HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV130302A 4
ORO VALLEY PLANNING& ZONING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2003
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Thomas Keiran, Planner I
SUBJECT: OV13-03-002; ARCHITECTURAL TEAM THREE, REPRESENTING
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES, INC. REQUESTS
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO BE
LOCATED IN THE ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT
AREA B, NORTHEAST OF THE HOME DEPOT, PARCEL 22008001J.
BACKGROUND:
Architectural Team Three, representing Commercial Development Properties, Inc. has proposed
architectural designs for the "Big-0 Tire" store and an associated retail structure to be located in the
Rooney Ranch PAD Area B, northeast of the Home Depot site. The Development Review Board
continued this item on February 11 to allow the applicant to revise the designs.
Both structures are proposed in a Development Plan currently under review in the Town under the case
number OV 12-02-19, and which the DRB recommended approval for at the last meeting. The property
consists of 1.43 acres with a proposed net building area of .24 acres. The development plan includes a
5,154 square feet structure for the tire store and another 5,448 square feet structure for a variety of retail
uses. The later structure will most likely have four tenants. Both structures are presented at this time for
review.
SUMMARY:
When reviewing the designs of the "Big-0 Tire" store, it is important to refer to the floor plan to
understand that some of the elevations are offset and do not display well in two-dimensional print media.
For instance, the East elevation depicts an entry feature that is actually offset 45 feet from the service bay
exterior wall.
The proposed buildings may be described as Territorial. They have flat rooflines with breaks, giving the
appearance of segmented walls. The roofline of the "Big-0 Tire" store varies in height from 20' to 25',
and the retail use peaks at 23'. The maximum height allowed in the PAD Area B for a C-2 use is 25'.
Both buildings propose to use stucco and textured CMU. The color palette consists of five natural earth
tones called "Desert Fawn" on the main portion of the building, "Burnt Copper" on the corner vertical
parapet accent, "Harvest Brown" on CMU, "Copper Canyon" trim above the display windows, and
"Falling Leaf' around the service bay doors. A color pallet with the location of the colors has been
included for DRB review, as are colored elevations. These desert colors comply with the Design
Guidelines and are compatible with the surrounding development.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The DRB continued this item because there were elevations on both structures that included large,
unbroken expanses of wall. The revised designs have made strides to come into compliance with the
Design Guidelines by including vertical pop-outs that break up the walls. Staff has reviewed the elevations
with respect to the landscaping plan and finds that the combination of pop-out treatment and landscape
shielding will minimally serve to break up the walls. While the revisions head toward meeting the intent of
the Design Guidelines, specific elevations could be improved further.
Staff has requested that the applicant address OVZCR Section 16-103 B.4 item b, which states:
"Emphasize the horizontal, but break up long continuous building surfaces with off-sets or contrasting
forms". We have previously provided the applicant with examples of how similar styled structures have
included horizontal off-set features to enhance the architecture. A condition has been added that specific
elevations include further articulation in the form of employing one or a combination of the following
techniques:
• Include faux windows, horizontal off-sets, or horizontal pop-outs
• Include banding in the form of varied texture or paint.
These elevations that need additional articulation are:
• The"Big-0 Tire"structure's East Elevation,which fronts Oracle Road.
• The"Big-0 Tire"structure's West Elevation,which fronts the retail structure.
• The retail structure's north elevation,which fronts the pedestrian trail.
If DRB includes this condition of approval, the resubmittal may be reviewed and approved by the DRB
Agenda Review Committee.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE:
The proposed design does not meet the following Community Design Element policies of the General Plan:
• Policy 9.1 F — "All sides of buildings may impact their surroundings and should be coherently
designed and treated".
• Policy 9.1G — "In order to maximize integration of the built environment with the natural
environment, and minimize distractions of the built environment, all new development proposals
should incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of buildings".
Staff believes that the designs will comply with the General Plan upon satisfaction of the conditions in
Exhibit A.
2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed architecture for the "Big-0 Tire" store and associated retail structure austerely
comply with the intent of the PAD, OVZCR, and ORSCOD Design Guidelines and General Plan. Staff
recommends approval with the conditions in Exhibit A.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The DRB may wish to consider one of the following motions:
I move to approve OV 13-03-002, the "Big-0 Tire" store and associated retail structure with the conditions
listed in Exhibit A. The Development Review Board's Agenda Review Committee shall review and
approve the revised designs.
OR
I move to approve OV 13-03-002, the "Big-0 Tire" store and associated retail structure with the conditions
listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith, and the following conditions: The
Development Review Board's Agenda Review Committee shall review and approve the revised designs.
OR
I move to deny OV 13-03-002, the"Big-0 Tire" store and associated retail structure, finding that:
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A
2. Building elevations
3. Color pallets
F:\ov\ov13\2000\13-03-002\ARCHRPT_3_11_03.doc
•
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
OV13-03-02
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS FOR THE BIG-O TIRE
AND ASSOCIATED RETAIL STORE
1. One or a combination of the following techniques shall be employed to add further articulation for
the elevations listed in item 2:
a. Include faux windows
b. Include horizontal off-sets
c. Include horizontal pop-outs
d. Include banding in the form of varied texture or paint.
The intent is to break up the massing of specific walls by adding horizontal articulation.
2. These elevations that need additional articulation are:
a. The"Big-0 Tire"structure's East Elevation,which fronts Oracle Road.
b. The"Big-0 Tire" structure's West Elevation,which fronts the retail structure.
c. The retail structure's north elevation,which fronts the pedestrian trail.
4
,l Y!IR/2
OHO, . Oy
S-': - 1
y
- • . Y
0,9i' Planning&Zoning Division
11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737
Phone: (520)229-4800 Fax: (520)742-1022
www.townoforovalley.com
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT ARCHITECTURE
DATE:; ,/ a OV CASE NO.: (office use only)
PROJECT NAME: SUBDIVISION LOT#
LOCATION I ADDRESS: /O875i4 ' (3 ,1-��"` ...--,.
ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE
MODEL NAMES OR NUMBERS
APPLICANT: ZA' 11 .C-C-77r.— "X i -
ADDRESS: I I(5.--'./Yfr
ae, arc,d-/, 12, 4,37
PHONE NO.:3 ge - FAX NO.: ���'' --
PROPERTY OWNER: Et c, C ._,e _
ADDRESS: 67--0 / y �/
L ' f_
v - si 'o O FE
''
PHONE N TI'', /f FAX • --, Z
DEVELOPMENT R BO HEARING DATE: \,/ g ,Do V
SIGNATUR • -' DATE:/..37
Submittal Requirements'
- Fees f
if , *-----:-One copy of 24x36 elevations and-ftoSr pla?f'tl4 F118-scale It" (V' \
, �j
°71
Ah • '•- tan 40 state 1CustonrLots-enly) Z'
e tcaf ion ° ' 1:7)41
•,• s-Lot f t analyStf rsubdivisions.Cut-sheets for lighting(ATI-CommerciatFrot , u om omes,an s)Fifteen copi following: �� Q
—Dircn ehed-€fevabe i
s-and��aorp�i�� lt)
Commercial projects require color drawings or photographs of elevations(8'/:"x 11"format) ‘...)3es:A). ,,
ti
•
gs•
le dy,�nm an i " " )Commercial and Residential
\t`ii) \
Applications will not be accepted without
PP p tall required materials.
4 o
t'
_...
DRB SUBMITTAL CALENDAR 2004
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Architecture, Signs, Misc.
ALL SUBMITTALS ARE DUE AT NOON
SUBMITTAL DEADLINES SCHEDULED MEETING DATE
THURSDAY TUESDAY
12/18/03 1/13/04
1/15/04 2/10/03
2/12/04 3/09/04
3/18/04 4/13/04
4 15/04 5/11/04
2,1 4 iv,
i
6/08/04
6/17/04 7/13/04
7/15/04 8/10/04
8/12/04 9/14/04
9/16/04 10/12/04
10/14/04 11/09/04
*11/12/04 12/14/04
12/16/04 01/11/05
If holiday falls on due date, submittals will be
due the day before.
PLEASE NOTE: "PUBLIC COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE SUBMITTAL DATES
TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE STAFF REPORT; THEY MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER
THAN ONE WEEK AFTER THE SUBMITTAL DATE TO BE INCLUDED IN PACKETS
DISTRIBUTED TO THE HEARING BODY."
THE HEARING DATES SHOWN ARE THE EARLIEST DATES THAT THE PROJECT CAN BE
REVIEWED BY THE BOARD. INCOMPLETE OR INADEQUATE SUBMITTALS MAY DELAY A
PROJECT.
L-EY q9i� TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
OHO �6) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
r Planning and Zoning • Building Safety
t► 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022
4
4 Oro Valley Public Library
f, 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737• (520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319
A ` A Parks and Recreation
O(� D EO 1g 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202
rune 8, 2004
Mr. Mike Jewitt
Big 0 Tire Center, L.P.
10885 N. Oracle Road
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Fax: 520. 544-2554
RE: Incomplete Application; OV 13-03-02A, Development Review Board
consideration of a color change for the exterior walls of the Big 0 Tire and Retail
buildings, Parcel No. 220-08-001J.
Dear Mr. Jewitt:
We are in receipt of an application for Development Review Board consideration of a
color change to the exterior wall of the Retail Building located at 10875,N. Oracle Road
and the application is deemed incomplete until we receive the following materials:
1. There is no letter describing what the application is for. Please provide a cover
letter with the June 17, 2004 application revision which describes what you are
requesting from the Board. This could be a simple statement like you would like
the existing colors, which were the result of a misunderstanding by Town and
painting contractor, to be allowed to remain, as the result of this misunderstanding
or mistake, you believe, (1) is, itself, a more attractive building , (2) differentiates
the two buildings on the site so the two do not look so much like a"strip"
commercial center, and (3) the darker color of the retail building visually"ties
together"the end buildings of the Rooney Ranch center with the Retail Building
painted a similar color as the Bank of America building within the center.
2. We do not have color samples of the Dunn-Edwards paint that you wish approved
by the Board for the Retail Building and we will need 20 copies of those color
samples. I believe the colors used on the Retail Building are noted on Sheet 4 of
the Retail Shell Building plans in the box marked"Exterior Finish/Color
Schedule" (excerpt attached).
3. Please also note that the elevation sheet that you submitted does not reflect the
colors that exist on the Retail Building. Please submit 20 copies of the Retail
Building elevations with the colors you wish approved. I enclose 19 copies of the
incorrect elevation for your review (one I will keep in our case file). The Retail
www.townoforovalley.com
June 8, 2004
Mike Jewitt
OV 13-03-02A, Big 0 Tire Center Architecture
Page 2 of 2
Building elevations must be labeled with the colors of each architectural element
matching the color samples provided.
4. The color photos you submitted are not labeled or marked in any way. Please
label them as you would like the Board to see and understand the photos. I
enclose 19 copies of each for you to label properly(one I kept in the file). Please
note that photos of other buildings (the hotel and bank buildings), without an
accompanying color sample, may be misleading as the camera and printer may
distort the color(s). Please provide 20 copies of the properly labeled photos.
Please provide the required materials by noon on June 17, 2004 in order for us to prepare
the staff report for the July 13, 2004 Board meeting.
Please note that the Big 0 Tire building varies from the approved color scheme in the
following way:
• The corner columns are painted "Falling Leaf' and the Board approved "Burnt
Copper"; and
• The bottom edge and faux columns are painted Burnt Copper and the Board
approved Falling Leaf.
We will be advertising the color change for the Retail Building as well as the above-
mentioned color change for the Big 0 Tire building. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call me at 229-4814 or email at smontana@orovalley.net.
Sincerely,
Susana Montana, Planner II
Attachments:
1. Retail Building elevations with architectural elements' colors noted;
2. Four sets of color photos of buildings to be properly labeled; and
3. An excerpt from Sheet 4 of the Retail Building plans showing the color samples
that need to be submitted.
C: Shirley Gay, Bryant Nodine,Bayer Vella, Jeff Weir, Karen Greenspoon
F:\OV\OV 13\2003\13-03-02A\Correspondence\Incomplete App.doc
A
• 0
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
STAFF REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: July 13, 2004
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
FROM: Susana Montana, Planner II
SUBJECT: OV13-03-02A, MIKE JEWITT, REPRESENTING BIG 0 CENTER, LP,
REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE EXTERIOR COLORING OF TWO EXISTING
RETAIL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 10885 AND 10875 N. ORACLE ROAD, ON
THE WEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AVENUE AND E.
HANDLEY BOULEVARD, PARCEL NUMBER 220-08-001J.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2003, the Development Review Board reviewed and approved the Architecture, including color
scheme, of the Big 0 Tire Center which consists of two commercial buildings and a tire storage enclosure, Case
Number OV13-03-02. The easternmost building is the Big 0 Tire sales and installation building; the
westernmost building is a stand-alone retail building; in-between is the storage enclosure. The Development
Plan Case Number is OV12-02-19.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant, Mike Jewitt of Big 0 Center, L.P., seeks approval of the exterior color treatment of the retail
building which varies somewhat from the Board approved coloring scheme. The Applicant believes that the
misunderstanding that occurred between the Applicant, his painting Contractor and the Town staff reviewing the
painting plan resulted in a more attractive paint scheme for the two buildings (see Attachment 3). The
Applicant submits photographs of a Bank of America building within the same shopping center (Attachment 4)
which indicates how the darker coloring of the Retail Building visually "ties" together the two "ends" of the
shopping center, creating a more cohesive architecture overall.
The Board, on March 19, 2003, approved a color palette for both buildings which included the following
elements:
• The paint brand is "Frazee";
• A light beige-like color for the main exterior wall elements ("Desert Fawn");
• A red clay-like color for the corner column elements ("Burnt Copper");
• A slightly-red clay color for the accent CMU units along the bottom edge and as faux columns along the
rear and side elevations ("Harvest Brown);
• An earth tone color for columns and bottom edge accent borders ("Falling Leaf'); and
• A copper color for the metal window and door treatments ("Copper Canyon").
The easternmost Big 0 Tire building was painted a combination of the colors included within the approved
color palette; however, the colors of the corner columns ("Burnt Copper") and the faux columns ("Falling Leaf)
were reversed when applied to the building. The Applicant seeks approval of this color change to the Big 0
Tire building.
The westernmost Retail Building was painted a combination of colors that were derived from a different paint
"brand" and the colors are similar, but different. Additionally, the colors of the different elements of the
• •
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, OV13-03-02A Page 2
exterior façade vary from those approved by the Board and the Applicant seeks approval of both the different,
but similar, specific colors as well as the different color treatment of the individual elements of the Retail
Building.
The actual colors on the respective buildings are shown on Attachment 3 and are summarized below.
Big 0 Tire Building Using the Board approved color palette,
• The corner column elements were painted Falling Leaf rather than Burnt Copper as was approved by the
Board;
• The bottom edge and faux column were painted Burnt Copper rather than the Falling Leaf;
• The main exterior walls are painted the Desert Fawn as was approved by this Board;
• The CMU units are painted Harvest Brown as approved by the Board; and
• The metal window and door treatments were painted the approved Copper Canyon accent color.
Retail Building
• The paint company is Dunn-Edwards;
• The main exterior walls are painted "Caramel"which is similar to the Frazee Burnt Copper;
• The corner column elements are painted Caramel;
• The east elevation middle faux columns are painted"Peach"which is similar to Frazee Desert Fawn;
• The CMU units are painted Harvest Brown which is similar to the Frazee Harvest Brown;
• The bottom edge and faux columns are painted "Stonish Beige" which is similar to Frazee Harvest
Brown; and
• The metal window and door treatments are painted "Caramel".
COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
OVZCR, Chapter 16 Design Guidelines
The color scheme meets applicable provisions of the OVZCR Design Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE:
The buildings color scheme meets the following applicable Community Design Element policies of the General
Plan.
• Policy 9.1F — "All sides of buildings may impact their surroundings and should be coherently designed
and treated".
• Policy 9.1 G — "In order to maximize integration of the built environment with the natural environment,
and minimize distractions of the built environment, all new development proposals should incorporate
means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of buildings".
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the exterior façade color change described herein.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move to approve OV 13-03-02A Big 0 Tire Center buildings exterior coloring.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, OV13-03-02A Page 3
OR
I move to approve OV13-03-02A Big 0 Tire Center buildings exterior coloring, subject to the following
condition(s):
OR
I move to deny OV 13-03-02A, Big 0 Tire Center buildings exterior coloring finding
that:
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant letter requesting color change
3. Photograph of Big 0 Tire Center buildings
4. Photographs of Bank of America building within shopping center
;ti
.,
, ve '
, ..
71,' v, • .
, , .
ltt , kl
F
10„,, aa,
tlitN),,,),... .110.: . : .. ,e, * , 'lle it " * 'Ill•—.11 ,, , , *. .
*'} ,jr
kr "� ,
7
4. 74,101a,..
IlikY Aft - ' "4"11';‘, ir - '‘. '
*44
-07
to .
414:
loopii
1°1
�r
:, 'rr; ' : . �� ttid't a. ° 4 ',4 F',.' Project Site . ' _ 4.***,is,, 0,76,.... ,,,,,,,, ilt . , . ,
jot 4,
' 1194.4f-,„ ,*, ' 4t .. ‘„„
\,,,,, fi',14„,„,. 161,44::,11ril'efo,1°'' :;.' .A,*'1. * , , ,,,,,,,.
.-wlach.:,: ‘4.‘ iii,.
V
rf , i,. . , 44.0 .
.1i.- } �..'� l ,I�jN y, .p"0.•a1 r b k�a P#.,'.# , R w
't•y" '$+, • `, r �.�' SI" r' '�Y M a,j'"Nf 1 R��„ 7.:i.", + �, � io
•
`� :l tit :....10,,,,
f t. e'•, \ ,,'"N * 4 d'., ,At. �'+ ,IL
s.
. yo ,,, '„ , 4r, :4,1AgirA " .159 .14,.a
\ .,,,, lot
i. ,'.. L r •I ',,.. .,�y�f ,i.. /Y1��� +ti f 4,d y r, ` J� �t� a"S.. \��, ., t':_ " -.'f. 1
"' Y,•'n ,,. +. y� 7� , *r�`A� �.+„°;,� �' ., ," F. !r's ' "'-. it"
. `fir"—
, ... ,,,0„„ ,. ,
e
,, .. ,,
.
w
gilt.
,
•
tk
�'• �vtil:�,S .�a..�!��7r ,.Y'�`.. *,�•�' � Kr. 4 aI I� .A'+�,� • -ram ''n :f,t�f #S"�`,r !`,l?".' at"f'' '''' 'r• ! '''' '7" "at*,,1,,,+i�.t ,s I
�• a.,� .a�. r. t � �/ s0
T
441/41
1
r,,:a'r :e4 v if e.-4112-1.,1:1,Nit , ' :IP'
�: '' ':4 OQ-Q' +►s'� »M xj ,ir N E PUSCH\N"- yc *,,f ►`
F j
may,,
,,, ./Air,i . Itt*17 ff.F.'e,°::::47.1,'
M tl
4 ,-,..0;', . . , t - 4,4 Li*. „, ., . , , ,'
'+''''s '9;;ii
• 4,, , ,
..,,,
•
y«�`,`4:.., ,�' ; �'$?`L k:. ': .�' ',r.�,R p,- fir;F .;4: y.' 4101,,
Ii k..4.,.:,' I H � .{ .., -� *„ y', � P�♦ . .. -,.�,�' .t 9y414- bA ,p"4. ♦e. {.;, =3.R+ 4 Pt4.,
70101e44s
1 i 'Y d11
,y @, +" -+y' 3. t r r."+ x4, iipi I t '-`,,,'J'e�i'4 t,•i.?s' a'',, a y; „re'.�i,',:
7�Yn,: '/` ,� ,i y_. .• :. .: '' � � � � '� ��' f"M�� ��4N'"* �.axe.T,i"':l# � s. 4�� •',�'
:i. • :i, r'r . ,., ...>'. . 11 . A
• q-:
jtr-
p. • F':i;#", \ :'
`{ �, 'r ;'k
•��,= < es'!��A "++ ' 4P* 'e� A. R • �.,, s'".',,''-M.# t �. J,�.ly
4!.,,•.itif-lte,
/'Ff ^nil p i 4 r / R 3 '' p`,' y :N, -.'r'Y '�i'k,,?n'J4,a '�*. . M
.� •� ,p- ::: y • � `.�\ J;' 9.1i, i. .•"ram, ♦ ,F9vie 1
1 1 �'n-
F
�+fi,K; ' a. 1 .. 9:0,r^,d�d. * A y'+F�ti',r T rM `!� ° # - dr''�_0 i
.i ,tilt .. 411114CAV. , A .1'. , * ii:' , 1 . ' '' 4 fr a! ',:, 11.- b
' 'FD ,'� S' *.Y'E• vi• i 011 +��al. lks # \ _ • l'! ,M ' .' r r
1f Pt.`r.F -` TIr," e. ; .. • F''i !�1 Mt /� - N �- >i.
IP
+�o
* :1 .r x"i�• ,� i- - « n. `4, ,rye' ,. sg lirF' da'M�
N
�S,.w'/ C� ��.�+'. !�.nf,,.� y'r .• - 7r '+. r�Y � '�ls '� !�M3 �� �# _ �'' .,i._. ... .. •1' ��. �_-
OPt1110
O J PI,LEY q/2,r O2
y i d V 1 3 — 0 3 — 0 2 l i J 1 1 r� c F ,5 F 10 F 460 Feet
,, Parcel 220 - OS - 001 J Location Map GISSERVICES:2MARCH2004
voEn
June 18, 2004
Town of Oro Valley
Community Development Department
11000 La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
RE: Application: OV13-03-02A. Development Review Board consideration to approve
color for the exterior walls of the Big 0 Center Retail Building, Parcel No. 220-08-001 J
This application is to request that the Board consider the following:
1. The Board approved renderings for two buildings presented last spring.
2. Construction drawings were approved by the Town specifying color codes.
3. Retail building painted in compliance with approved color codes.
4. Actual color does not match the renderings that were approved in the spring.
5. Several citizens(including some town officials) like the color as is.
6. There are several other buildings within the town with similar color scheme.
7. Applicant is requesting that the Board allow the existing colors to remain.
8. This color code is in compliance with the"As Built" drawings that were
approved, but the renderings, which were also, approved, resulted in a
misunderstanding and confusion.
9. We believe that the colors as presently existing differentiates the two buildings on
the site so the two do not look so much like a"strip" commercial center.
e
present look makes for a more attractive presentation, and the darker color of the
retail building visually"ties together" the end buildings of the
Rooney Ranch center with the Retail Building painted a similar color as the Bank
of America building within the center.
10. Photos of other buildings are submitted herein for the benefit of the board to view
the color schemes of buildings in Oro Valley with similar color schemes.
We respectfully submit this application to the Board for the purpose of clarification of
any misunderstanding, and in the spirit of providing an environment that we, as citizens
of Oro Valley, can all be proud to call home.
Respec fully,
ichael D. ett
Managing General Partner
Big 0 Center, L.P.
ATTACHMENT 2
F
t17: ,
0 1:-
i v
t'3r'i,.'l-i"'-.c.i....l-0l-i-:;a-•...'4.=g_ir&-l.l,-,,_.i;„ii1.-t 44-,,.,i.i'.
..4',;',LsF4i1ofl;iI:i it«1:.4.4'.1.•,,..1..
. .. . .,. i fps.
v - - ,,,�
`
T �
111111111111
k) ki' 1 AiOd'h "
9 e T
ill-VIC10-
` , 1* _
-_. ,-
----lw.
ay
,Now.344 11
4
_.fi r: 1 6 - '
x
n �� *sea
iin.ow.
J �
t*" .. •mot ;
"" "yam ;
N W I NE- 1-
ATTACHMENT 3
r a .
s \
a
v *�$
t3
h
ma t Si
6 .�...-z.....,-... v. _ .,i l•
A _ ,,.
—,A,1,b-„,..,,,.,mq....* - '''-.,.'-`' ' alMipir - —'- . .„ ..,..,,,,. . ).—
r .»
,i. L
,If:' e . Qr
Ly
,# "o'aa. + .-,. { . ..spa^ .d� +z i �'7'
if
..+v„ s. 1 - 4
... i3
.-; �l7' ._ x,f.`-i - s-]il ,AH' s,, ti3 CT t .S+ry _,rt,,lp` '•'. ` +� ki '&
is ..: „. •x » r"H w � ti' li., LF iNA/
_"= a ,,,;.Y,. •r , tf :.a - .'..aw n<:'1. ;; f 1.,� f ts�'.SaM-.S .. ...
s
.� Bankt�fArrr ; ,,,„... VOW
•',,... ''.1,=,..'A :.:...'-' ' .. .i''''','...'C,.,.'....,
1J 4: f►► 11
:< 41. h
per ,
ATTACHMENT 4
y
t
itl .-- /
p
a �\
i
tom
3i
.....—.44. , ,
' ..4 i
•
r . r.
•' .
, •,:...:,,,Qii ..- .,---
"' - ' i
r. a.w p
u i t.
•.. --„_. -Si
• .\ 4
'\ , .'
.. , �
.;r ir. •z~ s�
r {,y •
{ r� ' J•
r
',- Ilmii
rtis__\- : , .y 5 at
r �r
,'''''.'''''''' '''.,...'.',.,.-ii.:4...':,:::- ,,,,,'.i i..''.,'..,,
iiiiiir
. .461111.11.11.1.4.4.- ....
I ,
----7.7.' — k kik \ ; —16.4....., 11.41! — - - .e,----------liCi. iiiiP --
_ .,.. . ..- • . .,.,,-- -- -- -Jr. "fir —
oVI'':1111'7c ' -- • . ..
Migialkilam I —. •
.. . ' ,;'•A' '- 46' 7 - - .
A
.',', • ' - 111.. 1 ...I-7.z . ! iii,..,. , 444",4.-lgt it I * • -
, 1 ipp t- . - .t.r.,,,,..- ,. - ., 4......! •: I
, . ,.
.. ... . . .... •. _ . • , •-... -7 :
, . ...,r.,..,z....•,,,,..... ,,..
,..,
..", ....,..., el '. -,..
-•:,'4 .41t.it '- .. . -Itikil.
t '
.
4„ )- ,,:;:4•4t;..,.. " '''' a
1 s .*4 .,. ,.. :,. , '3-
s
•
•
•
I et '4:',,,,o,':,
, .
---,
, .,---•_,- '-'-'-'"'„:-.'-.1.'-- ---.. , -..,-- ,"-'2'4i"'„,c.q"4"4 • _ ,
- -;:--4- ., .„ —— --.-,,.. C411106'
.7-
11"*.
. . ,. _ ..
.. ,. ..
_t-
' lir A,.....,_A. ' •.'" .... '.;,.......01110r70,111131131114"'ir
I "
._.„
.4 lil , 11..... .. , .. .
,' ../T ,, *,..fl.„..,i
's 1' *
*OW ,,,. _ li. •4.4.Z.Z.;sfl'' 7.' .-,- -' *
lt'
L . . r4k ,%.,
,.
,,-..-41- I
.
: . ..% i . 0
VI-
t rl
21,7 4
i "Th...
iiillinne - _ _ - .- . ._., _,_ . .. •
, .. ...
, .
2 iall 21 II I 44 1 ik., -.,, ....., ...,.. .,
, ... setwissiima . v
........,... ,. , .... .
_ ..,
ot
.41
.... , .. , .
1
0
.-,-:-........v-:. .,;.,..,,::::-\_,*:.;:,--,..-'-*/;. ,
•__.
s 1
t It
•
I fi"
lI • :4s. .�.e .3 �M j,j� R
. ' 4 HA
.,,,,',.1.."''.::'.: .
, I
'...,...z nii 1
. iI. 1 ...., 2 I, - ..._/ .i .
, . .
. ..,..413.1 t . .•.. . . .... .. , . ,
f •...•.. I
i f fir: 4,`ai '
` , (, I 1� f
West elevation of Big 0 Tire Building
I
rRAZE@ no+ven GOAT:TO MATc
"TZ-33N FAN\' FRAZEE'COPPER
M3 CANYON'h09614
Il g
xR• - 'a
FwgE SRCRi.�-c sP_'TAcc '-tA `"
C. '
BI,RNT OPPL, NrCEN.A_C R O_O-
R59760 ...A4VC5'P 9RONA�66 •8386�.�' y }��
1
Existing Retail Building and Big 0 Tire Building colors
,0 t t
41(
\ ) )2't
DI
w.y
/ 11)kat."7"1 / ,if_ FekAA)11
i1411 i(4411 a § jr , t,l ; fit t\\
_ 111,1 ___ 3 ' .. „ "
,gar WSW
Adotliall
496)1144e:r
Approved color scheme for both buildings
q I
_. R`'Fi 4•i'•.,ri br_ ..< YFti.',£'l •�t� t_ r.
M T!-i E�_�V A_lf'�O•
nA
[if
1
1
FAST
p 3;fl t�ta, �•� 1 t` ��f „
T 1-A E Re-e!^+._x.M U!'.A
•
EST E/._IC V/A.-T
1
Approved and Existing on Big 0 Tire Building
. mi .
,:..f., ...1 ..,-';-- •.,.,4 ,-; .,,,,,i -17:-
!' e
FRAZEE POWDER GOAT:TO MAT.
'DESERT FAWN' FRAZEE'COPPER
roam CANYON'.-roam
r
ro
MU eurtiw,e lCOLOR- rRAzm '�
ever DOTER 1.20T L COLOR- FALLING LEA,
•+eeeu w+ereer eleorN RA7MD
?ft!.fJE i:r; dA O TIRES N-LI"f RV., j 1
0
r 41_,_L-
•
teei24-- ra Ili n e. 'ir I"- Caoy0 n
`` `'"4 ,fie o"rr-
� C
fwilih' Le4tf 4,4ivesT Y,:"wn
1
FRAZEE
DMERT FAY.. Approved and Existing for Retail Building
•622211
C.ANYON'67696N
16114146'
S.PERLITE 51,7•AGE PRASE
.147E6RAL C.OLDR- FA_LIN6 LEA
..ARVEST MORN.66 66204D
r 1 IR
'II I
rtt- zeof
rdwn
144 ry€57- ex-014*
Ix-5/44 4,4"/Yk
itCh)4161 OttrY1 Letimr'
2
West Elevation of Retail Building
fratmln
)iter4(
. ii.,...,‘
....,... ,.. , ..FRAZEE .041DER GOAT...MATC.
'9,C'52-r2;14''' ERAZEE'COPPER
CANYON'.1556N
11
4 1 ..,
.I.... , ...
: . .
' .9171rfrer ' : ‘• ''..
weiffiv oar - ' ;.
. ,,..,
4'.1*
..,*
5.6_0 7E5!14.-LIIE 19,...- 7i,Welt• .‘7';:i---':,',"Y":•F -A. b-f.-..--' '
1)c )ir FA,t4 n
,opt,rvvt(4. eiti4 fitoifide-rxxek)
'Fit,G())90141•e-eiXtmori
pee ...
( 1-61301() @676)
1
✓ 0 rm
3,
a
i 0 ...• is, .
I _ rN
J. al v)o
6 To
cv ,C
. '. 3
O Z _
OE�' N
0 ` c)./ !0 v CD}
477. 0
BUILDING CODES DEPAraiP;1. 'I
MI
1 APPROVED .-�._.�.+� EXTERIOR MATERIAL
re
)\(D APPROVED AS OOTE,D
1 SCHEDULE
IIII
NOT BE COdS[RUE DTO . r EAPPRO ALL OFYp.LANSAND 3 COAT CEMENT PLASTER
S�p EACPCRA 1I1"���SaOALL w/ 'SPANISH' TEXTURED FINISH H:, ATPkPEftOfOALAE�`�YA �l- OdDSndRJ!DV -QF.
8' x 8" x 16' SPLIT-FACE CMU
OVERHEAD COIL DOOR
0 (9
4 METAL DOOR 4 FRAME
GLAZING: I' INSULATED GLASS
a
6 ) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM CI Z
MISCELLANEOUS METALS Iiiiii 0
EXTERIOR FINISH/COLOR
M CC
SCHEDULE
Q
PAINT TO MATCH ADJ. e.i
.1 ).
MEDIUM BRONZE GLAZING
1c ).. , imml 1
1 w✓1 f CDCARAMELA�'9S PAINT GALAX Z SERIES
4 ), Frirze 1).eser W
DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT GALAX Z SERIES
i (1)
I19 -�r ID `STONISH BEIGE' "r 8
UJI
Obb
r.
DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT GALAX Z SERIES a
3 55D E 'PEACH' *94
I CC >1.
POWDER COAT: MATCH DUNN-EDWARDS
Y P L A N
F 'CARAMEL" *169
a Ui
0
.e>° /�
Le'l ,, ,SUPERL ITE INTE.COLOR C.M-.I.
VW �a n�" G 5166 "HARVEST BROWN' ..I
5' 4
, . .
xr D p�
' NO FINISH/PRE-FINISHED
=MI >
POW
//;.' % -
;w
EXTERIOR FINISH NOTES
0
NOTE: IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS EXTERIOR 14 CC
-POWG{e, Coc± To MATERIAL/ FINISH SCHEDULE THAT ALL MATERIALS
AND FINI..,-ES ARE CLEARLY DEFINED. ALL FINISH
`0`}-G 1 F r a 7 e. MARKERS SHOULD BE ASSUMED TYPICAL UNLESS1.1111111 0
I f NOTED OTHERWISE.
eo
la �Q e,'' Ca/'1 joll 1 FINISHES ARE TO EXTEND AROUND ALL EXPOSED
r SURFACES. WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE EXPL ICI-
1 2- 3 1 TLY SHOWN IN THE ELEVATIONS, SUCH AS AROUND Li.11
Al ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE ARCADE COLUMNS. ALL
MISCELLANEOUS TRIM ITEMS ARE TO SE PAINTED.
i ► BUILDING SIGNS ARE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.
PROVIDE LIQUID WATERPROOFING ('RA I NGUARD") IX
ON INSIDE SURFACE OF ALL EXPOSED MASONRY
IV
�D .� PARAPET WALLS. DATE:
C..-!U��.1,. /L6.- t,7J1 PROVIDE MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING FOR ALL -
-, WALLS WHERE ADJACENT GRADE IS HIGHER THAN
PIA' FINISH FLOOR SCALE: AS NOTED
ji
k/,`,,„i)t Q = TEMPERED GLASS Q THESE LOCATIONS DWG. BY: at3
. 64a,cril.iliatt-7 aetpu.n,14 id'tO = INDICATES DEPTH OF PROJECTION BEYOND JOB: 832.2-02
OUTSIDE FACE OF CMU WALL- SEE FLOOR SHEET NO.:
PLAN DIMENSIONS FOR FACE OF OUTSIDE
WALL TO BE +0- SEE ALSO WALL SECTIONS
FOR CLARIFICATION. 4
OF — SHEETS
MINUTES OF THE
ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY,JULY 13, 2004
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: 6:04 p.m.
PRESENT:
Jim Vogelsberg, Chair
Mary Caswell, Vice Chair
Clark Reddin,Member
Richard Feinberg,Member
Jeff Weatherford,Member
Al Kunisch,Member
ALSO PRESENT:
Bayer Vella, Principal Planner
Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney
Craig Civalier, Development Review Division Manager
Robert Conant, Planner II
Susana Montana, Planner II
David Ronquillo, Planner I
Catherine Hendrix, Secretary II
EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3) discussion and consultation with the Town Attorney
regarding New World Development's request for approval of a preliminary plat for 105 single-
family lots located on the south side of Tangerine Road just north of the Naranja Town Site,
Parcel 224-018-270(0V12-03-26).
2. Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3) discussion and consultation with the Town Attorney
regarding WLB Group's request for approval of a preliminary plat for 216 single-family lots,
located in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10 Parcels S, U and V — on the northeast and
northwest corners of Moore Road and La Canada Drive extended, Parcels 219-224-220
portion (0V12-03-30).
MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell MOVED to recess into Executive Session. Member
Weatherford SECONDED. Motion carried 6-0.
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 12
Recessed: 6:05 p.m.
Reconvened: 6:26 p.m.
CALL TO AUDIENCE
Opened and Closed 6:27 p.m.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MAY 11, 2004, MAY 20, 2004, AND JUNE 8, 2004
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MOTION: Member Kunisch MOVED to approve the minutes as submitted. Vice
Chair Caswell SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
B. OV12-03-5B, WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS, REQUESTS
APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE INNOVATION PARK DRIVE
ENTRY MONUMENT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST AND WEST CORNERS OF
TANGERINE ROAD AND INNOVATION PARK DRIVE AND THE SOUTHEAST AND
WEST CORNERS OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND INNOVATION PARK
DRIVE WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 3
The landscape plans are for the entry monuments to Rancho Vistoso Business Park between
Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard.
C. OV12-04-03, WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS, REQUESTS
APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE STONE CANYON MAIN ENTRY
MONUMENT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF
RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN CIRCLE WITHIN
RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11 PARCEL 212-20-002A.
The landscape plans are for the entry monument for Stone Canyon and Ritz Carlton in Rancho
Vistoso Neighborhood 11.
D. OV13-04-16, WLB GROUP AND MARSH & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS,
REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE
ARCHITECTURE FOR THE STONE CANYON MAIN GATE, LOCATED ON
TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN CIRCLE JUST WEST OF RITZ CARLTON DRIVE, IN
RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11, PARCEL 212-20-002A
The architecture is for the main gate feature to the Stone Canyon subdivision in Rancho Vistoso
Neighborhood 11.
MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell PULLED Consent Agenda Item A to the Regular
Agenda. Member Weatherford MOVED to approve Consent Agenda
Items B, C, and D. The motion was SECONDED by unanimous consent.
Motion carried 6-0.
1 :``.Mi.nmtes\DRB\2004\7-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 12
REGULAR AGENDA
A. OV13-03-02A, MIKE JEWITT, REPRESENTING BIG 0 CENTER, REQUESTS
APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE EXTERIOR COLORING TWO EXISTING
RETAIL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 10885 AND 10875 N. ORACLE ROAD, ON THE
WEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AVENUE AND E. HANDLEY
BOULEVARD, PARCEL NUMBER 220-08-001J.
Susana Montana presented the Staff Report.
Mike Jewitt, Big 0 Center, 10885 North Oracle Road, stated that the colors were transposed. He wanted
the colors that were best for the city.
MOTION: Member Kunisch MOVED to approve OV 13-03-02A. Vice Chair
Caswell SECONDED the motion.
Discussion: Member Kunisch and Chair Vogelsberg both commented on liking the contrasting building.
Motion carried 6-0.
1. OV12-03-11, FLOOR & ASSOCIATES INC, REPRESENTING TUCSON MATHER
PLAZA LLC., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SPLENDIDO
AT RANCHO VISTOSO, LOCATED WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD
5 PARCEL A, PARCEL 219-216-270
David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record.
Vice Chair Caswell asked Staff how the retaining wall will work with the two options presented.
Mr. Civalier responded that he was not familiar with the techniques. His concern was the driveway.
The best options would be a slope with vegetation.
Chair Vogelsberg requested a presentation from the Applicant. Due to technical difficulties with
equipment, he provided a recess.
Recessed: 6:54 p.m.
Reconvened: 7:02 p.m.
Max Small of Floor Associates, represented Tucson Mather Plaza, L.L.C., 1425 North 1st Street,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004, presented a slide show showing the plan and the other options. He replied to
Member Feinberg stating that the Boulder Wall option would be the least disturbance to wildlife because
it would involve minimal grading and is the least engineered option.
Minutes\DRB\2004\7-13-04►ninutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 12
PUBLIC COMMENT
Opened 7:17 p.m.
Bonnie Grogman, 233 West Vistoso Highlands Drive, opposed the Landscape Plan for Splendido. The
residents' were promised a 50-foot open space area between their houses and the development. On June
4, 2003, Splendido submitted their plans that showed an area of 50-feet. At the November 3, 2003
Town Council meeting, the 50-foot area was approved. The residents requested 100-feet. Mr. Nodine
recommended Condition Number 21 to change the buffer area from a 50-foot landscape buffer to open
space. It was voted on and passed before the Town Council. How could Splendido ignore the Town
Council's ruling and keep submitting plans that are in violation of it? The residents want 50-feet of
open space, and then Splendido could do the landscaping. It has to be graded down 10-feet so the
residents could not see trees, shrubs, or boulders. Please allow the residents to have their 50-feet of
open space.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Closed at 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Vella responded to Member Feinberg concerning Ms. Grogman's comments about the 50-foot open
space. He was unaware of the General Note and History needed to accurately describe Council's intent.
He requested time to research the General Note that refers to Open Space versus Landscape Area.
MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell MOVED to Table Item # 1. Member Reddin
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
2. OV13-04-18, SOLOMON CORDWELL BUENZ & ASSOCIATES INC.,
REPRESENTING TUCSON MATHER PLAZA LLC., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF
ARCHITECTURE FOR SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO, LOCATED WITHIN
RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 5 PARCEL A, PARCEL 219-216-270
David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record.
Sharon Harper, owner from Splendido, 13500 North Rancho Vistoso, stated that it was important to
understand that this would be a resort style community. Unlike a family subdivision, a resort setting has
a common look. She stated that if they were to continue this item, it would jeopardize the financial
situation of the project.
Brent Kendle, represented Tucson Mather and Solomon Cordwell, Buenz & Associates, Inc., 6111
North Cattle Track Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona, presented slides concerning the architectural details, floor
plans, elevations, and multiple elements for the building and roofs. He stressed the fact that this was a
resort community and not single-family lots. The upgrade options would change the appearance of the
villas to create a dozen different looks.
Ms. Harper replied to Vice Chair Caswell that she could not predict the percentage of those who would
use the upgrade options.
I '.Minutes`.DR13\2004\7-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 12
Mr. Vella confirmed Staff's recommendation to approve the other structures and continue the design for
the villas.
MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell MOVED to approve OV13-04-18, Architecture for
the Care Center, Spa & Fitness, Individual Living Units, covered parking
& garages and the three villas home models for Splendido at Rancho
Vistoso. Member Kunisch SECONDED the motion.
Discussion: Member Kunisch liked the project and thought people would upgrade to create variety.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Member Weatherford MOVED to remove Item #1 from the Table
Member Reddin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
1. OV12-03-11, FLOOR & ASSOCIATES INC, REPRESENTING TUCSON MATHER
PLAZA LLC., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SPLENDIDO
AT RANCHO VISTOSO, LOCATED WITHIN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD
5 PARCEL A, PARCEL 219-216-270
Mr. Vella stated that Council did take staffs recommendation to change the buffer from a landscape
buffer to "open space". The motion by Council approving the Development Plan used the term "open
space" in the buffer area. "Open Space" is generally defined as an area that is not utilized in any form or
fashion.
Mr. Langlitz agreed that the only logical interpretation of the Minutes was that the 50-foot landscape
buffer be changed to open space and this area was not to be disturbed.
Tom Sizemore, representing Tucson Mather Plaza, L.L.C., 350 North 34th Street, Phoenix, Arizona
85018, was confused because there were a number of areas that were required to re-vegetate open
spaces.
Mr. Vella did not want to confuse the issue of PAD designated open space versus the issue of 50-feet
open space assigned via the Development Plan. The 50-foot buffer was not designated PAD community
open space. What Council did was change the wording from "landscape area" to "open space". The
connotation there is an area that is to be left alone. This was a specific condition applied to this specific
area.
Mr. Langlitz stated that the DRB could approve all other aspects of the Landscape Plan except for the
northern property line.
Mr. Vella confirmed the neighbors desire to keep the area for wildlife.
Mr. Sizemore stated that the issue was the entire calculation of open space and mass space. He believed
that they were way over their requirement.
4 -1inutc-, DRB\2004\7-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 12
Mr. Kendle questioned why Town Council did not change the wording from "landscape buffer" to
"mass"which would have clarified the prohibition of any disturbance.
Mr. Langlitz read the Minutes Condition Number 15 from the Council Meeting and stated, "A typical
section across the northern P.A.A.L. (Parking Area Access Lane) through the 50-foot natural buffer shall
be provided to demonstrate how the natural area will be preserved."
Mr. Sizemore stated the reason that such wording was in there was so the driveway would be pushed 50-
feet to the northern boundary.
Mr. Small stated that the boulder solution would create the 15-feet of disturbance. The reason for
grading down was not to disturb the neighbors view and that they were grading beyond the
requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Opened at 7:23 p.m.
Chris Grogman, 233 West Vistoso Highlands Drive, stated that they have met numerous times with
Splendido and numerous members of the Board; presented power point presentations, and photos of the
wildlife. They have tried to get 100-feet of open space behind their houses; however, their fight ended
with 50-feet. The neighbors did not come up with the wording "open space." It was pointed out to the
residents that a landscape buffer would allow the Applicant to take the space, cut it down, and landscape
it, which would only be visible to their customers, not to the neighbors. This is a wildlife corridor. Its
presentation has been the emphasis from the beginning. The Town Council said 50-feet of"open space"
and he urged the Board to go with that. Council worded it the way they did for a reason. If the
Applicant wanted to change the wording from Town Council, then they should petition Town Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Closed at 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Langlitz stated that the Minutes recite what the Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine
informed the Council, it includes the following, "Mr. Nodine also explained that the sight will be mass
graded with the exception of the 50-foot buffer on the north side of the property." This indicated it was
the intent of the Council that 50-feet would not be touched, graded, landscaped, nor approached. The
DRB did not have the authority to alter that Condition. If the Applicant's Landscape Plan presented any
approachment to that area, it must be denied.
MOTION: Member Weatherford MOVED to deny OV12-03-11, Landscape Plan for
Splendido at Rancho Vistoso, finding that it did not comply with the
approved Development Plan. Member Kunisch SECONDED the motion.
Discussion: Member Weatherford was concerned with the driveway's closeness to the buffer.
Chair Vogelsberg, Member Reddin, and Member Feinberg all liked the Landscape Plan.
Member Kunisch thought it would be better to continue this item.
1F: Minutes`DRB 12004\7-13-04 m.inutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7'13'2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 12
Mr. Langlitz stated that this Landscape Plan will not go to Council and the DRB was the final say on the
matter.
Mr. Sizemore preferred that it be denied rather than continued.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Opened at 7:31 p.m.
Marcia Kraus, 303 West Vistoso Highlands Drive, presented the photos of the wildlife displayed at last
year's meeting concerning Splendido. She encouraged the Board to review the Council's tapes because
it specifically stated that the 50-feet were going to be natural and undisturbed, it would have a 10-foot
drop, and it would be 70-feet before the driveway. Therefore, instead of the 50-feet, it was actually 70-
feet. Therefore, they could have the landscaping, but with the 50-feet of open space.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Closed at 7:32 p.m.
Motion Carried 6-0.
3. CONTINUED ITEM, OV12-03-26, BAKER ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING NEW
WORLD DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR 105 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
TANGERINE ROAD JUST NORTH OF THE NARANJA TOWN SITE, PARCEL 224-
018-270
Robert Conant presented the staff report into the record.
Member Kunisch recalled the Board's recommendation that the park be moved.
Member Reddin recalled the recommendation of moving the access streets because of a safety issue.
Member Weatherford brought up the need for the meandering streets to reduce the speed for the safety
of the residents.
Larry Schubart of Stubbs & Schubart, P.C., represented New World Development, 340 North Main
Avenue, stated that in 1994, the owner was plotting and planning for the development at the same time
Oro Valley wanted to annex the property. The Town entered into annexation and development
agreements. On October 5, 1994, the Mayor and Council allowed the property to be developed under
Pima County standards. Baker and Associates utilized those applicable criteria. They have met with the
staff, applied the appropriate criteria, and the staff has approved this submittal. The straightness of
streets was within the criteria allowed in this development. The Town's engineering staff reviewed
DRB's access concerns and they still recommend approval. He had representatives from engineering
and planning firms that have worked on this and can respond to any specific changes. He requested the
plat be approved so it can move forward to the Mayor and Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Opened at 8:41 p.m.
: minutes DRB12004 17-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 12
Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, remembered his previous statements stating that the plat
should be responsive to the terrain and contours to improve the views for the residents. The Pre-
Annexation Agreement does not preclude the DRB from exercising its authority. The Zoning Code gave
the DRB authority to review how structures have a relationship not only to one another but also to the
topography.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Closed at 8:44 p.m.
Mr. Schubart responded by reading the criteria that was analyzed by the Staff at the time the planned
area development ordinance was adopted under the heading of Pre-Annexation Agreement and
Translation. He respectfully disagreed with Mr. Adler
MOTION: Member Kunisch MOVED to recommend that Town Council deny
OV 12-03-26, Tangerine Terrace Preliminary Plat Lots 1-105, finding that
the recommendations that DRB gave at the 5/20/04 DRB Meeting had not
been addressed, such as the safety issues of the park being move, roads by
Tangerine, and meandering of the streets through the subdivision.
Member Feinberg SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
4. CONTINUED ITEM, OV12-03-26, ACUNA COFFIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS,
REPRESENTING NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 105 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD JUST NORTH OF THE NARANJA TOWN SITE,
PARCEL 224-018-270
Robert Conant stated that the Landscape Plan reflects the Plat.
Mr. Schubart stated that the staff recommended approval.
MOTION: Member Weatherford MOVED to deny OV 12-03-26, Tangerine Terrace
Landscape Plan finding that there is no recommendation to move ahead
without the plat. Vice Chair Caswell SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried 6-0.
5. CONTINUED ITEM, OV12-03-30, WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO
PARTNERS, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 216 SINGLE-
FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED IN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10 PARCELS
S, U AND V — ON THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF MOORE
ROAD AND LA CANADA DRIVE EXTENDED, PARCELS 219-224-220 PORTION
Robert Conant introduced the staff report into the record.
Member Reddin anticipated that by spreading the lots out it would not have an effect on the 50% issue
of the house front and garage.
F:`'\.Minutes`DRB\2004\7-13-04 rninutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 12
Mr. Conant responded by stating it will be subject to discussion at the architecture stage.
Charles Hulsey, representing the WLB Group, stated that they agreed to all of the conditions with the
exception of one item. He displayed the revised concept plan on the overhead.
Mr. Vella stated that staff met with the Developer, Dick Maes, and there was agreement with regard to
all conditions. As such staff recommends that the conditions remain as agreed upon previously with the
Developer. The concept plan does not address all conditions and the intent Staff had was to vary the lot
sizes.
MOTION: Member Feinberg MOVED to recommend that Town Council approve
OV 12-03-30, Preliminary Plat for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10
Parcels S, U and V, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A. Member
Reddin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
6. OV3-04-06, TRISH BIGLER, STEVE MARTINO & ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING H
TUCSON PARTNERSHIP LP, CNL HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, REQUESTS
APPROVAL OF A SIGN CRITERIA FOR THE HILTON EL CONQUISTADOR
RESORT LOCATED AT 10000 NORTH ORACLE ROAD, PARCEL #224-31-008B.
Bayer Vella introduced the staff report into the record.
Mr. Vella responded to Vice Chair Caswell that if they would like the Applicant to return with a sign
criterion that includes all signs, they would need to include it in the motion.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Opened at 9:03 p.m.
Bill Adler, 10720 East Eagle Eye Place, disagreed with this whole project. He stated that the light
towers, walls and water fountain are all part of a sign. In this case, the lettering is on the wall, the wall
and is part of the sign. It would be part of the identity, and it should all be included in the allotted area.
Using a lamppost that would be three times the size of an average person would be advertising to draw
attention. They cannot differentiate the elements. It's semantics. This was landscaping and advertising.
The sign was over done. It is an advertising scheme and the Town should not approve it.
Jim Kriegh, 40 East Calle Concordia, stated that they should allow them to keep the sign but substitute
Tucson with Oro Valley in the name.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Closed at 9:08 p.m.
Mr. Vella stated that DRB should look at the overall impact of the sign, landscaping, and lights. In
terms of process and a vote, he asked DRB to consider only Hilton El Conquistador's color and style of
lettering, not the wall, light, or the plants. He apologizes and that the Landscape Plan was not on the
agenda also. Staff misinformed the Applicant regarding the need to provide a landscape plan. So, it will
be submitted later.
1:'Minn:ies`DRB\200417-13-04 minnites.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7i 13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 12
Vice Chair Caswell would like to request the Applicant to present sign criteria that includes all signs on
site.
Mr. Vella stated an option could be to continue the sign package presented and request that the
landscape plan appear on the same agenda.
MOTION: Member Weatherford moved to continue OV3-04-06, Sign Package for
Hilton El Conquistador Resort to an open date in such that it can appear on
the same agenda as the landscaping and other integral pieces of this sign in
full criteria. Vice Chair Caswell SECONDED the motion.
Discussion: Member Feinberg would also like to see all views for all signs in the sign criteria.
Member Kunisch would like to see Oro Valley in the name as well.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Recessed: 9:16 p.m.
Reconvened: 9:24 p.m.
7. OV13-04-19, GDA ARCHITECTS, REPRESENTING DIAMOND VENTURES / STEAM
PUMP VILLAGE INVESTORS, REQUESTS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT ON 6.5 ACRES OF THE STEAM PUMP RANCH
PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS AND
37,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
ORACLE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL NO.
220-08-001L.
Susana Montana stated that there have been changes and the Applicant will demonstrate their changes
after she presented the staff report into the record.
Kevin Morrow of GDA Architects, 250 South Craycroft, stated that the Staff had concerns. After their
meetings, he made changes to the project. He displayed images on the overhead.
Vice Chair Caswell stated that she was disappointed with the newer plan.
Member Feinberg stated that he has always supported this project. The information that is on the
website was incompatible with the current plan. The architecture is nice but it was not compatible with
the original plans. This would set the standard for Steam Pump Ranch and he does not see a village.
Member Kunisch stated that this architecture looked like it would fit in anywhere. The plan used to be
grand, glorious and desirable. There is no excitement to this plan.
Member Weatherford questioned if all the architecture changes were changing the Development Plan.
F: Minutes.DRB12004\7-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/13' 04 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 12
Mr. Vella stated that it is a judgment call. Staff has the authority to approve minimal common sense
changes. Staff asserted that the proposed changes to the Development Plan would require
reconsideration by the DRB and Town Council because they are substantial.
Mr. Morrow recognized the building changes,wanted feedback, and to continue for one more meeting.
Member Reddin would like to see the elements of the buildings be connected. They were going from
the era of 1874 to 2004. There should be more of a connection. He recognized Casas Adobes as an
authentic set of buildings.
Member Kunisch pointed out that Trail Dust Town reflects what buildings looked liked in that era.
Member Feinberg suggested that the Applicant get together with Brook Jeffries who has experience with
Steam Pump Ranch for consultation in creating a village versus a strip mall atmosphere.
Member Kunisch also recommended the architect Richard Fe Tom.
Mr. Morrow stated that there was a gray area in transition, there was a historic piece of land next door.
Phase I is a small part of the future buildings that would fall into place as it moved north.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Opened at 10:12 p.m.
Bill Adler, 10720 East Eagle Eye Place, stated that the PAD does not set forth specific design guidelines
for a village; therefore, each persons view is going to be different. It is unfair for the Applicant to get
six different opinions of a village and ask them to create it. If the architecture changes, it could reduce
the marketability with an old appearance. Direction would need to be given to the Applicant. There is
high confidence in this project. The economic development is a factor. It cannot be so authentic that the
piano store be in a hut. He suggested an elevated restaurant to overlook the site. He liked the El
Mercado approach.
Doug McKee, 11836 North Cassiopeia Drive, stated that the historic center would have access to the
traffic light. It does not look like good access.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Closed at 10:17 p.m.
Mr. Vella stated there were negotiations to increase the access points.
Mark Weinberg, representing Diamond Ventures, 2200 East River Road, Number 115, displayed on the
overhead the access to the historic site. He stated that he was in communication with the neighbors. He
discussed these plans with John Leiber, owner of Steam Pump Ranch. The dilemma was that they were
a year behind this project. They were trying to accommodate Steinway Piano's schedule. The lease for
their Speedway Boulevard facility would be up in February 2005. If they have to start over, copy an un-
designed center, and anticipate what that center was going to do, it would take a lot of time and not sure
if that time will be productive. He asked them to understand the articulation of the buildings.
Member Feinberg stated that it did not have to be a hut, but innovative and beautiful.
Minutes`.DRB\200417-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 8/10/04
7/l3/ 004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 12
Mr. Weinberg had not spoken with Mr. Jeffries and asked that DRB keep in mind that it was a separate
project. He was not willing to start over.
Mr. Vella stated they do not want to architecturally mimic the Ranch but in corporate elements. The
historic stuff should clearly stand out. The architect should reflect a transition from historic to
contemporary.
Member Kunisch made the point that the original plan was better.
MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell MOVED to continue OV13-04-19, the Steam Pump
Village Phase 1 building architecture, to next month. Member Reddin
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
Vice Chair Caswell recognized Chair Vogelsberg for his six years of service.
Chair Vogelsberg stated that it was an honor to serve on the DRB. He recognized Member Weatherford
for his four years of service. In addition, he recognized Conny Culver for her time on the DRB.
STAFF REPORT
Bayer Vella reported for the next meeting they would meet the new DRB Members. He introduced
Mark Panas as a new member. There would be training at the end of July for the DRB members.
Elections for Chair and Vice Chair would be in September.
Chair Vogelsberg recognized staff for their hard work.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Member Weatherford MOVED to adjourn the July 13, 2004 Development
Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 10:37 p.m. Vice Chair Caswell
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
Respectfully submitted by,
Catherine Hendrix, Secretary II
1= Mi utes`\DRB\2004\7-13-04 minutes,doc Approved on 8/10/04
JPLLEY 44?
�o co TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
O 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
vr. Planning and Zoning • Building Safety
"4 P 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ.85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022
►' Oro Valley Public Library
A 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737• (520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319
A
SOU D 1g�� 680 W. Parks and Recreation
N D E Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229 5050•Fax(520)797-2202
July 14, 2004
Mr. Mike Jewitt
Big 0 Tire Center, L.P.
10885 N. Oracle Road
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Fax: 520. 544-2554
RE: Development Review Board Action on OV13-03-02A, request for a color change
for the exterior walls of the Big 0 Tire and Retail buildings, Parcel No. 220-08-001J.
Dear Mr. Jewitt:
On July 13, 2004, the Development Review Board unanimously approved the color
change to the exterior wall of the Retail building located at 10875 N. Oracle Road and the
variation in color scheme on the Big 0 Tire building. Their action"authorizes"the
existing coloring of both buildings. If you have any questions,please feel free to call me
at 229-4814 or email at smontana@orovalley.net.
Sincerely,
Susana Montana, Planner II
C: Shirley Gay, Bryant Nodine, Bayer Vella, Dee Widero, Jeff Weir, Karen
Greenspoon
F:\OV\OV 1 3\2003\1 3-03-02A\Correspondence\DRB Action letter.doc
www.townoforovalley.com