Plan Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE HISTORIC REVIEW v.1
Plan Number - TP-PRE-0426-00094
Review Name: PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE HISTORIC REVIEW v.1
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historic * | REVIEW COMPLETED | Historic Preservation Comments Activity Number(s): TP-PRE-0426-00094 Address: 1742 N. Oracle Road Date: 5-28-2026 Review Round: Pre-Application Reviewer: Desiree Aranda, desiree.aranda@tucsonaz.gov Historic Preservation Comments - Crystal Hacienda Project 1. Regulatory Framework: The subject property is located within the Miracle Mile National Register Historic District. It is not within an HPZ or HL, nor is the applicant utilizing the Infill Incentive District (IID). Historic Review is triggered by UDC Section 7.4.5.D., which provides relief to parking requirements but requires that the property maintain its contributing status to the Miracle Mile National Register Historic District. 2. Review Process: The Historic Preservation Officer and PDSD Director are responsible for completing the Historic Review. Since the National Register program is a federally administered program, input was solicited from the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Additionally, a courtesy review was conducted with the Tucson Pima County Historical Commission, Plans Review Subcommittee (PRS) on May 14, 2026. Following the courtesy review with PRS, staff discussed the project with the SHPO’s National Register of Historic Places Coordinator, who also garnered input from the National Register staff at the National Park Service. 3. Findings: As proposed, the project would not maintain the property’s eligibility as a contributor to the Miracle Mile National Register Historic District. Therefore, the proposed project does not meet the requirements of UDC section 7.4.5.D. 4. Revisions and Additional Information Needed: The following comments summarize the main revisions that would be required for the property to maintain its contributing status to the Miracle Mile National Register Historic District, subject to additional review by the Historic Preservation Officer: a. Crystal sculpture: i. The main concern is the location of the proposed sculpture on top of a building. Removing the sculpture from this location is required to maintain contributing status of the property. ii. The crystal structure, as proposed, would be enough to result in the delisting of this property. iii. Consider relocating the crystal sculpture to the ground, specifically to the pool area. An argument can be made that the crystal sculpture, as a non-contributing object, can serve the same function as the pool did historically, which was to attract people, particularly if landscaping is added to reinforce what was their historically and if the other features of the pool area, such as the retaining wall, are retained. iv. One suggestion is to give the crystal sculpture an “Eiffel Tower” effect—allow space underneath the crystal sculpture that allows for food/beverage service while maintaining the open space of the pool area. v. Scale down the size of the sculpture. b. Building 3 and the pool area: i. Building 3 proposed for the pool area is intrusive. Historically and collectively, the pool and open landscaped area represented the motel’s main attraction. Keeping this area open is critical to maintaining the historical integrity of the property’s plan, which centers around this open area. ii. As proposed, Building 3 has a solid wall facing Oracle Road. It obstructs visibility of the historic motor lodge and creates a wall along the street where one did not previously exist. Could the concessions area be designed as an ephemeral, see-through structure that serves the desired function but maintains the openness of this area and sightlines. iii. Keep the retaining wall at the pool area. Preference is to retain the river rock but reverting it to its historic appearance of a white stucco wall is acceptable. c. Building 2: i. Provide evidence in the form of a professional opinion from a structural engineer that the existing buildings proposed for demolition are beyond rehabilitation. Preferable to retain and rehabilitate the existing buildings. ii. If enough evidence is presented to justify demolition, the new construction will need to be differentiated enough from the original buildings so as not to create a false sense of history. Strategies could include a more modern window type or other modern feature that clearly differentiates the new building as new. iii. Separate Building 1 and 2 from each other. Keep the south facade of Building 1 and preserve the exterior space between Building 1 and 2, so that the new building is a separate structure rather than an addition. d. Roofs: i. On the roof tile, go with a terra cotta color paint ii. Paint the parapet detail a different color than the masonry e. Windows: i. Existing windows are steel sash or steel casement windows. Keep original windows and repair them. ii. For any windows that were previously replaced, replace with new steel windows that match the design and appearance of the original. iii. Recognizing that additional security may be needed for the buildings that will house gems and minerals, new windows of a different material may be considered, but the design and appearance should match that of the originals. i. Minimize infilling of windows to where necessary. Where necessary, maintain the inset and outline of the original windows. f. Posts: i. Remove non-original stone veneer from existing posts. ii. Retain decorative steel posts rather than stuccoed beams. g. Entry gates: i. Redesign entry gates at the perimeter fence to match the proposed wrought iron fence. The gates should be see-through rather than solid. This will help with visibility and to keep the open feel of the property. h. Historic Signage: i. Retain and restore the two historic neon signs. Note this on plans. i. Additional plan corrections needed: i. Ensure door note is accurate – it says “fiberglass” but should be a Masonite door. |