HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 2/16/2006 MINUTES OF THE
ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Harold Kandetzke,Member
David Johnson,Member
Marc Panas,Member
Mike Zinkin,Member(Acting Chair)
ALSO PRESENT:
Bayer Vella, Principal Planner
Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney
Paul Keesler, Division Review Manager
David Ronquillo, Senior Planner
Pamela Holt, Planner
Jill Manion-Farrar, Planner
Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician
Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary
ABSENT:
Mary Caswell, Chair
Dan Sturmon, Vice Chair
John Buette,Member
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO AUDIENCE
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 11
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 2005 STUDY SESSION MINUTES AND
THE JANUARY 10,2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve both sets of minutes as
submitted. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried 4-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. OV13-06-01, C&C CONSTRUCTION CO. INC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF
ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR A CUSTOM HOME IN THE UPLANDS
SUBDIVISION, LOT 5, LOCATED IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, 1/8 MILE WEST FROM TO THE LA
CANADA INTERSECTION, PARCEL #224-25-2320
B. OV13-06-02, C&C CONSTRUCTION CO. INC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF
ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR A CUSTOM HOME IN THE UPLANDS
SUBDIVISION, LOT 6, LOCATED IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, 1/8 MILE WEST FROM THE LA CANADA
INTERSECTION, PARCEL #224-25-2320
C. OV13-06-03, C&C CONSTRUCTION CO. INC, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF
ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR A CUSTOM HOME IN THE UPLANDS
SUBDIVISION, LOT 7, LOCATED IN THE EL CONQUISTADOR PAD, ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LAMBERT LANE, 1/8 MILE WEST FROM THE LA CANADA
INTERSECTION, PARCEL #224-25-2320
D. OV13-06-04, DAVID JORGENSON REPRESENTING, CORBAN ENTERPRISES,
REQUESTS ARCHITECTUAL APPROVAL OF A CUSTOM HOME ON LOT
114 OF THE CANADA HILLS ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 10845
NORTH SUMMER MOON PLACE, PARCEL #224266910.
MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve all four Consent Agenda
Items. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried
4-0.
REGULAR AGENDA
1. CONTINUED ITEM: OV12-05-01, ALPHA ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING
CAPE CORAL LAND CO., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER, LOCATED IN
PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND HARDY
ROAD,DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE CIRCLE K, PARCEL 225-14-166B
F:\MINUTES\DRR\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 11
Applicants Brad Gephart, Co-Manager of Cape Coral Land Company, address 1730 North
Tucson Boulevard, and Dan Sharp, Architect, gave their presentation.
Mr. Gephart explained that this item was continued from December. Primary concerns were
the circulation throughout the plan and the need for more detail in the landscape and the wall
areas. All major issues had been resolved to staff's satisfaction and agreement had been
reached. There are no objections to staff recommendations. Applicants met with
engineering staff today, reviewed additional changes and agreed that applicant has made
good progress and should be on time for resubmission to Town Council.
Mr. Sharp said that applicants met with staff on January 9, 2006, and brought in a conceptual
plan. He detailed the revisions, which accommodate staff requirements and address some of
the comments from the December DRB meeting.
• Drives have been changed to one-way to two-way.
• The two drives have been aligned on a cross-axis.
• There are now 130 parking spaces and parking bumpers..
• A 5' screen wall, along the east 30' landscape border, has been added.
• Dense and high vegetation on the east screen wall and along the path adjacent to
the screen and the path, has been added.
• Rip-rap along property line was moved to the center of the 30' landscape buffer.
• Two distinct future access points were provided, in case the Circle K expands.
• Two to three feet high parking lighting has been added.
• Restaurant drop-off area redesigned.
• Loading area was redesigned so delivery trucks don't have to back up into traffic.
Member Zinkin asked where the dumpster for Lot 2 is located. Applicant replied that it was at
the northeast corner, and would be screened in with heavy vegetation.
Member Zinkin asked for a clarification on the landscape plan, which shows 140 parking spaces,
and the Master Development Plan, which shows 130 parking spaces. Applicant said the
discrepancy was a typo error. The Development Plan shows the correct number.
Member Kandetzke asked if the two items were to be addressed separately or together. Member
Zinkin said they should be addressed separately since there were different speakers.
Senior Planner David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record and requested permission
to present the Master Development Plan and the Landscape Plan simultaneously and have the Board
provide separate motions at the end. Member Zinkin said that was fine.
Mr. Ronquillo presented a map showing the project and said that at the last meeting, the DRB
recommended continuance because of certain design issues. He displayed the previous plan to
illustrate the concerns and the revised plan to show that concerns have been addressed. Board
members and staff were given a copy of the revised plan, labeled L-1.
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 11
Mr. Ronquillo stated that the project's Master Development Plan and the Master Landscape Plan
meet all code requirements and staff recommends approval with the conditions in Exhibit A,
deleting Condition number 1.
Member Kandetzke asked if any of the engineering concerns,when satisfied,will change the Master
Development Plan. Mr. Ronquillo replied that as far as design, building layouts and parking
circulation,they would not change the Master Development Plan.
Paul Keesler added that the engineering issues are updates for drainage and details needed to
confirm that the drainage works once we get to the improvement plan stage. The improvements
plans will have to match the Master Development Plan. In no way is that going to change the
actual layout, landscaping or general feel of this development at all; these are just issues that need to
be completed before we start on the development plan.
Member Kandetzke asked if this project consisted of three separate parcels. Mr. Ronquillo said it
did. Member Kandetzke asked what kind of changes we could expect as these parcels come before
us with future development plans. Mr. Ronquillo said the Master Development Plan is prepared for
the whole site. Later, on the individual development plans, each pad on its own will meet the 20 %
open space requirements.
Member Kandetzke asked if there was any limit on what the building heights will be. Mr.
Ronquillo replied that the maximum for C 1 is 25 feet because the Oracle Road Overlay District
wasn't established as far as this site.
Member Kandetzke asked if customers have been identified. Mr. Ronquillo replied that the plan is
still conceptual and users have not been identified for specific lots.
Member Kandetzke asked if the square footage of the proposed buildings could change. Mr.
Ronquillo said the purpose of the Master Development Plan was to establish conceptual areas for
building, circulation, and parking. When individual development plans come in the key is to stay
close to the conceptual design or revise the Master Development Plan.
Member Kandetzke expressed concern that once the Master Development Plan is approved, no
individual plot has the authority to alter it. He asked if the particular owner of the three plots could
sell off each individual plot, and asked how the Master Development Plan would be modified. Mr.
Ronquillo said the owners could sell. Minor changes could be done administratively and major
changes would require a revision of the entire Master Development Plan. Without seeing the
specific changes, it is hard to say whether it would be a change that could be done administratively
or one which would require a revision.
Member Kandetzke asked for the basis for comments on the staff report that refer to excessive
building square footage on the site. Mr. Ronquillo explained that the comments were based on last
month's DRB meeting minutes. Member Kandetzke asked if anything had been done to mitigate.
Mr. Ronquillo said that this point nothing can or has been done, as the applicants are still well under
the minimum requirement ratio.
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 11
Member Zinkin asked if, now that there is two-way traffic, there is any plan of installing traffic
calming devices. Paul Keesler replied that stop signs will be required on the improvement plans.
It has not yet been determined which lanes will be primary and secondary. From an engineering
standpoint,north/south would be the preference for primary and east/west secondary.
Mr. Ronquillo requested to make a clarification. Part of the staff recommendation was to delete
Condition 1 of the Landscape Plan. Mr. Ronquillo said he would like to leave that in.
Member Zinkin opened the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 1.
Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, stated his objections to this Master
Development Plan. The applicants don't intend to develop this property, but will sell it to
ultimate owners who will develop the property. They are submitting a plan which they
have no control over how it is designed or developed, what uses are actually there, and
what the square footage will be. This is not appropriate or what the Code intends.
Largely because of the property conditions, shape and size of the property, the design is
unsuitable and incompatible with the standards in Oro Valley. The property is crowded,
and the two-way traffic adds to the congestion and the risk. This property should not be
developed with buildings of different sizes and shapes, but rather with one centrally
located building. This plan may be workable in terms of the strict interpretation of the
Code, but it is not suitable or compatible. Access from Hardy Road is not a way to
access this property, as this adds another element of risky congestion.
Member Zinkin closed the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 1.
MOTION: Member Johnson MOVED to recommend approval of the Master
Development plan for commercial center, 0V12-05-01, subject to
the conditions specified in Exhibit A.
MOTION DIED due to no second.
MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend DENIAL of
OV 12-05-01, Master Development Plan for commercial
center,finding that the plan itself doesn't really give the information
needed about the property or what we are being asked to approve.
Member Panas SECONDED motion. Motion carried 4-0.
2. CONTINUED ITEM, OV12-05-01, THE ACACIA GROUP, REPRESENTING
CAPE CORAL LAND CO., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MASTER
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER, LOCATED IN
PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND
HARDY ROAD, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE CIRCLE K, PARCEL 225-14-166B
F:\MTNUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 11
Applicants Brad Gephart, co-manager of Cape Coral Land Company, 1730 North Tucson
Boulevard, presented. Mr. Gephart asked if he would be allowed to go back and address the last
issue. Member Zinkin told him it wouldn't do any good.
Mr. Gephart stated that applicant submitted a revised Landscape Plan which met staff
requirements and now sought approval of that, even if they have to revisit the issue of the Master
Development Plan. Applicant designed a master plan because applicant has tried to sell the
property as a single use piece for 20 years and the market is not there. Attorney Andrews
interrupted by pointing out that this was going back into the previous item, and explained that
. each item has to be dealt with separately under the Open Meeting Law.
John Hucko, Acacia Group Landscape Architects and Planners,presented the revised landscape
plan, which now includes 45 trees across the east bufferyard. Another condition, to have the tree
canopies touching for ultimate screening, has been done. The landscaping on both sides of the 5
foot screen wall meets the needs of the homeowners.
Member Kandetzke asked how long it would take the trees to provide a canopy. Mr. Hucko replied
that the 24"box-size mesquites and acacias would achieve the touching canopy height in two
growing seasons.
Member Kandetzke asked if Mr. Hucko would have anything to do with the ongoing maintenance.
Mr. Hucko said personally would not;his company would ensure that plantings are done per the
plans, and then maintenance would be entirely up to the owner.
David Ronquillo stated that staff recommends approval of the Master Landscape Plan,based on the
revised site plan that the applicant submitted,with the conditions included therein.
Member Kandetzke asked if the recommendation in the staff report was null and void, and if staff
was recommending approval,instead of continuance. Mr. Ronquillo replied that was correct,
based on the revised plan,that would change to a recommendation of approval.
Bayer Vella pointed out that DRB's denial of the Master Development Plan has practical
implications on the Landscape Plan and asked the Board to keep that in mind. If the Development
Plan ends up changing dramatically once revised by Town Council, that would necessitate
additional review of the Landscape Plan.
MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to continue OV 12-05-01, Master
Landscape Plan and(based on Mr. Joe Andrews' legal
recommendation that the continuance be indefinite due to the fact
that in this item would have to be re-noticed if it were to come back
based on what comes from the Town Council)then modified the
MOTION to continue indefinitely. Member Johnson SECONDED.
Motion carried 4-0.
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 11
3. OV13-06-06, GANSLINE ARCHITECTS REQUESTS APPROVAL OF
ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR THE "SHOPPES AT ORACLE" COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED AT 8600 NORTH ORACLE ROAD IN
PROXIMITY TO THE SOUTHEAST OF ORACLE ROAD AND HARDY ROAD;
PARCELS 225-13-005C AND 225-13-006B.
Applicant Bill Gansline, project architect, said the Development Plan was previously approved
by the DRB. He presented an overview, conceptual plans, elevations, and a sky view. Project
consists of three buildings. Materials are a metal standing seam copper roof, natural stone,
matching stone veneer, concrete masonry Hacienda Block. There are two separate colors and
glass fronts. There are overhangs, an outside patio, two covered pedestrian areas, and an
identification tower.
Planner Pamela Holt introduced the staff report into the record. She emphasized that the elevations
don't clearly depict the non-linear design of the buildings. The building juts in and out, adding
visual interest to the front of the building. At the back of the building, the alternately colored
stucco helps provide visual interest and helps break up the visual mass. Staff recommends approval
of the architectural plans
Member Panas asked if something further could be done to break up the back,with either pattern or
color. Ms. Holt deferred the question to the applicant, who said they could do what DRB liked,but
pointed out this is the rear of the shopping center, where there will be electrical panels, gas meters,
loading zones, trucks, and dumpsters. The south part of this property is going to be cut into the
hillside about 10 feet and be below grade because the property slopes from the south to the north.
One is not going to see much of the back of the building from that southeast house. The houses on
the northeast are looking at the north side of the project,which is the restaurant component with the
sloped roof and glass. The middle part of the shopping center, which is recessed in the site plan,
has no view from any neighbors because there is a wash there. In addition, we have the 5' — 8'
screen wall, and a lot of mitigation,which includes the landscaping.
Member Panas asked how high the towers were and if they were within the allowable heights. Ms.
Holt said one is 38.75' high and the other is 41' high. The permitted building heights for this area
are 25' per the zoning and the Planning and Development plan, and the towers are permitted under
the code as architectural elements and are permitted to exceed the permitted building height. Mr.
Vella added that it does meet code, and that it is within the purview of the DRB to determine
whether it's within the design and scale of the rest of the building. Member Panas commented that
it just looked really high.
Member Johnson asked what the grade change was from the residential first floor to the shopping
center. Ms. Holt replied that when one is standing directly across the wash, at the two homes
adjacent to the homes, one is standing at the same grade. As to what happens after the improvement
plans, she couldn't say, and deferred this question to the applicant. Applicant said the house to the
north is going to be very close to the same grade as the finished elevations of our project. The
house to the south will be above the grade level of the project. With regard to the issue of towers
heights, there is a section in the commercial section of the Oro Valley Code that encourages towers
F:\MTNUTT S\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 11
and other elements to break up the horizontal mass along elevations. It doesn't just permit, it uses
the word"encourage."
MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve OV 13-06-06,the
Shoppes at Oracles, request for approval of commercial architectural
review, subject to the condition described in Exhibit A.
Member Johnson SECONDED motion.
Discussion: comment from Member Panas that he would like to see
the tower a little bit smaller. Member Zinkin acknowledged that it is
hard to envision the height of the tower, but pointed out that it does
add interest.
Motion carried: 3-1 (Panas opposed).
4. OV12-05-25, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING PEPPERVINER HOMES
INC., REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A 69 LOT
SUBDIVISION WITHIN ROONEY RANCH AREA Z, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NARANJA DRIVE AND FIRST AVENUE, PARCEL
220-09-0160
Applicants Rob Longaker, of WLB Group, 4444 East Broadway Blvd., Tucson, Bill Viner and
Richard Barna (Construction Manager for Pepper Viner, 11153 North Poinsettia, Oro Valley) of
Pepper Viner Homes, and John Holly, Civil Engineer with WLB Group, presented. Project
encompasses 77 acres, and consists of 69 homes in a high-end, gated, single family residential
community with 2 recreation areas and undisturbed natural open space across two thirds of the
project.
Applicants displayed a scale model of the project. Staff report currently allows for eleven 2-
story homes. Applicants are asking DRB to consider request to build six additional 2-story
homes, for a total of seventeen 2-story homes. This issue centers on a visibility clause in the
Zoning Code, which restricts houses visible from First Avenue to single story. When staff did
their analysis, they learned there are some places along First Avenue where you can see into the
project. Applicants feel these are fairly small windows that, and as one drives by, don't offer
very good glimpses of the property.
Applicants' request is to build three 2-story homes on Lots 5-9. Applicants also ask that Lots
44-53, which closely approximate the lots that in the Zoning are restricted to single story, be
restricted to single story. Applicants pointed out some alternative sights for 2-story homes.
Applicants said that the distance between First Avenue and the project takes the visual
characteristics of any 2-story home almost out of play.
Bill Viner, 4121 N. Camino Arco, Tucson, Arizona, summarized that applicant is asking for six
additional 2-story homes. Staff had congregated them all in one area. Applicants wants some of
the 2-story homes in the area to the back of the project to, so that they are not all in the same
area, and would like to increase that number by six, to make the project more viable.
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 11
Member Kandetzke asked if applicants had discussed these recommendations with staff and was
agreement reached. Applicant clarified that applicants and staff are not in full agreement.
Attorney Andrews interjected that under the "viewable from First Avenue" analysis that there is
possibly some gray area. A legal problem arises if there is a request to rezone at the DRB level. If
the zoning restricts 2-story homes, making an interpretation at the DRB level is a problem. The
determination on zoning is generally made at the staff level. If there's something that the applicant
disagrees with, they should go out with staff and find out is it or is it not viewable, and if they need
a second story on certain lots,that requires rezoning and is not something that would come to DRB.
Member Panas referred to the entrances, one of which comes off of the dead end at the stop light,
and asked if the stop light would be built through off of Lambert. Applicant said that it would.
Member Panas asked how far away the second entrance off of First would be to the stop light, and if
there was a plan for an additional traffic signal there also. Applicant said is it approximately 1,200
feet. Paul Kessler interjected that there were no plans to install a traffic signal at that particular
juncture, as it would put the two traffic signals to close together.
Member Panas asked if the second entrance off of First would that go all the way through the
neighborhood, and if traffic jams were anticipated. Applicant said that anyone living in the
community would have access at either entrance. Paul Keesler said the applicant and staff worked
out the issues with the two entrances, and with circulation within.
Member Zinkin asked if, at the entrances off of Lambert, a school bus would be able to get in and
make a U-turn and get out so that it doesn't have to stop on First Avenue for schoolchildren.
Applicant said both entrances were designed to accommodate large vehicles such as school buses.
Member Johnson asked applicant to run through the lot numbers to indicate which ones have been
approved for 2-story. Applicant said Lots 1-4 would be one story. Lots 5 through 9, three of those
would be 2-story. Attorney Andrews added that a determination would need to be made to ensure
that those are not viewable from First Avenue. Applicant identified an additional four lots, Lots 66
through 69, 56 through 59, 32, 37, and 38;these are already allowed.
Member Johnson asked what was relevant to seeing the houses from First Avenue. Attorney
Andrews clarified that the zoning just says "viewable from First Avenue"meaning that if one is on
First Avenue and you can see it it, it is viewable.
Member Johnson asked if staff could identify those areas that on this site are completely allowable
for the 2-story houses, and then point out the gray area and get down to the ones that are strictly for
a zoning variance. Mr. Bayer Vella said that the staff report identifies all of the lots that are visible
from First Avenue. The only discretion here in whether or not they are viewable from First Avenue.
The staff report provides a description of the methodology used to determine if it's visible
Member Zinkin said that Lots 66, 67, 68, and 69 are going to allow 2-stories anyway, that's not
restricted. Fifty-six through 59 isn't restricted in Exhibit A, but 5 through 9 are restricted to one
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 11
story. The only debate is on Lot 5 through 9. Member Zinkin asked which other lots applicants
wanted as 2-story. Applicant replied that they were asking for three more, but they haven't
identified which ones, and pointed out to the area in the middle of the project.
Member Zinkin said DRB needed more specifics. Mr. Viner clarified that applicant was trying to
obtain permission for a maximum of seventeen 2-story lots. A lot of these potential 2-story houses
will be driven by the customers' wishes, who might prefer to have a one-story home. Applicant
wouldn't build more than any two 2-stories in a row.
Member Zinkin said he cannot see how DRB can make a decision to allow a 2-story home
potentially visible from First Avenue if we don't know where that home is going to be. Mr. Vella
interjected that to a degree a portion of this discussion is esoteric. The zoning requirement is a
"shall." To receive a waiver from that, applicant has to go back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Town Council to allow lots that are viewable from First Avenue to be 2-story.
Member Zinkin asked if that waiver request should be done prior to applicant coming to DRB. Mr.
Andrews said that was correct. Mr. Vella said this was a legal,rather than a policy, issue.
Member Kandetzke offered a suggestion that DRB determine what is and is not visible. If the lot is
visible it means a zoning waiver or change. If it isn't visible, applicant can proceed. If lots fall
into discussion between applicants and staff,that should be revolved at the proper level of authority,
not at DRB. Applicant said one of the things they would ask, if appropriate, is that there be a
caveat on the staff recommendation that the plan would be able to move forward with 2-story homes
on those designated lots, if it was determined by staff prior to issuance of a building permit or the
final plat, that they were not visible from First Avenue.
Member Kandetzke asked Mr. Andrews if DRB had the authority to do what applicant is asking.
Mr. Andrews said that has already been done. If it is not visible from First Avenue, there is not a
problem. If it is visible from First Avenue there is a problem. The Code is a "shall." Anything
that is visible from First Avenue,under the Zoning Code,would require a zoning change.
Member Kandetzke asked Mr. Vella if he and the applicant were in agreement with what is visible
and what is not. Mr. Vella replied there has not been a discussion about that,but that the staff report
would shed some light on this issue, as it would explain how the site was tested. If it comes down
to an issue to which lots remain that the staff and the applicant are disagreeing about, then we may
add conditions specific to those few lots or give staff direction to do further testing.
Applicant pointed out that he didn't know if staff analyzed every lot. Mr. Vella said that staff had
not. Applicant pointed out that it has been analyzed pre-grading. It might be more appropriate for
staff to analyze after the grading, and go out, lot by lot, and identify which lots can be seen.
Paul Keesler pointed out that Public Works would not be able to issue a Type II Grading Permit in
order to conduct the grading for this site that would necessitate this testing without prior approval of
the preliminary plat and the final plat and the improvement plans. There is no guarantee that the
ultimate improvement plans will be graded at the exact same level.
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06
2/16/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 11
Bill Viner suggested that, rather than restricting homes which may or may not visible from First
Avenue, a possible solution would be a recommendation from the DRB (adhering to the zoning
conditions) that if those lots are visible from First Avenue (based on a field trip by staff and the
applicant after grading), the planning, tentative plat and development plat processes could continue,
and if it is agreed lots are not visible, Applicant could build 2-story homes on those specific lots.
Planner David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record and presented a general location
map and a project overview. He described the methodology used to determine if a particular area
of the project was visible from First Avenue. Overall, the project meets all the code requirements,
and staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions in Exhibit A, which
includes the restriction on the lots that,based on our analysis, are visible from First Avenue.
Attorney Andrews said staff might have potentially worked up an alternative condition to help meet
the applicants' needs and also comply with the zoning without having to go back for a rezoning.
Mr. Bayer offered the following alternative wording: "Prior to issuance of any building permits,the
Planning&Zoning Administrator must determine which lots (not lot areas specifically addressed as
part of the rezoning) are `viewable' from First Avenue as provided in OV9-03-03. All `viewable'
lots are restricted to one story."
Member Zinkin asked how that language be incorporated into Exhibit A. Mr. Vella
recommended replacement of the language in Item#1 with the proposed language.
Member Zinkin asked applicants if that was agreeable to them. Applicants said it was.
MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend approval of
OV 12-05-25, preliminary plat for Rooney Ranch Area Z, Lots 1-
69, with the conditions listed in Exhibit A, replacing Item # 1 with
the following: "Prior to issuance of any building permits, the
Planning & Zoning Administrator must determine which lots (not lot
areas specifically addressed as part of the rezoning) are `viewable'
from First Avenue as provided in OV9-03-03. All `viewable' lots
are restricted to one story." Motion SECONDED by Member
Johnson. Motion carried 4-0.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to adjourn the February 16, 2006,
Development Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 7:50 p.m.
Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
Prepared by:
Arinda Asper
Office Assistant
F:\MINUTES\DRB\2006\02-16-06 Minutes.doc Approved 03-14-06