Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 3/14/2006 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mary Caswell, Chair Harold Kandetzke,Member David Johnson,Member Dan Sturmon,Vice Chair Marc Panas,Member Mike Zinkin,Member ALSO PRESENT: Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Sarah More, Planning &Zoning Administrator t Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager Pamela Holt, Planner Jill Manion-Farrar, Planner Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary ABSENT: John Buette,Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE 90/I"/to pano1dd�via Oop's�a1nux 90-17I 0`�J6->1-10 soR: P�UJO3uI£niodul `I,s 1ij ouos tubo-LuL1s1oul,,s u uas pur slu.)Cun3o(11:*) •0-9 pat.UUO uoT�oJ •uopotu QEUNOJEs uosutjo f Jagtuayk •pano tdde Apra qu suot�unaIa puu wpm a p. tl�TM lua�sisuoa a lou n suotm�u1n pug iopotu posodoid atl� Imp s2utput uo pasiq LO-90-£I AO Jo rIVII�Iaa puaLULuoOa.J 01 aaAOI^I ui uiZ iagLuay� :I�IOLLO}tJ •suoisspugns snotnaid ou4 q q ajgi�udtuoo lou Si suoi�Bnaja aatgl Hu uo JaMoi.atp jo aou iiadde lull pui fropion `Lj2itq oq lutp 11.1301100 passaidxa uosutjor iagtuow •sjapotu 1u3oi Cpu.toy pino App[un ajdtui atd v lTgttlx[uo suompuoo 3111 pui sJoloa put suoT�unaja 1ua.10BBTp Jo asn a u '86 pT L6 sloj uT slu mil auo /quo 341 sT Tapotu sRll pug `sloT Ja4�.o 341 uitll.taMO JtEu 3.t1 tlaigM 'TOT tiOno ttJT 96 slot .toj p3W3.10 SEM japotu posodoid •sjapotu 2upsix3 a p 1.1104JajjTp sa�uu4a pu.Inpaa1itjo ti pasodo td alp moll paTJL Tja puu iioda.t Buis a p paonpoiput JULIE j-uotuEJ Tuf •pauoi�sanb 2utaq sanssi oq ssa tppu pjnom coda l Buisatp plus lJTOA.t°Aug luatuaja laMol atil 1111m pug suot�1naia pug &Tojoa uT Alliv TLuts allinogi uotssnasip sum a.zatlZ •ivalojjip aq pinoM a11alld Joloa pun SUOTTlnaja 3111. 'WI 3uaal Cpl uo paoljd al uopul.t?n pug uop.unOIa OWES am. .Jo sjapotu 0M3 ou Imus 33l3s tlattlM llnotddE Jo suot3Tpuoa 0111 ssaJppl oZ 'sanT3luta3j1 .10430 sail Immotjdd& `s3oj 043 Jo 3sa.t 341 Jod 's3o3 once riot uo japotu slip asn 03 spaau 3ulOTjddl pug uo 413 : um sjapotu.13tlmo 341 Jo auou INI. S303 Tu3a1Ipl once °AULT Xatls 'sjapoul icJo3s-once 1a po 043 Luau 1! 331t3uaJaJJTp 03 2.UTA.t3 313M X341 pauT?jdxa `aalId 1IUIUlM TsOM 6Z9 `)Tal1g 3Jago' Tulaijddy •112is3p tein3031140.1u pasodoid 043 3nog1 sutaauOO Jo asnuoaq 1pu0S'y xujn2311 of Tuasuoa Luau panotu wall '00P t-8Z-t ZZ#too-md 'Ind atuOH 3j1goIAT spu1T4 TH 31.11J° 3sla auIrl llagtul'J Jo opts 43Tou 043 uo QYd Joajaw 043 uT pa1laoj `ZO I-OL s3o'J alp[ snAIII JOJ S96Z# japoL" jo j1nolddl T11n1a31itja t1 s3sanbaJ siapiingauiog aulma3S IV `LO-90-£IAO 'V VaMaDV IIV'I9O3U VaNa V 1MHSUOD •0-9 p01.U10 UOT1OYAI •uot1otu 341 aaamoDas uDIuIZ 1ogwoJ •pamtugns s1 sa3nuTtu Jo slos q oq jo jlno tddl puatutuooai 01 InA01A1 sulnd .zagtuOAI :MOLLON Sala1OISJ llI(08 MaIAf2I IMaIAIdO'IIAaa 900Z '91 A2IV91I L 1 QMV NOISSES AQ1lIS (ENV MOISS1S 'IVI3adS 900Z `Z AAIV1IIIg1d AO 'IVAO2IddV (INV M1IA321 ii Jo z and sainu&j p.n3og maznaj 3uauudoI AaU 900Z/ft/CO 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 11 1. OV12-05-28, Canada Vistas,requests approval of a Preliminary Plat/Development Plan for the Vistoso Town Center; located at the southeast corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Moore Road; Parcel #219-21-001D. Applicant Steve Solomon, 12753 North Walking Deer Place, gave a presentation which included a historical perspective on the site. This project presented a problem in that the site, which is designated as a high intensity use, was found to include a relatively intact Hohokam village. Mitigation is the only state requirement for the 13-acre core site, which is valued at $8 million. The solution was the creation of a collaborative Honey Bee Village Preserve Working Group, comprised of Oro Valley staff, representatives from Pima County, archaeological consultants, Arizona State Museum, Cultural Resources and Historical Preservation, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the applicant. The resultant product is a comprehensive development plan that includes development of four components: preservation of the core site, a single family home subdivision, condominiums, and a commercial center. Applicant is donating the core 13-acre to Pima County. Pima County is to transfer ownership to Oro Valley, and Pima County bond money will be used to pay for archaeological studies. Desert Archaeology Present Bill Doelle, 4550 Caminito Callado, gave a historical overview of the Hohokam =occupancy of Honey Bee Village, an explanation of Desert Archaeology's involvement with the site beginning in the mid- to late 1980's, and an description of the future archaeological°work that will be conducted on the site. Steve Solomon explained the permitted uses for the Rancho Vistoso PAD and discussed the project's development components. The residential component consists of 145 lots on 52 acres, with the following features: • Coving(curbing) design of streets • Mix of lots and sizes • All homes backing up onto open space, with a minimum of 25' between rear walls • Trails throughout the subdivision • Limited view of homes from Preserve area, no direct access into Preserve from subdivision • An additional half-acre archaeological park The condominium component will consist of 124 units on 14 acres, with open areas between the buildings. The accompanying garages will be designed so that all the parking spaces are contained within the building and the only pavement seen are the few required guest spots and a single driveway into each building. Access into the communal garage area for each building will have one garage door entrance and one garage door exit. Inside is a large turn-around area and individual enclosed garages around the interior perimeter. Each individual garage has direct access to the entry for the corresponding unit. There are 8 units per building, and no exterior stairwells. C:\Documents and Settings\lhershaTocal Settings`Temporar-y!Internet Files\OL.K9C\03-1.4-06 Minutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 11 The commercial component has the following features: • A central neighborhood mall design • Reduction of square footage from 94,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet • Parking and support services for the Preserve • An archaeological display area • Main pedestrian access from Rancho Vistoso Boulevard (2,300 homes within a mile of center) • Varying elevations (terraces) of the site connected by slopes, walking paths and divided by landscaped areas, and brick patios • Parking space requirements arrived at by analysis of shared parking based on percentage and peak demand analysis. Using the conservative figure of 10% shared parking, peak demand, and weekend and weekday demand, 326 parking spaces are planned. The preservation component addresses the following: • Incorporation of protection restrictions on the plat (designation of the core site as an archaeological preserve,prohibiting homeowners from excavating or disturbing the ground, and restricting access from the homes into the Preserve) • Reconsideration of preliminary plat to address any potential major archaeological discovery = • Recorded conservation easement • Preserve wall • HOA CCR's • Detailed architectural guidelines • Monitoring organization Mr. Solomon explained that school children brought to the archaeological site would be led by a guide; the number of students/participants would be restricted, and they would gather in the archaeological display area and then access the larger site using the trial. A master association will govern the entire property, and there will be a sub-association for commercial, single family, and condos. Neighborhood meetings was conducted, and only positive input was received. Chair Caswell expressed concern that the wall was of a height that might not discourage residents from going onto the 13-acre site. Rancho Vistoso CCR's might prohibit access, but people don't tend to stay within the CCR's. Mr. Solomon said the wall, which is being funded by a grant from the Tohono O'odham Nation, will be built on the developer's side of the property line. A maintenance easement will be granted. For now, the wall height is expected to be 42"to 48"but it could be raised to 5 feet. The trail in the Preserve will not be right along the perimeter. There are existing disturbed areas or dirt roads that run along the Preserve. The current thought is to use the disturbed areas for the trails instead of disturbing other portions of the Preserve. C:\Documents and Settings`lhershaTocal Settings\Temporary Internet l='iles\OLK9C\03-I.4-06:Minutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 11 Vice Chair Sturmon asked if and where landscaping will be placed along the wall, either inside or outside. Mr. Solomon said that no additional planting will be done inside the Preserve unless it is for maintaining the trail. Wall is going to be built to blend in as much as possible. Member Zinkin expressed concern about mitigation of dust produced by wind going through the Preserve. Mr. Solomon explained that Desert Archaeology will be preparing a mitigation plan just like for grading and drainage. No further specifics are known now. Pamela Holt introduced the staff report. The uniqueness of this project is that the four components (preserve, commercial, condos, and single family home subdivision) are being planned and presented together. This is not a traditional mixed-use site. Ms. Holt touched on the unique elements of each of the four components, explained the method at which the number of parking spaces had been arrived at, explained applicant's alternative parking analysis, and described the design of the loading zones and passenger drop-offs. Ms. Holt discussed pedestrian connections, as well as changes in grade and elevations and height restrictions to specific lots in the single family subdivision. The proposed trade, which is the creation of a Honeybee Archaeological Preserve, will result in meaningful open space. Screen wall design will be brought before DRB as part of the architectural review process. Staff is requesting a Native Plant Mitigation Plan for the entire site be provided at one time, rather than in phases, particularly with regard to preservation of the ironwoods trees found on site. Staff j recommends approval of the Vistoso Town Center project with the conditions listed in Exhibit.B. Paul Keesler, Division Review Manager, gave a report on the contents in Exhibit B. Chair Caswell, referring to Item C on Exhibit B, expressed concern that whenever there is a special event in Rancho Vistoso, the community bears the cost of the clean-up and related needs. She suggested a provision that the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood Association be notified of the event and that the event be coordinated through them. Member Panas expressed concern about the congestion created by off-site parking. Ms. Holt said that the responsibility for providing off-site overflow parking amenities is the Town's rather than the applicant, and deferred to Mr. Vella and Ms. More. Mr. Vella explained that Condition C provides that a plan has to be in place before there are any special events. In response to Chair Caswell earlier concern, coordination of special events with the HOA would be an appropriate condition to add. Ms. Sarah More explained that one of the good things about the peak flow parking analysis is in relation to events that might be related to the Preserve, which the developer is not necessarily responsible for. There are approximately 100 extra spaces on the weekends, and the developer will in effect be providing some extra spaces if there are public events related to the Preserve. RECESS taken at 7:30 Meeting RESUMED at 7:32 C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OL,K9C\03-I4-06 Vlinutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 11 Member Panas asked, and was offered, clarification on the location of the dumpster routes, dumpster locations, and traffic flow. Member Panas inquired about any plans for future Transit plans for that area. Ms. Keesler explained that presently he was not aware of any plans for Transit, but would check with Ms. Kidwell to see if there is a Transit plan. Member Sturmon inquired about the resultant flow pattern potentially created by the plan having only one access and one exit for trash and commercial trucks. Ms. Keesler said that the southern commercial parking lot provides free-flow on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, with adequate egress and ingress from all directions. The northern parking lot is right in, right out off of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, but as cars traverse the parking lot they will be able to exit onto Moore Road. Member Kandetzke requested verification that development standards for mixed-use property in the Rancho Vistoso PAD were not in place. Ms. Holt said that there were no mixed-use standards. The Town Center site is designated in the Rancho Vistoso PAD as a Town Center. Since the Town Center itself does not have any development standards, staff and the applicant looked to the high density and community commercial standards in the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Member Kandetzke asked who would be involved in any eventual formal process to amend the Rancho Vistoso. PAD to accommodate the mixed uses. Ms. Holt replied that this wasn't a mixed use development and that the project consists of three separate entities. Town Attorney ,- Garrahan further clarified that this project is not a mixed-use development in the sense that lawyers and planners understand the term. This is a classic PAD, which has various uses In. different parts of that planned area development. Member Zinkin asked for clarification on the total number of acres, stated in one place as 52 but in another as 41.92. Applicant Solomon provided a breakdown of the acreage, as follows: 10 acres for commercial, 14 acres for the condos, 13 acres for the Preserve, the remainder (stated as 52 by the applicant)would be for single family homes, for a total of 87 total acres. Member Zinkin, referring to page 6 on the staff report, asked where lot 120 was and if this lot was affected. Ms. Holt explained that staff and applicant had focused on lots 121, 122, 123, 124, and 54. There are no height restrictions on Lot 120. Member Zinkin stated his understanding was that both entries into the development were going to be gated, and was told he was correct. He asked if there was going to be an area wide enough for a school bus to go in and out. Ms. Holt explained that school buses would not be going into the private community, but they will likely pull out onto the right-of-way. Ms. Keesler clarified that in order to handle the school bus situation, per the Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards, a turn-around large enough to accommodate these actions has to happen between the public right-of-way and a gated private street. Not all of these streets have that particular turn-around. Some are exit only and will not allow any ingress except for emergency vehicles. There are two access points that allow a half-moon turn-around which a bus would be able to access outside of the gate. The buses will be able to get off the road, but whether the actual HOA through their CCR's allows the school buses to go into the gates communities, that is another matter. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet.Files\OLK9C\03-14-06:Minutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 11 Member Panas asked if all conditions on Exhibit B can be addressed prior to going to Town Council. Ms. Holt replied that staff has been working with applicant, and believes the non- engineering conditions will be met in time. Ms. Keesler stated that the engineering conditions must be met before staff recommends approval. Mr. Vella said the applicant has shown how those conditions will be met, and he expects full compliance prior to going to Town Council. Member Sturmon, referring to Item 6, asked if the mitigation plan for native plants in any way affect the overall development. Ms. Holt replied that it would not affect the development that she is aware of. She added that an on-site and off-site mitigation plan is required. Mr. Vella stated all of the landscape issues will be addressed in the Landscape Plan. Member Zinkin asked if there was a possibility of having lots moved because of the plant mitigation. Ms. Holt explained that that wasn't how staff was looking at it, that it was more a matter of moving trees. Chair Caswell opened the meeting to public comment for Agenda Item 2. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, commented that "mixed use" is not defined anywhere, that the definitions being used are only opinions, and that these discussions will continue until a definition for mixed use is included into the Code. Mr. Adler said his primary comment was that he believes the zoning for this property needs to be amended sothat the ultimate project is morecomplementary to the historical nature of the property. Zoning on this property was established prior to the knowledge that this was a significant historical and archaeological site, and knowing what we now know, moving forward with the same densitT,and intensity of use is inexcusable, as the development will damage the visual character oftheproperty. Pam Sarpalius, 14721 N. Flagstone Drive, Chairman, and speaking on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed Mr. Solomon's proposal on October 12, 2005. Their minutes document that a motion was made and seconded to fully endorse this proposed plan. The Historic Preservation Commission is very excited and looking forward to this project. They applaud Mr. Solomon's donation of the 13-acre core site and they feel that while this site could have been bulldozed and been lost forever, it will instead become the pride of Oro Valley. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV12- 05-28, subject to the engineering conditions set out in Exhibit B, subject to those engineering conditions being addressed prior to Town Council review, and on the condition that coordination of special events go through the Rancho Vistoso Homeowners' Association. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. Motion passed 6-0. C:1Docunnents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet.F iles\OLK9C\03-l 4-06:Minutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 11 2. OV13-06-08,Justin Smith, representing Fry's Food and Drug,requests architecture approval for exterior building façade remolding, located at 10450 N. La Canada Drive, Parcel# 224-25-024J. Applicant Rick Redpath, 7400 East McDonald Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona, project architect, said staff reports are very thorough. Fry's Stores have found that doing a simultaneous inside and outside removal makes for a more successful project. There is a plan review going through the Building Department for an interior remodel of the store, running separate but parallel to the exterior remodel. Applicant offered the clarification that the renovation will retain about a foot and a half of the existing reddish-brown textured block. It is actually going to be about four feet, there will be a 4' wainscot. Applicant said that Fry's, throughout its remodeling projects, has tried to maintain consistency and somewhat of an identity. The proposed stone veneer has been consistent throughout their remodels, and they would very much prefer to use the stone veneer on the columns. Fry's would be willing to work with staff to match the color or type of stone as closely as possible. Applicants have met with the adjacent property owner, and applicant's initial color scheme was rejected because it wasn't compatible. Applicant is now matching exactly the color scheme and color palette, and,adjacent property owner is in agreement with applicant as far as colors. The only thing in question is the stone veneer on the columns. Chair Caswell commented that some attention needs to be given to the store's dumpster area. Applicant said he would pass that information on to store operations. + . Pamela Holt introduced the staff report and elaborated on the need to integrate the two sites. The color palette is compatible. Applicant intends keeping about four feet of the exposed reddish- brown color and painting the remaining four feet. The proposed veneer stone is used only in one area at the Mercado site. The condition that the stone veneer not be used anywhere at the Fry's site was included because staff didn't feel that the use of the proposed stone veneer on the archway really ties the two sites together. Inclusion of the stone veneer would disrupt the transition between the two sites. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to conditions in Exhibit A. Ms. Holt clarified that the renovation is only for the Fry's store at this time, but it is possible that this renovation might encourage the adjacent shops to also renovate their facades. MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to approve OV 13-06-08 with the conditions specified in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION: Vice Chair Sturmon stated that when the Mercado development was reviewed, DRB struggled to have them C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha;Local Settings':Temporary Internet Files\OLK9C\03-1.4-06 Minutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 11 conform to the Fry's design. The Mercado developer adapted everything as requested, and the stone veneer is a subject matter Fry's needs to reconsider, because DRB fought to have the Mercado adapt to the Fry's look. VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. 3. OV13-06-09, Robert Page, representing Jana and Brian Davies, requests architecture approval for exterior building façade remodeling, located at 7780 N. Oracle Road, Parcel # 225- 51-0130. Applicant Robert Page, 2102 North Country Club #9, representing Jana and Brian Davies, gave presentation. Owners recently purchased the property and want to address deterioration and improve appearance. Applicant concurs with staffs exhibit, but not fully understanding the comment regarding painting of the flat roof segments. The lighter paint color has a reflectivity of 62%. Applicant is requesting approval to drop that down the same color spectrum to the Dunn Edwards DE 6066, which is a 50% reflectivity. Owners also asked to change out an existing single door with a small window with one that will match the other.two storefront doors. Vice Chair Sturmon commented that the roof lineseemed very flat, and asked if it would be difficult to add some shape at the top of the roof line. Applicant replied that this was an existing building that already has a porch, so hei doesn't know how another porch on top of that would enhance the architecture. Owner's intention was to clean up the deterioration and dress it up, don't know that they actually looking at a facade renovation. Pamela Holt introduced the staff report. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions on Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke requested clarification regarding the request to change the paint reflectivity from 62% to 50%. Ms. Holt explained that Condition # 3 is specified as a reflectivity of 60%, pursuant to Oro Valley Zoning Code Commercial Section 21.8, but it is up to the discretion of the Board to pick any number they choose. Member Zinkin asked if applicant was saying that if he has to go to 60% he has to change colors. Applicant stated that was correct. The color would be located under the overhang which is mostly in shade, so the reflectivity is not all critical, but they are willing to drop it down to the next color in that spectrum, which was the number 6066, with a 50% reflectivity. Mr. Vella added that 60% is a code requirement. Ms. Holt further added that 60% is the Code requirement, but if the applicant is proposing a new color that has a lower reflectivity, of 50% for example, that meets the code requirements. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend approval of OV 13-06-09, with the conditions specified in Exhibit A. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet.Files\OLK9C\03-l 4-06 N inutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 11 Move SECONDED by Member Kandetzke. Motion carried 6-0. 4. OV3-04-03A, John Piccoli, representing Ace Hardware Inc., requests approval to amend the sign criteria for Placita De Oro Plaza, located at the Southwest corner of Tangerine Road and First Avenue, Parcel#224-02-170A. Applicant John Piccoli, 6341 N. Placita De Eduardo, presented the reasons for the request to amend this site's sign criteria, developed by Evergreen Devco in 2004. Ace Hardware lettering is not a uniform height. Ace uses a standard unit of measure based on the "e" in "Ace." The rest of the lettering is based on the proportion of the "e." The "e" is 85% the height of the "A." Following the formula,the"H" in"Hardware" isn't even half the height of the"A" and the lower case letters aren't even a third of the height of the "A." Going strictly by the Code, with a 48" high A', the "H" in "Hardware"would be 23"high and the lower case letters would be 18" high. The building is 50%higher than all the other adjacent structures, creating signage that consists of 17" lettering on a 30' long wall. Potentially, an adjacent tenant, with a substantially smaller store could end up having a larger sign than the Ace store sign. Applicant displayed the proposed sign lettering, showing a 61" high "A" and a rendering of the day and night time appearance of the sign on the façade of the building. Jonathan Lew introduced the staff report. Mr. Lew stated that the applicant's proposal meets code, and staff recommends approval with the conditions on Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke asked if the 5' sign was outside the code. Mr. Lew explained that the Oro Valley Zoning Code doesn't specify a maximum letter height, it specifies a maximum signage allowance. Ms. More clarified there is an approved sign plan for this site and those numbers are in the staff report. That plan is what is before DRB for revision. The Code itself would allow the sign of the size that is proposed. Chair Caswell asked if the site's management company, Evergreen Devco, is aware of the request for this variance. Mr. Lew replied that this company has recently changed ownership. Applicant clarified that last year the property was purchased by Diversified Partners, from Phoenix, and they are aware and in agreement with proposed change request. Member Panas asked for the square footage of the Walgreen, which Mr. Lew said was 15,000 square feet, and verified that this variance would only be allowable within this criteria of this site under this ruling. Mr. Vella added that Condition 1 specifies that the 61" letter height is only for Ace Hardware and no other users or pads on this site. One of the reasons for staff's recommendation for approval is that Ace Hardware is the furthest away from the road. Member Panas verified that the only place there will be signage is on the front of the building. MOTION: Member Sturmon MOVED to recommend approval of OV3-04-03A, subject to conditions in Exhibit A. Member Zinkin SECONDED motion. Motion passed 5-1 (Panas). C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files'OL.,K9C,03-14-06:Minutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06 03/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 11 5. Discussion and possible action regarding assigned representation on the DRB Sign Review Committee. The reason for this item is that with the Chair's upcoming departure, more people need to get involved with the duties of the Sign Committee. Currently Mr. Sturmon, Ms. Caswell and Mr. Buette are on the committee. Time involved is once a month, unless there isn't anything to discuss. The purpose of the Sign Committee is to go through initial presentation by an applicant to decrease the length of discussion at the regular DRB meeting. Member Panas volunteered to serve on the Sign Committee. 6. Discussion regarding motions and the use of code specified findings. Board members were given a copy of Oro Valley Zoning Code Section 22.6, which outlines criteria on which to base decisions by the DRB. Town Attorney Garrahan said this matter came up out a concern of creating a clear record on recommendations made by the DRB. Since decisions made at the DRB level can be appealed, staff recommends there be a clear record of any DRB recommendation as well as the reason for the decision. The standard for assessing decisions of Boards and Commissions is whether they are arbitrary and capricious. It is difficult to know whether a decision is arbitrary and capricious if the public doesn't know why the decision was made. Staff recommends that, whenever possible, Board members refer to the Criteria for grounds for one of their motions. When the staff report refers_to the criteria for their recommendation, and the DRB follows along with a staff recommendation, nobody needs to go to any extra work. But in situations in which the Board diverges from staff recommendation or where the staff recommendation does not refer back to the Criteria, then it would be helpful if the motion maker would refer to specific =criteria as a basis for the motion. Further discussion took place on when to use this recommended method of motion submission. STAFF REPORT Nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to adjourn the March 14, 2006, Development Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 8:57 p.m. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Prepared by: Arinda Asper Office Assistant C:\Docurnents and Settings\lhersha\Local SettingsTemporary Internet.Files\O1,K9C\0 3-1.4-06 N inutes.doc Draft approved 04/11/06