Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV130406 Planning &Zoning Division 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85T37 Phone: (520)229-4800 Fax: (520) 742-1022 WWW.townoforovalley.com APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT ARCHITECTURE DATE: 2 •/2 • f OV CASE NO.: (office use only j PROJECT NAME: ti/dL G1/�UBD11510N S� LOT# LOCATION/ADDRESS: /Z1G2. ff/• ,%I ,BLfri=:). ZONING CV PARCEL NUMBER: 22 3o 243350 LOT SIZE 27/ 3Z5• MODEL NAMES OR NUMBERS APPLICANT': /�//Y 4-2.4 /(/'7 / iei4 ADDRESS: f/7 t. - 1,// •$275 PHONE NO.: 49/'073/ FAX NO.: . 8/• PROPERTY OWNER: /, �, � ... ADDRESS: /2//2 //. lS�. € 9 PHONE NO.: 748 ' FAX NO: • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BO RD HEARING DATE: SIGNATURE: DATE: Z •/2 e!‘ Sub its Requirem ts: - Fees :One co., of 24x36 elevations and floor plan 1/4 or 118 scale .One ••. of 24x35 site plan 40 scale (Custom Lots Only) rfl� :7ypl•- lot lay out for subdivision &f}- :M• els—Lot fit analysis for subdivisions ;C(tt sheets for lighting(All Commercial Projects,Custom Homes,and Model Plans) Fifteen copies of the following: V, Dimensioned Elevations of all four sides of all buildings and floor plan(11"x:17"format) ✓ Commercial projects require color drawings or photographs of elevations '/xn x V List square footage of buildings (g 11''format) Site Plan(11"x 17"format) Color chips of body,trim and roof files(8'4"by 11"format)Commercial and Residentia l Application will not be accepted without all required materials. O y p,�Lfi qq/ oQ O 7 r TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING 1 1,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 4iNoED• 9lb' (520) 797-9797 PHONE (520) 742-1022 FAX www.ci.oro-valley.aZ.cs APPLICATION FORM OV Case#(Office Use Only): . Application Type: /PR`%/ fr y/ / j fr . A. Project Proponent/Developer [tame: /7,1 11- /'VV_/,*/t Firm: tle.4e4t /, OC• >���9. T,p• Address: `DO • G!/ / SOS- Ci 7Z1450 State: ff -• Zip: es-7//_ Telephone: g_e/•O 7?/ Fax:_ 08/• c 95 Email:,/•-r/j.7e) � ie/���� ii7ie[ /e�• B. Property Owner(s),if more than one owner,attach list Name: N4/7//t/ aer8 Firm: f�-GG ��OT/T' �f r(//l/6 Gr/ G //r/G Address: /f/, , '4 t'/f}D City: de0 l/0it'Gl Ff _ State: 4-Z--- Zip: S-7 37 Telephone: `, • 7413 / Fax: 4't 9. 70 ej_,5-- Email: 4/, C. Subject Property 2 ParcellTax Code: 2 2- 7D 2O �SD /z/a.Z /(/ 057 .0 j Legal Description/Property Address: GO S,¢PC'7�/ / �//S77.SD Area of property: Z 7/32S.S Oie C,c 3 SSG Existing Zoning: CV Proposed Zoning: 5,4/NE Is Proposed Zoning is conformance with General Plan designation? ( ( N/A [v(Yes ( ( No General Plan Designation: Existing Laud Use: S//bP�/'f/c . CEtf/,<Proposed Land Use:_ D. Previous Applications Relating To This Property OV8- • OV9- OV10- OV11- OV12- 9 7- 4'% ovi3- • E. Reason For Request /1 /(/Et/ Qic 4- /20C/E /2—Z7 -• This application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am the owner of the above described property or have been authorized by the owner to make this application, Z -/2 . 0� Date Signature F Mdn��PZWORMSAITLIC.ATION FORM REZ,ONNGCUP.dx Tk, WN OF ORO VALLL it PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 PHONE: 229-4800 FAX: 742-1022 RECEIPT ****************************************************************************** REFERENCE NUMBER: OV1203-23 RECEIPT #04P00097 SITE ADDRESS: TAXCODE: 223-02-0350 DATE: 02/12/2004 TIME: 03:37 PM COMP TYPE: DEVELOPMENT PLAN TYPE: DESCRIPTION: 6000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING APPLICANT: ACORN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE LTD OWNER:REGENCY REALTY GROUP INC Notation: DRB SUBMITTAL Receipt By: SG ******************************************************************************************* SG PAID BY: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 12006 270 . 00 TOTAL: 270.00 FEES PAID: Description Account Code Current Pmts Planning Miscellaneous 001-000-408 270.00 TOTAL: 270.00 Account#: Ending Balance: $ • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: April 13, 2004 TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD FROM: Robert Conant, Planner II SUBJECT: OV13-04-06, ACORN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, REPRESENTING ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING, REQUESTS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED AT SAFEWAY VISTOSO PLAZA ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL 224-018-270 BACKGROUND: Acorn Associates Architecture, representing All About Running and Walking, requests DRB approval of architectural elevations for a 6,000 square foot retail building to be constructed at the Safeway Vistoso Plaza on the northeast corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Tangerine Road. The project site is zoned PAD, Rancho Vistoso land use designation of Community Commercial,with a 34-foot maximum building height limitation. SUMMARY: The 6,000 square foot building consists of three potential lease spaces. Two at 2,400 square feet and one at 1,200 square feet. All About Running and Walking will take one of the 2,400 square foot spaces and the remainder will be lease space. The exterior color will be various shades of earth tone colors and the use of Vistoso stone (as depicted in the drawings submitted)with a light terra cotta concrete tile roof The north and south facades of the building, which face the entrance drive and the parking area, are the longest expanse of building, but the wall mass is broken along its length. To the south, the mass is broken by store fronts and a covered walk. To the north, the wall mass is broken by stone veneer columns and darker to lighter coloring bottom to top and the roof scuppers (drains) project from the building. The north elevation is the rear of the building. When the property to the north develops the northern access drive will become the main entrance to the center. The north elevation as stated above is broken by columns and color, also the landscaping on this elevation at maturity will further soften the building façade. The west and east elevations are similar to the other elevations with shorter length of wall massing and broken by wrapping the covered walkway to the ends of the building. All mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and screened by the parapet. Design Guidelines: The following Design Guidelines apply to this project: Section 16-103(B)(3)(a)Design buildings at the ground or pedestrian level that express human scale. The building has been designed to a pedestrian level. The ceiling of the covered walkway is at 10-feet which creates a good pedestrian feel. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Page 2 Section 16-103(B)(4)(a) Break-up mass of large buildings by dividing into basic geometric components (one story pedestrian entrances), with intersecting wall planes. The applicant has broken the wall massing by adding stone veneer columns and brought the roof drains forward of the building to break the mass of the north wall and by the use of the covered walk-way on the south façade. Section 16-103(B)(4)(d)Encourage wall mass over glass area. The covered walkway provides for the recessed glazing and because of the cover the large expanse of glass will be obscured. ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE: The project is in compliance with the OVZCR and the Rancho Vistoso PAD. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed architecture for the retail building complies with the General Plan by promoting Policy 9.1 A, which incorporates "Architectural themes are intended to blend the built environment with natural surroundings." This project integrates into the Safeway Vistoso Plaza by designing the building in a similar style to the built plaza. Also, all four sides of the building have been comprehensively designed and treated. PUBLIC PRESENTATION: Pursuant to Resolution (R) 98-31, "all presentations before Boards, Commissions and Council of rezonings, subdivision plats, development plans and planned area developments must be formatted to be shown on the Town's projection system or overhead system. The Planning and Zoning Administrator; however, may exempt certain projects." A presentation must be designed to insure that the audience, staff and voting body can view the graphics. Examples of acceptable computer formats are Power Point, Arc View, a videotape presentation and/or overhead transparences. The applicant is responsible for the development, presentation, and coordination of all presentation materials. If an applicant does not conform to the aforementioned resolution, the item may be continued due to non- compliance. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the DRB approve the architecture for the All About Running and Walking building subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The DRB may wish to consider one of the following suggested motions: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Page 3 I move to approve OV13-04-06, the All About Running and Walking building architecture, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith. OR I move to approve OV12-04-06, the All About Running and Walking building architecture, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A attached herewith and the following added conditions: . OR I move to deny OV 13-04-06, the All About Running and Walking building architecture finding that: . Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Architecture Contact: Kim Acorn Acorn Associates Architecture Fax 881-0995 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING ARCHITECTURE OV13-04-06 1. All signage shall be approved by Planning and Zoning prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Architectural approval does not constitute approval of any signage. 2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened by the parapet. ti lir: •5: 11-f."‘ —N. ,, i . , . , . al,'.' t"�• '�' ., ......rror . . ...„.... , .4 -.1r-, , i .1k.iii, s % irt, is, - iimia 1007„ "w ,. 4V* **lit , , 1404.4Ia * ' , „ Oli 41 * . ; , 4 •Y a> ` "ems=* j* �. r .. .. ' �1, '• 'titer r . IXell,. ilk)* 1 .°-4.',". t NI I ,, . . .., :st- - ... ,,,, . A., ... _ ,,,,, . , ., ... 4 y Ill *Tr irx siol ,„ . 4 ','-: _ . Pr**. '. a. w 0X r .., .. ., , „ . .. 4:1,......,, \\,\.4 .,, 4, `, ' .� 4 ;:,....",,,;;,?'" ' R r r ikir iii .. ,•.. \ i� fr . -fi *0 w qq it y, Irk ,• j ir4. ill 4 _1„... • ir 1 \te jil.,r 4.41 �r* A • it « iiiv •, • 4 ! i No da y - itat;. .**kg1, lib ,4., $ �t t. " % , • limirti4 4titilt, oefk gift it . *. ‘Iv,: 'poi . , II. . - .,• ,,- - „ ,%, ,,,,, , .. . ,e4,,, , ..., I_ , ':,* Sis ,„ • . l ilk, 0 • . ., ilk" :::-.1, 4 ' * - iti Iv •,.' • *#' 4 ' A 4 ''. 'AL , ''''* IS . '. IP' - —11110 ' ,.ii, . .,4. op Pip 40 ,440.001014111 0 'it 4' . * * . = ' 4 itik. '' , 7 '"'41 . • ,,..- 4. V: ,,;.,1‘ tisk * * *1" It::-js , ...: 4 ., -. I-. ii,.L. , . . .4 . . #.• , . _,,,,, . . .,, a k 4%. ' - * . '• C ir.ilt Ire fir , 4 . 1/4.. t. r 1,.* , pit,fr . z , •4 . "c' 4' 4tilig * 4'31; ,* 'v..4t. *a *., .04'4E" . *' . °. . .. . - f.1111,Vile 4, "tip, 44 jit . t ' a itt,4k. 4* ,-* iior" • • - i *room.. rr41 4 LA. " ,. ..,. * �s l� ," 1. , r' fir.. 4 ,i,..,:,,-. •,.„-,,. .,„IP''',';',4,,c.,,,,,,$.,,,‘.• '' ' '' — . ,_, ,",,, , • . ,. • . '.. . I• 4 .,, 40 „,, ,..... ..• , • -,,,. ....,.. ,. .,,..., , _ '111,. • -4.4‘ . ''1 -. .' . 11 '.; ...,:..... .....— - , ' ay.t. • ',f.Al,,IP ...1 .. :Si 7sit '-.41! '74. • ..- -.;. '"'1•;**'`411te aggalliall Ifili1111 CIS?" Oil . ;. ,z, a • it • .:N' n.sar'Or ,',... III lkitiOni ni lo ..: ....,........,..t: ,.., t...,. 12142 , ..• .:.., . .4.......40t, . . ....,...,..... ..„..., ii •, 4 .. li ....... .,.ts,.. . . , . . ..... ,..„. .,....... , . ,. .... .,...,....., ,. ., •,...,... ,: . • ,• 41. , . . .__ .._........... ...:„,,, .... ...„....,........._ . ..__________ 0............,..... :':.'•;;.,-.."-T:' 1160;;;"1,4,-.,..!;,„Atj , i .- ..: _ . . .. .... . ., , . .. . _....-- , .,,. .,....__ TA.,!.—,.. ..-',7,......_ •ii,..i.r., • . .4,.. -'1111111111,1161.1,_- ' 1 • All -- - r= . s � y r A NORTH PERSPECTIVE VIEW $4.1 ACORN/-ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE,LTD. 4400 E.BROADWAY,SUITE 505,TUCSON,AZ 85711 520-881-0731 1 _ . _A ?':' Mimi, MATERIAL 1 �__ _ ",, MATERIAL 4 _ MATERIAL 3 MATERIAL 1 11 CONC. TILE - COLOR -H WINDOW - BRONZE TINT EL CAMINO BLEND - " --r:= . MATERIAL 2 y _ SOUTH ELEVATION i - MATERIAL 1 MATERIAL 2 CULTURED STONE - MATERIAL 4 COLOR CVS-20008 - MATERIAL 5 � _� V/ _ �: MATERIAL 2 EAST ELEVATION MATERIAL 3 _ METAL BEAM - COLOR - MATERIAL 1 DARK BRONZE �' '°l I0 MATERIAL 4 I ' MATERIAL 5 I.. __. • ., MATERIAL 2 MATERIAL 4 NORTH ELEVATION DRYVIT - COLOR FRAZEE TAVERN TAUPE 8673M MATERIAL 1 - MATERIAL 4 MATERIAL 3 ;: WINDOW - BRONZE TINT i �'` ;7,7w= MATERIAL 5 MATERIAL 5 MATERIAL 2 DRYVIT- COLOR FRAZEE NEST ELEVATION MOOSE POINT 8715D I U 36 4 37 - -- Z GS\� '•1 �� ,,, / THIS Y • Ann os- ♦ / PROJECT J i ` / ___ r z Cr—i 5/ I 0R.V.Nfl(f90RH00D 50 1 I Z PARCEL U -, �' 1 Z y. - Spy W ? p . ��, `S,'. V' A PORTION OF SEC.31,T.11 S.,R.14£., J ' - ' , 'U0• C.BS.R.M.,TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA h t do$° $; •4 - �• .\ f LOCATION PLAN ® °� '`. •' \1(2 �•`2 N - 3••1 MILE O Q '�g o o(�/0 _ 4 f \ ,� .,; DEVELOPMENT DATA co \ .— • y. ((`/'/ / \ �� \�o •' USE RETAIL STORES ^ ■f! E • ,:\ OCGPANGY 6ROJP: B RETAIL .t. �/�`/'. &,'C \ •7 Q0g9-' t,�/.\t FAR ALLOW 033 ACTUAL 022 • ``` /// OQ O�� ...,i' .. \.. ,(i. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B \, ....\. � ( /.,• P��)ht . \'\\ GROSS AREA OF DEVELOPMENT 15 2T915 5F.OR b3 ACRES. ` •` �.�' „ `. `,WM (7r „p.,p•,A © COVERED AREA -640 SF. f� • 6T20 5F. vO �„`Q1/ ', �,* `\ySc 1 O� '.. P'Gt,"-PN OUTDOOR PATIOS -720 SF. ✓19�/� \,\ .. •/\ j;X ��i �7. IOR p�,�0 pP9\\ \ NET anLo1N6 AREA • aPDD sF. • 4'1- \ �/ \ 1 �. / ,...,:.:-.--..A, // +,� � �. [ \: \\ ,\, OFF-STREET PARKIN61 REOD PROVIDED W SIDEWAI:1.'3' �� s I `\\ % \ VEHICULAR PARKIN. 34 34 W P :t 4��\�' NI \ i •\ \ ACCESSIBLE SPACES 2 2 Q �� �►-/ o, m `� \ \ LOAM.zones 2 I ` \`�/ �\ • \ \,I9\1 ® © O:� \, BICYCLE PARKIN.'(006 x 3t1 i Tr \`.`` 4 mrt., , 4 QA f'Ai AY © P.•(`_.(\\ CLASS II 2 �QP�...•.. h...l.. \G'��,G�y'�j.�° _,per- ONE NSPACE/PER 200 SF 6720/200.34 : \ ` " • \.�'ry.. \. AT S_data" A 2.SPACE 12'X 35'-ONE(U REWIRED(SEA 25 -250 0 5,FOR N Q �`r / \ `\\\\ wl,• s 06 nth 1 �..®` PY'�"S�\\ caN•ERc1AL/RETAL/CONSUMER SERVICES) I! / '., /. 'R y.. ,U,e,t, N. P: 6.,A-c G 3.BASED ON DA OF THE TOTAL Nl"BER OF PARKING SPACES g 7 I O „•\ , ��.5�\ „ 1': \,p`Ah -25%CLASS I AND TS%CLA55➢. N \i,; �P r A \ W` \ S \ ` = ' �� !-`0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION • p �. \s`� °\ �� LOT 4 H w ' \ ,`ry\• � ?5 R9 . LOT 4 OF SAFBLIY VIST050 5 PLAZA,LOTS!nx+au5N13,A PORTION of RANCHO ,tp:1 6 e, \ \\\ \1°p9 =\ IN BOOK 53 Of PiAP5 eIGNBORN AT P EE CEL02,U,AS SPOPN BY susoiveoN MAP of Prow COLN,,...IA.coRDED s aOS' ' OWNER &c, \ �� . ' O v % �' ALL ABOUT RIhNINS 4 HACKING W o \ L • \, \ _ 12112 N.RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD. 8 6 C \• 1 ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 8513/ \ yy . %R.V.NEIGHBORHOOD 7 ��d �' N c --- �y��„ic DEVELOPMENT PLAN APARCEL! :� /' '•.1 :t> for LOT 4 uxsuswwDED ��La \_. SAFEWAY VISTO50 PLAZAR F R N VISTO O A PO TION O A GHO S �NEIGHBORHOOD No.5,PARCEL U o, A PORTION OF THE SO-I I/4 OF SECTION 31-T.11 5.,R.14 E. 051 ARC THE 5.N 1/4 OF SECTION 36,T.115,R.13 E,6.5RB.l M.DEVELOPMENT PLAN ® TOFNOF°ROV""EY•P""`DINTY,ARIZORA. LEGEND GONTO IR INTERVAL•1' SCALE:I.•20' SCALE:I••20' CONTOUR INTERVAL=I' ® PROPOSED e� EXISTING CONSTRUCTION coNsrRucnoN --E--- PROPERTY LINE © NO.OF PARKING SPACES CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE NEN CONCRETE 1r� T � X � LOAM.ZONE IC ASPHALT CONC. —y DRAWN By PAN4T-2•ASPHALT \ RN OVER 4•BASE COURSE \S EX5nN6 cNu K6 By CONCRETE CURB O\ FONTOLR Address block for use by Pima County Addressing Section only µ'' EDGE OF PAVEMENT OV12-O3-23 SHEET NO. FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT DPI PLAN REFERENCE 0 OVI2-q-1-04,OVI2-qq-II :+4-4:..;':4--, :..,:.. EL. RIDGE V--- '-, ..4..-4-.•;.i4-i--,-:••, .-1-4, T.O.RIDGE ' ..,i..Y,,,.Y`."' YT-vY'v.t'.Y'n"F Y'.ry-i.V.Z.y+'1.'-L•v-W i'•L.'S- •i..�.•.Y.•'�..,i..T.,.v.,.y.Y^'.i..v'747.•i^!-•Y,;,'i'v-r".,,�. ^yv-'i'y'�IT.-eve; .T`i"I'y'..y V'i'T`Yy'y'Y,.� q"I'•v',L\'•Levy Y Y Y Y Y,•Y .^� \ Y Y Y .`i'V-i'-Y�•v^� e-Y Y`>Y Y'!YY `�y'Y' w aY -'-t-:44-14-1..4 Y Y Y Y+'Y �,t''t'Y.T y 14,4-4+•,-S` - Y+si'+. -hit,•,,. ` w.:-1-:-,,,,-:-,vYrY w<e,-v r Yv v v v..vo.v v,v.-Yu- ..w 4 v -v -.L.,•. - \ i ' EL.IT-0' j. T.O.PAR. I EL.10'-0' 1 T _ L BA.GL6. ty ,- - .,.. ,___ _ ______. Y ,`T _ , ....,.. 2 ,,______.,c i::--,. .r _ EL.O'-0' FIN FLR SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: I/I6" = I'-O" EL.24'-0" "' •. T.O.RIDGE YY_.V Y YYY r Y' Y,ti-v.Y.v-eti-ytrYw l> Y L.i vti -vv. v.v'vv v vY+v'wv'�+ti'.iw+ti'.*-Pa�^sc^ \ i EL.I1'-0" T.O.PAR. V a EL '3.-0' di T.O.DECK I EL.IO'-0' Par �� BA.GL6. • Ram a FIN FLR EAST ELEVATION SCALE: I/16" = I'-O" EL.24'-0" T.O.RIDGE V \ i EL.IT-cr T.O.PA V R. • • .................._.......__.._.. .........................._......._.............................._._........_..:_._i._.........._..................._...... . .a. • .:-::.1:j.:::•...E.._.----- - , EA...-..- , E ., .... ., • FIN FLR • NORTH !LEVAT I ON SCALE: 1/I6" = I'-O" EL,24'-0" 06 'v'j'`'-L, T.O.RIDGE -+Y-4.':.yy.,l..;y..,..i.(..v.L.r.;.,•y.Y.i.s+••r'1-y.i_Y. Lei 1--1 -i'rt'rErr..4 v-Yv-;,,F 14:tr••' ``}}•P' ry"vY'w.... ,,,,i> >.Vi v."Y..ve'f F Y'V�}..'. \ ' EL.IT-0" La PAR. 1 .r • J . EL.O'-0" FIN FLR ViEST ELEVATION ACORN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE,LTD. SCALE: I/I6" = 1' 0 4400 E.BROADWAY, SUITE 505, TUCSON, AZ 85711 520-881-0731 ® o ® o 0 0 20'-0" , 20'-0" , 20'-0" , 20'-0" 20'-0" / , I I I I CI) sl, Q I I I I I I I rY TENANT I TENANT I TENANT LEASE SPACE LEASE SPACE LEASE SPACE O 2,400 S.F. 1,200 S.F. 2,400 S.F. 1 I I I 1 12'-0" 1 1 1 1 1 e 1 1-5 1 1 1 1 1 I O I I I I �t eN O Z. 0 \ . . - - r-v j IF ' --._.17-) ran L J LOOIR FLAN SCALE: I/16" = 1'-0" AACORN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE,LTD. 4400 E.BROADWAY, SUITE 505,TUCSON, AZ85711 520-881-0731 / ' �6 36 31 - - - - - - z S�G,\oN .1 00 /� r `�:-:.`,r''. � THIS J GENERAL NOTES , l �N > ��g. 1 �I E F , I Q DEVELOPMENT 4 TRANSPORTATION "fr I\ Z 1.1 EXISTING ZONING 15 RV PAD G-I. C__, /� , o� IV 1.2 THE PROPERTY 15 A PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD < 5,PARCEL U,BEING PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31, R.V. NEIGHBORHOOO 5 N �,/ ` ' Z 1 I T.IIS.,R.13E.4 THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 36,G.4 S.R.M.,TOWN PARCEL (/ ��\ \� �/ — OF ORO VALLEY,PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA. \�0 z 1 _ z 1.3 THE GROSS AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT 15 21325 S.F.OR 0.63 ACRES. ' hyi - _ _ Z W 1.4 THE BUILDING AREA 151,104 S.F. \� • 15 THE BASIS OF BEARING,A5 SHOWN ON THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, , qa / �\� \\ O A PORTION OF SEC. 31, T.11 S., R.14 E. 15 BASED ON DOCKET 8118,PAGE Ig66,CENTERLINE OF RANCHO VIST050 i ,` k\ ' < 11\' G.&S.R.M., TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Q BOULEVARD,SAID BEARING BEING:5 32°Oq'OI"E. / o1ap4 � QDS/ _ I • GO '� \ \'�*F�= I— I.6 BASIS OF ELEVATION:ADOT DATUM BENCHMARK:BRASS DISC IN HEADWALL • `L--•.e I F 5 �`� \\ LOCAT I ON PLAN O O 10'RIGHT OF STATION 110+20 APPROXIMATELY 350'SOUTH OF NORTH 1/4 , • O cj\Q \ CORNER OF SECTION 5,T.115.,R.14E. BENCHMARK ELEVATION:2688.03. ` :\ t. ` Z ` \ ; 3"=I MILE N m 1.1 THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED 15 24'. �36 =-=� N��p. • cp, �\ \ Lb DESIGN SPEED 15 15 MPH AND THE DESIGN VEHICLE IS WB 50. a N '�--.._.-.. �s \�l\ DEVELOPMENT DATAQ PD ___J �y �\ USE RETAIL STORES I.q THE SITE PLAN MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS � Q� '' �' �I SET FORTH IN THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED. \ l = Q OCCUPANCY GROUP: B RETAIL 1.10 APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR TWO YEARS \ G�P{G Vt- FAR ALLOW 033 ACTUAL 022 BUT MAY BE EXTENDED UPON REAPPLICATION AND REVIEW BY THE Gp / �f(j� \ ' STAFF AND COUNCIL. \ .�• \5 f 10 _\(7 --d t<. III THE DEVELOPER WILL INSTALL ALL LIGHTING IN GONFORMANGE WITH , \ tf° `-- / / / SOP 9\r„( i \\0,p.. \ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B �_. EXISTING \\' 0 \ ORO VALLEY LIGHTING CODE. \,• .\ �s`� CURB Q l ' y4 4• �` A \ \ \ ` GROSS AREA OF DEVELOPMENT 15 21,315 S.F.OR b3 ACRES. 1.12 A LIGHTING PLAN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW /•`, ! „/' h� s \ PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. F\,� �` 00 `- -, \N GROSS BUILDING AREA '1560 S.F. �(\N IV' .. ¢ COVERED AREA -840 S.F. ~ FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING 4 DEVELOPMENT 0- s Z l 8 \, = 6120 S.F. 111 2.1 THE DEVELOPER WILL COVENANT TO HOLD THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, `/ t • OUTDOOR PATIOS - l20 SF.ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,HARMLESS IN THE EVENT OF FLOODING. \'��/ -� . .•��/Op 2, ,�� f NET BUILDING AREA = bp00 5.F. O Q 2.2 DRAINAGE WILL NOT BE ALTERED,DISTURBED OR OBSTRUCTED WITHOUT \ fig/1b• c i l /, �- v r ,,., J J THE APPROVAL OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL. , ' v �^\ I \ / /n ,.. fy�i O. ,{ \ OFF-STREET PARKING REQ'D PROVIDED )tJ J 2.3 ALL DRAINAGEWAYS,DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 5'GbNG. ,;, /, r" �� 1Y R �, SHOWN 4 LABELED AS SUCH UPON THIS PLAN,WHICH ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED j SIDEWALK s m \+\ VEHICULAR PARKING 34 34 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT,SHALL ENTIRELY ,7tu \ ''� © �' \ \ ACCESSIBLE SPACES 2 2 @--1 CONTAIN THEIR RESPECTIVE 100-YR FLOOD LIMITS UPON COMPLETION OF • / \ �j ' :\ ::,® \ ` LOADING ZONES 2 I I CONSTRUCTION UNLESS CLEARLY LABELED OTHERWISE. `�. /\2.4 APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND APPROVAL ASSURANCES WILL BE lL \\\ 9�1 \ `O \\ � w\` BICYCLE PARKING (0.08 X 34) REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS. 1r <4 1 ;\25 ACCESS ACROSS FLOOD PRONE AREAS TO BUILDING SITES WILL BE APPROVED \ O ,f/ `7 B1CY,LE`•, O „� 2'R \ \\ ` CLASS IC 2 2 \ -Ai�I(ING. p� 77,\, 7jc::::,., BY THE TOWN ENGINEER AND BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER. >I •� `•, '� �\ ��\ \\•`�� '� 61�� �ti) O�� I. ONE A)SPACE/PER 200 5F.b?20/200=34 2b IN ACCORDANCE WITH OVZGR SECTION 4-golA,A SECOND CONSTRUCTION \ \ N (�" \ eA \ 2.SPACE 12'X 35'-ONE(I)REQUIRED(GFA 2500-25000 5.F.FOR In QASSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT$ _-, FOR(GENERALLY LIST ITEMS SUCH '� . ^, \ \ O Vil (, 8 A5 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ALL OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MUST BE \ / t1 `\ \\\` V,,., 3 R fA\ \ - 1\ ; \ COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/CONSUMER SERVICES) W l nm� 2 COMPLETED ONCE THE PROJECT I5 BEGUN),HILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO S t ..j`\ \ ▪ \ , e 04'F(1\ P14, 3.BASED ON 8%OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES g ill -25%GLASS I AND 15%GLASS II.ISSUANCE OF ANY TYPE II GRADING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. O \ \\ �0�' \ Q zoUTILITIES \ O ®\P ` i F- 1--4 D cmi 33.1 ON SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, \ ® ,. \ \ `� t LE�I'tL � �� �� ®N S OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS.THE LOCATION AND � `•''- ` ���� \\\ 0\0 � W � METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER 15 _ 0 `�� N'�"•✓, 10101\._ W,nSUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATERa O I • \ \�,`' 5 \\ � Imo\ LOT 4 �,DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. / �i�rp''S• ` � 2'SR �j =\ I \ \ �(, / \ LOT 4 OF SAFEWAY VISTOSO PLAZA,LOTS I THROUGH 8, A PORTION OF RANCHO (' t�'�f•O \ \ \\ r \Z -� U } 32 ANY RELOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND/OR PUBLIC . v>.O \\ \ \ \ �� � � �pP9 VI5T050 NEI6HBORI IOOD 5 PARCEL U,AS SHOI^A1 BY SI�DIVI51oN MAP RECORDED Q N \,, ,\-\,(s\ • Y. \\\ \ \ IN BOOK 53 OF MAPS AT PAGE 82,RECORDS OF PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA. QIMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT NO EXPENSE Tr; A\\ 0, Iti \ oxTO THE PUBLIC. �� / ao i \\ i':-' Q 0,� 3.3 THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF FIXTURE UNITS IS 50 F.U. j � i O \ ✓/' " ®IwIN � m o • 3.4 THIS PROJECT WILL BE SERVED BY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY(R.VJ WATERL `` 1,j o lUTILITY WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A5 HAVING AN ASSURED 100 YEAR \ \\'.. I \ ; ALL ABOUT RUNNING 4 WALKING i WATER SUPPLY BY DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES. ""' \ \\, \\ 12112 N.RANCHO VI5T050 BLVD. 35 ADDITIONAL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY RURAL/ �j S6 \ ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85131 /METRO FIRE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY R. NEIGHBORHOOD \ N �. • R P `',''`. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4\Fca� , PARCEL i \i Q` E , UfvSu'801'.OEO \� i ` mza 3.6 THE OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REFLECTIVE STREET \ G� Q j' LOT 4 Iw MARKERS. \ G 1 '•`i; 3.1 FIRE FLOW MUST BE MET PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. \� i0 5� • DEWY �I ST 050 PLAZA �,�... \\\\ o \ A PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO, J�K No LANDSCAPE NEIGHBORHOOD No. 5, PARCEL U 03051 4.1 THE PROPERTY OWNER,HIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS AGREE TO I)KEEP / A PORTION OF THE S W.1/4 OF SECTION 31-T.II 5.,R.14 E., ISSUE DATE ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPED AREAS MAINTAINED IN A WEED FREE,TRASH EVE E L O F M E N T FLAN L G f.I AND THE S W.1/4 OF SECTION 36,T.II 5.,R.13 E.,G.S.RB.4 M., 12 FEB 2004 FREE CONDITION,2)REPLACE ANY DEAD PLANT MATERIALS WITHIN q0 iV TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,PIMA COUNTY,ARIZONA. REVISIONS DAYS AND 3)MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN PROPER WORKING SCALE: I"= 20' CONTOUR INTERVAL'I' CONTOUR INTERVAL = I' -- •- EXISTING CONSTRUCTION ORDER. CONSTRUCTION :I '20' 42 MATERIALS WITHIN SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES SHALL BE PLACED 50 AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH A VISIBILITY PLANE DESCRIBED BY TWO HORIZONTAL —E--- PROPERTY LINE © NO.OF PARKING SPACES LINES LOCATED BETWEEN 30 INCHES AND 12 INCHES ABOVE FINISHED GRADE OF THE ROADWAY SURFACE. . CONCRETE t ACCESSIBLE 43 THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A I%ALLOCATION OF THE BUILDING `� PARKING SPACE CONSTRUCTION COST TOWARDS THE FINDING OF PUBLIC ART PER SECTION NEW CONCRETE 4-504,PG.4-36. LOADING ZONE — 4.4 THE TOTAL AREA OF LANDSCAPING 15 3800 S.F. ASPHALTIC CONC. DRAWN BY BASE LT ,+ RW OVER 4 45 THE SCREEN WALL MATERIAL WILL MATCH THE SURFACE OF THE BUILDING IN CHECKED BY KEEPING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT. COURSE \- EXISTING CONCRETE CURB JG\ CONTOURKBA \ /" iii EDGE OF PAVEMENT FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT SHEET NO. PLAN REFERENCE # OVI2-1"17-04 API MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Jim Vogelsberg, Chair Mary Caswell,Vice Chair Richard Feinberg,Member Al Kunisch,Member Conny Culver,Member Jeff Weatherford,Member ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Senior Planner Mark Langlitz,Town Attorney Craig Civalier, Development Review Division Manager Robert Conant, Planner II Susana Montana, Planner II Jennifer Jones, Secretary IV ABSENT: Clark Reddin,Member Excused REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 10, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Weatherford seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MARCH 9, 2004 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion.carried 6-0. CALL TO AUDIENCE Chairman Vogelsberg opened the meeting to public comment. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, expressed his opinion to the Board that he feels the public and applicant should be able to contribute ideas and facts at a study session in an effort to get information to the members of the Development Review Board. Mr. Adler stated that if a study session is truly a fact finding opportunity then the public and applicant should be allowed to contribute ideas, facts and suggestions. He suggested that the rules sub-committee look at study sessions to determine whether or not the rules can be relaxed to allow for public participation. Chairman Vogelsberg closed the meeting to public comment. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell pulled Consent Agenda Item A to the Regular Agenda. REGULAR AGENDA A. OV13-04-09, DALE BOOTH, REPRESENTING JORGE DIAZ, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATED ONE QUARTER MILE NORTH FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FIRST AVENUE AND NARANJA DRIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF FIRST AVENUE,PARCEL 220-06-011A. Vice Chair Caswell inquired if there were any other two story homes in the subdivision, and if the neighbors had been informed of the proposed two story home. Mr. Vella informed the Board that all DRB agendas are sent to the Home Owners Association and it is incumbent upon the HOA if there are any issues, they will provide notification. The Town does not provide notification. Mr. Vella confirmed that no feed back from the HOA has been received. Vice Chair Caswell stated that her concern is the scale and mass of a two story house being seen from all view points. She also questioned the color light reflective value of the colors chosen. F:\Minutes\DRB`2004`',4-1;-Ei4 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 2 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 Member Culver recommended continuing OV13-04-09, in order to conduct a site tour to determine the impact of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Vella addressed the Board and pointed out the considerable differences in the packet they have received for review, to the one that was first submitted. Originally, the roof was slopped with tiles and the colors were not neutral. The applicant has made revisions to the plan that has brought the roof down to a flat roof segment and removed the tiles; they have also painted the second story section a light neutral color. Mr. Vella concluded by stating that another mitigating factor was the second story comprises of only a portion of the house and it is not a two story to the full length of the first story and it meets the design guidelines. Chairman Vogelsberg inquired about the acreage of the site, and Mr. Vella replied that the acreage of the site is 2.5 acres. Member Kunisch inquired about the northern parcel that has not been developed and wanted to know how close the proposed two story house would be to this parcel. He also asked if the two story house would be blocking that parcels view. Chairman Vogelsberg asked for the applicant to address the Board's questions. Mr. Jorge Diaz, 11330 N First Avenue, replied to Member Kunsich inquiry regarding the northern parcel and informed the Board that he is currently in escrow to purchase that lot. He also added that he does not intend to build on that lot. Mr. Diaz explained that in order to comply with the architecture committee (development committee) requirements, he made revisions to his plan and the roof is now flatter without any tiles. He also stated the color he had originally selected was a darker color,but has elected to use a lighter color and is considering an even lighter color. Chairman Vogelsberg observed that the second story addition is only 10 foot 8 inches from the top of the existing parapet. Member Culver recommended to Mr. Diaz that he inform his neighbors about this project in order to avoid a future conflict arising. Mr. Diaz responded that he had not consulted with his neighbors regarding this project and emphasized that he was not going to obstruct any views, due to the fact that his lot is much higher than the neighboring lots. He also informed the Board that the nearest neighbor is 50 to 70 yards away. MOTION: Member Caswell moved to approve OV13-04-09, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A and suggested the exterior color be lightened. Member Weather seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1 (Culver opposed). Staff Conditions for Exhibit A: 1. All flat roof segments must be painted to match the exterior stucco. 2. All vents and chimneys must terminate per manufacture listing and subject to review by the Town Building Official. 3. The two smaller size windows on the west side elevation of the second story must be accented with arched lentils to complement the arched openings along the lower level. F:\Minutes\DRB\2004.4-13-n4 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 3 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 4. All Windows must utilize pop-outs or be recessed on all sides, except where under porches. 5. The outdoor light fixtures must be revised to features frosted or opaque glass which meets the standards of Chapter 17 of the OVZCR. 1. OV12-03-22, MR. KIT DONLEY OF DONLEY COMMERCIAL REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 17.1 ACRE PARCEL TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 17 LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 140,990 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE IN A C-2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PUSCH VIEW LANE,WEST OF ORACLE ROAD ON PARCEL NUMBER 224-28-143A Bayer Vella presented to the Board the general description()fa master development plan purpose and process. Mr. Vella explained that stage one of the development process is a pre-application conference. A pre-application conference involves a development committee and the code establishes representatives from the Planning and Zoning and Public Works departments and other disciplines as appointed by Town Council. This committee is charged with specific tasks and may meet with developers to check different zoning or identifying issues. One of the items specifically in the code states "To determine the need in preparation to review a master development plan." The committee determines the need for a master development plan and then informs the developer whether or not it is required. It's a discretionary process where staff is charged with that discretion. The specific guidelines include: • Size of the land holding • Unusual features of the site • Phased project Using these three criteria, the development committee makes a decision. The decision is appeal able to the Board of Adjustment. Once the decision is made, the code provides five general elements that must be brought into a master development plan. The five elements include: •Streets "Location of Uses •Parks -Infrastructure of Roadway &Utilities "Public Areas "Landscaping Plans The code describes how the master development plan is used as a bench mark by the Development Review Board and Town Council to review phases as submitted. Mr. Vella stressed that this is the Towns' opportunity to establish a character in the whole development in a holistic manner. The code specifically provides that as each phase is submitted,the master plan shall be included with each phase to the Development Review Board and Town Council. Mr. Vella declared that once the development committee determines the master development plan is required,it becomes a code requirement and serves the purpose of establishing an overall design theme and ensuring there is continuity fit. Mr. Vella stressed the importance of establishing a design theme and stated that the F:\Minutes\DRB\2004`4-13-n4 m nutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 4 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 best developments within the state commercially oriented such as the DC Ranches,La Encantadas and Joesler Villages were all done in a master plan approach rather than one piece at a time. Susana Montana introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB approve the Master Development Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. Staff Conditions: 1. The parking and loading spaces provided within the Master Development Plan, as reflected in the spaces provided within individual Lots and within common areas, shall meet the parking and loading zone requirements of Chapter 27 of OVZCR for the uses shown on the Plan. As the individual Lots are developed per an approved Development Plan, the Master Development Plan shall be amended and updated, as appropriate, to reflect the build-out of the Project over time and each iteration shall meet the provisions of Chapter 27. Prior to review of the MDP by Town Council, the Applicant shall amend the MDP and corresponding MLP to reflect the changes to land use and the parking calculations specified in the Rick Engineering letter of March 31. 2004. 0 2. Prior to Town Council review, the Applicant shall revise the MDP to reflect the following corrections: 1. Add scale to sheet 1 title block, 1"= 60-ft. is the scale for the development plan per OVZCR Section 4-504-B-4-d 2. Provide the pre-developed conditions concentration points to the development plan per OVZCR Section 4-504-D-1-a. Add concentration points 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D to the development plan. 3. Show the proposed channel stabilization (rip-rap) in the channel on sheet 2 of the development plan. 4. Correct the top-width for the proposed typical channel section detail (Ell) on the development plan to 15.9' as specified by the hydrology report proposed channel table on page 11. 5. Address how the proposed typical channel section maximum width of 15.9-ft. will facilitate the construction of the proposed culvert rip-rap aprons with upstream and downstream widths greater than 15.9'. 3. At the time a traffic signal is justified at the intersection of the proposed middle access, the developer/property owner shall install the signal at their expense. 4. The Applicant shall submit a set of design standards and guidelines and general building elevations, tailored-made for this MDP and meeting the provisions and guidelines of OVZCR Chapter 16, with emphasis on consistent 5-sided design and full screening of mechanical equipment. This set of guidelines, called a Master Architecture Concept Plan (MACP) shall be submitted with the first architectural submittal for any Lot within the development, or earlier. F:\MinutesDRi3`.2004`4-13-r'-'nvnutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 5 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 Chairman Vogelsberg complimented Ms. Montana on her presentation and stated that it was very thorough. He also extended his appreciation to Mr. Vella for his dissertatiop regarding the master development plan and remarked that most of his questions had been answered by Mr. Vellas' endeavor. Member Feinberg noted that it would be worthy of recommending a gathering area or court yard that would be more pedestrian friendly. He foresees a lot of traffic and noise in the proposed gathering area and will not be a quiet plaza like area. Mr. Feinberg emphasized his desire to see a courtyard in this development by pointing out that there are not many developments that are pedestrian friendly and he feels that this development has the opportunity to provide something that is pedestrian friendly. Vice Chair Caswell asked staffs, in regards to the Cl & C2 zoning, does the DRB have the ability to restrict some uses, like a drive-through restaurant? Ms. Montana replied that the zoning currently allows those types uses; however, some uses will require a conditional use permit and will go to Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council for approval. Ms. Montana mentioned that convenience uses will require a conditional use permit and pointed out the Chapter 9 standards for convenience uses, and clarified that automotive service would need a conditional use permit. Vice Chair Caswell inquired about the trail that leads frcn First Avenue that will connect underneath the bridge. She observed its condition was in poor repair and inquired if the repair of the trail would be part of this development and if it would be brought up to standard. Ms. Montana replied that the levy trail will be improved by the Town in the year 2005. Ms. Montana added that after the Pusch View Lane Bridge is approved, it will be determined how to get people from the trailhead up to the levy with ADA access. Mr. Vella informed the Board that the trail has been fully funded via the Parks and Recreation Department; it is just a matter of sequence and timing. Mr. Vella disclosed that the applicant will be charged with providing a vegetative buffer and trail connections. Chairman Vogelsberg asked the Town Engineer about the ingress and egress point along Pusch Ridge Dr. by Rubios. He was concerned that there seems to be quite a conflict with all of the 15 or 20 ADT that anticipated Pusch View Lane. Mr. Civalier reported that ADOT will not allow a signal that close to the intersection. He stated that there is a planned five lane section with two lanes going each direction. Chairman Voglesberg inquired if there would be a turn lane that the east or west bound traffic can cue into in order to turn into Rubio's by the gas station. Mr. Civalier hinted that there may be two left turn lanes at Oracle Road, unless there are two right turn lanes at Oracle going south. Chairman Vogelsberg inquired as to the timing of the River Crossing Bridge. Mr. Civalier replied that the project will be going out to bid in July 2004, and said it depended on staffing levels; construction may not start until the first of the year. Chairman Vogelsberg asked if there wds a traffic signal planned for Pusch View Lane and Lambert Lane. Mr. Civalier responded that a traffic signal may be part of the Lambert Lane project. Member Kunisch expressed his concerns with the volume of traffic that will be on Pusch View Lane, especially coming out of the Rooney Ranch Shopping Center. He feels that traffic may be P:`Min_.tes=DRB 2004',4-1 3-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 6 0 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 worse than what is currently being experienced at First Avenue. He hopes that the Town has taken the current situation into consideration and is looking down the road to determine resolution. Member Weatherford asked Mr. Civalier if he knew what the ADT would be for the future on Pusch View Lane. Mr. Civalier stated that it depended on how the area develops and also on the other improvements on roads,but alluded that within the next 10 years, it would be easily 20,000 ADT. Member Weatherford inquired whether the Town has plans to improve Oracle Road to First Avenue. Mr. Civalier responded that the Oracle Road Improvement District will improve Oracle Road. Member Weatherford recognized that there will be an impact, but it will not be unsafe for people to be able to exit out of the east driveways. Chairman Vogelsberg invited the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the Board. Kit Donley, 1980 E. Palisades Rd, introduced his project to the Board. Mr. Donley stated that this project has been ongoing for a long time and felt the location was ideal for this project. Mr. Donley thanked staff and stated that the process of the master development plan has solved a lot of issues with other departments that he didn't realize he would encounter. Mr. Donley informed the Board that his wife did the design for the project and requested that she address the Board. Paula Donley, 1980 E. Palisades Rd, stated that she and her husband have been residents of Oro Valley for 20 years. She expressed her pride in being a developer and a resident of Oro Valley. Mrs. Donley stated that she and her husband want this project to be something the Town is proud of and a place where the merchants are successful. Mrs. Donley stated the reason for the loop road was to draw people into the project, they want to give it continuity and community and yet still retain the individuality of the design, and she feels it is a little bit more of a neighborhood project. Mrs. Donley stated that there will be a very high standard of merchants and design, more than the Town has seen before. Mrs. Donley described the walls along Pusch View Lane, she stated that the walls along the front are staggered and there will be landscapinglong the walls. Mrs. Donley stated that they chose darker more desert colors so there that will not be a glare. c, Recess: 7:10 p.m. . Reconvene: 7:1 S p.m. Mrs. Donley continued with her presentation and showed the Board the walls for the development. Mrs. Donley asked if anyone had any questions. Vice Chair Caswell inquired as to whether there were any fast food restaurants planned for this development. Mrs. Donley replied that only sit down restaurants with outdoor dining were planned for the development. Mrs. Donley also stated that the only business that may have a drive through would be a bank. Member Culver inquired if there were any other uses that they were hoping to bring into this site. Mrs. Donley stated that they would like to bring in home accessory retailers, upscale home improvement, tile, specialty items,places that have an interior decorator and architect, an art gallery and an upscale business hotel. She also hoped that they will have some very limited auto uses. The auto uses would be located at the eastern end of the property behind Target. The design standards Min utes\DRB`2004 4-1 3-1 4 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 7 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 would be the same as everyone else's design standards. Mrs. Donley stated that they would like a high end carwash or tire repair limited to that location of the property. Chairman Vogelsberg opened the meeting to the public. Bill Adler addressed the Board and stated that he doesn't think that Member Caswell's question about the ability of the DRB to restrict uses was addressed. He feels that the Board has the ability to recommend to the Council that uses be restricted. Mr. Adler argued that it is the Boards' obligation not an option to add criteria and standards to uses that they have concerns about. If the Board wants to tie it down with a recommendation that makes sense, he feels that the motion should add specificity. Mr. Adler expressed his opinion that the design of this project should be more like Plaza Palomino or St. Philips Plaza, a connected developmcat where the uses are connected by arcades and courtyards and gathering places that are somewhat shaded, instead of disconnected uses which make it more cumbersome and gathering places with exhaust spilling vehicles and noise. The river walk is ten feet higher than the grade at which this development will be built. He stated that, the river walk will be whatever it is and will not be affected. Mr. Adler urged the Board to use some judgment with their recommendations, so when this goes to the Council, the view of the Board will be understood. Chairman Vogelsberg moved for a motion, Member Kunisch recommended to approve OV 12-03-22, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A Member Weatherford seconded the motion. Member Culver agreed with Mr. Adler, and stated that he makes a good point regarding the automotive uses. Member Culver recommended restricting the automotive uses to the area that the applicant described and suggested extra screening. Member Kunisch stated that he would not accept Member Culvers suggestion. Chairman Vogelsberg stated that he liked the architectural theme and said that it is a very attractive center. He pointed out that the intimacy of a connected site works for Plaza Palomino because that site is only a couple of acres. He doesn't feel that 17 acres can be connected like the smaller centers and pointed out that most of the design is pedestrian friendly. Chairman Vogelsberg suggested a friendly amendment to add a se ting area or a fountain; Member Kunisch stated that he would support that. Member Weatherford stated that the site plan is good and likes how everything is separated out. Member Kunisch feels that this is a od plan and if there is any automotive usage that any building would shield any auto uses. Chairman Vogelsberg asked the applicant if there are any restricted uses in the CCR's. Mr. Donley reiterated the location of the auto uses and the location of all the uses. He stated that the same design standards will be used for all buildings no matter what the use will be. Chairman Vogelsberg expressed his appreciation to Mr. Donley for his sensitivity to what the Board is looking for. Member Feinberg requested clarification of the location of the car wash and automotive services. Mr. Donley replied that the 3 lots on the far east side along with the two lots that share the same common entry. Mr. Donley also stated that he recognized the requirements for a conditional use r:`T4in:tes\DRB`.2004`\.4-I 3-C4 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 8 r, 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 permit. Mr. Vella stated that the request for a conditional use permit would have to go the Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearing and then on to the Town Council for final decision. Member Feinberg concluded that he liked the architecture and stated that it could be a beautiful interesting well developed concept and recognized this development as one of the nicer developments that the Board has seen in a while. Chairman Vogelsberg stated that the applicant could set the standard and be an example that their successors can design to. He added that this development has the charm and class that everyone desperately wants. Member Culver expressed her appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Donley for their commitment to the community. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to approve OV 12-03-22, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A and the amendment to add a central water feature or fountain. Member Weatherford seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. OV12-03-22, MR. KIT DONLEY OF DONLEY COMMERCIAL REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A 17.1 ACRE PARCEL TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 17 LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 140,990 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE IN A C-2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PUSCH VIEW LANE, WEST OF ORACLE ROAD ON PARCEL NUMBER 224-28-143A Susana Montana introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB approve the Master Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. Staff Conditions: 1. Sheet L1 shall be amended to replace General Note number 8 (which is duplicative of number 5)with the following language: "Trees shall not be planted under outdoor lighting structures. Landscape plant material shall be arranged in a manner not to obstruct security measures per Section 14.205.A. 17 of OVZCR." 2. The Applicant shall revise the MDP and MLP to specify the surface material that would be used on the drainage channels; these materials shall conform to the OVZCR Chapter 16 Design Guidelines. Chairman Vogelsberg questioned the Town Engineer regarding the use of alternate material that he was going to recommend. Mr. Civalier stated that he suggest the use of an earth tone rock. Chairman Vogelsberg suggested that they utilize as much natural vegetation as possible. Ms. Montana stated they have tagged specimens and will place them as much as possible. Chairman Vogelsberg asked if the landscape architect wanted to address the Board. Eric Barrett, 5525 E Grant Rd, Suite 200, representing THMS Associates, stated that this deveL ment is a pretty unique site. Mr. Barrett explained that there were no native plants or any F:'•Ivlinutes\DRB\2004`•..4-13-04 mintites.doc Approved on 5-11-04 9 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 real natural characteristics due to some severe disturbances to the site. He also stated that they are salvaging part of the trees and touched upon the circulation and stated that they would like to install 38' to 46' box trees. Member Culver inquired if the vegetation was descent enough at the southern end of the parking to prevent headlights from shining through to the neighboring homes. Mrs. Donley replied that the development is ten feet lower than the bridge and the lowest wall is 36' and there will not be any light disturbances to the homes. Mr. Barrett added screening will be provided along the parking area and stated that there will be a layer effect between the trees and the shrubs. Chairman Vogelsberg asked Mr. Barrett about the irrigation and the conversion to reclaimed water if t hat day comes. Mr. Barrett stated that there is one source for irrigation and is not sure if all lots will be tied into that system, but the irrigation can be adapted to reclaimed filters and devices. Chairman Vogelsberg stated that the landscape plan is a very nice looking plan. Mr. Barrett expressed his opinion regarding rip rap rock. In his opinion,he doesn't find rip rap rock very attractive, ever, and stated that salt river rock should stay in the salt river. He said that it should be called native rock. Mr. Barrett explained that all plant material that grows around this part of Arizona grows in the bottom of the washes and stated that it does not make sense to him to not be able to locate trees in the bottom of the washes or the upper channel when it act Tally grows there naturally and asked if the Board could do anything about that. Chairman Vogelsberg commented that he would have to work that out with Craig Civalier. Mr. Civalier stated that safety comes first and he would not allow it. Vice Chair Caswell mentioned that she was pleased to see that larger plants were being used and reported that she counted 97 of the total plants and 77 of the larger plants are going to be used along Pusch Ridge. Chairman Vogelsberg added that it does add to the whole flavor of the project. MOTION: Member Culver moved to approve OV12-03-22, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A, Member Kunisch seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Recess: 7:.5 Reconvene: 8:04 p.m. 3. OV12-03-16, STEAM PUMP INVESTORS, LLC REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A CLUSTER OF FIVE RETAIL BUILDINGS TOTALING 39,700 SQUARE FEET ON A 6.65 ACRE PORTION OF THE LARGER 41 ACRE STEAM PUMP VILLAGE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL NO. 220-08-001L Susana Montana introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB approve the Master Development Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit B. Exhibit B Staff Conditions: Min tes`.DRB12004'4-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 10 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 Master Development Plan Conditions of Approval: 1. The Applicant shall revise the MDP to identify a minimum of two pedestrian nodes/public gathering spaces for Phase 3 development. 2. The Applicant shall submit a Master Architectural Concept Plan (MACP) with the submittal of Architectural plans for the first development within the PAD. The MACP shall meet or exceed the Architectural Guidelines of the PAD and shall positively address the Design Guidelines of OVZCR Chapter 16. The MACP shall satisfy the PAD intent "to provide a high quality overall design that establishes a special project environment and identity" and shall provide consistency "in an overall integrated design theme" Phase 1 Development Plan Conditions of Approval. 3. The Applicant shall make the following corrections to the Phase 1 DP: A. Correct the legal description and the scale in the title block on sheet 1. B. Provide pre and post development 100 year frequency flow (Q100) for each drainage course entering or leaving the site on the Development Plan. C. Pima County Waste Water shall approve the proposed storm water quality basin location over the sanitary sewer. D. Pima County Flood Control District shall approve the design and location of the offsite 72"storm sewer. E. Clarify the following locations with spot elevations on the development plan: a) ADA requirements of 2% maximum cross-slope for the walkways around the buildings b) The flow line of the interceptor channel c) Add spot elevations to the grade breaks shown in the PAALs south of buildings l and 2. d) Clarify the drainage west of building #1. PAAL requires either a high point to split flows or a low point with a curb opening. e) Add perimeter spot elevations to the storm water quality basin. f) Clarify conceptually how drainage of the parking lot into the island north of the building #1 will be accomplished and correct the parking lot elevation 94.83 to provide 0.5%min. slope for drainage. g) Ponding is indicated at the north end of the east PAAL at spot elevation 98.70, and in the south east corner parking lot in front of building #5 at spot elevation 00.42. Clarify F. Check the loading/unloading space north of building #1 for a design vehicle negotiable ingress/egress path. G. Clarify with details added to the development plan r:`AlinJtes`DRB',200\4-13-E 4 minutes.doe Approved on 5-11-04 11 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes o Page 12 a. Provide typical PAAL cross section details for the crown, inverted crown and super elevated PAALs called out for this site in the hyQology report. b. Provide a cross section detail of the interceptor channel H. Provide invert elevations for all storm drain catch basins, at the pipe outlet of the water quality basin and on sheet 6, details 5 and 6. 4. The Riverwalk Trail improvements, required by Condition Number 1 to Ordinance No. (0) 00-01 which amended Ordinance No. (0) 99-52, Case Number OV9-99-111, shall be completed by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building within the Project site. 5. The Applicant shall provide a cross-access roadway with landscaped sidew4alks, as shown on the Phase 1 Development Plan. All associated improvements must be established to the edge of the property line. Further, an access easement shall be granted and recorded to the abutting property owner to the south for use of this pedestrian and vehicular cross- access roadway and sidewalks. Ms. Montana pointed out that a condition had been added regarding the cross access being improved and the improvements will be made to the property line. Chairman Voglesberg stated that he would like to take a moment to look at the addendum. Chairman Vogelsberg questioned Ms. Montana on whether or not this was a master development plan. Ms. Montana stated that staff requested a master development plan and the applicant submitted one, in their view if phase II changed the master development plan they would not want to have to come back and change the master development plan. So, there will be companion actions. Town Attorney Mark Langlitz addressed the Board and pointed out that the confusion is in the language of the motion. He reported that it should be more clearly stated on the agenda, but it is stated correctly in the motion. It is a master development plan and a phase I developn it plan. Ms. Montana described the phase I development plan and stated that it is a cluster or grouping of five buildings totally 39,700 gross square feet that will be retail/restaurant uses and also pointed out that there is one building with a drive through. They wouldgike to provide more parking then is required. The pedestrian access to Riverpark trail does not meet code. Chairman Vogelsberg asked if the applicant wanted to address the Board. Kevin Marrow, 250 S. Craycroft, representing Gromatzky Dupree, addressed the Board with a brief history. Mr. Marrow stated that in the phase I development plan, there will be a Steinway dealership and they will bring what the Town has envisioned. As a part of this development is an open air 400 seat performance center. Phase I will have a restaurant, retail and home goods operations. Mr. Simons wants to be open in a year. As far as the master development plan, he stated that his office was responsible for converting after looking into the "crystal ball" how phase 2, 3 and 4 would develop and make it a pedestrian experience that everyone has talked about and wants to be a part of. Phase 3 has a small gourmet grocery. The connectivity is still clumsy but as pieces come together it will be a smooth transition F:`.Min<tes\DRB`.2004°.4-!3-04 nlinutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 12 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 for pedestrians and vehicles on this property. Mr. Marrow stated that a preliminary conceptual master plan demonstrates that over time the 3 or 4 thousand feet in front of you is going to connect and do what you want it to. He thinks that the challenge of the proposal to tie down that document can not be amended without having to come back here, and go through the cumbersome steps that they have to go through to get approvals. He doesn't think it would have a positive impact that staff thinks it will. Mr. Marrow considers the four year old PAD a planning document. He stated that this should be the master development plan. Member Culver stated that she can see both sides, however this site is very important to the Town and she would like a clearer vision of what the applicant truly anticipates and she feels that it is not something that locks them down. She stated that his points are well taken too, but what is being proposed here, shouldn't delay things. However, she would like to hear some kind of commitment that once Phase I is well on its way and a master development plan will be in place, so that the Board will know how they plan on carrying out the rest of the site. Mr. Marrow replied that the way each of the phases will perform is potentially different. He suggested going back and rereading the original zoning document there could be some performance language that will further define staffs' desire without the applicant drawing up plans and having Stantec go through the engineering effort and submitting plans that have to be reviewed and tie up everyone's time. When he looks at a development plan, he wants to know where dumpsters and benches are, but when they don't know what the footprints are or what the uses are or how the circulation of traffic and pedestrians will be, well this is a cartoon drawing it doesn't make a great deal of sense. Member Culver requested a copy of the PAD from Mr. Vella. Member Kunisch expressed his concern that he would like to see a theme, and he would like to see it seamless. We need a master development plan for the whole site before we can move ahead. Mr. Vella pointed out that the master development plan is a code requirement and it is not open to discussion of whether or not it is a requirement. It is appeal able to the Board of Adjustment. The applicant was notified of this process back in the fall of 2002 in writing and also on five additional occasions in writing. It comes to staffs surprise that we are having this discussion. Mr. Vella concluded that this is a requirement; it is not a way to slow down a development phase. They are on the agenda for approval in tandem and the two documents are joined at the hip. Chairman Vogelsberg thanked Mr.Vella for his clarification. Mr. Marrow stated that he is in the process of developing the package for Phase I; he is looking for continuity. Vice Chair Caswell stated that the Board needs to look at this as something substantial for the next 20 years She stated that she is having a hard time looking at this when it is not defined, especially knowing how important this piece of land is. Mr. Marrow stated that it is hard to look at six acres of a forty acre parcel and know what will be going on. Ms. Montana put up a schematic that tied land uses down and found it to be a very effective book and encouraged the Board to look at this information. It will show the location of the activities and the square footages of the buildings and uses. F:`:M.1.iri tes\DRB'\2004.4-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 13 04/13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 Member Feinberg asked if Mr. Marrow could spell out the specificity of what is in the book. Of what you can put in or what you can not put in. David Anderson of Stantec Engineering addressed the Board regarding the uses. Mr. Anderson stated the uses will include a convenience use, retail, restaurant, hotel and bank. Mr. Anderson described where some of the uses will be located. Town Attorney Mark Langlitz addressed the Board and asked if the Board was aware that the master development plan was included in the package. Mr. Langlitz stated that the tentative development plan is of little significance, the master development has superseded the tenant development plan. He suggested that they should take a look at the master development plan before looking at the Phase I development plan. Mr. Marrow stated that if you compare the tentative development plan to the phase I development plan and master conceptual plan, the similarities will be seen in clusters, the retail and hotel along the riverwalk in phase ii, phase 4 showing 3 two story office buildings and small professional offices along the river walk. Phase 3 is currently what could be a gourmet grocer in the 40,000 square foot range. This master plan is responding to the real estate needs of the market. Chairman Vogelsberg asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak. Mark Weinberg, Diamond Ventures, addressed the Board and stated that we got off track by discussing the master development plan. Mr. Weinberg stated that 8 or 9 months ago they submitted a phase I development plan. It has been requested to submit a master concept plan. The plan that has been submitted is only a concept plan; it is a cartoon concept plan and is the best guess at what will happen in phases 2, 3 and 4. It doesn't have any basis in reality other than it is the plan they like that they show in their marketing brochure, and it is what they hope to do. It complies with their zoning document and development agreement and it is their vision for the property. It is highly unlikely that the rest of the site is going to look exactly like that plan. His concern is if the Board approves a master development plan then they could potentially lose business. Before they could sit down with a client like Steinway Piano they would have to first go through the process of amending the master development plan and that could take 4 to 6 months to go through the process. Mr. Weinberg stated that is the reason in 1999 why the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with them,in order for Steam Pump to be successful, there should be flexibility that less was more. By not showing a master development plan with all locations of roads, trash receptacles, park benches, streets and building pads they would like to have standards in the document, and if you read it you will notice that it is very detailed in every respect except for where the roads and building pads are located. He argued that he would like to see the Board approve the Phase I plan and the rest of his tenant development as the master development plan. He feels the zoning document and the zoning agreement is sufficient, however he realizes the Board may not be able to do that. Mr. Weinberg believes the requirement by staff for a master develop rent plan is a discretionary requirement. He does not believe that he meets the criteria thatwvould make it a requirement. If the development committee makes their recommendation based on criteria and he believes that he does not meet that criteria, he feels that they only want a master development plan because every other development has one, and he objects to it. Mr. Weinberg stressed the importance of Phase I moving forward, due to Steinway Piano Gallery being in a temporary location and there desire is to open on this site in a year. Mr. Weinberg addressed the Board about the tes\DRB\2004`..4-i;-01 minutes.doe. Approved on 5-11-04 14 04 i 3/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 conditions, and stated that he was handed Exhibit B a few minutes before the meeting began and he objects to condition number 5. Mr. Weinberg argued that he has worked with staff and the neighboring property owner. They have redesigned their site several times and now have a design that has a seamless transition between his property and the adjacent property is a direct run in with the traffic light to appoint his site with where the road turns to the south and goes directly into the Founders Park property. They did that on purpose to provide a smooth seamless transition and also because staff asked for it and they also felt it was logical so they did it. The current plan for Founders Park was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission last month and was sent to Town Council with the unanimous recommendation for denial. Also they are showing on the development plan an automotive cluster ten feet from his property line along the entire south boundary. If the town is approves the plan with an automotive cluster adjacent to his property, then they do not want to provide access. Secondly, they will only agree to provide access if the adjacent town agreed to pay an appropriate share of the maintenance and installation cost of the roadway. Mr. Weinberg stated that the Town does not want another situation like the one with Pizzeria Uno, where there were two property owners without a document or agreement in sharing the maintenance costs. Mr. Weinberg stated that he spoke with John Leiber and Michael Naefe and they have agreed to these things. Mr. Weinberg requested either the Board t'4'.;_e off condition #5 of Exhibit B or would like to suggest an amendment, "If the Town of Oro Valley acquires the adjacent property, then we would be happy to provide access and everything else. " Mr. Weinberg complained that all the truck and big vehicle traffic will be running through their site and they are trying to do something nice. Member Culver stated to Mr. Weinberg that condition #5 does not state anything about an agreement and asked if he would want that in the condition. Mr. Weinberg stated that it would have to be conditioned upon negotiating an agreement with the neighboring property owner that includes provisions for prorated sharing of constretion and maintenance cost, Mr. Weinberg feels that has to be in there because if it doesn't theithe same situation will happen with this site that happened with the Pizzeria Uno site. Chairman Vogelsberg asked for clarification of condition #5 and stated that it sounded like an eleventh hour addition and for the benefit of the Board and client would like some clarification of the necessity of the condition. Mr. Vella argued that it is an eleventh hour addition item, in terms of the applicant knowing of staffs direct desire in this eighth month hour addition of this. Mr. Vella stated that they have met with the applicant and the neighboring property owner, Michael Nafieh on six occasions to work out cross access and cross drainage concerns, staff did not want to feel a need to put condition #5 on this exhibit in hopes that the two property owners would work out the terms of cross access. The aim is to have the two sites work seamlessly; a shopper on the Steam Pump Ranch Historic site should not have to go out onto Oracle Road and make a U-turn and come back again to enter Steam Pump Village. Mr. Vella stated that the sticking point between the two properties was cost, who was going to pay for what. They did not want the Town and nor was it appropriate for the Town to settle the cost issue. It was decided that the two property owners would come to an agre pent; Mr. Vella stated that since that time the property owners have met twice and have been ab'e to come up with a foiiiial agreement. At this stage because the code does provide the authority 9) have the cross access, and the cross access is shown on the development plan; this condition ensures that this 1=: H tesDRB`•2004`4-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 15 0411312004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 is going to happen. The Town staff in an ethical legal prospective wanted to stay entirely out of the cost sharing issue between the two parties. The ultimate aim was to see a smooth transition between the two sites and that there was access between the two sites. The land uses on Steam Pump Ranch are very much a concern and the applicant is correct about staff being concerned about the appropriateness of the uses. Staffs aim again is to see the cross drainage and cross access working. This is the same condition that was used in the Eckerds development and Sombra Homes site to make sure there is cross access, it is one of the issues that is laid out when evaluating criteria for a master development plan regardless of ownership. Member Weatherford questioned the applicant regarding the master development plan and asked if he wanted the Phase I and not the master development plan. Mr. Weinberg stated that the bubble plan is the zoning plan and the prettier plan was the marketing brochure. Chairman Vogelsberg opened the meeting to the public. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated the he was reluctant to say anything, because he feels very strongly about what has happened this evening. He stated if the Ranch property is not acquired but rather developed, presumably it will only be approved as a development if the uses are acceptable to the Town, although that it is not a guarantee. Mr. Adler recalled his past experience being on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Development Review Board when this PAD was constructed in 1996. He stated that they put some qualitative standards around the uses. In 1999 some of those standards were relaxed and he imposed that relaxation in exchange for commitments from Mr. Weinberg with the measures to proceed with the kind of architectural design and usage that was described this evening. Mr. Adler stated that he supported it and he supported the relaxation of the uses. In reference to phase I, the uses are compatible with the historic nature of the adjacent property. Chairman Vogelsberg closed the meeting to the public. Member Kunisch suggested continuing this case to a later date. He feels that the Boardgeeds more information and more architectural design criteria and feels that they need a master development plan that is going to define what is going to be in phases 1, 2, 3 & 4. He wants something more specific and wants to see the entire 41 acres master development plan. Member Kunisch does not want to see repeat problems and hopes to see everything flow together because it is a historic site. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to continue OV 12-03-16 Master Development Plan and Phase I Development Plan to a later date, Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion. Member Feinberg stated that he feels this is a different situation than most that the Board has come across in the past. He has always agreed that they should have as much information and detail as possible, but there are some qualitative assurances here in the code that this will be an upscale quality site. He would go against his own judgment of trying to see as much as possible and would determine that this is a situation where they have enough qualitative indications that this will be a good community and layout that the Town will be proud of I: ,i utes\DR112OO4`4-1 n4 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 16 CO 0 '13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 Member Culver stated that she agrees with Mr. Adler. The uses are very appropriate and compatible with the site. She thinks that for Oro Valley to have Steinway Piano would be a wonderful thing and an asset to the community. To have the project tied up over what may or may not be on a conceptual master plan and is very trouble some to her. She feels that the PAD has very strict guidelines in what is permitted and what is not. She thinks that is what protects the Town and the site. She is not comfortable in holding this project up and supports moving forward with phase I. Mr. Langlitz, Town Attorney addressed the Board and strongly recommended against continuing this project. He stated that the Board has a proposed conceptual master development plan and a specific phase I development plan with conditions recommended by staff. The Board can either move to accept the color version and recommend to the Town Council or substitute the tentative development plan which is not a master development plan, but if the Board wants to recommend approval to the Town Council they may do so. The Board may recommend approval or denial based on any of the conditions proposed by staff,but believes they have a complete applicaion they just need to determine if they want to recommend approval or denial and forward it to Council and keep this project moving. There is nothing to be gained by continuing it and he doesn't see any issues that they are going to get resolved and recommends that they send it on to Council. Chairman Vogelsberg suggested what is troubling the Board is the mandate that there must be a master development plan and there seems to be some flexibility as to what a master development pi an is, the bubble version or the color version? Member Weatherford stated that he is hesitant sit here and order something on the developer that he gave to the Board as a real loose concept that the developer may change and doesn't want to be stuck with. He understands the need for some flexibility on his part, but why is thi;; document so loose? Doesn't think that they have what they would really like to see in a master development plan. He thinks that they have a very nice phase I development plan with some nice compatible uses, and doesn't think that they are going to take what they have done in Phase I and throw it out the window with Phase 2, it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Mr. Weatherford agrees to some degree with Member Culver and Member Feinberg, that this isn't something that the Board should hold up, he doesn't like calling this plan a master development plan but at the same time he doesn't want to force something on the developer that they have already corce out and said they don't want. Chairman Vogelsberg stated that they have a PAD that has quite a description and merits what to expect,but we do not have an illustration. He asked if the Board had confidence in the text which is r;_ite thick or do they need to have a rendering. He stated that the Board needs to approve a concept pian of some type and the Board has the flexibility to adopt a document which was made part of the concept plan or a plan that indeed may not follow the pattern at all in future development. But the Board would assume that the color plan lifted from the text, the elements and the Board's expectations would be that the next phases would have the same attention to detail. The desire to have this project move forward is a leap of faith and the concerns will be addressed down the road. 1 <;i tes\DRB`20044-1 3-n4 min utes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 17 0411 3=2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 18 Member Feinberg stated that the community is protected somewhat because of the qualitative standards and the Board shouldn't expect a catastrophe to come forward with this development plan. Chairman Vogelsberg observed that the case before this was a master development plan and they LA much vision in their final development and they demonstrated articulately quite well. He r.00gnized the size difference between the two developments and wondered if that is why this development is so complex. He stated that is what is troubling him, is the fact that the developer was able to apply that standard and they were able to demonstrate fairly articulately what the ultimate product was going to be and with this development the Board is only seeing a phase and is in concert with a development to the south that sounds like there is some question with access that hasn't been resolved and there has been a request from staff to work out,which we haven't seen. Member Kunisch stated that he would like to reconsider his motion to continue and instead moves t : deny OV12-03-16, due to the access road issue needs to be resolved before the Board approves this project,Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion so that it could be opened for discussion. MOTION: Member Kunisch reconsidered his motion to continue, OV 12-03- 16 and moved to deny OV12-03-16 Master Development Plan and Phase I Development Plan, Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion. Vice Chair Caswell asked staff about a situation several months ago where there was a similar large d' velopment that came forward and it was very specific, her understanding was that even though it vva s completely laid out and plated with a hotel and etc, the developer could change tie components within the development. C°.airman Vogelsberg inquired how someone would go about changing that. Mr. Vella replied that the master development plan has two levels of changes. If the applicant comes in with phase 2 and the layout is what the Development Review Board approved, then there would not be a change to the master development plan. If there is a substantial change to the layout a, <1 it creates a ripple effect on the site then staff would require with the phase 2 would come with a r aster development plan update at the same meeting. The code specifically states "If the d.-velopment takes place in several parts, the master development plan shall be submitted as s ai pporting material for each part where applicable." The development plan shall be kept up to date by the sub-divider as multiplications take place. Mr. Vella stated that there needs to be an understanding that master development plans change and are expected to change and it is a bench mark. It provides flexibility to the applicants for smaller changes, larger changes the Board will see it again. Chairman Vogelsberg reiterated that if there is a substantial change to the master ylevelopment plan t-en it could be submitted concurrently with the change of the next phase. Mr. Vella stated that it Auld be exactly the way it was submitted this time, they would be on the same agenda. Chairman Z oglesberg stated that necessarily there is a disconnect and it is not necessary to modify the master development plan then bring the next case in. 1 :i . tes'\DRB`.2004`.4-1 3-04 minuates.doc Approved on 5-11-04 18 04'13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 19 Chairman Vogelsberg stated that there is a motion to deny and a second to that motion. He stated that if the Board denies this project then the Phase I will be denied as well as the master development plan. Mr. Vogelsberg asked staff what the applicants' recourse would be. Mr. Vella replied that the Development Review Board focus is a recommendation of denial or aiooroval to be forwarded to the Town Council for the final decision. C`faiiiiian Vogelsberg asked for a vote to deny of OV12-03-16 the master development plan and Fase I, MOTION: Motion to DENY failed with a tie, 3-3. VOTE: Member Feinberg Nay Vice Chair Caswell Nay Member Culver Nay Member Kunisch Aye Chairman Vogelsberg Aye Member Weatherford Aye Town Attorney Mark Langlitz informed the Board that with a tie vote the motion does not carry so it has not been denied. Chairman Vogelsberg asked for a new motion, Member Feinberg recommended approval of OV 12-03-16 for the master development plan and phase I d c;velopment plan subject to the conditions in Exhibit A and additionally the conditions in Exhibit B. Member Culver seconded the motion with an amendment with item #5 to read that "The applicant shall actively pursue a cross-access roadway agreement with adjacent with adjoining owner to the south on the Phase 1 Development Plan. All associated improvements must be established to the edge of the property line." Member Weatherford asked for clarification, he asked if they are approving the master development plan and that in the future if it were to change significantly they would need to c :me forward with the plan update at the same time. Chairman Voglesberg confirmed that the =plicant can do it at the same time, and that there was not a six month hiatus that they once t i ought. I\ ember Kunisch inquired about the drainage issues to the south that go into the Founders Park si7e and asked staff if that was still a problem. Mr. Civalier stated that it was not a problem. MOTION: Member Feinberg recommended approval of OV 12-03-16 of the Color Conceptual Plan and Phase I Development Plan. Member Culver seconded the motion with an amendment to Exhibit B, condition#5 to read as follows: 5. "The Applicant shall provide actively purse e a cross- access roadway agreement with the adjoining owner to the south with landscaped sidewalks, as shown on the Phase 1 Development Plan. All associated improvements must be established to the edge of the property line. ' y owner to the south for use of this pedestrian and vehicular cross access roadway and sidewalks. Motion carried 6-0. } nutes\DRB'.2004\.4-i 3-04 minutes.doc Approved on.i-11-04 19 O4' 3/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 20 Recess: 9:41 pin. Reconvene: 9:51 p.m. 4. OV12-03-16, STEAM PUMP INVESTORS, LLC REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE 41 ACRE STEAM PUMP VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND A PHASE 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ON A 6.7 ACRE PORTION THEREOF, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL NO. 220-08- 001L Susana Montana introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB a;;prove the Master Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. `}-aff Conditions: Phase 1 Landscape Plan Conditions 1. The Applicant shall revise the Landscape Plan (LP) to show the pedestrian amenities for the "pedestrian node"between Buildings 3 and 4. These amenities shall include, but not be limited to shaded benches or other seating facilities, trash receptacles, drinking fountain(s), planters, and public art to create a sense of"place" and an identity as a public gathering place for workers, shoppers and visitors. The LP shall show the location of these features on the LP and shall show details of each on a detail sheet. Light standards, pedestrian walkway paving material, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, benches, plant containers, outdoor display equipment, location of pedestrian pathways and planting areas throughout the PAD, including bufferyards, around trash receptacles and loading zones, and along pedestrian pathways; vegetative screening, berms and/or screen walls; and location and details of such streetscape furniture as benches/seating equipment, planters, shade structures, and the general location of public art 2. The Applicant shall to revise the LP to show the location and type of shade structures or trees,benches or picnic tables, trash receptacles, lighting and pathways for the 25 foot landscaped buffer yard along the site's southern boundary. 3. The LP shall not incorporate the use of the Evergreen Pear(Pyrus kawakamii)plant; the LP shall be revised to show another species of tree in its place. 4. The Applicant shall revise the LP to provide a 5 foot landscaped area around the loading zone enclosure(s). The landscaping shall meet the requirements of the former OVZCR Chapter 11 parking code. The LP shall be revised to show the irrigation system for this landscaped area on the irrigation plan. 5. The cross-access roadway to the historic ranch site and the pedestrian pathway to the Riverwalk Trail shall be landscaped with similar plant species and hardscape materials and colors to visually indicate that they are entry points or gateways. This same palette shall be carried out throughout the PAD for future Riverwalk Trail connections. 6. The LP shall be revised to show the use of consistent but differentiated paving materials and color of paving materials at these crosswalks. The pedestrian cross walks shall consist of colored pavers rather than painted asphalt. mutes`,DRB\.2004'..4-1 -04 rninutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 20 04r 13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 21 7. The LP shall provide a landscaped screen along the western edge of the drive-through facility of Building 5 and in all cases, the landscaping for all buildings shall meet the provisions of Section. 14-205.C. 8. Screen walls and treatment of the surface of drainage channels or swales shall positively address the Design Guidelines of Chapter 16; in particular, screen walls should be earth tone in color, should jog every 40 linear feet and there should not be unembellished concrete or gunite open drainage channels. 9. The Phase 1 LP shall show the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) at all intersections and within parking areas. 10. Pursuant to the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), the Applicant shall review the plant species to be located around the Oracle Road screen walls and select plant species from the Town's Approved Plant List that would discourage persons "hiding"within those areas, or any other"nooks and cra, nies"that may be located throughout the development. Examples of"unfriendly plants"include cacti or thorny plants such as Condalia,Hackberry or Catsclaw. Staff would review and could administratively approve any such change to the Landscape Plan as a minor change to the Plan. 11. The Phase LP shall be revised as necessary to comply with design standards set forth in the Master Landscape Plan. Master Landscape Plan Condition 12. The Applicant shall submit a Master Landscape Plan (MLP) for the entire PAD which shows the location, type and details of the following elements: Light stands rds, pedestrian walkway paving material, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, benches, plant containers, outdoor display equipment, location of pedestrian pathways and planting areas throughout the PAD, including bufferyards, around trash receptacles and loading zones, and along pedestrian pathways; vegetative screening, berms and/or screen walls; and location and details of such streetscape furniture as benches/seating equipment, planters, shade structures, and the general location of public art. This MLP shall be reviewed by the Development Review Board prior to Town Council review of the MDP and the Board's recommendation on the MLP shall accompany its recommendation of the MDP to Council. 13. The MLP shall meet the design guidelines of the PAD and Chapter 16 of OVCR, especially regarding design of drainage facilities and walls. Vice Chair Caswell questioned Ms. Montana as to whether they are looking at the whole project or the phase 1. i'41ember Culver clarified that as each phase comes in there will be a phased landscape plan. Chairman Vogelsberg asked if the applicant has had a chance to review the late comments that came in on the development plan. '''`ilutes`.DRB`\2004`,4-1 3-04 miniites.doc Approved on 5-11-04 21 04.-1312004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 22 Ms. Montana stated that the applicant has had the opportunitylo review the comments and the landscape plan has not changed since they distributed them. n Eric Barrett, 5525 E Grant Road, Suite 100, representing THMS Associates, stated that the master landscape plan is not what he is looking to present at this meeting, he is looking to present the phase 1 landscape plan and introduced the green areas as an open design. Stated that the code requires certain requirements such as a 30 foot length buffer zone along Oracle Rd and also a 25 foot buffer yard along the west side of the property. Mr. Barrett stated that basically the current landscaping is defined by the codes requirement of the buffer yard. Mr. Barrett explained to the Board that many of the landscape designs are tied into th .building design and he stated that they intend to present those as part of design the building designs and not as a landscape design developments. Mr. Barrett explained further what the designer coexist with one another, and he can not design a landscape plan in front of a building when he does not know what the access is and he can not put in drinking fountains or other activities without the egress/ingress activities. Mr. Barrett stated that condition#2 requires that landscape plan should provide location and type of shade structure or trees,benches picnic tables,trash receptacles, lighting and pathways for the 25 foot landscaped buffer yard along the site's southern boundary. Mr. Barrett stated that this area is a water harvesting area and does not understand why they would put people in water harvesting places. Also,they are trying to provide stipulation from the„cars into the shopping centers without having to walk through the landscaped spaces and destroying plants. • Mr. Barrett agreed that condition#3 regarding the Evergreen Pear is not on the approved plant list. Staff incorrectly told him that it was a high water use and is believed to grow to be 25 feet tall and is a high pollinator all of these are not true. Mr. Barrett stated it is friendly around pedestrian uses and they are looking to use it only in the court yard type settings where they are trying to create an oasis type setting. Mr. Barrett educated the Board regarding the Evergreen Pear is the first to flower and stays green through the main season,it leafs change color and it is drought tolerant. He would like to use this tree in small quantities. Mr. Barrett also stated this project uses large vegetation with 24", 36", 48"box large plant specimens,because there is not a lot of native plants on this site. The outdoor amphitheater could be a great place to have large shade trees to maintain a more park like setting and be able to enjoy the activities that are proposed. The overall landscape is drought tolerant and is native for the most part with some drought tolerant plant material and seasonal color t -oughout the year and that is why he would like to use the Evergreen Pear. It is an excellent specimen to remind people of the seasons that are coming. Chairman Vogelsberg observed that the Evergreen Pear seemed to be a sticking point with Mr. Barrett,but stated that he did not believe that it was up to the Development Review Board to take on or off the native plant list. Mr. Barrett argued that the Town staff does not have the experience or k. ;owledge to approve all of the plants they want to use. He stated for example, staff told them that t rt the Evergreen Pear could reach 30 feet in height and the Evergreen Pear is a high pollinator. I Barrett argued that the Evergreen Pear only blooms for two weeks and does not grow that high i a climate like Tucson has. Chairman Vogelsberg reiterated that it was not up to the Board to add or delete plants from the approved list. Member Kunisch moved to approve OV12-03-16,Member Culver seconded the motion. I utcs DIM'.2004\4-1 3-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 22 04 13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 23 Chairman Vogelsberg asked staff to explain how the approved plant list can be modified. Mr. Vella stated that the discretion in the code lies with staff,the applicant can submit their criteria for staff to look at. Beyond that the decision is with staff. Mr. Vella stated that he would be happy t<< meet with Mr. Barrett again. '`ember Feinberg inquired if that means they can add to exhibits but not delete them. Chairman gelsberg stated that they can not modify the code. Mr. Vella stated that essentially the condition i `rom the code. Mr. Vella stated that normally they do not schedule items that do not meet the c: e,but they wanted to keep this project going. Chairman Vogelsberg stated that it sounded like staff and the applicant would keep working t .;ether on this. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to approve OV12-03-16, the Master Landscape Plan for the 41 acres and a Phase 1 Landscape Plan on 6.7 acres portion thereof located on the west side of Oracle Road between First Avenue and Tangerine Road,Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Member Culver addressed the Chairman and suggested reconvening date specific to cover the l=rst three items. Chairman Vogelsberg denied Member Culvers request stating that the rest of t meeting should progress quickly. OV12-63-23, ACORN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED AT THE SAFEWAY VISTOSO SHOPPING CENTER ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL 223-020-350 Fob Conant introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB approve t.e Development Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. Staff Conditions, Exhibit A: 1. If a traffic signal is justified at the northerly driveway, the developer(s) shall be responsible to provide one. 2. The owner(All About Running and Walking) shall coordinate with Regency Realty Group and Vistoso Shopping Center LLC to install a three way stop and traL_=ic mirror is to be installed at the intersection of the east-west access drive and the north-south PAAL. The stop signs and mirror(s) are to be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for All About Running and Walking. i t -`.DRB`;2004\..4-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 23 3/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 24 3. In order to in sure adequate site visibility, the applicant, at the time of development on the northerly property, shall re-design and improve the adjacent intersection PAAL, as specified by the Town Engineer. Q, 4. Provide sight visibility triangles on the Development Plan. 5. Show pavement detail that will be used for the new parking spaces. 6. Raise the existing storm drain manhole to match the sidewalk elevation. 7. Provide a formula in the notes to correlate the new bench mark elevation to the original bench mark used for the Safeway Vistoso Plaza. 8. Show where the concrete walk toe down detail, 3/DP4, is used on DP2. 9. Provide a letter from the owners association that acknowledges the construction of the proposed building in the vicinity of the 42-inch stout' drain. The proposed 6,000 square foot retail building is a permitted use under the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Member Kunisch inquired about the corner entrance at Rancho Vistoso and asked if the corner could be on more of an angle. Mr. Civalier stated that he would like to recommend to the owner of the property to put a stop sign at that corner. Member Kunisch stated that the problem is that there are big trucks that aret, the back unloading for the restaurants and people can not see around those trucks and it) creates a hazard. Mr. Civalier stated that he has a short term solution by having an all way stop and he was going to make a recommendation to the property owner. Mr. Civalier also pointed out that where these trucks are unloading is not a legal unloading zone. Member Caswell inquired if Mr. Civalier had spoken with Lewis Management. She stated that the property is in the Rancho Vistoso PAD and they have cracked down on Safeway regarding the deteration of the property and suggested that they could put some muscle on them. Mr. Civalier stated that he would try that approach but he has been directed by his supervisor to go to the property owner. Chairman Vogelsberg asked for the applicant to address the Board, and thanked Mr. Acorn For his patience. F: `'--t nutes`:DRB'2004'A-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 24 04i 13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 25 Kim Acorn, 4400 E Broadway Blvd, Mr. Acorn stated that he has had the good fortune of working with the Town staff and stated that he regularly meets with Craig Civalier regarding issues and how to get to the association, explaining that each pad has a vote in the association, so they have a small vote. Mr. Acorn informed the Board that he has talked with the Eisenberg Company and they do not have a problem, they have stated to let them know what they want. Chairman Vogelsberg wished Mr. Acorn success with Safeway. Chairman Vogelsberg opened the public meeting for comment. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, stated that 3 stop signs are not going to help. The stop signs are going to be located in such a place that in order for people to have sight visibility the stop signs would have to be located in the intersection. They can not be located at the corner of the intersection, because people will not be able to see around the corner so they would have to go through the stop sign to actually have sight visibility down to the right. Mr. Adler suggested a short term solution of closing the road and require people who visit the store to go down and out at the other end of the building where sight visibility is not obstructed. Mr. Civalier stated that he will speak to Safeway about that issue. Chairman Vogelsberg replied that they really don't have any legal authority to do it, because it is private property but encouraged Mr. Civalier to try. Chairman Vogelsberg also stated that it would be interesting to Find out the percentage or number of accidents that have occurred there. Mr. Ccfriant replied that due to the property being private property the police department does not keep those records. MOTION: Member Kunisch moved to approve OV 12-03-23, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A, Vice Chair Caswell seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 6. OV12-03-23, ACUNA COFFIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FC?.QT RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED AT THE SAFEWAY V''STOSO SHOPPI CENTER ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL 223-020-350 Bob Conant introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB approve the Landscape Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. Staff Conditions: 1. Planting shall be installed at the refuse enclosure in accordance with OVZCR §ection 14- 208L. Said landscaping to consist of vines or tall shrubs which a maturity will hide the wall enclosure. t 9RB`2004',4-13-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-11-04 25 04 13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 26 2. Remove the trees located on the southeast and northeast corner of the site in order to improve visibility for exiting and entering traffic. Member Caswell stated that there is a problem already with the sight visibility at the corner next to the Chinese restaurant, and stated that the tree needs to be trimmed because it is harping over into the street. Member Kunisch suggested taking that tree out until the problem is resolved. Chairman Vogelsberg agreed that removing the trees right at the turns would improve a motorist sight visibility at the corner. MOTION: Vice Chair Caswell moved to approve OV 12-03- 23 for approval with the conditions listed in Exhibit A and the removal of two trees on the corner near the front and back of the Chinese restaurant, to improve motorists' visibility. Member Culver seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 7. OV13-04-06, ACORN ASSOCITATES ARCHITECTURE, REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING, REQUESTS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED AT SAFEWAY VISTOSO SHOPPING CENTER eN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULDEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL 223-020-350. Bob Conant introduced the staff report into the record. Staff recommended that the DRB approve the Architectural Plan, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. S:r-"'f Conditions: 1. All signage shall be approved by Planning and Zoning prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Architectural approval does not constitute approval of any signage. 2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened by the parapet. VIr. Acorn addressed the Board and expressed his dismay with having to comply with the current OA. Mr. Acorn stated that the HOA wants everything to match the current theme in the slopping center and they are forced to use pink. Mr. Acorn stated that the colors they were proposing, the HOA will not approve unless everything matches. Mr. Acorn stated that the stone that is being used is not attractive regarding the color that they are forced to use, due to the Rancho Vistoso Architectural Review Committee requirements to match the existing Winter. Mr. Vella suggested to the Board that they may want to include in the motion that the applicant h _ the flexibility to work with the association to work on the color. e mutes )RB`2004'..4-1 3-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-1,-04 26 0- !_3/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 27 Chairman Vogelsberg stated that the applicant will not have to come back and wait t9 be heard by the Board. Member Weatherford stated that looking at the rest of the center, Mr. Acorn may not be successful, because they have no aesthetic taste. MOTION: Member Weatherford moved to approve OV 13- 04-06, subject to the conditions in ExhibitA and with the added condition that the color palette is for the building as presented is approved; however if the Rancho Vistoso Architectural Review Committee requires the color palette to match the existing center that color palette is approved for this project, seconded by Vice Chair Cacvell. Motion carried 6-0. 3. REQUEST TO FORM A SUB-COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE DRB RULES AND PROCEDURES Continued to next meeting. STAFF REPORT Bayer Vella reported the following upcoming meetings: • April 23, 2004 from 2PM -5PM in Council Chambers "Conducting an Effective Meeting." - Reappointments coming up for Vice Chair Caswell and Member Feinberg. ° • The Oracle Crossing Master Plan is coming in May. Possible site tour and study session before the May 11 th DRB Meeting. Mr. Vella also confirmed that the Town Council approved the Capin appeal. The Town Council also requested that the Development Review Board help do some work on the code. : OURNMENT 10:45 P.M. MOTION: Member Weatherford moved to adjourn. the April 13, 2004 Development Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 10:45 p.m. Chairman V ogelsberg seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted by, L -.,; • es�et," Re, ors g Sec ary ; 1 nut s. )RB\2004'`\\..4-1 3-04 niintites.doc Approved on 5-11-04 27 0 13/2004 Development Review Board Minutes Page 28 C) 0 0 0 0 • F: ' nutes;DRB\2004\4-I;-04 minutes.doc Approved on 5-1' 04 28 �. 0 Po_EY Ai? TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 04' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ir Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 4 10. 11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-4800•Fax(520)742-1022 Oro Valley Public Library 1305 W.Naranja Drive,Oro Valley,AZ 85737• (520)229-5300•Fax(520)229-5319 Parks and Recreation -UN D ED 1g� 680 W.Calle Concordia,Oro Valley,AZ 85737•(520)229-5050•Fax(520)797-2202 April 14, 2004 Kim Acorn, AIA Acorn Associates Architecture 4400 East Broadway, Suite 505 Tucson, AZ 85711 RE: OV 12-03-23 Development Plan, Landscape Plan and OV 13-04-06 Architecture for All About Running and Walking, Parcel 223- 020-350 Dear Kim: At their regular meeting of April 13, 2004,the Development Review Board voted by a majority(6-0)to recommend conditional approval of the Development Plan for the above referenced project. The conditions approved by the Development Review Board are attached as Exhibit A. Furthermore, the Landscape Plan and Architecture for the project were also approved. The conditions are attached as Exhibit A no further approvals are required for these items. A final landscape plan needs to be submitted reflecting the conditions of approval. Each of the conditions for the Development Plan must be addressed prior to Town Council review of the project. As you are aware, the resubmittal deadline is noon on April 22, 2004. As specified in the Oro Valley Zoning Code, all revisions must be summarized in letterform. Also three(3) full size (24 X 36) and thirty 30 legible 11 X 17 copies of the Development Plan are required. Upon resubmittal, staff will closely evaluate conformance with the aforementioned conditions. At this point it will be determined whether the project may proceed to Town Council. If all pertinent conditions are satisfied, the Town Council will consider the project on May 19, 2004. It may be prudent to begin the public art design review process (brochure enclosed). One percent of the construction cost of the project must be allocated for onsite public art. We recommend that the applicant submit a public art proposal, including a cover letter, construction cost estimate,renderings of the proposed design, and an estimate of the total art cost, at the same time you submit for building plans. Planning staff will transmit copies of the aforementioned items to the Public Art Review Committee (PARC) for review and approval. In turn, PARC will provide a recommendation to Town Council. The submittal must be made in time to allow the Town Council to approve the public art within 90 days of www.townoforovalley.com issuance of the building permit. The approved art must be completed and placed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this point, you may submit grading,paving, drainage and wastewater improvement plans for review. Plans for onsite, offsite and utility improvements are required. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at(520)229-4822. We will gladly reschedule this item for a Development Review Committee meeting to resolve any issues. Very t ly ours, Robert M. Conant, Jr. Planner II enclosure cc: Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator Craig Civalier, Public Works Bob Jacklitch, OV Water Shirley Gay, Development Coordinator File EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING OV12-03-23 1. If a traffic signal is justified at the northerly driveway, the developer(s) shall be responsible to provide one. 2. The owner(All About Running and Walking) shall coordinate with Regency Realty Group and Vistoso Shopping Center LLC to install a three way stop and traffic mirror is to be installed at the intersection of the east-west access drive and the north-south PAAL. The stop signs and mirror(s) are to be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for All About Running and Walking. 3. In order to in sure adequate site visibility, the applicant, at the time of development on the northerly property, shall re-design and improve the adjacent intersection PAAL, as specified by the Town Engineer. 4. Provide sight visibility triangles on the Development Plan. 5. Show pavement detail that will be used for the new parking spaces. 6. Raise the existing storm drain manhole to match the sidewalk elevation. 7. Provide a formula in the notes to correlate the new bench mark elevation to the original bench mark used for the Safeway Vistoso Plaza. 8. Show where the concrete walk toe down detail, 3/DP4, is used on DP2. 9. Provide a letter from the owners association that acknowledges the construction of the proposed building in the vicinity of the 42-inch storm drain. EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING OV12-03-23 1. Planting shall be installed at the refuse enclosure in accordance with OVZCR Section 14-208L. Said landscaping to consist of vines or tall shrubs which a maturity will hide the wall enclosure. 2. Remove the trees located on the southeast and northeast corner of the site in order to improve visibility for exiting and entering traffic. EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL ABOUT RUNNING AND WALKING ARCHITECTURE OV13-04-06 1. All signage shall be approved by Planning and Zoning prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Architectural approval does not constitute approval of any signage. 2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened by the parapet. 3. The color palette is for the building as presented is approved; however, if the Rancho Vistoso Architectural Review Committee requires the color palette to match the existing center that color palette is approved for this project.