Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV130426B Page 1 of 2 Moran, Debbie From: Vella, Bayer Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 2:43 PM To: Mary Beth Savel Cc: Gay, Shirley; Moran, Debbie; Nodine, Bryant Subject: Pulte, OV13-04-026 Mary Beth(please forward to Allen) and Allen, Pardon the brevity of the e-mail—but here it goes: 1. Use of Porte Cache to technically meeting the 50%PAD requirement—Although we prefer the original design, staff will support the new one. Under Oro Valley Zoning Code - we would normally provide an interpretation that you meet the zoning requirement; however, the RV Pad specifies an alternate process. The Rancho Vistoso PAD specifies that DRB is the authority to interpret. All DRB actions are subject to TC appeal. 2. Move Porte Cache into front setback—Per Section 13.106A, ornamental features may encroach 2 feet into the setback. So, it can reach 2 feet into the setback. 3. Interpretation of 50% frontage: linear measurement vs frontage—Our read is that it should be measured on the basis of the linear frontage. Because this involves a PAD requirement, DRB would be the ultimate "interpretation" authority. Schedule: Appeal deadline ("within 20 days from the date of the Board's decisions): Due on January 3 —Fee= $400.00 DRB submittal deadline for January 11 meeting: 12/23 — Same fees as first submittal Staff memo to DRB due: 1/3 Staff memo to TC due; 1/25 TC Appeal Date: 2/16 Please let me know if you have any questions... Bayer For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP,please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602) 262-5311 Tucson (520) 622-2090 Las Vegas (702) 949-8200 Albuquerque (505) 764-5400 NOTE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 01/04/2005 Page 2 of 2 that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. 01/04/2005 Moran, Debbie From: Mary Beth Savel [MSavel@lrlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3:13 PM To: Vella, Bayer Cc: Nodine, Bryant; Moran, Debbie; Gay, Shirley; alan.kennedy@Pulte.com; Dennis.Krahn@Pulte.com; Shawn.Chlarson@Pulte.com Subject: Re: Pulte, OV13-04-026 Bayer: Thanks for the information and your work on presenting a brief timeline for the various submittals. The key date for a new DRB submittal is December 23, 2004 (TOMORROW! ! ) . I have a few follow up questions: 1. Please give me the RV PAD cite that authorized the DRB to make the 50% determination. 2 . Because the DRB is the proper authority to decide if the new port cochere design meets the 50% building frontage requirement, then can Pulte request an interpretation in advance from Bryant to submit with the new DRB application or not? If not, will staff recommend that interpretation to the DRB in the staff report? 3 . If Pulte proposes that the port cochere is an "ornamental feature" that may encroach 2 feet into the front yard setback per Section 13 .106A, do you think that will that undermine Pulte's position to the DRB that the port cochere changes the overall building frontage percentage such that Pulte meets the 50% requirement? Thanks for your thoughts. Mary Beth Mary Beth Savel, Esq. Lewis and Roca LLP One South Church, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701 DID: (520) 629-4418 Direct Fax: (520) 879-4724 msavel@lrlaw.com >>> "Vella, Bayer" <bvella@orovalley.net> 12/22/04 02 :43PM >>> Mary Beth (please forward to Allen) and Allen, Pardon the brevity of the e-mail - but here it goes: 1. Use of Porte Cache to technically meeting the 50% PAD requirement - Although we prefer the original design, staff will support the new one. Under Oro Valley Zoning Code - we would normally provide an interpretation that you meet the zoning requirement; however, the RV Pad specifies an alternate process. The Rancho Vistoso PAD specifies that DRB is the authority to interpret. All DRB actions are subject to TC appeal. 2 . Move Porte Cache into front setback - Per Section 13 .106A, ornamental features may encroach 2 feet into the setback. So, it can reach 2 feet into the setback. 3 . Interpretation of 50% frontage: linear measurement vs frontage Our read is that it should be measured on the basis of the linear frontage. Because this 1 involves a PAD requirement, --B would be the ultimate "intez,.-tation" authority. Schedule: Appeal deadline ("within 20 days from the date of the Board's decisions) : Due on January 3 - Fee = $400.00 DRB submittal deadline for January 11 meeting: 12/23 - Same fees as first submittal Staff memo to DRB due: 1/3 Staff memo to TC due; 1/25 TC Appeal Date: 2/16 Please let me know if you have any questions. . . Bayer For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www. lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602) 262-5311 Tucson (520) 622-2090 Las Vegas (702) 949-8200 Albuquerque (505) 764-5400 NOTE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602) 262-5311 Tucson (520) 622-2090 Las Vegas (702) 949-8200 Albuquerque (505) 764-5400 NOTE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. 2 This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield and is delivered to you virus free. Infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Technology Division 3 Moran, Debbie From: Mary Beth Savel [MSavel@lrlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3:50 PM To: Vella, Bayer Cc: Nodine, Bryant; Moran, Debbie; Gay, Shirley; alan.kennedy@Pulte.com; Dennis.Krahn@Pulte.com; Shawn.Chlarson@Pulte.com Subject: RE: Pulte, OV13-04-026 Thanks again Bayer. Mary Beth Mary Beth Savel, Esq. Lewis and Roca LLP One South Church, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701 DID: (520) 629-4418 Direct Fax: (520) 879-4724 msavel@lrlaw.com >>> "Vella, Bayer" <bvella@orovalley.net> 12/22/04 03 :30PM >>> My mistake - let's revise that DRB submittal deadline: 12/30 1. RV PAD, page 31, 10b: "Interpretation: Where ambiguity arises as to the terms of this PAD, recommendations by the Oro Valley DRB and subsequent action by the Oro Valley Town Council shall govern" So, I was wrong in my first e-mail. . .the DRB recommends and TC approves an interpretation. You have two things going on here. . .appeal of a DRB architecture decision. . .and finalizing an interpretation on whether the porte cache meets the requirement - if needed. 2 . Yes, we will clearly state in the staff memo that it meets the 50% standard as required. DRB and TC have the authority to shoot us down. . .rather than appeal to the Board of Adjustment 3 . No. . .but that' s my opinion. Hope this helps, Bayer Original Message From: Mary Beth Savel [mailto:MSavel@lrlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3 :13 PM To: Vella, Bayer Cc: Nodine, Bryant; Moran, Debbie; Gay, Shirley; alan.kennedy@Pulte.com; Dennis.Krahn@Pulte.com; Shawn.Chlarson@Pulte.com Subject: Re: Pulte, OV13-04-026 Bayer: Thanks for the information and your work on presenting a brief timeline for the various submittals. The key date for a new DRB submittal is December 23, 2004 (TOMORROW! ! ) . I have a few follow up questions: 1. Please give me the RV PAD cite that authorized the DRB to make the 50% determination. 2 . Because the DRB is the proper authority to decide if the new port cochere design meets the 50% building frontage requirement, then can Pulte request an interpretation in advance 1 from Bryant to submit with --- new DRB application or not? ,., not, will staff recommend that interpretation to the DRB in the staff report? 3 . If Pulte proposes that the port cochere is an "ornamental feature" that may encroach 2 feet into the front yard setback per Section 13 .106A, do you think that will that undermine Pulte's position to the DRB that the port cochere changes the overall building frontage percentage such that Pulte meets the 50% requirement? Thanks for your thoughts. Mary Beth Mary Beth Savel, Esq. Lewis and Roca LLP One South Church, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701 DID: (520) 629-4418 Direct Fax: (520) 879-4724 msavel@lrlaw.com >>> "Vella, Bayer" <bvella@orovalley.net> 12/22/04 02 :43PM >>> Mary Beth (please forward to Allen) and Allen, Pardon the brevity of the e-mail - but here it goes: 1. Use of Porte Cache to technically meeting the 50% PAD requirement - Although we prefer the original design, staff will support the new one. Under Oro Valley Zoning Code - we would normally provide an interpretation that you meet the zoning requirement; however, the RV Pad specifies an alternate process. The Rancho Vistoso PAD specifies that DRB is the authority to interpret. All DRB actions are subject to TC appeal. 2 . Move Porte Cache into front setback - Per Section 13 .106A, ornamental features may encroach 2 feet into the setback. So, it can reach 2 feet into the setback. 3 . Interpretation of 50% frontage: linear measurement vs frontage Our read is that it should be measured on the basis of the linear frontage. Because this involves a PAD requirement, DRB would be the ultimate "interpretation" authority. Schedule: Appeal deadline ("within 20 days from the date of the Board's decisions) : Due on January 3 - Fee = $400.00 DRB submittal deadline for January 11 meeting: 12/23 - Same fees as first submittal Staff memo to DRB due: 1/3 Staff memo to TC due; 1/25 TC Appeal Date: 2/16 2 Please let me know if you L . . any questions. . . Bayer For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602) 262-5311 Tucson (520) 622-2090 Las Vegas (702) 949-8200 Albuquerque (505) 764-5400 NOTE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602) 262-5311 Tucson (520) 622-2090 Las Vegas (702) 949-8200 Albuquerque (505) 764-5400 NOTE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield and is delivered to you virus free. Infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Technology Division For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602) 262-5311 Tucson (520) 622-2090 Las Vegas (702) 949-8200 Albuquerque (505) 764-5400 3 NOTE: This message is intE____d only for the use of the indiv--ual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield and is delivered to you virus free. Infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Technology Division 4 LEY qq, 1� OQO 2� 1107( °L/NDED19�� DEV REVIEW BOARD Resubmittal? N Development Review Transmittal Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Division 11000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,AZ 85737 Review Agency: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Transmittal Out: Monday, January 03, 2005 Transmittal Due Friday,January 14, 2005 Project Information Project Number: OV1304-26B Parcel Number: Project Title: RV NB 10 PARCEL B-APPEAL Lots (if applies): Location: RANCHO VISTOSO NB 10 PARCEL B Applicant: PULTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Phone: 520-229-6000 Zoning: PAD Oro Valley Planner: BAYER VELLA Date Information (as applies) DRC Meeting: DRB Hearing: 'P Twn Cncl Hearing: FP/DP Twn Cncl Hearing: Additional Comments: APPEAL TO TC -SCHEDULED FOR TC 2-16 Written comments need to be returned to Development Coordinator, Shirley Gay. If you have no comments,please sign and date this form, and return it via FAX(520) 742-1022. For questions or comments, call (520) 229-4849, (520) 229-4816 or email @ sgay@orovalley.net. Monday,January 03,2005 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Approved Without Comments By: Date: .t(/. (9. 9 600 l K T „WN OF ORO VALLI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 3 2005 11000 N.LA CANADA DRIVE ORO VALLEY,AZ 85737 PHONE: 229-4800 FAX: 742-1022 RECEIPT ****************************************************************************** REFERENCE NUMBER: OV1304-26B RECEIPT #05P00001 SITE ADDRESS: TAXCODE: DATE: 01/03/2005 TIME: 03:19 PM COMP TYPE: DEV REVIEW BOARD TYPE: MODEL DESCRIPTION: RV NB 10 PARCEL B-APPEAL APPLICANT: PULTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OWNER: PULTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Notation: APPEAL-RANCHO VISTOSO NB 10 B Receipt By: DRM ******************************************************************************************* DRM PAID BY: Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 39205 400 . 00 TOTAL: 400.00 FEES PAID: Description Account Code Current Pmts Planning Miscellaneous 001-000-408 400.00 TOTAL: 400.00 Account#: Ending Balance: $ • JAN 3 2005 - e s January 3, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor and Town Council Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: Appeal from Development Review Board Decision in Case #0V13-04-26 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council: This letter is an appeal by the Pulte Home Corporation("Pulte") from the December 16, 2004 decision of the Town's Development Review Board ("DRB") denying Pulte's request to approve architectural elevations for Lots 107 through 299 (the "Lots") (109 total) in the Somerset Canyon subdivision of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel B ("Neighborhood 10"). BACKGROUND. Final Plat. The final plat for Neighborhood 10 was approved by the Town Council on July 1, 2004, in Case #0V12-03-29. The Lots involved in this appeal were platted with approximately 45-foot widths. Pulte is one of several homebuilders that has purchased the 45- foot lots approved in the final plat for development. 2002 PAD Amendment. In May 2002, the Town Council approved a PAD Amendment for Rancho Vistoso PAD Neighborhoods 10 and 11 (the "PAD Amendment"). This PAD Amendment was adopted specifically to accommodate side entry garages on 50-foot wide lots. The key PAD Amendment condition for purposes of this appeal ("Condition 6") provides: 6. The front garage(s) shall not consist of more than 50% of the total building frontage. Condition 6 mirrors the Town's Design Guidelines in Sections 16-103(E)(3)(b)(1): "The garage should consist of not more than 50% of the total building frontage." 6893 North Oracle Road,Suite 121 Tucson,Arizona 85704 Contractor License#064206-079383 520-229-6000 520-229-6001 (fax) 169945.1 1 ''''' '-- - e -, f chvri2 ISSUE. Pulte's proposed architectural elevations for the Lots in Neighborhood 10 meet the Rancho Vistoso PAD design requirements, the Town's Design Guidelines and the PAD Amendment conditions except for Condition 6. Due to the 45-foot width of the Lots,Pulte is physically unable to meet Condition 6. As the December 16, 2004 Staff Report to the DRB explains, the 45-foot lot width and 10-foot side yard setbacks make it impossible to design a standard size (20-foot)two-car garage for any home on such lot and still meet the 50%building frontage condition. The garage width typically takes up between 55% and 62% of the building frontage as the Town staff calculates such building frontage—this exceeds the 50% condition by less than 2 feet on some of Pulte's models. The Staff Report describes this criterion as "unmanageable." Consequently, Pulte worked extensively with Town staff to achieve the intent of the condition: to reduce garage dominance. Town staff interpreted the condition to permit mitigation and Pulte presented extensive mitigation through architectural elements specifically designed to minimize garage dominance. The details of Pulte's mitigation proposals, including exhibits and depictions, were provided to the DRB in a November 10, 2004 submittal letter from Pulte. In summary, Pulte's mitigation proposal included: > A premium garage door resembling a"carriage door"with three optional styles presenting wood grain embossment, decorative hardware and door insets. The proposed garage door has been approved by the Town of Gilbert as an acceptable garage dominance mitigation. This premium garage door is almost five times as expensive as a standard garage door($1,800 versus $385). > A garage door opener as a standard feature, resulting in greater ease for residents to close their garage door automatically upon arrival or departure. This feature is intended to reduce the number of garage doors left open and therefore reduce the garage impact on passersby. > A front yard courtyard extending from the front of the house. This courtyard creates space for the residents to better use their front yards, encourages neighbor interaction, and draws attention away from the garage and towards the activity within the courtyard. > Richer and more contrasting accent colors to accentuate the homes' architectural detail and draw attention to those elements. 6893 North Oracle Road,Suite 121 Tucson,Arizona 85704 Contractor License#064206-079383 520-229-6000 520-229-6001 (fax) 2 169945.1 �: at _ , . 11 teM , > Enhanced architectural decorative elements on the fronts of models including: • Colored pop-outs and faux shutters around windows • A spire or finial on the front corner • Stone accents on home and courtyard walls • Wood grain on rafter tails painted with accent colors • Corbels under barge rafters • Decorative tiles on gables • Wrought iron detailing • Varying front setbacks > Enhanced landscaping designed to screen the garage and reduce garage visibility. REQUEST FOR RELIEF. Pulte requests that the Town Council reverse the DRB's denial of Pulte's architectural elevations for the Lots in Neighborhood 10. Town Council Authority. Pulte's request is within the express authority of the Town Council pursuant to the Rancho Vistoso PAD, Vol. A, Section A(10), Plan Enforcement, Review,Approval & Amendment Procedures. Section A(10)(b) provides that the Town Council is the final arbiter to resolve ambiguity as to the terms of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Here, PAD Amendment Condition 6 has unintentionally created ambiguity by setting an"unmanageable" conflict between the approved lot sizes and the garage frontage percentages. Additionally, Section A(10)(d)permits the Zoning Administrator to approve "non- substantial changes which do not change the intent of the P.A.D." Pulte's request is not a "substantial change" as defined in Section A(10)(d)(2).1 More important, Pulte's proposed architectural elevations are specifically designed to fulfill the intent of the PAD to "reduce garage dominance." Accordingly, Town staff's recommendation to approve Pulte's elevations was justified and appropriate under the express terms of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Justification for Relief. Pulte asks the Town Council to resolve this ambiguity, support the Zoning Administrator's approval of this non-substantial change and approve Pulte's proposed elevations and mitigation options for the following reasons: 1 Section l0(d)(2)defines a"substantial change"as a)Any change,modification or deletion to an approved P.A.D.Policy. b)Any increase in the dwelling unit cap of a neighborhood plan. c)Any increase in the dwelling unit cap of the P.A.D. d)Any change to the permitted uses of a planning unit. e)Any rezonings. 6893 North Oracle Road,Suite 121 Tucson,Arizona 85704 Contractor License#064206-079383 520-229-6000 520-229-6001 (fax) 3 169945.1 y_TM First, Pulte's Neighborhood 10 architectural elevations presented to the DRB satisfy the Town's Design Guidelines, comply with the Town's General Plan, comply with the approved final plat and meet all but Condition 6 of the PAD Amendment conditions. Town staff interpreted the PAD Amendment conditions to allow Pulte to meet the intent of Condition 6 to "reduce garage dominance"through Pulte's extensive mitigation. This also meets the overall intent of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Second, Pulte proposed two alternative methods of calculating building frontage that would result in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of Condition 6. These methods included (1) determining the relative garage width based on the garage door only and (2) determining the overall building frontage in two dimensions (calculating the area of the building frontage using both height and width) instead of in one dimension(calculating the building frontage using a single horizontal width measurement). Under either alternative calculation, Pulte's architectural elevations would meet Condition 6 and the garage frontage would equal or be less than 50% of the building frontage. Pulte especially supported the second alternative as more truly representative of the impact of building frontage as a whole on the streetscape and on passersby. Town staff did not choose to use either alternative calculation. Accordingly, Pulte opted to work closely with Town planning staff to design architectural elements that would minimize garage dominance and present an appealing home design for the Lots, again designed to meet the intent of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Third, at the December 16, 2004 hearing, the DRB acknowledged the quality of Pulte's architectural elevations proposed for the Lots. Pulte should receive consideration for this quality. The critical concern voiced by the DRB in its denial of Pulte's elevations was the 45- foot width of the Lots. Regardless of the validity of the DRB's concerns over the 45-foot lots in Neighborhoods 10 and 11, these lots were approved by the Town and sold to Pulte and other homebuilders. Pulte has expended considerable creative resource, time and expense to design homes for the approved 45-foot Lots. Moreover, at this point in the development process Pulte cannot go back to the drawing board and replat the Lots. Finally, this issue of 45-foot lots in Neighborhoods 10 will not disappear; Pulte and other homebuilders have purchased other 45-foot lots for development. In fact, Pulte also purchased 106 of the 45-foot lots in Neighborhood 10, Parcel C. The Town Council's decision to allow flexibility in garage design to meet the intent of the 50% building frontage rule will create a framework and establish guidance for the development of the rest of these lots. SUBMITTAL MATERIALS. Pulte will work with Town staff prior to the Town Council's hearing on this appeal to determine which materials submitted to the DRB will be presented to the Town Council. Pulte has also submitted to the DRB for approval at the January 11, 2005 hearing, a revised architectural elevation that appears to meet the 50% building frontage rule mathematically. 6893 North Oracle Road,Suite 121 Tucson,Arizona 85704 Contractor License#064206-079383 520-229-6000 520-229-6001 (fax) 4 169945.1 t,&. 4.-, J,. Pending the January 11, 2005 DRB hearing, Pulte may supplement this appeal with additional materials. * * * * * * CONCLUSION. The Town Council clearly has the authority to grant Pulte's request to approve the Neighborhood 10 architectural elevations. Pulte's request meets the intent of the Rancho Vistoso PAD and Condition 6. Town staff has recommended approval based on extensive mitigation proposals submitted by Pulte in cooperation with Town staff Pulte respectfully requests that the Town Council reverse the December 16, 2004 DRB decision denying Pulte's architectural elevations in Case # OV 13-04-26 and instead approve the elevations. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this appeal Sincere Alan Kennedy VP Construction Pulte Homes -- Tucson AK cc: Mr. Bryant Nodine Mr. Bayer Vella Mary Beth Savel, Esq. 6893 North Oracle Road,Suite 121 Tucson,Arizona 85704 Contractor License#064206-079383 520-229-6000 520-229-6001 (fax) 5 169945.1