Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 5/9/2006 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mary Caswell, Chair John Buette,Member Harold Kandetze,Member Dan Sturmon,Vice Chair Marc Panas,Member Mike Zinkin,Member ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager David Ronquillo, Senior Planner Pamela Pelletier, Planner Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician Paul Loomis, Mayor Conny Culver, Councilperson K. C. Carter, Councilperson Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary ABSENT: David Johnson,Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, expressed concern about DRB's compliance with the Zoning Code, applicable PADs, and the General Plan. Two Oro Valley Town Code 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 9 sections that require compliance are Section 26.2 (Paragraph A) - Subdivision and Development Plans, and Section 22.6 - Development Review Criteria. It is the DRB's, and not the applicant's or staff's, responsibility to ensure compliance with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. That doesn't mean that DRB can't vote to recommend approval of a project where compliance has not been accomplished. DRB can recommend approval of something with conditions, even though compliance has not been achieved, but at least DRB can explain their votes with precision. It is important for the applicant to understand why DRB is voting as they are, it's important for the staff, for interested citizens, and for the media, It helps the members of this Board, the Planning Commission and any other board to understand why somebody is voting the way they are. It doesn't have to be subjective, it can be specifically related to an ordinance, a Code requirement, or a condition in the General Plan. Mr. Adler suggested that the Chair ask Mr. Vella to set some time aside so that this particular Zoning Code requirement is implemented and that DRB members have an opportunity to understand it. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF APRIL 11, 2006, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS Chair Caswell acknowledged Scott Leska and Tom Gribb, who will be joining DRB in July 2006, and thanked them for attending. CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-06-17, Kevin B. Howard Architects Inc., representing property owner William Sackrider, requests architectural approval of a custom home located on lot 165 in the Stone Canyon II subdivision, on the south side of Tortolita Mountain Circle, Parcel #219-06-0460. B. OV13-06-18, Fehrenkamp Builders, representing property owners John and Gayle Toben, requests architectural approval of a custom home located on lot 368 of the Catalina Shadows subdivision, located approximately 1/4 north of E. Palisades Drive, on the south side of Moonshroud Drive, Parcel#220-05-7910. C. OV13-06-20, Wattenbarger Architects representing Lytle Enterprises, requests architecture approval of an addition to the Desert Point assisted living facility located off La Reserve Drive, within the La Reserve PAD, Parcel# 220-08-0090. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, and C, all subject to the conditions set out in Exhibits A. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 9 REGULAR AGENDA 3. (At Chair Caswell's request, Item #3 was moved to #1, because it was continued from the previous meeting.) Continued Item, OV13-06-14, D.R. Horton, representing Red Point Development, requests architectural approval of five model homes to be located within the Tangerine Terrace Subdivision, on the south side of Tangerine Road, located approximately 1 mile west of La Canada Drive, Parcel 224-01-8270. Applicant Daniel Cucci, 5255 East William Circle, gave a presentation. He addressed DRB's main concern, which was the lack of visual interest from the street, and the need for a better and more diverse front. In lieu of increased setbacks, the applicant proposed adding patio walls, which would be no higher than 4'6", to the front of each house. The walls would be unique to each model. They would be constructed of standard stucco, staggered in height, with a southwestern look and would break up the monotony of the wall. They would be painted the color of the corresponding house. Another concern was Elevation A for Model 801. Applicant proposed adding curved arches over the windows. Applicant displayed slides of Models 802, 803, 804 and 805. On Model 804, the patio wall would be closer to the street. The house is still 20 feet to the back of the road as a minimum, and the patio wall minimizes the line of vision from the street to the home. Applicant's slides showed the footprint with setbacks, layout with setbacks, layout with setbacks showing the staggered front walls, and a picture of what a front yard would look like. Applicant proposed adding landscaping (which would consist of 2 trees, five 5-gallon shrubs, and five 1-gallon shrubs) to add to the visual interest of the front yards. Applicant presented the actual color palette. In response to Vice Chair Sturmon's question about sidewalks, applicant said that there are currently sidewalks in place, on each side of the street. In response to Member Panas' request to possibly break up the long extensive roofline on Model 805, applicant said that he could look into modifying Elevation A and explained that there are already windows on Elevations B and C that accomplish this. Member Zinkin asked for clarification with regard to the remaining setback dimensions on lots 17 through 36, with the addition of the courtyard. Applicant responded that the setbacks for the building are a zoning requirement. Because the front patio walls are under 4'6" they are allowed to come into the building setback. Member Zinkin asked if applicant would be agreeable to adding a condition to Exhibit A that Models 803 would not be positioned back to back of each other. Applicant said that would be an acceptable requirement. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 9 In response to Member Buette's question, applicant explained that the stucco walls would be a standard feature, and that the wrought iron and block wall combination would be an upgrade. Jonathan Lew introduced the staff report into the record, and recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit B. Member Zinkin asked if staff was happy with the five color palette. Mr. Lew replied that staff was comfortable with the proposed palette. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to conditions in Exhibit B, and with the additional stipulations that the landscape package be included (Condition #10), that the roof line on Model #805 be broken up (Condition #11), and that no models 803 be positioned back to back. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried: 6-0. 1. OV12-05-16, WLB Group, representing Stone Canyon LLC, requests approval of a Development Plan for the Stone Canyon VIII Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 12 Sales Center, located in Stone Canyon VIII,just off the future road"Street of Dreams"; Parcel#219-20-002D. Member Panas requested Chair's permission to speak, and offered the following comment: "Until just a few hours ago I was at a real loss of words for this project, and I am going to direct this toward staff, is I am actually appalled that we even have this in front of us. It doesn't meet any of the criteria that we have set before us. There's excessive conditions that are on here. There is no mitigation for the open spaces, not clear. We have parking issues, and last, but certainly not least, it doesn't even meet the Code. How that can be presented to us is astonishing to me. Publicly before, I have commented on the thoroughness and the quality of what staff has brought to us, which I think we have a tremendous amount of talented and bright people on our staff, and this is not their work, and I am extremely disappointed and embarrassed and least (sic) to say that it hasn't led the applicant down the right path. Along that line, I move to continue this item until all those issues are resolved." Chair Caswell: "Okay." Member Zinkin:"I second it." MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to CONTINUE until issues are resolved. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion. Chair Caswell: "Okay, that a form of a motion and a second. Any further discussion." Member Zinkin: "Madame Chair." C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 9 Chair Caswell: "Mr. Zinkin." Member Zinkin: "If I could be somewhat specific on things that really bothered me. I'm quoting from the staff report, 'From this location, the limits of grading will cut into rock outcrop #1 approximately forty-seven feet. From this location, the limits of grading will cut into rock outcrop #2 approximately forty-three feet. From this location, the limits of grading will cut into rock outcrop #3 approximately forty feet. The majority of the northern portion of rock#1 will be destroyed for the secondary egress. The extent of the proposed limits of grading is excessive at forty three feet and as a large portion of rock outcrop will be destroyed.' These are specific areas, and, where limits of grading adjacent to rock outcrop #3 are excessive. I think before we even start looking at this thing, this all has to come within the established guidelines of both Pima County, Rancho Vistoso PAD and Town of Oro Valley requirements. Chair Caswell: "Okay. Mr. Buette?" Member Buette: "Yes, Chair Caswell, is it a foregone conclusion that these are not met? And, I have a question about the footages referenced in the report. At the site, it looked like there was some discrepancy between what was actually going to be disturbed, like you mentioned forty-seven feet. Didn't we hear that may be twenty feet, twenty-seven, something like that?" Member Zinkin: "I think we did, but it really makes no difference. Zero is what the Code is." Member Buette: "Okay, that's my question. Is that something that is fact. That's what I'd like to know. I mean, is it zero, no encroachment? Bayer Vella: "Chair Caswell, Member Buette, the Code that applies is the Rancho Vistoso PAD for this project, and the, what is being proposed in this specific area wasn't the forty foot number that was specified in the staff report. It's roughly half that amount, twenty to twenty-five feet of encroachment. And, where within the PAD whenever there is proposed encroachment of twenty-five percent slopes, there is a process, subject to DRB and Council review, which is of potential trades in terms of, there are instances where encroachment may be satisfactory to DRB and Council in exchange for the addition of another area. So, that is an issue that is very much at the discretion of the Board and Town Council." Member Zinkin: "Madame Chair." Chair Caswell: "Mr. Zinkin." Member Zinkin: "I see nothing in here about a trade in this package." Bayer Vella: "That's correct." C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 9 Member Zinkin: "So, until, I mean, so that contingency hasn't even been met, as I see." Bayer Vella: "That's correct." Member Zinkin: "Okay." Member Buette: "Chair Caswell." Chair Caswell: "Mr. Buette." Member Buette: "Might it behoove us to hear the project and make recommendations to that effect. Or, simply send it back without really hearing and knowing what the real issues are? I mean, that's something I'm throwing out." Chair Caswell: "Okay. Mr. Panas." Member Panas: "That's a good point; however, it doesn't even meet Code. We have no authority to change Code, look at Code, do anything with Code, it's totally out of our purview. It doesn't even meet the requirements to build or to have anything. That's why I am astonished that it was even brought to us." Chair Caswell: "All right. We have a motion and we have a second." Member Kandetzke:"I believe we do have a motion." Chair Caswell: "We do have a motion." Member Panas: "And a second." Chair Caswell: "And a second. So, we've had discussion and the motion is to continue OV12-05-16, Stone Canyon Sales Center. May I have all in favor of continuing, Aye." DRB Members: "Aye." Chair Caswell: "Opposed?" Chair Caswell: "6-0. We do have a blue card. Mr. Adler, since this is being continued, I don't, you may want to wait til next month. Is that alright with you? Okay." MOTION CARRIED: 6-0. 2. OV13-05-42, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects LLC., representing Oracle Linda Vista Investors LLC., requests architectural approval of a commercial building within the El Corredor Development, located on the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Linda Vista, Parcel 224-31-0100. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 9 Applicant Tom Sayler-Brown, of Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, 1001 North Alvernon, gave the presentation. The project is at the northeast corner of Linda Vista and Oracle Road. It currently has an approved development plan. Applicant is recommending a change, based on staff comments, to provide some relief on the rear elevation. The staff comments were to put in windows. Instead, applicant is carrying on with the arched treatment that is already on other parts of the building. The building has a fairly contemporary design. Another requirements is that the air conditioning units on the roof be concealed; that is being done. Paint will not have a reflectivity that exceeds standards allowed by Oro Valley. The project has a lot of desert colors, and these will become the basis for the rest of the shopping center. Member Panas pointed out that there was a note in the packet that states, "By proceeding in this manner which we are going out of sequence, the applicant takes the risk of moving forward prematurely with the architecture before formalizing the revised site plan and other project elements." Member Panas asked if this condition was acceptable, and applicant said it was. Member Panas asked if applicant would consider lowering the height of the tower in the area of the proposed coffeehouse, and applicant said they could lower the tower. Member Zinkin asked if the building with the drive-thru would require a Conditional Use Permit, or if it already had one. Applicant said that they would be applying for one. Member Zinkin asked if this was a case of the cart before the horse. Mr. Vella explained that it is really at the applicant's risk. The Code does not address the timing of architectural submittals - and in terms of it being a risk to the applicant - if the architecture is approved and later the Conditional Use Permit is not approved then this action is moot. Member Zinkin further asked if the Conditional Use Permit is not approved and the drive-thru has to be deleted, does that constitute a minor change. Mr. Vella responded that if the drive-thru has to be deleted, and the architectural elevations are approved, this would be a minor change. Applicant would not have to return to DRB. In response to Member Zinkin's inquiry about the reflectivity of the windows (especially east and west windows), applicant replied there would be no reflective windows. David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record, and recommended approval with the conditions specified in Exhibit A. MOTION: Member Sturmon MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to conditions specified in Exhibit A and with the additional condition that the tower height be lowered. Motion carried 6-0. 4. OV13-06-21, Kevin B. Howard Architects Inc., owner and applicant, requests architectural approval of a commercial architecture review; building to be located on Lot 6 in the Sunrise Office Park (Zoned R-S), between Camino Cortaro and Oracle Road; Parcel # 225-14- 3500. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 9 Owner/applicant Kevin Howard gave a presentation. This project, named Studio Del Barrio, will be the future home of Kevin B. Howard Architects, Inc. Applicant stated that he works primarily on custom residential and some select commercial developments. The proposed plan is a green building. Applicant has incorporated a number of features that will ensure that the building will require very little electricity. The daylighting feature incorporated in the shed roof is similar to that of the Oro Valley Library building. Two shed roof forms peak at different angles from one another, and face north to let in light without letting in much heat. The roof will consist of a carefully burnished steel and is a double wall system, so that the building is designed to shade itself. Applicant provided a sample of the roof material to be used. Another material is an adobe mortar block, which will be very compatible to the surrounding building. The steel skin will actually sit away from the envelope of the building, leaving an air passage in between it and the building, shading the insulated wall from direct sunlight. It will be installed to have slight reveals along the top, bottom and sides so that air will be able to pass through. Between the self-shading and the daylighting, it will be a very green building. Applicant is choosing earth tone desert materials. Applicant described the surrounding buildings in the same complex, and pointed out that while the entire complex works well together, each of the building has a distinct architecture, adding diversity and interest. Applicant cited Oro Valley Zoning Code Section 22.6.B.6, which states, "The character of the proposed design shall be in harmony with, and compatible to, those structures in the neighboring environment and the design character adopted for any given area avoiding excessive variety or monotony." Applicant, in interpreting that language to this particular development, which already has quite a bit of diversity in terms of roofs, is adding the shed roof. In an effort to create continuity within this diversity, applicant has chosen stucco colors that are compatible with the existing buildings. Applicant's windows are also, except that they will be an antique brown. The roof is an attempt to bring in some desert textures and colors. In response to staff's comments to the original submission regarding west elevation C, applicant provided additional exhibits. The west wall has very little glass, and applicant is planning to plant 6 trees. Applicant is adding a high clerestory window with a projected awning over that. Applicant is adding metal shading trellis not unlike used by the Gadabout. Chair Caswell asked applicant to turn the exhibits around so that the audience could see them. Member Zinkin ask about size of the six trees. Applicant said they would be 24 box mesquites that would be watered the first year as they begin to grow. Member Sturmon asked for an explanation of the zen garden. Applicant explained that it really should be called a desert zen garden. "Desert zen" is a landscaping buzz word used to describe spaces inspired from Japanese zen gardens, which are minimalist gardens with carefully raked sand in patterns, with very particular plants, so that it leads to peaceful viewing. Applicant situated a 4' high wall along the parking edge, so that when one is in the office building looking out one sees the zen garden and not the parking lot. There will be a series of carefully placed pebbles, sand, and a neat array of massings of desert spoons, baby sahuaros and barrels. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006 05/09/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 9 Jonathan Lew introduced the staff report into the record, and recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to conditions listed in Exhibit A, with amendment to Exhibit A (Condition #2) that the applicant's drawings for the west elevation be accepted. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING UPDATE Mr. Vella gave the following update: • He acknowledged and thanked Mr. Leska and Mr. Gribb for attending tonight's meeting. Training and orientation for new members will take place next month. He asked the Chair and Vice Chair to participate, and other DRB members are welcome to join. • In the next week, we will begin to organize a heart-felt"thank you" for the work that Chair Caswell and Member Johnson. • Recently, there have been issuing with some applicants providing presentations and some not. In order to ensure that make sure that applicants understand that presentations are required, staff has put together a letter that we will be sending to all applicants to make that sure that they give an oral presentation for DRB review. • The Senior Planner position has been filled. Matt Michaels, a planner with eight years experience and a Master's Degree from the Portland, Oregon area, will be starting tomorrow. One of the items on next month's agenda will be the election of a new DRB chair. • Another item that will likely be on next month's agenda is the master architectural plan for Oro Valley Marketplace. • Staff is changing the staff report format to provide, as part of the recommendation section, a list of findings of facts. A similar approach is used for Town Council. It may help in terms of forming motions whether to recommend approval or denial. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to ADJOURN the May 9, 2006, Development Review Board Regular Session at 7:13 p.m. Member Panas SECONDED motion. Motion carried 6-0. Prepared by: Arinda Asper Senior Office Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\05-09-06 Minutes.doc Approved on 06/13/2006