Schools and Parks - Information on the required school sites, parks and playgrounds shall be developed during the Development Site Plan process . School sites , if required, shall be determined in conjunction with the Amphitheater and Marana School Districts. (7) Additional Information - Such other statistical or graph- ical information or material as may be reasonably re- quired by the Owner or Oro Valley Zoning Administrator to depict unique characteristics of the site or proposed development. C. Approval of Development Site Plans : (1) A developer's site plan shall be submitted to the Owner or his representatives who shall have a reasonable amount of time to approve, modify or reject the plan. Rejected or modified plans must be resubmitted for approval . (2) Town of Oro Valley Review - After written approval by the Owner, the developer shall then submit the Development Site Plan to the Town of Oro Valley for its review and approval . Sufficient copies of the Site Plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review. The Zoning Adminstrator shall not review the Site Plan with- out prior approval of the Owner. The Zoning Adminis- trator shall submit the Site Plan to the Development Review Board which shall have thirty (30) days to com- plete its review. If there are revisions to the Devel- opment Site Plan, the applicant shall make the necessary revisions which shall be resubmitted for further review provided, however, that if substantial changes are made in the Site Plan, then it will be resubmitted to the Owner in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above. The Development Review Board will transmit the Development Site Plan to the Mayor and Town Council for final ap- proval . (3) Approval - Approval by the Mayor and Council shall be the basis for the issuance of all building permits, licenses and certificates of occupancy. (4) Appeals - Appeals from any decision of the Zoning Admin- istrator or Development Review Board shall be to the Mayor and Town Council . - 13 - f e B Group (5) Amendments to Site Plan - Amendments to the Site Plan shall be processed as an original Development Site Plan. XI. ENERGY CONSERVATION The El Conquistador Country Club Plan is designed to meet the ever increasing need to conserve natural resources. The Plan provides for a mix of uses to accommodate this, and the Development Site Plan for each development area shall include an Energy Conservation Plan. The Energy Conservation Plan shall address the following: A. Building orientation B. Solar analysis C. Prevailing winds D. Landscaping E. Shading effect on adjacent development parcels F. Building thermal analysis sufficient to identify the thermal characteristics of the building enclosure. XII. SIGN CONTROLS All signs within the El Conquistador Country Club Plan Area shall is conform to the requirements of Article- XII of the Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Plans for signs shall be reviewed as part of the Development Site Plan review to assure aesthetic treatment and compatibility with the other development areas and the surrounding neighborhood. The following provisions shall govern: A. No advertising devices shall be permitted which rotate, move or create the illusion of movement, or have any visible moving, revolving or rotating surface or parts. B. No part of any illuminated advertising device or any lights shall revolve, rotate, move, change color or vacillate. • - 14 . , , e B Group C. No off premise signage,except for directional signs, shall be allowed. III . PLAN ENFORCEMENT, REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Adoption - The El Conquistador Country Club Plan shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. B. Interpretation - Where any ambiguity arises as to the terms of this Plan, the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised shall govern. C. Enforcement - The Zoning Administrator and Building Official shall be responsible for enforcement of this Plan. D. Minor Changes - The Zoning Administrator may allow minor changes to the criteria set forth in the Development Site Plan providing they are not in conflict with the overall intent as expressed in the El Conquistador Country Club Plan. The Owner shall be notified prior to such changes. Minor changes do not include anything which alters allowable use of buildings, heights, or residential densities. Any changes must conform to the appropriate section of the Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised or as modified herein. E. Amendments - The approved El Conquistador Country Club Plan may be amended from time to time. Proposed amendments shall be submitted by the Owner to the Planning Commission and Town Council as outlined in Article 3-1 o► the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. F. Severability - If any provision, sentence, clause, section or subsection or phrase of this Plan is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional , such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or portions of this Plan. - 15 - T e THE EL CONQUISTADOR COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT PLAN g‘fcoup PLANT LIST Palo Verde Vinca Mesquite Yucca Arizona Ash Plum Evergreen Elm Rosemary Acacia Sycamore Pittosporum Cassia Privet Bird-of-Paradise Xylosma Bamboo Loquat Jasminum Pyrus African Daisy Pine Penstemon Eucalyptus Mexican Primrose • African Sumac Sweet Alyssum Palms Gold Poppy Photinia Fig - r- Juniper Olive Star Jasmine Saguaro Texas Sage Prickly Pear Lantana Desert Spoon Gazania Ocotillo Santolina Agave Verbena Aloe i1 Asparagus i L1 Li Exhibit "E" • .4 ..r.`7.1" ...3.,.1* ' --- ....-W. -- ille••:.* %. t.:- - q h . _ - • 1.. • -_-_ V.• _ (1) I '\I C' rr7 p-r ,\ir ,,, r.....t 'is r_7: r) ri r \ ._r __,_ _ I./1 1-1-:...) _I 1_,2..\- i li 1 )- A . -- • 1 0; t' -- k-tr . . -- __ .., • l'..01), _.. , __ . , , . _ _ I -_-.. . %;-:.-_-: - ,, .. ..0„0,.., .1 a,..., -- . I':. -:- . 1 - V i' I -,,-. 5, r - L, (201t,310-Do 4 7:I --- . I ---•--- • 1 CaiNad i Hill5 , ._ _,, ,,,....._. ....., ....... .±..._ J : : , N, ,,,_ ,_ . _, 4.,... . , ,.. _ ,._I - . 1.... ,..,, • r _ - k.••._t•'...-fg ,...t. , -- . t.i...‹:. ...-_ • S. - g"• L_. I i - •._ - - . - i _J.- 's• 1 ".• _LOC__',--A"Il Of 1 iv1 , 11) al . i • • • ' NARAN A ROAD „. ..... .•••• •.1.1.1...i. I,VOA*la, .....z...•• •••••Z. . '• • • •.'• ••••:-.7.f.".:•:7 i..:41.e ./".trCS.....•e*---...."..'".7,5,:;.-t- Z , • i I •.•:n1 U .,:v.' '• •ie'• -..-7-1•! : ?••.,-7-4 . LI., ..._ ..,-,,,;ri •...... 4 _ 4:•'.:. ; ..t - .-sc.-.1.1, - :•-: :I..: ,.. gg) rig-. , t;i:..,,,.:..,,. .: .,-...,!. ,,:;;--I ..•• 1: r, , -..,4i ,4 14.: 'Ili s i ,.. „...,. y....... :: $% ... i . 1• • • • NW r.,.•••• ; . ..•. • 4."• • •-:-;•";-"A;•-• .74:-. „gr.:/•-4 ", - -:••" • • • --.. -..' r •? .••,'. ..k.•,a,-.: 7":.• :4"ii. .... • .;.2 --.-••..---' ,+kli . •'V. -,..4. 1st • •?. is:- IP& ••• . /- •tia:114' • a ' pr:: , - .,_,., ;...., . .,. re I...I a I • -41,r -, ,b•••,. 1', : . ..•1 .,k k • -).,..7• * 4 7k?th4t,_VII, ,,•••"' • -ILA '..1.'• 'i.;•Thilf0.111;;;:-2: ",:a. ` ;.'. • • 7-41 .44 !? C,t 1-8T • . 7% ''...1:;‘ :-:, .. ' 'AMA,.1.• - .4--- 4 ' ....1 ;••••.-"•;".42LS'z'i AI'S. \Viz :‘,VE,Z-f'.--f.,,R •• f. ., \V- . -.... .4..v.....-, .•a amps - -. ••-, 1: "' A1.4"::,,, s• , _i?,.rf,1".-"• ...If V.'.4:::1‘.4:.;..k4 ;t1',...ZZ- ‘ .1 . t," •-t-40- \ 'N I; .' s "•-••.: - 2 ...: --‘4.-- 1 ,. -t..z......---," , ... -A.4-- '.3 z.,.-h-Nip„.•-•.;?1,!--v,--.AN. --V.i-., • •• ......,....., : .: ...„.....-.„,a.....,,.. ie.,. ..._! •,.......,... ...,„...,- it "" -/' "!t••-•;;t:......:alb., •••.` "-I es -,''''' ..., .1-.1".•,-...cis1/4•N Vic.,776,44:4.14.. .130e1; 1111' . = c .5.•'.---.-:).."'"4,..••• N'• Illogit 7!•', -S- •-•/-'i -••• ..-• .7r -c• • .;;.- •;;Alb •',-,.7.--.1,.,..• -si "4". - .- 4:? •-•••• -11.,•-•;-:?,i4:%•.:,e...N&4:1-1..-44.7 1•••,---..r. :i • •7, , ' -.s:v*.:,•••, •_c;A.;-; .".....••'2.;=. ..*.'-‘tr-•••iv-xa'•:.•A • , )-_r_Lit- : ..• 7.•' -s.•_r_t,*;-.1..' ..x..‘-•,...a._.w.-".,.A„,t-:-.7.... 4 ;;-•'-' 0 . ::4;z:•:*;%""'"' - . r• . • --.i....,. i L :2,w-:', - '-'•-• '(' K ,.1-.. - -,..., :.:••:,- ,..! -4A:;,,,.,„,e; _. -- m•-• ,i, s, A,-.:q:„IL.2,,,,-,.:....7 z s • 'i'''•..'7...........t., ....•'`...'44`1.•-• < • --.• • • ;, ..." i , - • • il • • Ars,. %II • t•• ..• •A' •••• . . 4.1. • , ;;: t•‘At • •.1, Th.•••••-y---t.ir- Z i4Z. ' "..•.-•'-i-1 -, a .• • ... <e-....):'S ,1 eli.... 4 ..,,,,.., ,,,- 11,,.....,--,•-• ..,)1.,..:•• • 1.a" • 4t . i .,. I. .a....'0'... ... ... l'.'N 4.; fr- • fir - i- '.' "."•4 • I - ?Ligr . - •° ' • 11. 1:- • ......- 4 114'. •••s • • , j___L--li. :,._ .„,0 .„ ., -4. ..;,' r 1 1..- 1,!..T.'fi , . • IP.. if--'0•''':. 0---• .1.,‘,4'.7.• 4,-. •-..... -. ••••-]...1 .41...., ) %. 1 V - ‘ 1 o0i ••• • j". /,-----r-- -,<-_,•_ '4....:* tr.,..• ,,t.44,4"ne 1 ..:. ,.1.. r',.;..i:4,_,,,,...‘ e‘ricitr./.,;---7....43 1.!---4., "'--."',.:; .ie\,....••-•::ji.•1 C:./ \- ,, s _,- k.4.7..‘ 1...4 1. :,-;'N '4,-,---,4•)• • . 11 r.':'•,„,.. A- :':- ', , pc..0 ., .41 r ---,flu ... _ :.Cis..0.,%-.A. . :1/4 - . A >-4. .!ig. .. 5,.... . -,. • - ,..„4.• ..;,..:....,...-.4:-.,„,,,,,,,..:,;:,;,• „....,..,;: -i.:.1 6- _ -IN/; '- .4; 04 it ir•4--.::......y. --if ,•-• 4 1 .-----, ' .- : • :„ ! --• • ...„. ..• :. .• . J. • - ,,,,ro.w.-..-,,r •,• • ._:- , -•i: it,,I...0 .t • , • ...?:' r-,•-•" ---1:•-• .:,,, .r..-.,;•,.... .,..;:,,7 liiiivion, ;)2 . ..: i., ile.. 7,---:-, !.4.. • ..t,r. _it ), r.,,,„...„; , ,,..•,..s.•..,:........ _i , ...,. . . ....„. _v...., . ..;.......... ....„??... ...r: „,, . _.__._,:,_ ... .1. , ...„,...,.... •._•.....t..._. ......... , .1., .: ......„. •.:.\ _,,,„..... ..... I':t. 1 I ,:b"- 7 '•r•-•'',•:•:' ', v •..,..4 I- :.I. -,_ 3: Tt-\,EN . .:7`-- t,' ,i‘.1‘1,4' , -V:.t'..-., t--‘... •.* tr: -i lo;:, _.,, ir ii- - . Ai 0.!.•••.: -• e 9.,:f.n4. .•.. ,• ..•'S*'.. ;1•,/- ,i. ;t • 1- :..„..--L \- •••• ':i. • ,N.,,,,•---1. • ..m•-•.. .0.-• ‘.*.• • -1Pi• -,,, •, .-- ,-/i,1*.e:/i. ••••• -• ...•,, -'7,. .8 .••4 :-. •. . s.- / '•...' • ••':,`'t•al• • ; .11-e".0,. ...... - •..-)..:: • •:-..• A- .t. .: -,;••,.. - ,..r -. II •-,...e.;• , , fh." i •i • ,c '- le. : . !,•,`"7,:,...,;...:. . . IL:. .,.:. I . Pi Mktg, )......IN 3)-4 -_-_-.--0..1.-- - .;.; f- /.. _ .,1. "4 - i .• -IE 11=, 7.1.-tv....".1 oit„..--)!...i : A ....J! , .t. • ,,,..,,,... .,. 4-0,7% ) 7.• ik4.1,.. ..7.-'--vi G ES - -- .P, .....NN%-i• -\ • i• .7,..: , .?..:-, .7. . •,; •%. r ••,-, •s....-...••-,,,,--i--.1••• 17.1• • . ••• .71-: ./.• • . •• 'i• ,''''--1 s • ' '' :R. r-••':.,-7 ''-- J :• •- ,le•1,-•‘••••6_7 4c,.-11, -,•• •• ,.....- ..•....-.••e • _ t..-46- ..• /, 9." 7:11:A ,:-. _./t- ,;,--a--. ›,--. .t.i.• I• . • Ts., _- ..-v,.. , i ,.. •*. . • _- - - ' - ...oil - •i • A• it -i' 1 4: :,•,4 36 %qi't -- ----( r _149 C •-;',I-• '‘ DIAL•'i -i - .1-••••„7 .. / -. I i ., '.-:', . i :..;;14 ..„... ,.... 1 1, 412,•,-...;), _.... . 1.-..A-,..... ' ..-. ..- .',....\ . _v.._ ... i 1,07 ."?.4. ' •--\,-- 4-1 41:* . / ' .... -- .-- • • . - - -,- .,. • -.. 01,- ., .k.z._ __-_-_ . ..• ,,,, ._ • .. h. a• • • ••‘111,25.;,s 4 '' • i, , . , ... • ., • •., . f-NZ.9fr- • - t• • 4` Vii 1 a -mit - ••.. ---,- A / I •-- -- ! • • '. *S. s ' --'- I :t•' .'•&.• •• • - .. 1.41.. 1 -: .1V.t• . . . • ......11/1 ...'' ..L.'...?•at:_t .k.tizx.rjt47. .....;:r..e .,•1•41. •.‘:: :.::::‘ --:-- "••• (t. ::-;:.i -4r-__ ...t .• LLAG-E 1I-4 •••• ' - •-- t -ft a' - !I, irmr. ..•- •-..-;;........\ -'\ • ::: ...,ik.v 1,.,.:.. .•1. :4 :f7 :51 _.,, P. I -,•• 0••=0,t:, f;...•- , •,-- -- 16; Iii.,........ i ..:.II•..-. i.‘,C.-•••!..La::..:::.••••••,5).=rr...Z:-.:i• ... .\ 'it 4 1‘ iv. 4- .•- - . -,___ ,.s••• -.-,- 't !_. .,F3 VT e,.-,-: .."1',...:\ r 1,T....-..*:! ••••,-! ••''...-!:.-t:-t:." -...-:./ - -- - . 'k• 1 r_LAG..% s.:. *- II ' b• ' 'ts .• ;11...",s::',/iv..&*• 4 111010#.1%.: .7 ''•.-4.‘, .,.....'1....I - - - .• i ,•••• ;-., . - ' - •1 k A ••• ••:,.-_,,,a. ••...... •,..3., l -VILLACEY)- 1 -• - • ILLAG 3 .-41. .i. il#:-. •-a._ .4i.--44•••• .:...t.c......‘-. c_____ . i. D.••t......1.1.-:•ii.": .••• -A • '..-Z..*,k 4t, :-•„5.-„ - 3 :.... •:, „" ...„-, , • •. ..--w. ...„ . %,- ":2`t • - - • =',": *""...N.'!•••-•' •' ---4)0 •• .1. '''''''' •t; ...„„. -_ J..14, - -- . --. 1. • • fc'4."....m." `-..-.•_ .. -r"lr,I• lb 14i: • 4 •:. •‘:.f.,>.1 111:A.'N..,. l',•o••••, it 19.'1.4 • ..k Va... • l• I W":.t;14t4 #1... :51:- `P'y .t. - Ah.a. r. I . • • . .11, • Aria! l''•=1, ------ im 141S:it ' - -- • _L.. . milLs. _,„ . am A,:. • •et).."•447.1 •.I 4....7_, •PROcr'TIMMIni 8 DI• • I.. ir . . • ....1. 41 .. .. ,A-j . . .. .k., --:-_ issts__ . •-,-:• . -• - •;•• -••••-.-..,-,.•-• -I • LAMBLK I LANE ....-.....- -.,-••••-----"-"*"'"......1"" R4S rI ----...--..---.--,v--ir.--ie--p -- , ,..‘ 1... wows . U i f t 1-4... • 1 . . n, • • . . ..., DLITLI.. and . c....u; . IMOMMIIMMIMIMMIIIINI -\. (-)(‘I ‘T 1 c ...w a - a a • i ... • •C-- fl -,r A h•-•'' C("<.i ( 1* U S 1 h 0 -„..__ 0 li --.-- --- - .,.. ,---i r-il- - -c --• -. . ---t1.-q 4 COUNT .__.., •4-i ' .;:ii:•?..'"-.\1?':: ..2. 45a-14014014.1r. T '^C..','` . C I 1. $ 4E' :.,-,. - -",........,, - -.....p.., Planned Area„.„,:„_-_-. • ,..-4.--zr• ...4.1.3. •.,. (-77„,,,,c- -,.....-...........,„...„ Development ,„._,,,. ..,...3_ "--i - _ t.-�:may __________..._... , , -...,...,-,--,-•,_____,,.?. ..tr.,..4,..72ez •„J.:4v ! . if •�. _ ` � „,,-,,..y,+per- ....„� i__ ��� C r t`7.►` . �3',.�•►y•may T-•mo w•.• 1�'rt�' • ,,: c__40„,,„ .. ..„.. c �,,,�is��u :wr i•'r iy` 1k.s. agNSf_' Int Ld ♦ t,c wuc�� '; -,=___ . ---ge-k*-...--4.. ,.....„,..,„....„„,_-..... 7 •_. • ,, _ . , . , _ - , , ,,... * ••• •.:.• '::•."1)• ' -1 L. .., ......,,..... ... 4 1 , .'' /I.11. _t. em _ .1 // �r<�-bu...` �.�rs%.•���t..t• -� �\ - i ` 7 -�..w.�it •�y,-•t +�Zi..•. �•.t• _ •• • 1. rs �.8".;0 i•�i• s s*..:+•'.e 2.ms-`• )- , '\ ..,...4 1... ....2::•••=2,;,...........AirainWir,CVAAS f•.7a4C,..:1''. •?• \, .„ - Sip:. iwr•:r1i tr,•k i.may,j %e '" = ( - \1\_ ;_ ,..•L. --C ,- -,. . It•{�...i; i}1' l=i,��` J.1. _- "„-, / )l, • ,.-/-- -i. 2 / �� •X'#•,••e.2.-••=1•4!",11•.-,‘...-.-ft--0.4,P..•,•0.„44A.•2..,7416-.71•1...•.r,,17•.V"".6•...-1.4.....‘."'j-...•2.'1..,7•..•.Ii.''•.7t2•4-,..,k..7„N•_4.•4i;4 -•,,, .t.•...-„ N. :• _' '.'.;;z,.4. :�i la...i.;A why r-/+'a•C,'' .1 I ce::w:' � 4!• '.,1....,14! : . •,/\'II r-- -• -'-•. mot•. �17 0, ` --.- - . _ < A.� :.=��ss4' •ryeAitt ;V .•: ,. \ 'i '•_ /'-- / y f fit" 1 slit .�.7 ..« J.tyila�•�•Ir7r'aM�i.t i.•i.s •-••�=•ems.• •_? �J� •. t J6Wr�•• .• 1.._.. !•.-• L eta~S .-0...•,`�• M•iiy.�.•••.. .sticie .rrNl.SrgI•: ,►TS.sr• /raw y�s"L>•�.•.. . 7 rhil .. I{•.?rs�,�. j •1•t(:;� .r..V•• • '(I '5 't,, - /__ _ ' r.P. • 7 .-44�•• I i � �..'•f,:t.�...�r.iM t 2 t•'1•1T.=.. a M_ • -INn••J' �//te�--1 a►.'••: s.0.04 J,n•.`yr',•• •. - -— -- — EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO THE EL CONQUISTADOR (aka EL CONQUISTADOR) PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT- RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF GOLF SAFETY NETS (2) Building Setback Requirements: (a) 25 feet adjacent to the Plan boundary or development areas of lesser density. . (b) An average of 20 feet where abutting any public streets. (3) Average Minimum Useable Open Space Per Residential Dwelling Unit - 500 square feet. (4) Maximum Height-Three stories or 38 feet except when a structure is within 25 feet of the boundary of the Plan Area, in which case, the height shall not exceed two stories. (5) Required Parking - Shall be in accordance with the required parking schedule as described in Section VII of this Plan. (6) GOLF SAFETY NETS-FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROTECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY, GOLF SAFETY NETS MAY BE PERMITTED IF APPROVED BY THE LOCAL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD. UPON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION, A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED. THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING AND THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND THE NOTICE OF SAID HEARING SHALL BE POSTED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. BOTH THE PUBLICATION AND POSTING SHALL GIVE 15 DAYS NOTICE OF THE MEETING. NOT LESS THAN 15 DAYS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE, COPIES OF THE NOTICE AS PUBLISHED AND POSTED SHALL BE SENT BY REGULAR MAIL TO THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WHICH IS WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OR PREMISES FOR WHICH THE NET IS PROPOSED. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING,THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WILL MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOW CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR GOLF SAFETY NETS IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD. (a) NETS AND POLES MAY NOT EXCEED TWENTY FEET IN HEIGHT FROM GRADE. (b) A DRIVING RANGE BARRIER-TYPE NYLON NETTING MATERIAL SHALL BE USED, WHICH SHALL HAVE A 3/4 INCH WEAVE AND BE BLACK IN COLOR. (c) NET STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSISTENT, IN ALL DETAILS, WITH EXISTING SAFETY NETS LOCATED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. (d) THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SUPPORT FOR THE NETTING MATERIAL IS VIA A CABLE CONNECTING THE TOP OF THE TWO POLES, AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE HORIZONTAL RAILS. -6- (e) POLES SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. (f) STRUCTURAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BUILDING OFFICIAL OR, OTHERWISE, MUST BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED REGISTRANT AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN BUILDING OFFICIAL. (g) NO FLAGS, SIGNS, BANNERS OR OTHER APPURTENANCES MAY BE ATTACHED TO THE SUPPORTING POLES OR NETTING MATERIAL OF SUCH NETS. B. Development Area B (1) Uses Permitted-Residential dwelling units together with all accessory structures including recreation and social center buildings, provided however, that common wall units are permitted; golf course, clubhouse and related golf course facilities. '2) Building Setback Requirements: (a) 25 feet adjacent to the Plan boundary or development areas of lesser density. (b) An average of 20 feet where abutting any public streets, and, additionally, with regard to Village 16 only, the following shall apply: 1. Front yard setbacks may be reduced to a minimum of 12 feet for homes which incorporate a side entry garage only (Ord. (0)90-7, 3-28-90). 2. Corner lots shall not be eligible for the setback modification. 3. Any lot which incorporates the reduced setbacks shall be abutted on both its right and left sides by a minimum of two consecutive lots which utilize 20 foot setbacks. 4. No two lots directly opposite each other on the same street may incorporate the reduced setbacks. 5. Any two-story segment of a given dwelling unit must be set back at least 20 feet from the front property line. 6. Landscaping within the driveway sight visibility triangle of the side entry garage homes shall be limited to 30 inch maximum height. 7. This PAD amendment shall apply only to Village 16 of the El Conquistador (aka Canada Hills) PAD. 8. A garage of a house with a side entry garage may not abut the driveway on an adjoining lot. (3) Average Minimum Useable Open Space Per Residential Dwelling Unit- 500 square feet. (4) Maximum Height-Three stories or 38 feet except when a structure is within 25 feet of the boundary of the Plan Area, in which case, the height shall not exceed two stories. -6A- MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING Tuesday June 29th, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Patti Jo Lewis, Chair Mary Glueck, Vice Chair Jim Vogelsberg, Member Verlin Smith, Member Nancy Mager, Member Barbara Bell, Member Richard Underwood Others Present: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner Paul Nzomo, Engineer David Marsh, Planner I Shirley Gay, DRB Clerk MOTION: Moved, Seconded (Mager/Glueck) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Smith - absent) to approve the June 8th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting Minutes, subject to the following changes: Member Smith absent. Page 4, 3rd Paragraph: "...La Canada Road expansion should read, Lambert Lane expansion..." Page 5, 2nd Paragraph: "...regarding the La Canada Road expansion should read, Lambert Lane..." CONSENT AGENDA 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 A. OV12-99-22 Stone Canyon 2 Preliminary Plat, Golf Course Overlay Zone lots B. OV12-98-1 Stone Canyon Golf Course Landscape Plan Amendment MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Mager) and carried by a 6-0 (Smith absent) vote to recommend approval of Consent Items A and B. Member Smith joined meeting. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: OV12-99-7 GRADING WAIVER, LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER (continued from June 8, 1999 DRB meeting) Paul Nzomo introduced the staff report into the record. This project was continued from DRB meeting of 6/8/99 because it did not meet the Town of Oro Valley code. The applicant WLB Group In. is representing the owner's request to exceed the cut/fill provision of the Grading Ordinance. The property is abutted on the east by a golf course and soil cement channel, to the south by La Canada Villages Block A, to the west by La Canada Drive and to the north by Lambert Lane. The site has a good fall for the drainage as well as sewer fall. Hence, the site can be developed and meet all the above standards without a grading waiver. The Public Works Department staff has reviewed the grading exception request for this development and recommends denial because the project does not meet all the six standard criteria. David Williams, WLB, thanked staff for all the work that has gone into this project. He commented he had spoken with Mr. Nzomo about meeting the criteria and hoped to explain how the project met the six standards for the grading waiver. The project location is the southeast corner of Lambert Lane and La Canada. This site has been a part of Canada Hills since the original conception and zoned by the Town in the late 1980's for community commercial center. He pointed out where the shopping center would be and the three fountain areas along with the parking lots as well as pedestrian walkways and seating areas. There would be 125,000 square feet of building area. The front would have arch covered walkways. We have redesigned this site four times. We have also redesigned the driveways in order to meet staff standards. We are within the six-foot cut and the six-foot fill for eighty percent of this site. The grading waiver request is affecting 20 percent of the site. Mr, Williams pointed out what areas would be affected by the waiver. He commented that many areas in Canada Hills were built on cuts and fill that far exceed the six-foot cut. He provided photos of the site with different angles of the building in place to give the Board Members an idea of how it would look. Mr. Williams stated he spoke with the managers of the golf course showed them the plan and they had no objections to the grading waiver. Mr. Williams proceeded to explain how the project met the six criteria. The first criteria, relates to is the property buildable. Mr. Williams stated he felt the property is buildable. The second criteria, relates to minimum cuts and fills necessary in order to develop the site for commercial uses as planned and zoned, under sound and accepted engineer practice. 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 We feel this is the minimum necessary to allow the center to be developed given the constrained standards needed to live with for public safety purposes. Third criteria, we feel there are two isolated hills, we feel they are man made they are not natural slopes. The other projects around this property have been developed and have exceeded the cut and fill. The fourth criteria, we have redesigned this plan four times, our intention is to develop the subject property for planned accepted and zoned land uses. In order to respond to the unique conditions of this site, the design has been revised in several ways. We feel it's a hardship to require a six-foot compliance of cut and fill. Similar properties have had greater cuts and fills. The fifth criteria, this is not a custom home-site, it's a commercial center and most centers have floors of the same elevation. This design has been altered to respond to topographic features and adapted to build to the land as intended by Oro Valley's grading ordinance. The final criteria, we know we can't make everyone happy but we feel we have come up with a design that meets the intents and spirit of the Town's grading ordinance. The additional cut and fill requested will not be materially detrimental to the right of the property owners„ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Rosemary Fruend, 10503 N. Fairway Vista, commented she lives next to this site, and when they moved to Autumn Hill it was to enjoy the views of the hills and the desert area. The hill has charm and a sense of privacy. There are homes who would look and see this development, I say we do not need another shopping center and the hills do not need to be leveled. Leave the hills alone. Vincent Baiocchetti, 989 W. Fox Ridge Lane, stated he served on a planning commission in another state for 13 years, he understands the function of planning and zoning enforcement's. The planning development is used by homeowners and businesses to determine if they want to move in a particular area. Waivers cause problems, he feels it's important to follow the plan, things should only be changed in extreme cases. Reason for changes are due generally for profit/construction costs. Rarely does the plan ever profit the town or the citizens. The hills are a unique screening, if you are going to err always err on the side of the community for no change. Bonnie Harris, 1212 W. Desert Greens Way, felt the land is buildable it does not need a waiver. She likes the hill as it is. The hill acts as a natural buffer to the homes that live around it and should be left alone. The Town makes rules and laws that we must abide by, only in extreme cases should a variance be granted and there is nothing here extreme enough for that variance. Rarely does the plan ever profit the Town. We have unique screening and I would like to leave the hill as it is. If the hill were to be taken down it would affect the noise and the lighting in Autumn Hill. It is not necessary for the Town to grant this waiver there is no reason to. Geo Jae, 10262 N. Hacienda Hermosa, he would like to see the grading waiver denied. People have been coming before this Board to make sure our hills remain intact and are not graded away. I would ask the Board to deny this waiver. Jim Ruhman, 10380 N. Hacienda Hermosa, commented he lives directly behind the northwest 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 corner of the property. He asked the Board to support the residents. The developer bought the property as is, the objective of a grading ordinance is to require for post development plan to accommodate existing conditions. Please vote no to the request of the developer. Require them to submit a plan that would require them to develop without the need of a grading variance. The challenge to the Board is hold the developer responsible to develop this property as close to as is, as possible. Please ask yourself could this property be built on without a waiver. I ask the Board to look strongly at the six standards that need to be met. I'm asking the developer to build to the existing land not the land to conform to the development. This land can be developed without a waiver. Russ Rumley, 11091 N Tapestry Drive, commented he had been in Oro Valley one year. He comes from an area in Colorado that is heavily zoned. He has seen how variances have been given and the neighborhoods have been sacrificed. What is the benefit of granting the waiver, what is really served by it, is it serving the community, who are the tenants. If no change is made what is the benefit of no change. He expressed he would like to see the site developed with the existing zoning requirements, and the waiver be denied. Rich Young, publisher of the Oro Valley Times, provided pictures for the Board which showed the views from the back of his home, several homes will be effected by this development, all seventy lots would not approve of this waiver. He commented that this developer bought the land as is at a cheap price because of the hill. Now they want to grade the hill. He commented that the developer would leave if they could not get the waiver, well I'm telling you the developer is not going to leave, that is just a bluff. Mr. Young stated he is for the development of that site but not at the expense of taking down the hill. Jerry Roberts, 10280 N. Cmo. Valdeflores, one thing that is not shown is the people that live in the Rancho Feliz area, when that project is built, they will be looking at parking lots. A lot of people will be effected by this development. I don't feel a grading waiver is necessary, build with what is there and work with the community, it can be done. I ask the Board to have the developer work with the people. Vote no on the grading waiver. Karen Stratman, 1707 Placita Caracol, commented when she bought her house she spent more time on her own landscaping than what been given to this development. What will the drainage do once the site is covered by a parking lot? Where is it going to go will the Town be responsible for the drainage? What about the added traffic volume. A lot of people will be effected by this development. She doesn't feel that the developer needs a grading waiver. No one wants to see parked cars, please vote no on this grading waiver. There are other possibilities. She would like to see variety and creativity for this corner. Walgreen's gave up their hill, why can't these developers do the same. The Walgreen's site looks very nice. Please vote no on this waiver. Bill Adler, 1720 N. Eagle Eye Place, commented we need to preserve and conserve. Mr. Williams tried to justify the need for the waiver by using the questionable judgment grading on other properties. Each project should be looked at on its own merits. Always trying to look at the opportunity to make something better than the past. I would say look at this property on its 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 own merit. Consistency on its own is not a valid justification. It is possible to work out the issues with the residents. This property seems to be created with a specific retail use in mind. A specific retail use has space requirements which require a waiver. To me, that's granting a special privilege. The conditions on the property are unique they do not effectively deny improvements. The developer needs to come back with a different plan. Only two of the six findings comply with this project. Four of the standards are not met and you can't justify the waiver. There are alternatives, give the developer a chance to come back with a different plan. Greg Kish, 861 W. Annadale, stated he accepts that that property will be developed as commercial. He is against the grading waiver. He asked are the peak heights consistent with the other projects in the area. He also expressed concern about the peak flows from heavy rains. Can the Town cover if a problem arises from the rain flow. Ro Young, 10421 N. Autumn Hill, felt that the developer was not listening to the people that they want something different. This can be a workable piece of property; the further back it sets the less impact it will have on the residents. There is also the issue of the telephone pole, I see there is another letter to come back to get the telephone pole again. The developer keeps coming back and back until they finally ware down the people and then get what they want. Valerie Feuer wanted to clarify that this is not the same developer as the Villages, the engineering firm is the same, but the issue with the conditional use permit and why its going back to the commission, is because there was an error, all the people that were required did not receive notice. We don't normally see issues keeping coming back, such as the issue with the pole. Ann Rose, 1161 W Desert Way, wanted to make one point; she is against the variance. Her point was to the developer, that this is an opportunity for them to establish some integrity. Work with the residents and make a change that would please all of the community. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Five minute recess. Mr. Hank Nelson, representing the developer Beztak, commented he has developed in Oro Valley since 1985, He developed the Village of La Canada, Rooney Ranch Center, and also the Golf Villas of Oro Valley. For the record in the Villages of La Canada the cuts and fills where much larger than 20 feet and much deeper than six feet. He would like to clarify a comment that was made by Mr. Young, we did not purchase that site for pennies on the dollar as a matter of fact we have not bought the site yet. It doesn't close until tomorrow. We will pay market value for the sight. It has been in the plan for Oro Valley from day one as a commercial site. When a Town creates a corner like this one and calls it a commercial center, there is an obligation to allow the site to be developed as has been ruled and named. It is true that you could build on this site. Would it be economically viable as a commercial center if you took out 20 percent of the dirt, I don't think so. We are allowed to cover 31 percent of the property with building floor, are 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 plan as it stands today is 19 percent of the site with building floor. We may have to look at different uses, under the zoning code we are allowed to put single family houses if we wanted to, or apartments. Staff and others asked us to try and make a viable commercial out of it. I am here tonight asking to make this property developable for us, it is not developable now as is. It has been in the plan from day one to be a commercial center and we feel like we have operated within the restrictions and now trying to capitalize on the opportunity. David Williams, WLB, we have appreciated the comments we have heard tonight and the time people have taken to express their concerns. It was stated that many homes can see this sight, if you have been out to the site there is only one subdivision that sits higher than the site. There are four or five homes at most that look directly at this site. The Oro Valley General Plan is one of the most intensive public input document this Town has undertaken and it's a very good reflection of where this Town wants to go. There has never been any other reason that this land would be developed as a commercial center. This is consistent with Oro Valley's General Plan. Commercial opportunities in Oro Valley are encouraged to make the most of the designated locations by constructing substantial attractive buildings with full improvements convenience and safety. This is the type of project that we are bringing to the Town unfortunately it needs a grading waiver and we feel that waiver falls within the standards. We feel the market is read to bring in tenants. We ask for approval of the grading waiver. Member Underwood commented he has lived in Oro Valley for fifteen years, some projects would have not gotten built without waivers. Member Underwood feels that the hill is ugly, the site is not viable without the waiver. But if the residents love it they love it. Is there any way to compromise the building, like shift things keep a part of the hill and create a nice seating area in back of the hill? We would have to grant a waiver for the rest of the site, but would it be possible to do something like that. David Williams replied we don't see it that way, we have looked at keeping the hill, we can go back and rework the plan but we have abandon the ideal of trying to save the hill. It works against the design and against the concept. Member Underwood commented that the grading waiver should tie to the architecture, we need to look at the whole picture. Member Glueck agreed with Member Underwood,the hill has an attachment to the residents, but she is not convinced that all six standards have been met. Why does something have to be so set in stone is there no room for compromise. David Williams commented that we are open to design ideas but feel there is a need to remove the hill. Member Underwood said what if the hill is re-engineered partly taken down and heavily planted as a buffer. Mr. Williams replied that the widening of Lambert Lane would eventually impact the hill. Member Smith stated that everyone knows its commercial but not necessarily a commercial center and would vote against granting the waiver. Member Mager felt the plan should be redone. Member Mager wanted to clarify with Mr. Williams, was she correct that WLB would rather not come back with a plan than includes the hill. Mr. Williams replied yes. Member Mager asked would the developer appeal to Council. Mr. Williams replied he did not know if they would appeal to Council,there is a good possibility if the waiver is denied. Our request is action tonight, we would preferred this be approved. Member Bell commented looking at the scale of the development to her it doesn't seem to fit. 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 What is aesthetically pleasing, is there some way to work this out,possibly scale back to keep the hill. We should keep looking at this and keep it more viable to where the Town is happy and the developer is happy. Mr. Williams stated we are willing to come back but we are not going to make everyone happy. • Valerie Feuer explained that the alternatives could be. It doesn't look like anyone is willing to approve it as is. But it could be approved with conditions that would meet the design considerations. Secondly it could be denied but also with that denial, state those concerns and issues should the developer appeal to the Council those concerns would be a part of the record. Finally it could be continued, but that is not the desire of the applicant. Member Vogelsberg commented about the viewscape from the back of this building. Is there any way to design around it and maintain a part of the hill. Charlie Hulsey, WLB, commented can we move buildings, we have already been though that process. We have tried not to bring a plan that would not work, however we would like an opportunity for a work session, it will give the Board Members a better understanding of what goes into a commercial center. Member Glueck welcomed a work session as long as it's not a lecture but a discussion, she would consider a better plan. Valerie Feuer thought a work session would be valuable if the intention is to understand that process. If the Board felt that anything at all would come out of the session then have it, but for this project to continue, she felt they would not be getting anywhere. Member Mager felt it would not change her mind. Member Smith agreed with Member Mager it would not change his mind. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Mager) and carried by a 4-3 vote (No Underwood/Vogelsberg/Lewis) to deny Grading Exception Request for La Canada/Lambert Commercial Center Development Plan OV12-99-7. Discussion of motion: Member Mager wants it known that she has moved into that area of the commercial center and she welcomes it. She does not agree with this plan and does not support it and votes to deny as she felt it could be built without a waiver. Member Glueck asked if the motion is denied can an amendment be added if it goes to Council for appeal can there be a study session between DRB and Council before it goes to council so this can be discussed. Valerie replied if the person who made the motion and the secondary agree to that,then it could be added. Member Smith asked what does taking this to a study session going to do. He does not agree to amend the motion. He stated he felt it could be built without a waiver. Member Bell agrees it is a buildable site without the waiver. Member Underwood stated he would vote against it because he felt the site requires a waiver. Member Glueck commented she would vote against the waiver because the site is buildable, she is uncomfortable with the lack of compromise and besides all the standards have not been met. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 PLAN (continued from June 8th, 1999) This item was continued from the June 8th, 1999 DRB meeting. David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. He briefly went through the report, as it was the same information from June 8th meeting. He stated Staff recommends approval of the proposed Developed Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Kane Commercial Center subject to the approval of the grading waiver for this project. Paul Nzomo introduced the engineer's report into the record. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project. At full "build out", the project is expected to generate 12,174 daily trips if each parcel attracts individually. The proposed site will consist of a drive-in bank on the corner and two small office buildings on the south side of Lambert Lane. Driveways to the north align with existing driveways to the retail center on the northeast corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, except that the low volume on the eastern driveway is slightly east of the driveway on the north side. The site is affected by offsite drainage from the intersection of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. Under existing conditions, all the flows drain northwest to southeast through the proposed Villages of La Canada subdivision into the soil cement channel. The applicant has submitted an application for a grading exception request. The Staff does not support approval of the grading exception because the applicant has not demonstrated any engineering reasons to justify this exception. Member Smith questioned why are we even looking at this if the waiver has been denied. Valerie Feuer replied because the applicant has asked this to go forward and if necessary the Board can vote to deny this because you don't know what the final plan is going to look like without the grading waiver. David Willaims, WLB, was available for questions and understands the recommendation for denial. He felt they have a very good shopping center plan that is worthy of approval but it needs to be clarified that the denial is solely based on the grading waiver denial. He also stated that they do not agree with all forty-one conditions, but felt those could be worked out with Staff. Member Smith commented about the conditions how can we approve the conditions if you only agree with half of them. Valerie Feuer replied if the item is denied then so are the conditions. But if the applicant is willing to work out the differences with staff then it could be approved with the conditions. MOTION: Moved, and seconded (Underwood/Smith) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Glueck- absent) to deny OV12-99-7 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN (continued from June 8th, 1999) 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. This item is continued from June 8th' 1999. Staff recommends denial of the proposed Landscape Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center subject to denial of the grading waiver. Member Underwood feels this is a great landscape plan and should be approved. David Williams agrees with Member Underwood this is a great landscape plan and any details could be worked out with staff. Mr. Hulsey stated the palms would not be a part of the landscaping. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Underwood/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 5-1 vote (Smith no/Glueck-absent) to approve OV12-99-7 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan subject to staff conditions and stipulating if the Development Plan changes significantly staff can determine if it needs to come back to the DRB for reevaluation. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIIONS: 1. As per the requirements of the OVZCR, all loading bays shall be screened with a 6' high opaque wall. 2. All trash dumpsters shall be screened by a 6' high masonry wall and vegetation. 3. The Santa Rita Prickly-Pear located in the landscape buffer immediately adjacent to the bank ATM drive-thru shall be replaced wit vegetation with a 'vertical element' of at least 3' in height. 4. All palms used in this project shall not exceed 25' in height at maturity. 5. The 'stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 6. A direct path shall be provided across the 'stream element', between Building 1 and the physically disabled parking spaces north of Building#1. 7. As per the requirements of the OVZCR, all loading bays shall be screened with a 6' high opaque wall. 8. All trash dumpsters shall be screened by a 6' high masonry wall and vegetation. 9. The Santa Rita Prickly-Pear located in the landscape buffer immediately adjacent to the bank ATM drive-thru shall be replaced wit vegetation with a 'vertical element' of at least 3' in height. 10. All palms used in this project shall not exceed 25' in height at maturity. 11. The 'stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 12. A direct path shall be provided across the 'stream element', between Building 1 and the physically disabled parking spaces north of Building#1. 13. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the 8' wide asphalt path connecting the trailhead area to the Lambert Lane Multi-Use Path and to Building#1. 14. Conditions 1 thru 6, listed above, and any additional DRB conditions, shall be submitted with a revised landscape plan, prior to scheduling the plan for Town council. 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 OV13-99-39 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER COMMERCIAL CENTER ARCHITECTURE David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommends approval subject to staff conditions and stipulating any changes caused by the grading waiver denial go before the planning and zoning administrator. David Marsh introduced the staff report into the record. This item is continued from June 8th' 1999. Staff recommends denial of the proposed Landscape Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center subject to denial of the grading waiver. The architecture presented for this project may be described as Mediterranean in style, with several Contemporary Southwestern accents, and is similar in some way to the architecture approved for the Oro Valley Retail Center. The proposed specialty grocery store and in-line shop building will be located on the eastern portion of the site, and will face La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. The architecture of this building features numerous elements, including arcading, columns, archways, parapets, pre-finished metal roof elements, glass entry features, towers with and without stacked stone veneer finish, and a prominent entryway. The height of the proposed building will vary from 22' to 30', with 36' 8" being the maximum for the specialty grocery store entryway feature. The architecture complies with General Plan Policy 9.1A, that "building height and bulk should be in harmony with individual site attributes"; however, it does not comply with Policy 9.1F, that all building elevations should be "coherently designed and treated". Valerie Feuer stated that if the project is built the elevations are unlikely to change. Michael Soto, Seaver Franks Architect, provided colored visuals for the Board. He pointed out where the fountains were different shops, parking, courtyards and retail areas. He was available for any questions the Board may have. Member Vogelsberg commented about the metal roof Some look great and some look terrible. He had reservations about metal roofs. He asked Mr. Soto if he had a sample of the roof and he did not. Mr. Soto replied he would not want to live in a Town where everything looked the same. Member Vogelsberg asked what would the spacing be on the bands. Mr. Soto replied 24 inches. Member Mager liked the idea of a metal roof Member Underwood like the rich look of the metal roof Valerie Feuer added additional detail to item four, and expected to be Copper Patina to be consistent with other shopping corner. Member Bell is pleased with the way the center looks especially the stone veneer. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Mager/Bell) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Glueck-absent) to recommend approval of OV13-99-39 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Architecture subject to staff conditions and stipulating the applicant provide a sample of the metal roofing to the agenda committee. IF 06-29-99 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. "Mock" arches shall be added to the drive-thru area on the west elevation. 2. Additional architectural features, such as arch, columns, and varying roof elements, shall be added to the rear elevations to 'mimic' those features found on the front elevations of the buildings. 3. The "tower" located at the southwest corner of the drug store shall be shown on the site plan. 4. Signage is not part of the review, and shall be reviewed separately and shall be expected to be copper patina to be consistent with corner stores. S. The applicant shall submit a color palette for the permanent record. 6. A sample of the metal roofing shall come before the agenda committee for approval by staff. Chair Lewis reminded the DRB members that this was Verlin Smith's last meeting as he has resigned from the DRB Board. STAFF REPORT Valerie Feuer talked about the up coming agenda and asked the Board would they like to have two meetings for July as it will be a long agenda. The Board commented they would like one meeting for July as some of the members had other obligations. A second meeting has been requested for August 31 St, 1999. There will a site tour July 8th at 6:30, meeting at the Safeway parking lot, transportation will be provided by Member Underwood and Chair Lewis. It is time for the Agenda Committee to change or renew members. The term is now six months and we are going to change that time to a year. We are asking for volunteers for the new term. We also have a new DRB member his name is Bruce Enger and he will be here for the July 13th DRB meeting. The last item Valerie wanted to bring up was the landscaping at the front of the Golf Villas. The rocks have not been moved yet. They did follow the landscape plan however, they placed rocks at their discretion. Our zoning inspector will work with the people at the Villas to get that issue worked out. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Smith/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 6-0 vote (Glueck — absent) to adjourn the June 29th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting at 10:00 P.M. Shirley Gay DRB Clerk JPLLEY 4R/ .ct.° °2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GIif /' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • plarivins,,ricBocipgriligi Iding Safety 0 VAtiWaaNtaoa viiiw2ifolibomitiNTG , o �re nre � s , 6 680 W Calle C$ ri§0 20 -'$50•Fax(520)742-2202 .c°UN D ED ' CALL TO ORDER: 6: 05p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Patti Jo Lewis, Chair Jim Vogelsberg, Member Nancy Mager, Member Mary Glueck, Member Absent Barbara Bell, Member Richard Underwood, Member Bruce Enger, Member Others Present: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner Craig Civalier, Engineer, PE Shirley Gay, DRB Clerk MOTION: Moved, Seconded (Mager/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 3-0 vote (Glueck abstained) to approve the September 14th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting Minutes as written CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-99-71 Scaletta Custom Home, La Reserve, Lot 193 B. OV13-99-72 Geistfeld Room Addition, 13964 N. Willow Bend Dr., Sun City C. OV13-99-74 Gold Canyon, La Reserve, KE&G Model 2467 D. OV13-99-28 Casa Adobes Baptist Church Acessory Structures Architecture E. OV13-99-75 Johnson Custom Home, Rancho Vistoso,NB11 H & N, Lot 12 F. OV13-99-76 Keith Custom Home, Rancho Vistoso, NB 11 H&N Lot 20 G. OV13-99-77 Mike Webb Custom Home, Canada Hills Village 15, Lot 70 JP‘A.EY O Q "° TOWN OF ORO VALLEY `r 6��* * r'�` �"`kF C 0 M tiMaXitiervygliciglyk§tgepEPARTMENT Page 2 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety ll11 rnie W@ DH®ft1t, afi�dh3HilI )V4l 015,( t4 O°22 ancho Vistoso� Ne ghbo RLStI V1dgi®AteC Z oo EntrByway2Development Plan J.' .: A' Rancho 'istoso eig` �orhoo�t��l §ton e canyon :nrr�way Landscape Plan °UNo D Valerie Feuer asked that items D and I be pulled and discussed separately . MOTION: Moved, seconded (Glueck/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Bell/ Enger/Underwood absent) to recommend approval of Consent Items A-C, E-H & J. Item D, OV 13-99-28 Casa Adobes Baptist Church Acessory Structures Architecture Dennis Silva needed to make a change in the summary report, changing three ramadas to five ramadas. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Bell/Enger/Underwood absent) to recommend approval for Consent Item D stipulating changing the number three to five ramadas in the summary of the report. Item I, OV 12-98-02B, Stone Canyon Entry Way Development Plan, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, Located at the end of Vistoso Highlands Drive, West of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. Member Vogelsberg asked were the elevations supposed to be included with this submittal. Valerie Feuer replied they would be submitted at a latter date when the architecture plans came in. Member Glueck asked that the development plan be distributed to the DRB members when the architecture came in. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Mager/Vogelsberg) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Bell/Enger/Underwood) to recommend approval of Consent Item I stipulating when the elevation plan is reviewed and approved by the DRB the horizontal development plan should be included in the same packet. REGULAR AGENDA OV12-99-17 PUSCH RIDGE DAYCARE/OFFICE COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ORACLE, SOUTH OF PUSCH VIEW LANE Dennis Silva Planner I, introduced the staff report into the record. The subject parcel is 2.57 acres with a 27,145 square foot building envelope. Located along Oracle Road and surrounded on the other three sides by the Rock Ridge Apartments. Access to this site will be provided by a new driveway on to Rock Ridge Drive. The proposed day care center will consist of an 8,850 square foot building with a play yard. This building will be connected by a shade trellis to the proposed office building which will be 18,295 square feet. The daycare center will be a single story structure and the office building will be a combination of single and two stories. The public art display will be located at the front of the building. Craig Civalier introduced the engineer's report into the record. The average weekday trips generated will be 41-• st TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ,p, y,kT tispJ COMEMIAXitryevygligrrtylAggepEPARTMENT Page 3 } • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety rip gerltzftftitM WP iieTrgtlia{t YeAt'n ingt ening peak hour. All e , fi`this site will continue tb F g mi w i 30- inch storm sewer near the southwest .;, 8 W. le Con ordia Oro Val y, 85737 520)229-5050•.Fax 520 7 2 02 cor g g. This site will e mass graded o grading waiver is expectea. Planning staff recoRiiikaiN Vpproval of the proposed Development Plan subject to staff conditions. Member Vogelsberg asked Mr. Civalier if the final analysis of the location of the proposed driveway to the existing driveway into the apartments, was the level of service acceptable to the Town Engineer and were options explored that perhaps another exit could go directly to Oracle Road? Mr. Civalier replied that he felt the state would have not approved another exit to Oracle Road. Valerie Feuer commented that the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District does preclude having another entrance. Staff has been working with ADOT for any of the projects to combine any of the entrances and she was in agreement with Mr. Civalier that ADOT would not support another entrance. Member Glueck commented about the compact parking spaces, she felt that most parents would have vans and bigger cars and a compromise needed to be worked out regarding that issue. Mr. Swaim, Swaim Associates, provided colored visuals for the Board and briefly reviewed the project. He showed the Board where the compact parking spaces were located. He explained that they were put on the opposite side of the drive so they would be more staff orientated spaces. Mr. Swain commented about where the sidewalks would be and how they would tie in with the apartment complex to the southwest and also to the north. Member Glueck asked Mr. Swaim, if an in lieu fee was agreeable for the sidewalks along Oracle and he replied he did not have a problem with that. Dennis Silva commented that would be added as a condition. Member Glueck expressed concern about the compact parking in regards to parents dropping off children and being able to get in and out of small parking spaces. Valerie Feuer replied that there was not enough space for full length on the Oracle side because of the ROW, so the only alternative was to go for compact spaces. Mr. Swaim explained that the compact spaces are as wide as a regular parking space, but the length was shorter than normal. Valerie Feuer suggested making all the spaces the same length since the width is not a problem. Mr. Swaim was in agreement with that suggestion. Member Mager questioned if there would be speed bumps to keep people from speeding. Mr. Swaim commented not at this time. Member Mager asked what could be done to keep people from speeding through this parking lot. Valerie Feuer suggested putting up signage, speed bumps should be the last alternative. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, expressed his concern about this project being approved at this location without a traffic light. He felt the only acceptable access to this location would be at Pusch View Lane, where there is a light. He commented he did not hear any reference to the play yard size, but looking at the plan he felt it was barely adequate for ten children. Mr. Adler also commented regarding the daycare staff, that perhaps they could help manage traffic in the parking lot. He felt the drop off area could be made bigger for safety reasons. He asked the DRB to consider a better design, as he felt it was not ready for approval at this time. Larry Cochran, responded to the concerns regarding the access. He commented that ADOT was JP��EY 49/ 0<0 `Co TOWN OF ORO VALLEY CMOAN05), Page 4 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety Cr, thi 1 git&i§a&SlIfiteditidteMleadd they ncmotodifted to(fifili -th% access. As far as the 0 wed the arear is greater t1faH�PlrF'rl'li code. (Memzb2e�r2Glueck requested a •c=°d to have8aaycarCo start thonitor'tnertr'arfib.20Vale°rie•com5mentea°chat a condition could be addehiiA-, it could not be enforced. Member Mager asked how the traffic will be managed, will there be someone directing traffic, how will this be handled. In response Mr. Cochran explained that if the daycare staff has complaints or staff sees someone speeding they will approach that person and let them know that is not acceptable. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Glueck/Mager) to recommend approval of OV12-99-17 Pusch Ridge Day Care/Office Complex Development Plan subject to staff conditions and stipulating in-lieu fee be provided, traffic management be approved by staff, signage be approved by Town Staff, and condition 6 be moved to condition 10. Discussion: Member Mager wanted it known that she was uncomfortable with the plan, she was concerned about the traffic flow and the only reason she was approving this is because she felt this would be quality child care. Member Vogelsberg commented that he was in agreement with Member Mager and thought perhaps the applicant could educate the clientel about alternative access points. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0 (Bell/Enger/Underwood absent). PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. The wording for general note 6 should be changed to state that the parking calculations for the day care are approved per the CUP, Section 9-104. 2. ADOT must review and comment on the traffic impact report. Any mitigating measures required from ADOT's review must be addressed in the improvement plan review phase. 3. The radii on the median island at the north end of the parking lot must be revised to 20-ft to allow trucks to maneuver successfully. 4. Provide studies or archaeological, cultural and biological clearances and /or remediation. 5. Show all existing and proposed easements on the site. 6. Adjust compact parking spaces to the same length 18'x18' as all other spaces . 7. In-lieu fee shall be provided for sidewalks along Oracle Road. 8. Traffic management plan shall be approved by Town Staff. 9. Signage for traffic management to be approved by Town Staff. 10. These conditions shall be addressed prior to submittal of the development plan for Town Council. OV12-99-17 PUSCH RIDGE DAYCARE/OFFICE COMPLEX LANDSCAPE PLAN Dennis Silva, Planner I, introduced the staff report into the record. Proposed trees for this development include, Blue Palo Verde, Velvet Mesquite, California Pepper, Whitehorn Acacia, Texas Ebony, Chinese Pistache, and Sonoran Palo Verde. The Town Engineer approved the landscape buffer yard in the right-of- way, but the applicant needs a permit from ADOT in order to place the buffer yard in the Oracle Road ROW. The proposed landscape plan complies with Policy 9.1 H ensuring that landscape improvements t t\o_EY q h, Om '0404 o TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMM ISat X g.t ttepEPARTM ENT Page 5 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety isual itifilatt§a6f iniiRtifietidelVaiiditio622)P19aillfirigaStifff it2c6nimends approval of the p pe Plan for the Pusch Ridt-wfirti5VAR9fMt0Bmplex, subject to staff conditions. 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-505 •Fax(520) 42-2202 iN Mem ��sberg asked staff what happens if ADOT denies the buffer yard in the right-of-way. Valerie Feuer replied the applicant would have to redesign the buffer yard to fit within the property line and come back to DRB, Dan Elder, DRE Associates, representing the owner/developer provided colored visuals for the Board members. He briefly explained how the site would be landscaped. He pointed out where the playground area would be and how the area was shaded for the children. He commented that the staff conditions were acceptable and did DRB members have questions. Member Mager questioned would there be an area for employees to sit and have lunch or take a break. Mr. Elder pointed out a sitting area with tables and benches and a fountain for employees. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 (Bell/Enger/Underwood absent) to recommend approval ofOV12-99-17 Pusch Ridge Daycare/Office Complex Landscape Plan, subject to staff conditions. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. In accordance with Section 14-205C.8 of the OVZCR, at least 40% of required trees must be twenty-four inch boxed, or twenty-four inch spaded, or larger size. 2. Change the second"Common Name" column to "Botanical Name." 3. "OV12-99-17" must be listed at the bottom right corner of each sheet. 4. These conditions shall be addressed prior to submittal of the development plan for Town Council. OV13-99-79 PUSCH RIDGE DAYCARE/OFFICES ARCHITECTURE Dennis Silva, Planner I, introduced the staff report into the record. The architectural style may be described as a contemporary southwestern with a combination of flat and pitched roof elements and windows on all four sides. The proposed architecture is consistent with the commercial developments in the surrounding area. The height of the structure will be 25 feet or lower, but the tower elements will be 31 feet. The standing seam metal roof will have the Copper Canyon color. The accent colors and the base colors will be presented at the meeting. Planning staff recommends approval subject to staff conditions. Mr. Swaim, Swaim Associates,provided color visuals and briefly explained his plans for the architecture. He provided a color palette showing staff and the DRB what color the building and accent colors would be. He commented that this would blend with the apartment complex. Member Vogelsberg commented he liked the use of the copper roof. He felt it would be very striking. Member Mager complimented the applicant for softening the look of the building from what was presented at the preview. Valerie Feuer stated a condition needed to be added that a revised elevation be submitted to staff for the file and no further changes be added. PO-EY qR (z• o 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY � t COMRWAI �nt � �r Rte� Page 6 EPARTMENT • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety d, secdtaltfil L{ gle l` re) aailLIYVbste e1UEnger./Underwood s R mend approval of OV13-99C79 L PrDaycare/Offices Architecture, subject to - 6 0 .Calle Concordia, ro Valle ,ADZ 857 • 5 0) 29- 050 s x 0 7 2 stet a..,�R and stipu�aing a revised elevation p'air��e sumi �edta oUNDED.\9 PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. The refuse dumpster shall be enclosed on three sides by a 6' masonry wall and plantings, and shall be finished to match the architectural character of the project. The color of the masonry wall shall match the colors of the proposed building. 2. Mechanical equipment,whether ground level or roof-mounted, shall be screened from public view and designed to be an integral part of the building. The color of the screening shall match the building. 3. The color of the flat roof portions must match the wall color. 4. Per Section 10-408D.4 of the OVZCR, glass panels measuring greater that 4 feet in width or height are to be of 20% reflectivity or less. 5. Submit a revised elevation of what was presented to DRB for Staff files. OV13-99-73 NEXTEL WIRELESS MINOR COMMUNICATION FACILITY IN THE TEP SUBSTATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD,WEST OF FIRST AVENUE David Marsh, Planner I, introduced the staff report into the record. Nextel Communications is requesting approval of a Minor Communication Facilities Plan to collocate new antenna on an existing "static" pole, located within the Tucson Electric Power substation. The substation is owned by TEP and is located on the north side of Tangerine Road, west of First Avenue and east of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. The project includes the addition of three new 8' long, 12" wide antennae, located on the 40' pole. Equipment to support the antennae will be located within the existing brick wall enclosure, and will not be visible from Tangerine Road. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to camouflage the antenna with shroud of flexible, RF friendly material; however, they believe that the shroud will make the pole appear larger. Staff has reviewed this issue carefully, and believes that the shroud will screen the antenna effectively without increasing the apparent size of the pole. Staff recommends approval of the Nextel Communications Facility Plan, finding that it meets the requirements of a minor communication facility subject to staff conditions. Michael Shoff, representing Nextel Communications, commented about the conditions. He felt on condition one a landscape plan was not necessary, as there would be minimum disturbance. Mr. Marsh explained since there would be minimal disturbance, to work with staff to transplant the vegetation that would be disturbed. Member Mager suggested adding language to the condition to cover what was required. David Marsh stated to add the following to condition one. Work with staff to minimize disturbance to the existing site and develop the appropriate mitigation measure to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Mr. Shoff agreed. Mr. Shoff also commented on condition two. He felt adding the shroud to the pole would make the top of the pole look to big. However if that is what staff and DRB AEY 419/ (Z, xt , 02 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY g�� " gic- COMMUKIN&IRMIteRMAUEPARTMENT Page 7 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety e WierilMeGlitietVeintINIfti9e4.1satige felt that was not a big issue and th. 'lion two should be deletecJarks and Recreation 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)742-2202 MO' Ioloved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Bell/Enger/Underwood absent) to recommend approval of OV-13-99 Nextel Wireless Minor Communication Facility in the TEP Substation, Located on the North Side of Tangerine Road, West of First Avenue, subject to staff conditions and stipulating condition one be modified to read applicant work with staff to minimize disturbance to existing site, develop the appropriate mitigation measure to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Condition two shall be deleted. PI.ANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: The applicant shall work with staff to minimize disturbance to the existing site and develop the appropriate mitigation measure to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 3. All cables or accessory equipment shall be located within the pole, or the equipment shelter. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN- PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ON JUNE 29, 1999 This development plan is dependent on a grading waiver, which was approved by the Town Council at its September 1, 1999 meeting. As part of the grading waiver approval, the Town Council elected to send the development plan back to the DRB for review. An earlier version of this development plan was reviewed by the DRB on June 8th and June 29th of this year. This project is also dependent on approval of a conditional use permit to replace an existing utility pole, which has been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and is currently on hold. In addition,this project will also require a CUP for a proposed convenience use on-site. Staff commends the applicant for the provision of additional landscaping and sidewalks throughout the plan. The applicant has made several modifications in the development plan since the last DRB meeting, including portions of the hill on the northeast corner of the site. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Plan for the La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center, subject to staff conditions. Owing to the complex nature of this project and the lengthy number of conditions, Staff has included in Exhibit "A" a condition which requires the applicant to resolve the issues in Exhibit "A" prior to resubmittal for Town Council review, and that the resubmittal date be one week earlier than nornal. Mr. Marsh needed to make a couple of corrections to staff conditions. Condition one, the word landscape added before the word conditions. Condition fifteen strike prior to resubmittal for Town Council in the first sentence and in the last sentence strike prior to the development plan going to Town Council Craig Civalier, introduced the Engineer's report into the record. A traffic report has been submitted for this development and has been reviewed by staff. However, revisions to the report are needed. All possible mitigating measures cannot be adequately identified until an acceptable report, has been reviewed by staff P\-LEY qR kph�ybtt r h ` 4r��` h� TOWN OF ORO VALLEY o� (049 CO MMRUN Xt[ ( Lte Mep E PA RTM E NT Page 8 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety ated by theisitccoilt?tgt 'in 42, E'04,6132 r Fdfty?orF}e1 eVening peak hour will be t *here trips generated wilili'tifigt 4134nliiqeMitiOrl056. The site will be mass graded. Town C W 44.dived a gralirigc*aiVeilkififcon i ions for is-deveioprhent'. i.time limit of two years was placed►ty 1grading waiver as a condition of approval. Member Mager asked what happens to this plan if DRB denies it. David Marsh replied that it would be forwarded to Town Council with the DRB recommendations and it would ultimately be Town Council's decision whether to deny or approve it. Charles Hulsey, WLB Group, representing the Beztak Companies, commented he would like to reassure Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Roberts that WLB would follow through on the commitments that were made to them regarding buffering and moving buildings. Mr. Hulsey provided visuals of what would be done to the hill. He commented that the bulk of the hill would be left. He showed the changes that have taken place since the denial. The bank would be relocated, and the larger building would be relocated to the corner parcel. The retention basin would be landscaped. As far as the staff conditions Mr. Hulsey wanted it on the record that he was not in agreement with condition eight. Mr. Hulsey felt it should be zoned commercial rather than convenience use as that was what it was zoned originally. He commented he would work that out with staff. On condition twenty-four regarding the friction coat, this is very expensive and he would like to delete it or to work out this detail with the Town Engineer. Condition twenty-eight regarding flows from concentration points six and five, he would like to delete it or work the problem out with the Town Engineer. Member Vogelsberg commented that condition twenty-four should have language adding that applicant work with the Town Engineer regarding friction coat. Craig Civalier responded to condition twenty-eight he felt it could be worked out with the Town Engineer. Hank Nelson, Beztak Companies wanted it on the record that several years ago he wanted to put a curb along La Canada drive to divert the flow of water that comes across the entrance of the Villages. He stated that the Town would not allow him to add the curb. It would be expensive to correct the problem now when it could have been done years ago. Jerry Roberts, 10280 N. Cmo. Valdeflores, thanked the DRB members for denying the waiver as it made the developer and the residents get together and discuss the issues and concerns the neighbors had. He commented that Mr. Hulsey has been very cooperative with the residents and their concerns. Mr. Roberts commented he is happy with the alternatives, but still has concerns about the traffic. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, expressed his concerns about the drainage and felt it had not been addressed properly. He asked the DRB not to approve this item if they are not comfortable or have questions regarding the issues. Mr. Adler stated he would prefer a different development, one that generates less traffic. He commented that if people take a left turn to go south on La Canada to cross traffic makes no sense to him. He felt perhaps a stripped center lane, which would allow people to get into the center lane to wait until its safe to merge with the traffic. He also suggested placing a flashing light before the intersection at Lambert and La Canada to slow people down as they approach this project. He remarked he did not like the way the parking lot was set up. He felt there would be a lot of fender benders as well as pedestrians in danger of being hit as vehicles backed out. In conclusion Mr. Adler would like the DRB members to take a - LEY qR/ * '��� TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • ►9 t '�4M CO MMt qpv)F �'rfiAUTesD E PARTM E N T Page 9 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety • eject ahhdoadd-t itib I ke41 3rdjaf t crrae6Pftiffddctiliis item to redesign it. • Parks and Recreation Bc �`. '12 W. DMA 'reeris�° °y;°voi6ec her coric6rris5fovX42 die felt the plans had not chanE�1V M t was before the Town Council a few months ago. Her other concerns was the height of the hill, it was her understanding the hill would only be cut a maximum of ten feet, the center building would it be a grocery store or is it going to be a big box project. Ms. Harris also commented on the friction coat, she felt there was a patchy effect with the roads around the Town, she felt it takes away from the beauty of the Town. Charles Hulsey, addressed Ms. Harris concerns. He felt if the asphalt was put down properly, it shouldn't look patchy. Mr. Hulsey showed the changes on the overhead from the last time it went before Council. The grading of the hill and the landscaping of the hill would be shown on the landscape plan. He explained the depth of the cut would only be approximately ten feet. This building in the middle is still going to be a small, neighborhood type grocery store. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Glueck) and carried by a 3-1 vote (Mager no, Bell/Enger/Underwood absent) to recommend approval of OV12-99-7 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan subject to staff conditions and stipulating changes made t conditions 1, 15, 24 and 28. Discussion: Member Mager wanted it known that this plan could still use a lot of improvements, she is concerned about the issues that were brought up in the staff report. She would vote to deny it. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall meet with Staff to resolve the Landscape conditions of the grading waiver approval, prior to resubmittal for Town Council review. 2. Resubmittal for Town Council review shall be one week earlier than shown on the Oro Valley Planning& Zoning submittal calendar. 3. The loading bay/area for Pad B shall be eliminated, per DRB approval. 4. The pedestrian patio at the southeast corner of the buildings shall be connected by a stairway to the parking in the rear of the structures. 5. 22 Class I and 22 Class II bicycle-parking spaces shall be provided for this development. The bicycle spaces shall be equitably distributed across the site, and all bicycle parking spaces shall have a minimum of 6' clearance on all sides. 6. Two physically disabled parking spaces shall be provided in the parking area immediately north of Building#1. 7. Pedestrian connections shall be made from Pad C to Pad B, and from Building#4 to La Canada Drive via Pad A. 8. A conditional use permit shall be required for Pad C, as the use is deemed to be a convenience use. 9. Pad A and Pad B shall be screened by a minimum 12' wide landscape buffer, and the drive throughs shall be screened by a minimum 5' wide landscape buffer with minimum 5' high vegetation. Screening for the drive throughs shall extend the full length of the stacking lane. 10. Architectural plans for Pads A, B, and C shall be submitted for DRB review. 11. The lighting for this development shall conform to the lighting in the commercial centers to the north P-LEY qR� 0 O TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 9 ,v COMMCN&WsWILIMMtgesDEPARTMENT Page 10 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety e. A lightitig-VhttilfOrvtifirs dtivelbpitient4talt i'^stibitfitfedifo-Staff review prior to is mg permits. • Parks and Recreation 68 a O le A 8 737•(52 229 5 50 F x 520 742 220 6' 12. As O'713 .r : cements o�fiii bS7 , 1111F a um sf6rs snail ge screened with a masonrywall and PtnEkiing. 13. Where not screened by proposed landscaping or perimeter screen wall, a 6' high opaque screen shall screen all loading areas. 14. "Scrubbers" and filters shall be installed on the venting outlets of all businesses preparing food to mitigate smoke,vapors, and odors. 15. The applicant shall resolve issues regarding drainage concerns with the Villages of La Canada HOA, and provide documentation of a written agreement . Written permission from the HOA of the Villages of La Canada for the construction of the spillway into the existing soil cement channel is required prior to forwarding the development plan to Town Council. The fair share cost of the maintenance of the existing channel shall be addressed with the Villages of La Canada HOA • ' . 16. Provide one copy of boundary closure calculations with coordinate references to identifiable points shown on the development plan. 17. Improvements along La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane shall require Town Engineer's office review and approval. 18. The traffic report shall address the effect of this development to the level of service at the intersection of La Canada and Lambert. 19. Near Sight distances for driveways number 5& 6 shall be delineated on the development plan. 20. The developer shall install 12' wide pavement and striping on eastside of La Canada Drive and south side of Lambert Lane for the entire site frontage. 21. The traffic impact report must be revised and be accepted by Town staff prior to forwarding the development plan to Town Council. 22. The traffic impact report must include a section that analyses the internal circulation by the design vehicle. 23. The design vehicle must be identified. 24. A friction coat must be applied to the full width and frontage of the existing pavement on La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane after the new right turn lanes are installed. Open dialog with the Town Engineer and developer to investigate an appropriate means to achieve the desired results of the transition that satisfies the travel lanes. 25. A striping plan is required for the new configurations of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. 26. All recommendations listed by the Traffic Engineer in the traffic report and supported by the Town Engineer shall be addressed and reflected on the development plan prior to forwarding it to Town Council. 27. A final drainage report will be required during the improvement plan review process. A percolation test is required for the retention basin. 28. The flows from concentration points 6 and 5 shall be directed by storm drainpipes into the soil cement channel or retention area. Work with Town Engineer and developer to re-evaluate hydrology report regarding the concentration points. 29. The proposed CMP in the R/W along La Canada Road shall require a licence agreement from Public Works. Call out head walls and wing walls for all inlets and outlets for these CMP's. 30. All changes to building pads or locations will require a revised development plan for administrative review. JP�LEY qR, o 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY • . . � CO Me it ravy&IBUMitresDEPARTMENT Page 11 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 • Parks and Recreation 'imirosea,,. ..,� s 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)742-2202 OV12L9 l CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN- PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ON JUNE 29TH, 1999 David Marsh, Planner I, introduced the staff report into the record. This landscape plan is dependent on a grading waiver, which was approved by the Town Council at its September 1, 1999 meeting. As part of the grading waiver approval, the Town Council elected to send the landscape plan back to the DRB for review. An earlier version of this landscape plan was reviewed by the DRB on June 8tn and June 29t" of this year. This project is also dependent on approval of a conditional use permit to replace an existing utility pole, which has been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and is currently on hold. In addition,this project will also require a CUP for a proposed convenience use on-site. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Landscape Plan subject to staff conditions. Charles Hulsey, WLB Group, representing the applicant, was available for questions. Member Mager asked Mr. Hulsey if he accepted all of staff conditions. He replied yes, and on condition four could the word recycle be replaced with the word re-circulate. David Marsh commented that was acceptable. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Glueck/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Bell/Enger/Underwood absent) to recommend approval of OV12-99-7 La Canada/Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape plan, subject to staff conditions and stipulating on condition four replace the word recycle with re-circulate. PLANNING STAFF CONDITIONS: 1. As per the requirements of the OVZCR, all loading bays shall be screened with a 6' high opaque wall. 2. All trash dumpsters shall be screened by a 6' high masonry wall and vegetation. 3. All drive-through lanes shall be screened by a minimum 5' wide landscape buffer for the entire length of the stacking lane, and that the vegetation be a minimum of 3' high as per the requirements of the OVZCR. 4. The 'stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle re-circulate all water. 5. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the remainder of the hill to be preserved on the northeast portion of the sire, as per the conditions of the grading waiver approval. 6. A minimum of one-third of the trees along La Canada Drive and the eastern boundary of the property shall be 36" boxed trees. 7. Conditions 1 thru 6, listed above, and any additional DRB conditions, shall be submitted with a revised landscape plan, prior to scheduling the plan for Town Council. Member Vogelsberg had a concern that he thought needed to be addressed sense Mr. Nelson with Beztak Companies was present. Member Vogelsberg wanted to know when the rocks in the front of the Golf Villas were going to be moved, as this has been a concern for several months. Mr. Nelson replied he had already JP" qR, 002 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY O " C O MM�Nixt �L f, ep E PA RT M E N T Page 12 • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety •SCapergalt tWaSIOSSEared3theiteWVUtertie OteeditEntielliffititiPPlateS. • Parks and Recreation 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)742-2202 Al RIBE0 tef: Valerie Feuer apologized to the DRB for the misunderstanding of the site tour for the 3rd Fairway at Oro Valley. If the DRB members would like another site tour to let staff know and Charlie Trayers would meet with them. Valerie informed the DRB this was her last meeting and thanked them for their support and she has really enjoyed working with them. She told the Board that David Marsh and Dennis Silva would be giving the reports and Bryant Nodine would be sitting in on the meetings. Member Vogelsberg wanted Valerie to know she would be greatly missed, and the other members were in agreement. MOTION: Moved, seconded (Vogelsberg/Mager) and carried by a 4-0 vote (Bell/Enger/Underwood absent) to adjourn the October 12th, 1999 Development Review Board Meeting at 9:45 P.M. Shirley Gay DRB Clerk +.r1 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 4 2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)00-09 RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. (0)96-05,WHICH ADOPTED THE TOWN COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES,AND RE-ENACT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BY RESOLUTION Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing.No comments from the public were received. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to RESCIND Ordinance No. (0)96-05. Council Member Bryant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried,4-0. 3. RESOLUTION NO. (R)00-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ADOPTING THAT DOCUMENT KNOWN AS "TOWN COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES" Town Attorney Dan Dudley explained that this resolution would re-adopt the Town Council's Polices and Procedures that had been rescinded through Ordinance No. (0)00- 09. Council Member Bryant had concerns with restrictions and was reluctant to approve the resolution in its current state. Mayor Loomis agreed with Council Member Bryant that there were issues that needed to be addressed,however, he would like to have the policy in place and develop a task force to address the issues. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to ADOPT the Town of Oro Valley Council Policies and Procedures by Resolution No. (R)00-19. Council Member Parisi SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4-0. Vice Mayor Johnson arrived at 7:25 p.m. 4. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN,LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE(PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SEPTEMBER 1, 1999) Community Developer Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He explained that staff had forwarded a favorable recommendation, if all of the conditions listed in "Exhibit A"are adhered to. Council Member Bryant stated that he had concerns with traffic,parking, drainage ways, easements and common areas. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 Mr. Sinclair concurred that these were legitimate concerns and that some of these issues had been resolved. He added that there would be agreements made between the developer and the homeowners association regarding the drainage ways and easements. Charles Hulsey,with The WLB Group, representing the applicant (Beztak) stated that there were a number of things that had changed and gave the following update: • Commitments have been made regarding the landscaping. • All access points had been moved further away from the intersection than had been required by Code. Everything is being done in accordance under the direction of the traffic engineers. • The flow of the drainage way along the eastern boundaries would not increase. • Beztak has offered to maintain the wash adjacent to the site and make the necessary repairs. • The Homeowners Association (HOA)has granted the developer an egress and ingress easements to maintain the wash. Fro Adams, 10160 North Fox Hunt Lane, representing the Villages of La Canada Homeowner Association. She stated that the HOA had met with the developer and has a tentative agreement. The following arrangements were made: • Agreed to grant egress and ingress to maintain the wash for access • The developer will repair and maintain their portion of the wash • Drainage ways will not exceed the present level but if an overflow occurred the HOA and the developer would re-negotiate to determine where the overflow originated. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant,Ms. Adams explained that the in perpetuity only pertained to the land. She added that if any damage occurred the developer or owner would be responsible. Matt Moutafis, 10707 North Pomegranate Drive stated the following: • That all grading waivers conditions are met • Disagreed with the widening of Lambert Lane on either side • Access was very important and there should be some safety precautions implemented in the development plan • Water was a very precious commodity and should not be squandered on water features Jerry Roberts, 10280 North Camino Valdeflores expressed his satisfaction and appreciation. He explained that he was in attendance to make sure that the promises made by the developer were kept in relation to the location of the buildings and understood the communities concerns. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Town Engineer Bill Jansen explained that the amended conditions had been submitted regarding Item 6 and Item 18. He explained regarding Item 18, staff concurred with half of the friction coat for La Canada, but recommends the full width for Lambert Lane. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 6 Mr. Jansen explained that in regards to Item 6,the engineer shall provide the design information from the Villages of La Canada Block A which shows how the flows from concentration points 5 and 6 have been directed away from the guard house on Congressional Way. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Development Plan, subject to the condition in Exhibit "A" and in addition to the amended conditions to Item 6 and Item 18. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Exhibit A(*As amended per motion) Code Issues and/or Town Standards 1. Where not screened by proposed landscaping or perimeter screen wall, loading areas shall be screened in accordance with OVZCR Sec 11-203B 2. The applicant Shall either: (a) Resolve issues regarding drainage concerns with the Villages of La Canada HOA, and provide documentation of a written agreement. Written permission from the HOA of the Villages of La Canada for the construction of any improvement on their property is required prior to submittal of an improvement plan, or (b) Submit an acceptable drainage study and improvement plan to release storm water runoff at the flow rate,velocity and location as the existing conditions without necessitating any off-property improvements. 3. The traffic impact report must include a section that analyzes the internal circulation by the design vehicle. 4. Determine the actual near side intersection sight distances for driveways number 5 & 6 and compare them with the required near side sight distances, then include them in the revised traffic impact report. 5. A final drainage report will be required during the improvement plan review process. A percolation test is required for the retention basin. 6.* The engineer shall provide the design information from the Villages of La Canada Block A which shows how the flows from concentration points 5 & 6 have been directed away from the guard house on Congressional Way. 7. The proposed CMP in the R/W along La Canada Road shall require a license agreement from Public Works. Call out head walls and wing walls for all inlets and outlets for these CMP's. 8. The southern driveway on La Canada Drive shall be constructed as a right in out driveway. 9. Construction of the retention basin and spillway shall utilize local rock and other materials that, combined with revegatation of the basin, create a natural look. Review Considerations 10. Architectural plans, especially for Pads A and C and the east side of Building. 2, shall be submitted for DRB approval. • 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 7 11. Meet with staff to review comments of the revised traffic impact report, revise the report and resubmit for approval. 12. Improvements along La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane shall require Town engineer's office review and approval. 13. The traffic impact report must be revised and be approved by Town staff prior to approval of the improvement plans. 14. The lighting for this development shall conform to the lighting in the commercial centers to the north and west of the site. A lighting plan for this development shall be submitted for Staff review prior to issuance of building permits. Other Considerations 15. The fair share cost of the maintenance of the existing channel shall be addressed with the Villages of La Canada HOA and signed by both parties. 16. "Scrubbers" and filters shall be installed on the venting outlets of all businesses preparing food to mitigate smoke, vapors, and odors. (Add this as a note to the development plan.) 17. The developer shall install 12' wide pavement and striping on east side of La Canada Drive and south side of Lambert Lane for the entire site frontage. 18. *A friction coat must be applied to the full width and frontage of the existing pavement on Lambert Lane and for the east half of the pavement on La Canada Drive after the new right turn lanes are installed. 19. A striping plan is required for the new configurations of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane. 20. Call out cross-sections AA, BB,CC, and EE on page 2. Revise page 3 or remove the reference to detail 6/3 for the basin on page 2. DISCUSSION: In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant,Town Attorney Dan Dudley stated that he did not believe that it was appropriate to add a private agreement between the parties, although some of the conditions could be inserted as long as the condition were consistent with the law. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis,Mr. Sinclair explained that in condition "2A", the Homeowners Association(HOA) and Villages of La Canada were required to provide documentation of a written agreement. Motion carried, 5-0. 5. OV12-99-7 LA CANADA/LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE (PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SEPTEMBER 1, 1999) Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He stated that the landscape plan presented by the applicant does satisfy the Oro Valley Zoning Code as well as the El Conquistador PAD. He explained that the features in the proposal would include linkage to the planned Lambert Lane multi-use path. 02/16/00 Minutes, Council Regular Session 8 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-99-7, La Canada Lambert Lane Commercial Center Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A"herein. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Parisi. Exhibits A 1. Add to note 1 C "Wooly Butterfly Bush has also been approved for use." 2. Where not screened by proposed landscaping or perimeter screen wall, loading areas shall be screened in accordance with OVZCR Sec 11-203B. 3. Provide vegetation, a minimum of 3'high, in the 5'-wide landscape buffer for the entire length of the drive-though stacking lane for Pad C. 4. Add a note that the `stream' element of the pedestrian plaza area shall recycle all water. 5. Continue the 8' screen wall on the east side south to just north of the retention basin scupper. 6. Add landscaping on the west side of Building 4 at least as far north as the bike racks. remove the trees and shrubs from the middle of the loading area at Pad C. Remove the shrubs from the sidewalk at the northeast corner of Pad C. Remove the shrubs and tree from the bike rack area on the east side of Pad B. 7. Conditions listed above, and any additional Town Council conditions, shall be submitted with a revised landscape plan, prior to receipt of a grading permit. Motion carried, 5-0. Mayor Loomis called for a recess at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Loomis called the meeting back in session at 8:00 p.m. 6. OV12-99-19 MIRA VISTA PRELIMINARY PLAT, PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TANGERINE ROAD,APPROXIMATELY Vs MILE WEST OF LA CANADA DRIVE Community Development Director Brent Sinclair reviewed the report. He explained that it had been determined the subdivision would be mass graded. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Sinclair stated that he was unsure as to why the noise level was not taken into account. He stated most of the traffic would be generated from pedestrians living in the subdivision. Charles Hulsey, The WLB Group representing the applicant stated that the recreation area would be centrally located according to the development plan that had been previously approved; the wildlife crossing would be maintained with mature growth vegetation; three parking spaces was an adequate number according to the ordinance. In conclusion, he stated that the applicant had no objection to any of the conditions. Hector Conde, 14040 North Lobelia, stated that the park was not easily accessible for children and should be centrally located. 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION ECE V E 11,000 N.LA C 4 NADA DRIVE,ORO VALLEY AZ 8 r ' Phone: (520)797-9797 Fax: (520)742-1022 NOV 2 7 2000 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIE PROJECT ALCHITECTURE DATE: 11' 2,Z '00 OV CASE NO.: C1)U l5 `00' (office use only) PROJECT: SCUD ?ie0tr‘e, Fie/A— lC,eid,$et. LOCATION: tw€.B6 4. 1.-154460it+ Ili APPLICANT: [IV1• / L1C/d ( (Mrto Chavez �4&OADDRESS.. o i�oa VY t v� U PARCEL NU - BER: Tiqpi, Z. • 7 TELEPHONE NO.: Z© (' FAX NO.: Cw4.2) $7,...3 • 009 I PROPERTY OWNER: raY': Deme,loruiteevii- ADDRESS: 1017 £. 1 Su tie, 2-10 82 PHONE NO.: (4'O2) 211041 • 149,' • PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: buyiivu /S ' le•tolt 4 • ADDRESS: 'titoo r-, arcladito t1v4. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING DATE: SIGNATURE: 1116ifietVer,e, DATE: 11' 'Z•(20 NOTE: This application must be accompanied by the required $150.00 fee and fifteen copies of the plans, 11" x 17" in size, each to include dimensioned elevations of all structures from all four sides and a copy of the project's site plan. The submittal must also include a proposed color palette for the project in an 8.5" x 11" format, to include color chips of body and trim colors and tile color and style, if applicable. Building square footage is also required. AT THE MEETING, applicants must have on hand for presentation, colored perspective or rendered elevations of all four sides of the structures. SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 18 CALENDAR DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD HEARING DATE. \\OV PZD\PZI\AD1 i\FORMS\DRBPROJARCHAPP.doc Burlini/Silberschlag, Ltd., AIA Architects and Planners 4400 East Broadway Suite 400 Tucson,Arizona 85711 520-323-1996 FAX 520-323-2091 November 22, 2000 Bayer Vella Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Re: OSCO Store (BS Project No. 926S) SEC Lambert Lane & La Canada Boulevard REF-OV12-99-7 Dear Bayer: We have included (15) 11" x 17" copies of the site plan, sidewalk floor plan, exterior building elevations and color board for you to distribute. Also included are the application for Project Architecture review and a check for $150.00 application fee. Bayer, as always, if there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 323-1996. Sincerely, MLtd 01/W6a-* Mario Chavez, AIA Principal For Burlini/Silberschlag, Ltd. MC/Irm Enclosures l's - q'V 0=Q° 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Planning and Zoning• Building Safety 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 A t A • Parks and Recreation A. r, 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 VNDED April 12,2001 Mario Chavez Burlini/Silberschlag.Ltd. 4400 East Broadway Suite 400 Tucson,AZ 85711 RE: OV#13-00-76, OSCO Architecture Review, Proposed Site at Southeast Intersection of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane Dear Mario, As you are aware, our meeting on 2/14/01 with Jim Vogelsberg of the Development Review Board Agenda Committee(DRBAC)and Charlie Boyd was productive. Unfortunately,we did not have a majority(at least 2 of 3)of the DRBAC members present. Nonetheless,the following improvements to the OSCO architecture were agreed upon by all present: 1. Along the roofline of each elevation,remove all panels and create a horizontal line of scoring. Furthermore,create a stucco crown molding along the roofline edge that will be the same color as the building. 2. On the east elevation,break up the wall mass of the beige area with additional features. 3. Depict the screen wall and vegetation that will be placed in front of the loading area. After the meeting, staff met with Jeff Weatherford of the DRBAC to insure a majority review. Mr. Weatherford felt very strongly that the east elevation needed additional improvements. Specifically, the beige area needs additional features to break up the wall mass. Both DRBAC members agreed that if OSCO satisfies the aforementioned concerns,the architecture would not have to be resubmitted to the full DRB for review. Please prepare additional renderings that satisfy the aforementioned concerns. Upon receipt of a cover letter and six copies of the renderings,I will expedite an additional review before the DRBAC. As you are aware, all issues regarding architecture approval must be resolved prior to issuance of a Osco Architecture Page 2 building permit. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 229-4810 or bvella@orovalley.net. Sincerely: Bayer Vella,AICP Senior Planner xc: Brent Sinclair,Community Development Director Bryant Nodine,Planning&Zoning Administrator Shirley Gay, Subdivision Coordinator OV File \\ov pzD\pzl\ov\ovl3\2000\13-00-76\Action LetterII.doc PLL.EY q R� cp ,/, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY «v COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .4 6) • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 • Parks and Recreation U D4 NDED' 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 PO TO: DRB Agenda Review Committee et al. Jim Vogelsberg, Barbara Bell, and Jeff Weathersford FROM: Bayer Vella, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: 4/24/01 RE: OV 13-00-76, Osco Architecture Review On April 19,2001,Mario Chavez, Architect representing Osco, submitted revised building elevations. The revisions are based on the comments previously generated by the Agenda Review Committee (see attached letter). The Agenda Review Committee has four potential courses of action: 1. Approve 2. Conditionally Approve 3. Require Additional Changes prior to Approval 4. Remand the case back to the full Development Review Board. Please review the elevations and render a determination by Friday (4/27/01). A response in writing via e-mail would be greatly appreciated As always, if you have any questions—please contact me at 229-4810 or bvella@orovallev.net. Thanks for your time and consideration. Attachments: April 24, 2001 letter Elevations NIP" qR/ OHO �0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 41 vt, • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 A • Parks and Recreation A '"'"A 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)742-2202 }POUNDED 141bi May 7,2001 Mario Chavez Burlini/Silberschlag.Ltd. 4400 East Broadway Suite 400 Tucson,AZ 85711 RE: OV#13-00-76, OSCO Architecture Review,Proposed Site at Southeast Intersection of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane Dear Mario, As you are aware,our meeting on 5/2/01 with Jim Vogelsberg,Barbara Bell, and Jeff Weathersford of the Development Review Board Agenda Committee(DRBAC)was productive. The latest generation of architecture plans for the OSCO was conditionally approved. The condition entailed revising the landscape plan to include lattices with vines on the east elevation. This amenity is to be added on both sides of the rear service door in order to break-up this small portion of blank wall space. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 229-4810 or bvella@orovalley.net. Sincerely: /St.„„t__ Bayer Vella,AICP Senior Planner xc: Linda Thompson, WLB Group, Inc. Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director Bryant Nodine, Planning&Zoning Administrator Shirley Gay, Subdivision Coordinator OV File \\ov PZD\Pzl\ov\ov13\2000\13-00-76\Action LetterlIl.doc ......., ,p ci" --..,7:V"'--- -..---,Li '' -,,,,%„•:-4,.. ..e71' 1 ‘4,k. ‘,'' - 't, ,_.-;•!*- 'We!. 7 I — •/ 1... ‹,,,- ;_-:..• i V . 4 it 2isii,) ti. .. ,s,.." .!„„,,,..„. ..., ..k- '' 1111110111 C......,..".;,-..---;. 11111P"1" i,,.'-,, ', ! il,9 ), -, .'•. ‘•,k'"' 74'.' \\ .- 5AL e,' • .i i . .,, 11',, • --- \ ii.4Z;lii*i A C 1 ''','2,IP . .V4tt il'147lii.i st"rk ' / i' II 4. t" ll', ;f'* ''''' ','.^ ,... -If • ' '''''r \* 1 9:'.,..7 lir..: , IA,,,r, . ' ir. ‘Iiii .'V tat" i ' •••''''':km IS.,;0.4 . I ,, ,, •/ ilk s , "4.• ( ,1 m ...01, 4.,. ill•te., r . . f ' t:Y. --1 _ ri.i,..,- ')': ( i, ,L,'—: -' ../.---NV \ e ' ., ..,. 7\- ' - ' '41, I r ..„. , ,,,,, ., .., ,. ,....,,,,.. ,N., . , , A .,..„.. , is 1 1 is.111-- l', It' ' ) --,,,f,i Ai frr ,', lit .,:• ,,, , /., A sr.:- - --1 ,,, .,•• 1. ,,'.., „. ! 1 WO 4 it , 1, IllII"'IPI *f4.,1 ,'•, '' 1 Irsj?C•i ' ...''''' .k.. INE:- Jill , ...711.z„ i„. , ... .11 ; IC ., ,t,,,, ji la• 1,. 0 1,,,,. 1, Iv __...LL...,.„„„....1.- . , .7 • ,,': ---- S\ "1,7"... 1* 4..;..;,,.... '..`. \ la i 1 t '`„..„1:1 . , . di O .li, . , -i 1 I ,., ,,..,,,- ...- 1 1 ,, ., 11_i's 4 . - /, t 4 I • N,...,,,_, --i'' 'I l' 4Z. iii I 1 j,4-'4 '''iii- \ \ .•' °..• ", i r4 1‘ 4 jai " • i Ls,tk g, "_ tf- ' i0t; . ., . , .„, CONDITIONS OF 0V13-99-39 APPROVAL Additional architectural features, such as arch, columns, and varying roof elements, shall be added to the rear elevations to 'mimic' those features found on the front elevations of the buildings. • ONE VENE E R . ..... . —....,,, .....,_...—.KAIN1 ., ---- ,ft;a7.41„,- , , 7.7-7.;--------27-:— , - - -‘\- 4414.,4„ SIE e .TTOF'OF PNAPif Y " t. #P i .-4;10'OF wale ‘t• it -. , .., . i Hit Pt+ i-N241-1Jr? i 1 ,.-- Cc,W@Or . *OF OF CANOPY ,;..:*.,. s::;...' 4,„.....fH r ^':.1�' 1 if wi'- .. eir i �, ..1 'aA, 'I to i 7 • . As ;11 44°' 4 ,....,.,-...:z.T.j..-.:"..... .. ,,... ,.. .',.. . it . 4 -11 IIII I I II IIIIII III- ... ,„, iii `�` -.Or ��. : ' ; t t. + jam;{t 'r�..4�r��('''14111.1%40; 4,/,..., :4, ..r r. .._ . 111 . ...., r e i 0% . �. NI . ir ill" NM i ki is My so KM. i 1 'k; -.1111 PAINTED STUCCO: ICI 1491 'IVORY 15EICiE' • PAINTED STUCCO: ICI 4 419 'DAPPER TAN' PAINTED STUCCO r DUNN EDWARDS *PC 2430 , OVZCR Design Guidelines F8. The visual impact of large-scale commercial buildings ("big box") and commercial complexes should be moderated to reduce the apparent scale and mass of such projects. a. Articulate facades (exterior walls) to reduce scale and mass and provide visual interest. (Figure 28) This is to be accomplished by: (1) Ground level facades that face public streets and/or primary parking areas should have one-story pedestrian scale features for at least 2/3 of the horizontal length of the side of a building. Features may include windows, entry areas, arcades and/or overhangs (awnings, trellis, etc.) (2) Facades greater than 100-feet in horizontal length should be broken by recesses or offsets. Alternatively, the horizontal length may be broken by vertical elements. Offsets or vertical elements should be of sufficient size to effectively mitigate the visual impact of the horizontal line and mass. d. Increase textures at the pedestrian level. 2 P.M,•PJGGO,COLOR+ MVO,RPDF,COLOR.RINTAIDOR 'RZ-7;En* r rG1 WI'1100.1'iost. PAR EDON.FPO.30 HAN CO 1.,133‘,..PPE610 .1 OV-GPATIA 1,3 AL VON.L0.0 TO t.1.11,41 C.,. k °IreA CA111°4°Ilifi 4 EI.TV'.27.7::'' - -=''.''' -1. *' ': . 11 .TOP CV WALL 10 4trt7' :.:' ' '''''''' . .' 4 ,..„, .,:.......N -- --'''- : - . @C)LUTI 4,, (4‘0)ert V EIP .'RV 00:17 ,i 0, .,• 4,f ' - ,...r-,- ":',.,;•...,.'7:: ' flai L_I LI I I t- i i Af kt , am. .... •L_____ , ...& & .. ,...„..... ____.....7 ,..3 f veto ri, _J \--S4CAR TREK,DR-ASTAOK twaso 5,1GGO,COLO, \--ALARA.STORS-RIORT,COLOR A iGi FAIR"DAFRIFT TM' DARK 1.0112.f 0 WEST ELEVATION , 0" 1,5,,,__LI___.'Cr NOW 1.11r,MODF,COLOR.00.13030e MIMEO 511..0,COLOR, CAW 40', Mx.,GO WehLOG4.... 7----120141FDARRAS*PA NMI AV MCGRAW.METAL WALDO.TO WOO COLOR f .... . ... ....... .. _ _.....:„,, ,...,,........_L , ,,, 11.CP.11. I ... . .-.. ' '..:.... ',:',,.,'-' .:',,:,...'' - TC•CLIF:747., 'tlAh 4.,,,,,,m.t.i..q,4 -...,:-4 ,...z... ,,.. . . '''Ll;:i'''-..r..;;;1!--,-• ! ITIII/1\-- rib.colo,•)61. 14 . .,., , „ „ „ , ,. .v, ,,, . .., • .,..... 2 DRWerfiftLI ::. , '114?"V,'''' ,!;14.1.`Lilf.l '111:1..'. .i.*: ',. : .i•P . : FiA 4'P ,.,•,1-4: ' I; ,,,,,,,ma.. , , ...-T..10Ye ANCER Etkrsrt, PNIII.$3.4.0,COLO.j ALIA..STOPEITRONT,COLOR La3oht,T 0., KA AI-19 ITAPPRA TAAO DARK WOKE A cp SOUTH ELEVATION . NO" .11'111 1 I I.I II-.'l. .. ......,-,,. .,.....,.......rt...%,.., 10P OP IMAM. • . i ••. ,!..1..:,, ..,,,. , • 1111‘0 40,ari , ' „...::„.„.,,... .. :, . VT.,.1:1,, ' At''' --" • .,- 11 ,d),4621E rosAl, , ... ,.... . ... 1WellMa : - - ,...--.. -• 414%1MMIOSSOA a . . ,- -..... .. ..........-..-----LA-A - (:).._IsAsT ELEvAT ION : ye,=1,-0., D.Wki*ROA WC 24,0 ...WORT 010100. ..111.1.-1 ................_. ......,....r.,.„ 1 .1 ,....y...... _.. d fliiii ; •, - V. _ .. ... . ,. „,. . .. A RAJ V ,.. . w,I•, '.11-iii ,- '' ,-3,.. P . Th.,,,,,. 1 :14.-,. ..1r,,,.. --.-,,,..i.,,,,,. . r- , , , ,•:,,,:...,.:,12.: " . • „,...I., ov' , -1.1:,-.r,-.-;', er.,.,1',Irqs..-;'-' r----- ,, - , .-- ,. .....,_ .„,,,.....,..t„. . ,1 , ' ,' , ,. ... -. -t li . i t,^ k,"' rie .;-4 Iflitelkii.' ', ' \ '0,4;',,t- ,,-- -1 , ,, -I INZt` .,, , #110 , q Pe ' 5) 0, ,,, , '' _I- f„.-,,, .. -4, 1, a ,li • drawl, SG 11,5-00 C)NORTH ELEVATION 5 B5a. Project design should consider and integrate all elements. B4cVary roofline silhouettes. B 7. Variations in rooflines should be used to add interest and to reduce the scale of larger buildings. Roofs should consist of one or a combination of the following: a. Low sloping roofs b. Parapets to conceal flat roofs and rooftop equipment. F8b. Vary rooflines to reduce the visual impact of building mass. hr.erlep.re-40,C44.0. PAWS,ene-4.44.Cfliat We_RC.,utak imorme r..,-.. Mee CO.1eLOCAC 61.1111, Ti,CiKciVaNIE.41 •... it, • - i Lift _. a.Of PAr•PET - ..jae . i LloPcIR 49)..L.2•15 TO HwiCe COLOR - I - •-,--' 4.agEtilie, si. t.-0.V .— me-4. , ..._ 04t14 ..i ., it4,,,!•h" .,,'11-. ‘I pit ,..#1,,,,-,..4,41:13,,,.. r •. z...:,----:-.•:,t,,, ,,s,,,,,-4,-z.,NT- \ i 0 .-.1,'",':',4,,,1 cigEA.,1r, ','Z' r--- 1 ----,--.. — ..• N — ,„„---,-- --, ,- .--t.›-,..4-;....--- imTlf....a.pc.••. „.,......_.......,.. _.............. . ), _ I 1 I ,I 1 LJ J I 111- -',1:-' P'''':;':';!i. 4.*IV!'*1:4:' •,5 q ..,r,,..1 .....r: ,,FINISH FLOOR g ____,____ '.---`I,.:ft.-,CAYST,. AL.4.414 STati-feoto COLCOR ...DE---Srate KA Mil ToN.PeR IAN OA.WOW/ O WEST ELEVATION lib -I 0 0 TOP ce.,RIDOE, ref.Roof,COLOR BEM.. I____,,:‘,.;,..,TE0..11,C47.4,01.2.7f. r rc..1'Z'•i'v o'Fre ett'''' I I 1 eAti cO.leetCCg e9nr 44,CECORAir.METAL HEVAiliat5 To KAT,.C4a_ce i TOP OF PARAPET,. 3R\QIIIE ON% • C3 '1@@DUP.igi -i --' ' get ' mi. • • I MILT -4 iIiiirprf ,• ., - --.-:'11-, • , . • _ „.... ,• ,...„,- . .. ,.ph\etki)51,1 /---E17-,`n1 . .4.# ,:,,,,, le,, ----1-- --- . t /4, V • _ .. .1, 1 , . VI*I;S-r :?„--- •; •--, --- ... 1 . 1 1 1 Pieel FLOM,,,, 4, '------ P.11.2 AIX.COLO. *UMW rOPCF..11 COLOR VOW V131131 ORYST44. ..41,0APPER i AO WEINLIFIrg LZOIEFST at •DE ci)SOUTH ELEVATION we,-r-o. . •e'i- Kr/•27-r..° _ / .9,9 Le:;;Islitri;,itveir . OF MIAMI ' • •,,,, — — 404 '• ',...\:7.'T.,-T,... C....eir.', :19,;,' p ;i,.1* 1 ,10' 1 c,.. ' • 09atRvieP1 .,4‘ ft . •,,,,, cp.:, 411' f 4 4;41 I — \ '','1".;'1.,,,,',...1' 1-------- ,: 1 , , IMF...10 Intna • E 14 : E it,,.,, F..Floc. ------------ T . ci) fi-EAST ELEVATION I/6".I.-0" • iril'Ivo'tf•''''?'r RA1.13 511.0,COL°. aA•1 COH•WIS Wt.24/o ....••1 1- ; 1 i I 1 i".,... •-•'14.u. ! 1 i i i i.1...!..?,... .... . ,- , , i i 1 Hi • • LAgyileelzr_ t. -..,.. (_ L. . L I 1 z i 1 r t. ... - ....,_ •••4 *.i.,:•el 4...".--. .,•,b,";',..4. .4.--i."., .. ,... . • ,f..i'r ,, i---- --..., ....____ _11 ,1,"=,,, __ .. - ,,,,,,, .. . ,. ,. ,,, . ,. .... .,,,,.,.. -- ,. . ...1. - 1 i . _ ...., .1 , , eg,„,-';'-' -.. —1 . _ A. gig? hi ' 0 jOb IN .1.160 . 5 Tort NNW.DRISTACK dal. N-0-00 LEDEV9T01e ®NORTH ELEVATION , qr. 4 z T 3 2 OI FETAL RGYIF . . 77,_ STUCCO RE:ESS�MEDALLION _ BOT.OF TfdFh tl I _.-_.__.-.._._..._..__ J 14 TOP OF PARAFEf LT ELEV..24'-0' die A� °F, FO1OD MART 1 HR.PHOTO ~ ©av@ODU STUCCO ~ TOP OF PARAPET z.�'..-iz•.:: �ELEV..l6•_4. 1 � t-�T--. 'lam _. .--- _... �.: �. 1 t ,/ IMIIIIIIMIIIIII r"-- METAL SNARE - 11 ■...• STRUCTURE FINISH FLOOR - -'�. I [ III—MI..• ELEV.O'-0' STONE VENEER_L/ 1 0 0WEST ELEV Al I ON Z z 0 O N }41- is- U! O OT T Ce hi w FETAL ROOF O O 1 ! ..:..---1 REGE55ED MEDALLION STUCCO �d..... _....__....._. ._._. ... I 1 ELEv..2t 4I p \ — T� 27 OF PARAPET 0 T 1TOP OF HALL } STUCCO PHARMACY 1HR PHOTO_--._ ELEv-.1b o'0 O0caD , 0 -,L,,,,-+I - TOP OF PARAPET 1 � �;�� EG DRIVE--THR ��� a F f IILII � I If . — -nQ � a T FETAL SHADE N STRUCTURE ''{-`, N v> j O ‘i,;''''' r-' 1 MIN TT }'t-T_ i y r FINSH FLOOR C 1 l �I 1 STOW VENEER -� CO o ® SOUTH ELEVATION 5 /a"=1'O" Li-) = g 3 T � o � = mom �...i .,..I....._. y i 4 TOP OF PARAPET 0 M V i 0-1 TOP or WALL i 1 _ � EI_EV..Ia,-0.0 .._,._.....,._...."If u TOP OF PARAPET Ei i Z. I - S — — —TON VENEER---,„, ! tS �` � /�.... -\ \... \ L : 1 1 fl� .t-i ,_2... � �l( .. - FINISH FLOOR 0 ELEV.O'-0' I i EAST ELEv4.T I ON 1 ® 1/5"=1'-0" , i • i ® (.,.9------ @ s TOP OF PARAPET 6. ' OF Z—J-- PHOTO\ PHARMACY O revI OP LIOU R 1 TOP OF PARAPET ' ' .- 1-' ' 1 ELEV..I6'-4' Z! -_ lJ- - - `Zi-- - _....._.,......__._...._._.....__._......___. .... _.._ ... Ll x -- - }-. s1ULC.0 1t I ` STOW AMER XI s 1 / Iv I FINISH FLOOR . I 7 i checked 5A i date 10-6-00 m 1 a Jobs 926W 1 Ci)NORTH ELEVATION 4 Op�� °'rya i We,"=1'-O Nj4 iai7 P ap.it 1 aOf50 F Otnp x s Tinwc G25:24 Dat«11/1/2000 Scale:1.96(PS) Drawing Fde:926\926w\926w—al.dwg.DWG(Katherine) ' r 3 V 0 , , 1 ,d ',1 f' _i t C•. p 1 • • A . II 0 a r • • A ll r I> Z T @ T ci) ( , z_i,___,\_„, , , H y1 II II II I I ii 1 LI 111-,117-211 .16__ __ __ _ _RA_ _jui j_ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1711 71'.. 7_ I ill] —® C — w L — I I. l I 1 I I I I I I I I I cr . L___,___ . -1 ll I I 1 I I 1 I 1 i I— py 0. I -1 1 I I / - L . L 1 1 I o I - - " m- \•� I I I II — — i - 'Ccr4F) IEL, 11 I I ; J , I ; 1 f/r/l //' I ' I 1 1 `4'.� 1111 9, • I C .� I I I�.►� EL 5 4 i__ _ L I,-.',. I - - - - L/�►y► , — — — , I A� � $�� 1�$$� 1 � , ail ==C �� $ � I te Fr I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 _ I I _ '‘S' J I i i i I I i i i i 1 ` L � A i I L- � I I [ I 1 I I I I i I � I I ■ a I- I I I I 1 1 7 I I I C I I I 7''f—Ill-111117lhl 1 ❑1l —) a 1 N * s` 0E. a Burlini/Silberschlag, Ltd. osco �uG No. CD9. g" J w ra E 5 I Architects and Planners AIA TLCSON, 4kRIZON,4 —_ as 4' 4400 East Broadway,Suite 400,Tucson,Arizona 85711 1 E o,D,N TEL 520-323-1996 FAX:520-323-2091 FLOOR PL.IN fq ! IP ) 1 LAMSERTL •L' -E • \J PROJECT a e LAMBERT LANE nc_ o A lir t-1 I YEW 9zl W 11 i (---- nr- M LOCAT i ON MAP 11- _....,---, i i Hill ..iJ ,F.h, ._.} \_, , r7. 95'SPACES 4 i i 4 4 4 rl - 7\, \ CV,- di 9, 1 - _ \ 1 -iiii1i ) _' I fis 5 9, 1 - '\ tQ 0, 1\i .. \)\\ at 1 06C0 , b 1 14 ,_ _ c ( ,� A SF L 1 \ T4SULAtIONS 5 6 id \ , 4 BLDG. AREA: 4 . 136'-8' -< — BUILDING 14,884 SF V4_L___. Am 1 V C-1 1- c �'� TOTAL 14,884 s>: T a Q — 9.5'SPACES 6 3 SITE AREA INFORMAT ION: 1 4 n tz91.r i r n LAND AREA: t'T8,963 SF g a I (1.81 ACRES) Z I BUILDING AREA: 14,884 SF 4 U �0' COVERAGE: 18 EXISTING ZONING: PAD. (CO-'MERCIAL) 4 , J 13 PARKING INFORM AT ION: -'-' SPACES REQUIRED: 19 m `�' (1/2 empl a 1/200 SF) v' 11 113 Zr I STANDARD STALLS: 15 m ice,'' I lECEOVE0 HANDICAP STALLS: 4p 0 riP,, i}�- U oo I OJ 2 7 2000 SPACES PROVIDED: 82 `Lii m 0 1 STANDARD STALLS: -16 z HANDICAP STALLS: 4 v— SURPLUS SPACES: +3 C� ___ I ) ( I MIN.STANDARD STALL SIZE: 95'x 20' 25 MIN.DRIVE AISLE WIDTH: '(2-way) t 1311 !,1,10TN 0 20' 40' S(d' 160' o FTE BCH drawn: MC ,Job 6 8 date:: 4-4-6-00 rev: 4-10-00 for PARK WEST DEVELOPMENT CO. "-22-00 dal , cr9 c c c rs) .04 ler , 410 to, ,- low irk L IrelP ___4117 IC= -LE\';\ /19_-1-= \ / HEE- i , , \ \ P rn 0 i _u •1 0 P. Z MI , 40:46) AV ■I Mk . e,:,,,40,1_,_.,„:„1- ., „ ) 1 CO 014 �` I ),;,7!,_ ..,,,,,,,,,,,,::' 2111)\ IF ,-; . -,,,, 1_ :... .: Ali /---:, I Ali r _ \i iilk�Ii ........ 1 ir-- .---' II r- -i r- -, • 11I 4\ L___.J 11 fillY :'01,/ 1: - Itill ;47 0 1 -,„., •. ...„.....7) 81 2- 1 6` ur l I r i/B I l lo e r s cil l a e, Ltd. Architects and Planners AIA 4400 E.Broadway,Suite 400,Tucson,Arizona S5111 520-323-1996 I • I34CKLR L*3(T 1'NO PMfTH,SflXCO,COLOR, PAS 5 PAJWTt�STtlC.GD CAIGR j fi + - , f }� ► LION IG1*441'IVORY muse' r 171Md EDwvms rl°Y 2490• • ` F•a41}+ z >} i rv. r !Wlj•-�- •..4,a p^ ^.. .h•t w;. o f . , x tr.} tip- • TOP OF PARAPET ,�•• — 2 , t ti"t kLy TOP or -0' a -� ...- = APR 1 9 2001 11 ELEV.�y.48 Q FDOD JNART 1 R.PHOTO Ua R ? J' '' �-� 1 il ,yamW. �g � `' �'J�p�,Tr]µ , •-1 4 + ,,, .}. , ''...-",;/,,,‘ ,. _.• _. -, ;'. I Itrit * P _._ . 14k - f ,,_..,..,... _- i . _ ogiBP qiE;;,--, :„..ri., 117i11111PAIMI lilt- • I- II ''.:.• -r iNi : : 2 y.• _._ i i / k .4 WEST ELEv4T I ON • IA • LTOFE tche :DRTStAGK __ Pmori,Silx.c.2 GOLaR. N WIMIM STORE O►R.GOLO!t 1 LED6E5i0►>E a4 fq 1JAPP9t TAN' 72,1YL hETAL ROOF.DOLOR.E67P.JOse PANTED Si1K.C.o COLOR. PASTE,S " ' 1-,t''-' ^s s C .{* r ` �a IS 1CP tF mow MAIL co,iEMOGK ill• CUM EA4NVS 44r 243O INTI DOLOR t > >7 ' t 4 , E!E'J.•�aa W DEtoRAnve►ETAI ,4+c, S 1'. s -, - i,4 it .„ "` NEDALUOILri i0 PIATT N COLOR ari `�-"a ` N t a +c 1 _ t ` d ?, 'v.•'` •): •.- 9 $,ice^Y.,: • --,,,,,a;,.;.,...- -I' �hry'• tt h.,' k,:� .,.ns "�Y S .�..'i� ,,'k,— ,,,...-a eaG,,h ,-- Yd--'.a %- '." ,' y ,r'` 4, Mom_-� ,- , tJ ';' PHARMACY 1 HR.P OTO LIQUOR �� !•� , TOP oFll .::;---.--. .. .. J 7�\_"4��ryY7�/{!/�/) ' Ike _ Mil �. w.;;.:./ ti Y �o 4 .t.It1'• �i{r.' �,...1:.1 :;";�, ... �••.i.5 1 •. 1..%•' ;af• •- , .�r • b '•' O.N.+m�a� —� -- t 1 - ,i ' `,.`,�. 7�OF PARAPET `,l''/A i- As j,il,t t yl{ _ r llt"I:•16-4 ":4, Nktil �% 6i E - _+fir ,.; ` . , 11 , 1 ii.- ,., , ,- \‘1114‘‘ ' 4 vol.,,,,,',,,, 111111111111111._11111!1' �: . ir4v• II 4...aallill :i! i I I 1 r ' ! • Al' /, .- ni ....A.._A...17..,_,,... \ PANTED STUCCO,DOLOR, -.•' k.-ALII*Lbl STOPEFRCNT.COLORliii •1 i1.` .. I _ --- t. l.- -STi• DRYriTK,K IGt•474 DAPT�L TNi' DARK LEDBeSTC ii.REEN FW L `'— ) SOUTI ,EL.Ev 4T I ON �� • 4 `\ ,_vWNTED STLIGGO,,„4,CF _-__�____ ______S ----„,-„,-*:- . ,.... .,.... . _ x - r 1 ; �,` Q t. --- TOP OF PARAPET ,, „-- --.:''','47:74-'. Ns o ELw.. o.0 PMRAPtT A r,, ,...,"<,-.::: .... 11 II; ....pr : • r - Li = _ I; L ' a l e LillA• i • APPROVED B . EAST F.i.EvATION SCREEN \ r�MAL L DATE irk) P PROJECT MANA -C U PA HTrO STUCCO.DOLOR. PAIR 51t CO,Ca OR. t �i SS r`ty t DMA EDwvms 2430 ICI I44t'sm.el°I6E• PANTED STUCCO CORNICE s t aY a••- d.} ,a _z ayp. iris• _ 0 t ate, `mot.. •'"„ X TOP OF PARAPET 0 ELEV.•Ib-4• r__ _ t t;..1,,,,r.-1, ..vi„.,t: . t: N1141111b41111111— - - • 1.,..! .• ,----. _ , , _ ii-si ill ,,.. .... ..,-. ,, 114,1 JA i, . j.). ":,:1,h-silk-tii lir, Ill l, -...-,...h. it ,h .1 '''',. iiii:•:. T..-2.,.-'. i rt.' - 4,--_- . .. • Li,., _. r i 4 -. P r "7 0 - I • dIIIIIA%• 111111 filli .. I ' 1 1 • • 1�=:>�.4::f lig .i a r� )ob it 4z6. dote. 4-17-01 ELEV T I ON PAINTED STIX�[Q.COL — c) NORTI-1 ICI r414 VN,PER TAN' '' •• - .....i:inimm-.74:::!,i9iFivzmIT.InlITT,I-E4.,...,,,-:.--:. '......... ,i,"iii.`,..,'1...,., . ,...n-q:*-16iiii::,,,, ' .'i;'''•FilT:_l'il'ii-s:.:,.01',ii'.i.liii..:g.,,,.•-•-''-,°'-•'-'''',: . . ..,,.. .. ...._ .„ ---- ------------------------'----------------- * *-------- -- :.•ii..Faill...,,Iiillai",,,. • .,..-.-4,-,...*:0•,:,:iti.FrelIVI.I:4"-•*,-',--.'' -,-,,,,- - -------• -. .,..::. -...-..•::::::-.si...-•.. .:•:-.:-,..-.•i•-•itt.i• -:_igiltliP--.4-44s-is+7._:.F,--,,-4....!4- -,,,]---tw4..it,FEEEt-si:„.!,r.s..st,-,-...•-•al.:.:71:4i:•,::,-;.-------E-,i-::-:-.,-,___...,-,-. .-••.---c:::',..-.;...,..,..!..--1',.•*--:2.1.,'','''.3,4,'Ji,.:1"; '.:,14*.''',4',..-,:.",-'<S..;',.-°,'-''''/,-,'S , • •:-.....-.,.....,,,,,,,,-,, ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;;'; - .. ,, ;:i'.:***''"*•*:':: :*:'.*It:';:-.11' ''''''''''''9"'*'''''''''1,':::,:'''''''':: :':'-'7'fiRT452.23r---,-.. "1:F.01::::::'...+Ynre'*''.';',,, ','T,;;ffiTiTgr.'.ihriglgi,,it,iiili:.i.:,.:i;.;.;...4 V",,,,,,,,rtl,.=.l'ir,ff.Z,',.'"„0,,'",• 01V r„,:z.,,,',,'t--,V4',,,' ,.. , .......... ... . . ....:•:i • •4'''''''''''-'''''''•''''''•-'"L';••-"'•.-''''''•••'•.'••::-.''''''''''.',7''•'•• --•••••- • ••••-:'.--.---:. ,,,,,,,••,,,,,,-:.... .,,:::::::::::::irdiiii.t.,,,,....;,...:....:..*i:::::::::,:i:i::::...:..-::i:.::::•.::iiii:?•:.i::,i,iiiMIIV::- ' '.''-''•-'-'•' -•-' '' -'''• -•L'•'• '''',,„„„,,`,' ",,'.,,•,1,.,,,:i1.1:-....'W,..:,'-'-4,.',.,,- -:*.::!,:•1:.::•::i,ii:,:si'•:;•4,.4Wf±:i:f-:::::....:::::i,::::::::::: :::.;•...:..::: ..,. ..1:: '•.--k.+4-e,,,,, --•.., , ,, .,,, .. :f.i11'1'.i., ...'-•'-'*--- '- - - - -"" - -------- Wr.marric ilimscc.0 . . "43,04 ,.. $ •• ,./ - 0 .,... r.- - . , ' ' ' Ali. , ,-,;t4 ,-- - • - ' - -,-*''''',.., :::::--4.-:#:itnif..-.4;v:,?.?,-4--.,-.7,-..-i,'' - •--:,--,:t::-:•:..,:.:::::::::::::::•-.:.- -• . . + ,k, - _. • . ,:-.. -'- -,.1_,-„,. , , • , :Op.."..: ''. - ,....-1- * .0,,,,o n S I: It 1 I 1 0 ‘-. ._tit.t.,`,._ .^ ::•-•..4:, ,. .. ,,,,, -- ,e.-:•.. ,i . 4 -.•,,• ...',',.-i"-,:-$.4-,2Ail .,,,,,,7-.":-...,""--...--.•••-.,•:.-,-;•. .,4,i:-..,,- -i;,-4 .. li,:--xffrer,-,V--- -- , 4ept, - „.. --=!.--; --.•--..-..- t.,,,..-... ---,:,.• r i, ., - --.:. , , , ,, - • -.----- • • 0;ea 4 0.- ':a i star.)„-, : i %11 , ,„„..'••,:i, * ,,e , „..,.,-,2,,,,,-.0,..,....... .. • ,:• . .::: • ,- —- ,., ..,, ......... , ....,t - '4 0'ef -- - - ,iv itgo,..trekg-•--•.,: ' • ..•- A ...., -'"'*";# . 4 ' :. ''''1 . ... ._. .. ...,.. '..7- / s-,....,..4e7 c 5.....c...cc il ....,...c.--„,- .4,.., sTr,-.4 i-c...:-.6-sna ildirit MIMI.* , -- AC,C194'tidal** ...,,,WA:,AL."Ile...«.,5 '...&_L.5 / S H_QPS "At i *c.f.'cc&0r1vokt, --,., ii •• :, i ,.. c., ,...,., -'` fig(CWC**Z" '') ' '. • . ''..,,:'-' ' . SITE DATA - ./ / ., COMMERCIAURETAIL 'r .„....1) "ti i --) 4 . . , C) CURRENT ZONING • C-215,1 /,,, PROPOSED ZON'NG . C-2 / «AEA - 11)NEMOUNTI\ EXISTiNG C 2 ZONING 740 a4, r —,--) .--,,/ _ .. ‘ TO BE ZONED C-2 : 3.33 ac(..._GRI:ISS1 •; / **two CF. v : : 2.84 tic MT/ if LANDING TOTAL C-2 : 10.33 ac(GROSS) \',.., —./ t/ \,... „... _ , ,./ 4, i../ --) .;), „, - ,. ,„ 5.97 ac(NET) SCENIC CORRIOOR , 4.01 ac --- ...)... 00.14, ..........."). •06.1.4. "42... .0••••• 41810•461t ....6. ,, MOM Mo. 41.1.1 m6.0. , (4 !..00,,,,, - ,,,. 0....Cf.05EI: . r104.1"15N" ' - d,,t'''''''''',,, \\\\ #k". ,' --)'..) „pp* . . ' 1 't • 1 i F. •'' 4 4 Ex 411..4 C.: ' IS.C.0.41.01t1- .4 ' - .. ' I COMMERCIAL CENTER AREA : 6.23 ac KM IIING ARFA • 49.151 S.F. %1.0 l'COVERAGE : 12 Mt. PAI4KiNG likCXO : 251 FrrXIAHEIstcer4°°°KAIGTPR°V*DtAL :: 42681LOTS .c'i..,...x._, , .'1;)/ - ., - ., _ „,,,,. . //- - ' x ' : / / . .. \' ' 7 : / .7/ i ' ' s ..,. r- ... ..,.4 1 t., 0. - C) ' ' r-- t PROPOSED RE SDENTIAL CURRENT ZONING t SI-71 PROPOSED ZONING : Fri-18 PRO j/. ' I '1°* \ '''' i,.. , i /7:'''' '; ' :„.7-- - ,,- \/ 4.to, ILF: :' -. / /1/':-. .-=',' .' -.) 1 - l'.......... .....!..2.-W".:t.f.-............ 4,41 A 4tt.f*,***,...1.5f- •WON,- ,41, i //,' ..' ' - ' '..) , '. "' '"1 P .' ,::- : 4t;)' 6*.' PL -.::„ , . . .• .., , ..) tt,_" .A . .;.„..:„...vwf, .• I ,11/4,- ",..- - .. - -... ' 1"-e9** 0 - .,/ 1 .,KtU14.2 5'**.k.. . *IA* . .- i , , ....1..„‘-') • \.,,,-.. . _....,,, . -..-,.:;:., it: . ...., --N , --))'-') a'-'1), )-) --)., „., -) , , .... , , . - - „7„...,,, --)--) _ , ‘. , .,..%) )0 ! "))4;") " ' - I/ fp): 41....„' ( 1 -), - - I._ -- ,., - . , --, 6P / ti 1-1 ' ' L''''' - ' >, , MAINIDOSIA MA Rn OP A PRELiMINARY - Not. for ,•.,---',..' . --,.--'-....--: COUNTY COUNTY -1'1,!; -: 1 1 Construction or Recording ,,,..., 1,,.,. 1).)-- z. --- .. .... -`''.,i,' ' .;',,i,_;'...:-* ‘. ') '-) d", , '"). ‘-') ' '''f ''.....• I 'ft.'', . , • . / RETAIt0.4 t ,--. ' PROJECT MAIWEI 4.4.1..t.------ tif ' - ' 6:7}, ', ., :' 1, , . li' ''''‘',7-. ., . 0;.:-:'.4(..-, r". ; ; PR4kitirri , .4 i - -4 ' ' 1. $ .',.CO.V.41,_ .ti..---'-''7'.'t - 4 LONE MOUNTAIN . ,. . . , RE AL .!q-,.' ,.- -) - ' C 1 i.- ...isAym -s ,-) - - - , •-.- .., . ' f 1 LANDING ....,...._ .,, , tf 1 ) —1-> ---) 1: ,,, /• -Th r. ' - f -- , . 1 _ '' , '', N r ,,x(5--) \\,...,...:,:.:._:: : ."")....).3 ..‘., , ,.., 1 ... 4304:4.PC 4113. la , 73 ift-445 SF 1 NEC or CAVE CREEK ROAD & , (:)/ -,--) i .. . i '' -.) Itil LONE MOUNTAIN ROAD /' 4Z"' „' ''--- cr•-, )--) Ctil;',, -, ,, (7 - / ,..-„, • 7....0,4 , -) ti ' --,,, 4111111111.—„ ...,...6- PHOEMX. AZ — '" 9'Ct.D.A .M.#0, 1 ,, -k-- ii . ---) . , -")-) .4...,1/4. N......., - / - * ,,_: .. 6'''', . ,...,, .,F-J1.-•'..-- .., .. - -, -)--1--).N 14 .,,„„,..,......v. • 16,2IM fl.P. . i .„1....44/ /1/ 1-.)-) ' .-. ) C.';7.' --, fr - I (Mt ., if ' .[ 1; • kl '.)-) t'1: - //e''' '41. -.../ -) ,. . -, .. • ' " r. * - --,...,-.; • , 00$11140 II iil ,,,,,,.44/ 1/ -`, G il allESOCOMAL r ( il „..Nr/„.. ,r)..z0.7/ .• . ,.,...,.,,,,,,.,,,,,. 44 , .1.,,...i.1 , 1. ,..., ..:,,...-. .....____. r-,.... I --1-il-).-)--).--) ° * ' '74 if; t ._-,) e... - ‘''''''-•,... 9116`,. 16, , 6c,'" . -, " ---fl., I I i k 4.. ,F.i ir r.\ * _, ,.., .„.„)....) 4 ! l' vicuNurt MAP iiiiiik."--% - / .....„„...s, -•:„.______ .- -. - --- ... 74-,„ • - - -. i „. - .....,................__ , \- ,-r„, r '-' I: _ \ .......,.(......., ,,.....,4,4 k 1 ,. 01' S. l'OPUMN, •. . 0.15‘4 , . _,....,-"'"--------7 . ----.',. — twriLlatmisismilaiminial _ -------1...ONE MO1JNTA1N ROAD ,....2.,...,-,BRE,AK P.M .1 :2 POD .,-' ,..''N.14201,X'"-' °* SlY U..:.,......0 I I l ,..,., EXHIBIT "A" -SITE PLAN eli . , / RE-35 PCD COMMERCIAL/RETA1L FOR REFERENCE ONLY Selatit ir a 50*-0' tpoiwE, t_!t-,* oca...tivoal... AIMING EY qRi Q'01PL� 0 er). 2 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 1P COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 1 *,.. moo N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 A • Parks and Recreation j. 4 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 11)1 F°//NDED January 18, 2002 TO: Don Oliver Pearson Sign Company 3162 E.47th Street Tucson,AZ 85713 (520)792-2563 (520)792-9871 fax RE: OSCO Drug Comprehensive Sign Submittal—OV 12-00-14 Dear Don: In reference to the above location and after meeting with Bryant Nodine,Planning and Zoning Administrator and Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector,the following decision was made on how to proceed with the sign package for OSCO Drug. It was agreed upon that the OSCO Drug signage would set precedence for the entire development. With that in mind,the following information will need to be included in the submittal: 1. A letter from the property owners acknowledging that OSCO Drug will be setting precedence for the remaining future development,including the exact color call out that will be used for the signs. Size,letter style and location shall follow all the rules and regulations set forth in the Oro Valley Zoning Code, Section 12. 2. Completed sign package for OSCO Drug. (please see attached) 3. Preliminary submittal for the freestanding sign, showing design and proposed location.Upon review, a direction will be given by staff on how to proceed. Once the application has been submitted, (2)two copies will be forwarded and reviewed by the Development Review Board Sign Agenda Committee for approvals of the signs.This process can take a while so please allow some time for this to be completed.Please include in your submittal, a call out sheet that references the color. It will need to be Copper Patina but a color#or name will need to be included to prevent inconsistency for future signage. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the above information,please feel free to contact me at 229-4852. k yo � ' p errilyn Bi ings Planning Technician www.townoforovalley.com TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SIGN PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Complete a permit application(First and third page) SUBMIT TWO COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING Site plan—showing location and setbacks Dimensioned sketch of the sign Details of color and materials of construction Electrical and attachment details Attachment/location details for monument signs Elevation drawings with building frontage for wall signs Written permission from the property owner(if applicable) All permanent signs require Development Review Board approval. Meeting held every 2nd and 4t Tuesday of each month. Application should be submitted at least three days prior to scheduled meeting.