HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 6/13/2006 MINUTES OF THE
ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY,JUNE 13,2006
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Mary Caswell, Chair
John Buette, Member
David Johnson,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
Jill Manion-Farrar, Planner
Matt Michels, Senior Planner
Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary
Paul Loomis, Mayor
K. C. Carter, Councilperson
Al Kunich, Councilperson
Scott Leska, DRB Member Elect
ABSENT: Harold Kandetze, Member
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 19
Chair Caswell thanked staff for their assistance during her four years on the DRB, welcomed the
new members, acknowledged Member Johnson for his work on the DRB, and thanked the
continuing members for their work.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MAY 9, 2006, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to approve the minutes as submitted.
Vice Sturmon SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. OV12-05-31, MMLA PSOMAS, representing Copper Canyon Development,
requests approval of a landscape plan for a 21 lot subdivision, Sunset Canyon Estates, located
south of Tangerine road and east of Vista Del Sol, parcels 224-11-019B through F.
C. OV 13-06-23, Two Bears Development, L.L.C. requests architectural approval for a
custom home located on Lot 28 in the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, Parcels "H" and "N",
Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 13 Parcel "F" Amended subdivision on the south side of North
Bow Creek Springs Place (approximately one-half (1/2) mile northwest of the intersection of
North Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and West Vistoso Highlands Drive), Parcel # 219-19-1200.
D. OV 13-06-27, D. Alan Roberts Architects Inc. representing property owner Dana
Roper, requests architectural approval of a custom home located on lot 33 of the La Reserve
subdivision, 10200 N. Cliff Dweller Place, Parcel# 220-14-2180.
MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to approve Consent Agenda Items A,
C, and D, all subject to the conditions set out in Exhibits A.
Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
REGULAR AGENDA
B. (At applicant's and staff's request, Chair Caswell pulled Item B from the Consent
Agenda and into the Regular Agenda.) OV13-06-22, Anjali Godhamgaonkar for Kevin B.
Howard Architects Inc., representing the property owner, Lawrence and Lynette Lui
Jehling, requests architectural approval for a custom home located on Lot 12 in the Stone
Canyon I subdivision, on the west side of Travertine Place (approximately one-half (1/2) mile
northwest of the intersection of North Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Tortolita Mountain Circle),
Parcel # 219-19-3340.
Applicant and staff requested that Item B be moved to Regular Agenda because Condition 1 on
Exhibit A is to be deleted. Condition 1 stated that the driveway was to be modified to avoid
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 19
encroachment on a rock outcrop. On a site visit, staff realized the driveway would not encroach
on the rock outcrop. Applicant and staff agreed that Condition 1 should be stricken.
Chair Caswell asked for guidance on this motion. Joe Andrews suggested making a motion to
approve with the condition that Item 1 on Exhibit A be removed because there is no outcrop.
MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to
the conditions in Exhibit A, with the exception that Item 1 in
Exhibit A be deleted. Member Buette SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
1. Continued Item, 0V12-05-01, The Acacia Group, representing Cape Coral Land
Co., requests approval of a master landscape plan for a commercial center, located in proximity
to the SE corner of Oracle and Hardy Roads, directly south of the Circle K, Parcel 225-14-166B.
Applicant Brad Gephart, 1730 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, Arizona, 85716, gave a presentation.
Applicant has owned this property for 20 years and has tried to sell it. Due to the development
of adjacent properties and the area's annexation into Oro Valley, the site is considered infill, and
the only serious buyers are those interested in small retail office uses. Applicant has a
prospective buyer interested in a portion of the property, and has entered into an agreement,
subject to plan approval. The Master Plan was approved by Town Council on April 19, 2006.
The Master Plan process required a great deal of detail. During the approval process applicant
provided staff with surveys, elevations, traffic studies, native plant studies, hydrological
assessments, and an extensive drainage system plan, in addition to the detailed drawings of the
approved plans. All of these details were considered in the Landscape Plan.
Applicant worked with the residential neighbors to the east and with staff to create a Landscape
Plan that met all of requests and expectations. Other than minor administrative changes, the
Master Plan and Landscape Plan cannot be changed without an extensive revision process.
Applicant has set a closing date for the sale of Parcel 3, subject to Landscape Plan approval, and
has a list of potential buyers for Lots 1 and 2 if the Landscape Plan is approved. None of these
parties would acquire the property if they were not certain they could use it as intended.
Therefore, applicant plans to remain involved in the development process for each individual lot.
The quality of the product is further assured by the requirement that each specific lot be
developed through an individual process that requires staff approval, neighborhood review, DRB
review, and Town Council approval. Last month applicant resubmitted the Landscape Plan and
Irrigation Plan to the staff with all their concerns addressed. Applicant believes this plan meets
all Code requirements, has neighborhood approval, and staff recommendation for approval.
Landscape Architect John Hucko, Acacia Group, 3 861 North First Avenue, continued with the
presentation. A major concern was the buffer yard adjacent to the west residential area. That
buffer, originally 15 feet wide, is now 30 feet wide. Applicant used calculations based on a 15
foot width and exceeded the minimum tree, shrub, and accent requirements almost by 40 percent.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-l 3-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 19
There is a continuous tree canopy across the west property and a 5' screen wall along the west
property line. All of applicant's trees are 24" box or greater, exceeding Code requirements.
On the west property line, applicant created a screen buffer. On the north, applicant designed the
required buffer yard. The entire site will be landscaped and include sidewalks around the
building. Applicant plans to preserve some native vegetation along the narrow throat of the
entry along Oracle Road. Applicant believes the plan addresses all the issues required, and that it
is a quality project in a very difficult, odd-shaped, lot.
David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record and recommended approval of the
Master Landscape Plan.
Member Zinkin asked if there would be enough sight visibility for cars to safely negotiate turns
at the southern edge of the entryway. Paul Keesler said that the plan includes a stipulation that
there not be any vegetation within the 30" to 72" height range in the Site Visibility Triangles.
MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend approval. Member
Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
2. Continued Item, OV13-06-24, AF Sterling Homebuilders requests architectural
approval of model #2965 for Rivers Edge Lots 70-102, located in the Melcor PAD on the north
side of Lambert Lane east of the Highlands Mobile Home Park, Parcel # 224-28-1400.
Applicant Robert Brack, 69 West Naranja Place, Oro Valley, gave an overview of the project and
explained that the DRB previously approved four model plans. The plan currently before DRB
was created specifically for lots 97 and 98 because they are very shallow and do not
accommodate the previously approved plans. Lots 99, 100, and 101 are also shallow and only
accommodate one of the previously approved plans. This plan will allow additional options.
This plan was previously denied by DRB on March 14, 2006, due to the dominance of the stair
tower and front elevation. Applicant found the criticism legitimate and made significant
revisions to the plan. Applicant believes the revisions address and accomplish mitigation of the
stair tower and create a much more marketable house consistent with Oro Valley guidelines.
Architect Johnson Anderson, 4210 East Pontatoc Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85718, continued with
the presentation. To reduce the massing of the stair tower, applicant brought forward the entry
tower, added horizontal mass to break up the large element, repositioned the tower so that it steps
back to avoid a monotonous line, and reduced the height of the tower by 26 inches.
Member Panas and Chair Caswell said they appreciated applicant's efforts to incorporate DRB
comments, and congratulated applicant on the appearance of the end product.
Member Zinkin said he recalled that the previous DRB denial was based on the inconsistency
with the other models, and asked if applicant had a graphic of what the other models look like.
Jill Manion-Farrar stated that staff could provide that to DRB at a later time.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 19
Member Zinkin asked if the restriction that no two models be adjacent to each other, along with
the setback restrictions, posed a problem. Applicant said that they did not pose a problem.
Jill Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record and recommended approval subject
to conditions in Exhibit A.
MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to recommend approval subject to
conditions specified in Exhibit A. Member Panas SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried 6-0.
3. Continued Item: OV12-05-16, WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners, request
approval of a Development Plan for the Stone Canyon VIII Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11
Sales Center, located in Stone Canyon VIII,just off the future road "Street of Dreams"; Parcel #
219-20-002D.
Applicants Bill Walker, 4444 East Broadway, and Richard Maes, Vistoso Partners, gave a
presentation. The request before DRB is for review of the Stone Canyon Sales Center located in
Neighborhood 12. The sales center is intended to replace the existing sales center that is located
in the Vistoso Golf Course, and to match the other Stone Canyon buildings.
The three main issues that need to be addressed are encroachment, trade areas, and parking.
Applicant presented photographs showing how walkways, patios, air conditioning units, and
landscaping will be incorporated to minimize the encroachment of rock outcrops. Applicant
has restricted the encroachment to a maximum of 5' outside the building. The rock outcrops will
have a permanent stain applied to match the existing boulders in the area.
Applicant will handle trades based on the policy adopted by Town Council in 2002. It primarily
is a one-to-one trade of open space for developable areas. There are other criteria for the
useable space to reduce the fragmentation of rocks. The total encroachment area is 3,086
square feet and the open space is the exact same size. Areas that are to be restored and planted
are shown in the landscape plan, which also shows what applicant intends to do beyond the mere
requirements.
Oro Valley's parking code is a set number (no minimum of maximum) and provides for an
alternative parking analysis for cases where the set number doesn't fit. Applicant's basis for the
parking analysis and changing the difference in parking is intended to take and replace the
existing sales center parking requirements. Applicant consolidated the guard tower parking
spaces with the new parking. Applicant's reasoning was not to tear up any more road. As a
result, the proposed parking spaces are 23, while Oro Valley's code requirement is 21.
In response to Member Panas' inquiry about the 1740 square feet area and the distinction
between the area of restoration and the open space trade, Applicant replied that the whole area is
considered a restoration and trade area.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 19
In response to Member Buette's question about how long the rock staining lasts, Applicant said
that the stain is permanent, consists of about 12 different colors, and looks better with age.
Member Zinkin asked whether the open space Applicant is proposing to give up is truly
meaningful open space, because it seems to be weighted toward the Applicant. To deny this or
try to amend this would be expensive, and in return Applicant is proposing to give space that
Applicant isn't going to use anyway. Member Zinkin asked Applicant to elaborate in order to
make him more comfortable about this being an even trade. Applicant replied that this area
really is meaningful and provides a connection between the two areas. Another requirement in
the trade consideration is the buffer which helps enhance the whole area to the south. It is hard
to compare one area with another.
Member Zinkin noted that some of the area that Applicant is encroaching in has 7 or 8 saguaros,
which, if transplanted, may not survive. He said he would like to see more preservation, and
offered the example of one area of encroachment where if one parking space was eliminated and
moved elsewhere, that is one area that will not be encroached on. He asked if there were other
parking spaces that might be moved. Applicant said he would be willing to look at this issue,
and added that they have already moved several parking spaces, and can work with staff to
rearrange the spaces.
Richard Maes, 945 West Vistoso Highlands Drive, said that Applicants are minimizing
encroachment in open areas by eliminating the guard house parking area and moving it. One of
the main reasons the extra parking spaces are needed is to accommodate tour vehicles, as well as
employee and visitor vehicles.
Member Zinkin suggested that employee parking be in another part of the property. Mr. Maes
said he would need to tear up the desert on the opposite side of the road in the parking lot that
was eliminated and that nothing would be gained by adding more parking across the street. He
added that tearing up the desert would encroach on rock outcroppings, and also pointed out that
from a traffic standpoint, sufficient space is needed for vehicles to operate smoothly and safety.
Pamela Pelletier introduced the staff report for the Development Plan and Landscape Plan into
the record, and distributed an additional exhibit, Criteria for Development in Areas in Rancho
Vistoso PAD with Slopes 25% and Greater, and Section 1.2 (Rancho Vistoso PAD Policies). She
offered a historical overview of the project and the site's zoning background. Staff believes the
proposed trade meets the required criteria, and recommends approval subject to the conditions in
Exhibit A, as well as approval of the Alternative Parking Analysis, as it minimizes the future
further disturbance of natural area.
Member Panas asked if Condition #2 on the Criteria for Development applies to areas with
slopes 25% or greater. Ms. Pelletier deferred to Mr. Vella, who clarified that Condition # 2
identifies rock outcrops that are 10' by 10' in areas of 25% or greater slope.
Member Panas asked if the 1,740 square foot was an area of restoration or open space trade.
Ms. Pelletier replied that according to the criteria, any type of encroachment required mitigation.
At the northern part of the parcel where the parking lot is encroaching on the rock outcrops, they
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\,06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 19
are not just going to make a cut in the rock and leave it. In the southern portion trade area, east
of rock outcrop # 3, the amount of square footage allocated to those different square areas equals
the number of encroachment over the entire site. Planned landscaping will also enhance the site.
Member Zinkin asked if staff or the applicant considered off site mitigation. Joe Andrews
interjected that off site mitigation is something that may be offered by the Applicant, but not
something the Town could require or even request at this level.
MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to recommend approval, subject to
Conditions cited in Exhibit A.
DISCUSSION: Member Zinkin asked what kind of precedent is being set for the
remainder of Neighborhood 12, as it stated in the staff report, and how this would amend what
was submitted. Ms. Pelletier replied that the reason the report stated that a precedent is being set
is that the Sales Center is the first site in Neighborhood 12 to come before the Board, and the
way the rock outcrop and trees are looked at will be the same way that they will be looked at
when the preliminary plat comes in. Bayer Vella added that it is not setting any new precedent,
and that the criteria used is the same as has been used from the inception of the PAD.
Member Panas asked Vice Chair Sturmon if he would consider a friendly amendment to the
motion to have Applicant work with staff towards further mitigation. Joe Andrews suggested
that if everyone agrees that Applicants work with staff and see what else they can do to present
to Town Council, this would work. Chair Caswell reiterated that there was a motion to approve,
with a friendly amendment to request the Applicant to work further with staff on mitigation.
Member Buette commented that the encroachment mitigation and trade idea are not new, and
since there is no public outcry, sending back for a parking space here and there is not going to
really benefit the Town.
Chair Caswell asked Recording Secretary to read back the motion. The motion was to
recommend approval, with the additional condition that staff and Applicant work on further
mitigation in general, and the example given was the parking spaces.
MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to recommend approval, subject to
Conditions cited in Exhibit A. Member Johnson SECONDED the
motion. Member Panas offered a friendly amendment by adding
the condition that staff and Applicant work on further mitigation of
the site. Motion carried 6-0.
4. OV12-05-16, WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners, request approval of a
Landscape Plan for the Stone Canyon VIII Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 Sales Center,
located in Stone Canyon VIII,just off the future road "Street of Dreams"; Parcel # 219-20-002D.
Applicant Gary Grizzle, of WLB Group, 4444 East Broadway, began his presentation of the
Landscape Plan by providing an overview of the site. Applicants began by working with what
C:\Docurnents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 19
was already there - the existing boulders and native vegetation. On all of the front and back
areas, Applicants have taken and replaced boulders amongst the new plantings. They are using
drought-tolerant native plant materials consistent with the plant materials in the Stone Canyon
area. They want to transition the landscaping to more native vegetation and are using ocotillos
and barrel cactus to do this. They will be creating a rock mound and making it blend in to be
consistent with the surroundings.
Member Zinkin asked if the 7 saguaros shown on the Landscaping Plan are existing or new.
Applicant said there are 7 new and 5 existing saguaros. One of the 5 will be preserved on site,
and four will be transplanted somewhere on site.
In response to Vice Chair Sturmon's inquiry, Applicant said there would not be any turf grass on
this project.
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend approval subject to the
conditions specified in Exhibit A. Member Zinkin SECONDED
the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
5. OV13-06-25, Advantech Facility Design, representing Ventana Medical Systems,
Inc., requests approval of architectural elevations for three buildings to be constructed at the
Ventana Medical Systems Headquarters in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood #3, located on the
southeast corner of Innovation Park Drive and Vistoso Village Drive, Parcel #219-20-8170.
Applicant Terrell Thomas, architect with Advantech, gave a presentation and acknowledged
Gregg Forszt of Ventana Medical. The proposed project is to expand the existing campus by
approximately 130,000 square feet. Applicant has an approved Landscape Plan that will be
implemented into the project. Applicant offered renderings and bird's eye views of the existing
and new building structures, as well as floor plans and elevations. A serpentine walkway will
connect from the buildings, and there will be a covered walkway.
Applicants are planning to match the existing architecture with colors and texture. The
materials for the new building will be concrete block, stucco will be light colored, and accents
will be split faced block in a darker color. Building 4 will be one-story, with some serrated
edges, and will include the employee building, cafeteria, a small shower and locker area, and a
nurse's area. Building 5 will be one-story, and will include conferencing center, office space,
and customer training rooms.
Jill Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record, and recommended approval subject
to the conditions in Exhibit A.
Chair Caswell asked for clarification on the height of Building 2; Ms. Manion-Farrar replied that
the building's height is 30.25."
C:'\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8106-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 19
Member Johnson asked if Item #2 on Exhibit A was meant to read "split face rock" or "split
faced block." Ms. Manion-Farrar replied that it will be split faced block painted in a hue to
match. Applicant confirmed that the material is split-faced concrete block.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked if the long expanse of windows might create a sun glare problem for
drivers on Innovation Driveway. Ms. Manion-Farrar said there is a condition in Exhibit A that
requires Applicant to provide windows with 20% reflectivity or less. There is also a shade
structure along Innovation Driveway.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked what the roofs 60% reflectivity meant. Ms. Manion-Farrar
explained that reflectivity values are a maximum, and that the paint must not reflect more than
the 60%. Vice Chair Sturmon further asked if the type of roof being used reflects much light.
Mr. Thomas said the roof is hidden by a parapet wall, with the roof 2 to 3 feet below that wall.
Member Zinkin asked if the timing on the new parking lot across the street and the proposed
building expansion had been addressed, as he was concerned about safety issues at the pedestrian
light. Chair Caswell interjected that that issue was not pertinent to the matter at hand, and was
up to Town Council.
Member Johnson noted that Item 4 of Exhibit A refers to reflectivity of less than 60%, and asked
if that was efficient design for this climate. Ms. Manion-Farrar stated that the 60% reflectivity is
in the Town Code and does take into account the climate.
Member Johnson commented that from his perspective as an architect, he believes Applicant has
done a fantastic job on this project.
MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to recommend approval subject to the
Conditions in Exhibit A, and with the additional condition that
the language in Condition 2 of Exhibit A be modified to read
"split face block." Member Panas SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
6. OV12-06-09, Primetime Real Estate Holdings LLC., representing Mercado Del Rio
LLC., requests approval of a Development Plan for lot 3 of Mercado Del Rio, located west of
Oracle Road on the north side of Pusch View Lane, Parcel 224-28-2550.
Applicant Kit Donley gave a presentation, and introduced the owners, Mike Bankowski and
011ie Shouse, as well as representatives of Rick Engineering. Mr. Donley said that the proposed
development is a high quality project and he is very proud that Oro Valley was chosen for its
location. The project is on Lot 3, which is one of 16 lots at Mercado Del Rio. The development
plans for the Oro Valley Car Wash (Lot 11), Arizona Car Care Center (Lot 12), and Brake
Masters (Lot 13) have all been through the owners' association and their designs have been
compared against the Master Architectural Plan and the Landscape Plan.
C:\,Docurnents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 19
Bruce Payton, of Rick Engineering, 1745 East River Road # 101, Tucson, 85750, stated that this
project has been before the Board on numerous occasions, starting with a Master Development
Plan that shows the backbone infrastructures (water lines, sewer system, and dry utilities) for the
Phase I streets. A Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat for grading of 16 lots have been processed.
As each lot is identified for development, individual development plans based on the Master
Development Plan have been submitted. The project has changed slightly from the original
Development Plan; the building is smaller and the parking lot is larger and has better circulation.
David Ronquillo introduced the staff report into the record, presented the Development Plan,
Landscape Plan and Architectural Approval simultaneously, and recommended approval subject
to the conditions in Exhibit A. He paused to answer questions about the Development Plan.
Member Panas asked if Applicant will be able to complete the long list of conditions on Exhibit
A. Mr. Ronquillo said that the majority of things to do are clean-up items, can be done in a
timely manner, and won't affect development.
Member Buette asked if the future use for Lot 2 was known. Mr. Ronquillo said that was not,
but the applicant has indicated it would not be another restaurant, but will likely be for retail use.
David Ronquillo continued with the staff report on the Landscape Plan, and recommended
approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit A.
David Ronquillo continued with the staff report on the Architectural Design, and recommended
approval subject to the condition in Exhibit A.
Member Zinkin asked if there are windows on the towers on the east and west elevations and if it
would be appropriate to require a reflectivity value on those windows. Mr. Ronqillo said that
there were windows, and that it would be appropriate. Member Zinkin said that a condition
could be added to Exhibit A to have all windows with reflectivity values of 20% or less.
MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend approval of Item 6,
subject to conditions specified in Exhibit A, with the correction
that the word"west" be changed to "east" on Line 1. Member
Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
7. OV12-06-09, Primetime Real Estate Holdings LLC., representing Mercado Del Rio
LLC., requests approval of a Landscape Plan for lot 3 of Mercado Del Rio, located west of
Oracle Road on the north side of Pusch View Lane, Parcel 224-28-2550.
Applicant Paula Donley, 1980 East Palisades Road, gave a presentation. Ms. Donley explained
changes in the Master Landscape Plan. An ingress and an egress were removed. Plants from
the Oro Valley list will be put in place. Ms. Donley noted some clarifications on Exhibit A.
Item 3 calls for removal of trees on the western entrance. Trees are in place and will remain.
Item 4 shows that there are trees in the rip-rap area, when in fact there are no trees there.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 19
Member Zinkin asked if staff had any problem with Applicant's request to remove the two items.
Paul Keesler explained that this involved a site visibility issue that is part of the existing
development and part of this new development. What is on the Landscape Plan is a much larger
site visibility triangle (SVT)than is required. With respect to the trees being inside the site SVT,
we need to modify the comment to state the need for re-evaluation with a new SVT, and that if in
truth there are trees inside the SVT, that is a public safety concern for Public Works, and
something that needs to be worked out with the applicant.
Mr. Keesler stated that the changes to Item # 3 on Exhibit A should read: "Adjust the southern
SVT at the western PAAL entrance off Vuelta Caminata Del Rio on the west side of the parcel to
comply with all SVT requirements."
Mr. Keesler stated that on Item #4, if one compares the Development Plan with the Landscape
Plan, the Development Plan indicates that that channel is not rip-rap. The Landscape Plan shows
plantings in there, yet the Development Plan shows plantings outside of the rip-rap. We are not
saying they can't plant there, what we are doing is defining the rip-rap on the Landscape Plan.
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend approval, subject to
Conditions in Exhibit A, with the modification of Item# 3 to say
"Adjust southern SVT at the western PAAL Entrance off Vuelta
Caminata Del Rio on the west side of the parcel." Member Zinkin
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
8. OV13-06-16, Architectural Design Group Inc., representing Primetime Real Estate
Holdings LLC., requests architectural approval for lot 3 of Mercado Del Rio, located west of
Oracle Road on the north side of Pusch View Lane, Parcel 224-28-2550.
Architect David Garcia, Architectural Design Group, 2510 E. Grant #140, Tucson, gave a
presentation. The design involves a 1544 square foot building, with a portion being two stories.
The building will be a wood frame with stucco exterior. There are two wainscot treatments.
The surface protecting portions of the building will be stone veneer, with concrete design veneer
on the lower portions. The top of the buildings will have stucco reveals, along with wrought iron
ornamentation. The tile roof will have a 4:12 pitch and will also have heavy chinked type tile.
There were three areas of concern: the front parking area, the colors, and the screening of the
outdoor patio. The front parking area will be eliminated and will be enhanced with landscaping
to soften up the front view and to make it a more pedestrian friendly area. Regarding the colors,
the MACP has a palette of colors and Applicant is going to use two additional colors which have
been approved, and which will complement the existing colors. The screening of the outdoor
second floor patio area will be accomplished by having a wrought iron railing and perforated
metal to help screen the view.
Chair Caswell asked what the two new colors were. Applicant said the colors were Basket
Beige and Rosemary. The color palette sample was distributed to DRB members.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 19
Vice Chair Sturmon said that on the east elevation there is a massive blank wall, and asked if it
would be possible to add something to that wall. Applicant replied that the reason the wall has
been left blank is because of the close proximity to the property line, but they can add recesses
with wrought iron. The planned landscaping and trees will help add to the appearance.
Member Zinkin asked if there would be a problem with window reflectivity. Applicant said that
on the two-story portion, the clear story windows actually have an overhang, and most of the
time those windows will be shaded. Applicant could add window tinting if there is a problem
with reflectivity. Member Zinkin added that what was suggested in Exhibit A was the
reflectivity of all the windows, not just east and west. Applicant agreed to this.
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend approval subject to
conditions in Exhibit A, with two additional conditions: that a
condition be added to Exhibit A stating that all windows are to
have 20% reflectivity, and that the use of recessed spaces and
wrought iron detailing be added to the east wall. Member
Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
DRB recessed at 8:40
DRB reconvened at 8:45
9. 0V12-06-06, Coronado Engineering, representing Copeland Construction and
Development Inc., requests approval of a development plan for a one-story office building,
located on the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard, Parcel
#223-03-3520.
Applicant Paul Nzomo, Coronado Engineering, gave a presentation. This two-acre lot is part of
the Rancho Vistoso PAD. The proposed project is an 8400 square foot building for professional
offices. Applicant has met with the neighborhood and received good comments, mostly
concerning the heights of buildings and the landscaping. The zoning allows for 24' heights,
this project will go to 16' heights. Access will be from Sun City Boulevard, and there will be
two future cross axis easements so that future development to the west will have access.
Jill Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record, presented the Development Plan
and Landscape Plan simultaneously, and recommended approval of the Landscape Plan subject
to the conditions in Exhibit A. She paused to answer questions about the Development Plan.
In response to Chair Caswell's inquiry, Ms. Manion-Farrar verified that the conditions on
Exhibit A were mostly clean-up items.
Ms. Manion-Farrar continued with the Landscape Plan presentation, and recommended approval
subject to the conditions in Exhibit A.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 19
Chair Caswell commented that Sun City has their own plant palette, governed by their CCR's,
which are more extensive than the Town's plant list, and asked if the Applicant would have to
comply with the Town of Oro Valley or work with the Sun City CCR's. Ms. Manion-Farrar
replied that the plan has developed based on the Town's plant list.
Chair Caswell asked if residents are concerned with trees growing too high, would it not be
advantageous to put bushes rather than trees in that area. Ms. Manion-Farrar explained that staff
had explored the option of having Applicant use shrubs instead of trees, but instead decided on
having the applicant integrate slow growing trees.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked if staff had considered shrubs like oleanders or paintbrush that would
give more color. Ms. Manion-Farrar said those were good suggestions and deferred to the
Applicant. Chair Caswell said that since the Applicant was going to give the presentation they
could address that issue then. Mr. Vella said that the challenge was that the code requires a
certain number of trees, and from that they took species that can double as shrubs.
Member Zinkin asked if there could be an alternative to the proposed fountain, and could
Applicant instead use some type of art piece. Ms. Manion-Farrar explained that the Town Code
permits fountains, especially in a courtyard setting. Mr. Vella added that the Code also requires
that the fountain must be recyclable water and to be fully contained so that there is no seepage.
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend approval subject to the
Conditions in Exhibit A. Member Zinkin SECONDED the
Motion. Motion carried 6-0.
10. OV 12-06-06, Oasis Gardens, representing Copeland Construction and Development
Inc., requests approval of a landscape plan for a one-story office building development, located
on the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso and Sun City Boulevards, Parcel #223-03-3520.
Applicant Joseph Warshauer, Landscape Architect, Oasis Gardens, 3431 East Lind, Tucson, AZ
85716, gave a presentation. Applicant said that this plan represents a visually aesthetic plan and
addresses all the neighborhood concerns and requirements. Applicant has met with staff to solve
some of the problems with existing trees in the neighborhood. The trees on the north side are
from the approved plant list, are also listed as shrubs, and they do bloom. Applicant believes the
trees will maintain a height that will be acceptable to the neighbors.
Chair Caswell said she believes that the Texas Olive tree is not a tree allowed in Rancho Vistoso
or Sun City, and Applicant might what to check. Applicant said that the plant list is Oro
Valley's. Mr. Vella explained that Applicant has to meet Town plants requirements, but since
the Town does not enforce the HOA requirements, Applicant also has to submit to the HOA.
MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to recommend approval subject
to the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Johnson SECONDED
the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-I3-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 19
11. OV 12-05-35, Advantech Facility Design, representing Beverly Harold, requests
approval of a Development Plan for the Vistoso Memorial Chapel, located within the Rancho
Vistoso PAD at the corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Commerce Loop; Parcel #223-
02-017N.
Chair Caswell announced that Item has been pulled from agenda by applicant, to be brought back
at a future meeting.
12. OV12-05-35,Advantech Facility Design, representing Beverly Harold, requests
approval of a Landscape Plan for the Vistoso Memorial Chapel, located within the Rancho
Vistoso PAD at the corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Commerce Loop; Parcel #223-
02-017N.
Chair Caswell announced that Item has been pulled from agenda by applicant, to be brought back
at a future meeting.
16. Discussion and action to establish a date for a Study Session/Public Meeting to
review and possibly act on a proposed Master Architecture Concept Plan for the Oro Valley
Marketplace, a future development located at the southwest corner of Tangerine and Oracle
Roads.
Chair Caswell announced that, at the Chair's pleasure, Item 16 was being taken out of order to be
discussed before discussion of Item 13. After discussion and input from Board, the date and
time decided on was 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at Town Council Chambers.
13. Public Hearing, OV12-06-01A, Rick Engineering Company, representing Oracle
and Hardy 66, LLC., requests approval of a Grading Exception for the Oracle-Hardy Office
Development, located in proximity to the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road,
Parcel #225-12-066C.
Applicant Bruce Peyton, Rick Engineering, 1745 East River Road, Suite 101, Tucson, 85718,
gave a presentation. This parcel has been before this Board previously. In 1997, Applicants
received approval for a grading variance and for a Development Plan for an assisted nursing care
facility. Work was started on the grading plans, but there were some corporate shake-ups in the
medical world and a decision was made to abandon the project.
Applicant is requesting a grading exception for a proposed office building on the site. The staff
report refers to previous submittals. After the first submittal, in February, 2006, Applicant
received comments from staff that there was room for improvements. A resubmittal was made
on May 11, 2006; this had quite a bit of refinement. A third submittal was made in early June,
2006. Because of the timing of the submittals, the staff report we have here is from the second
submittal, and not the third. We now have staff support on the changes we are submitting.
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 19
Member Panas asked if he could pose a question to Applicant. Joe Andrews said that generally
under parliamentary procedure we leave the floor with the Applicant and the question can be
brought up at another time, but it is at the pleasure of the Chair. Chair Caswell said a question
would be fine. Member Panas asked if the report in front of DRB is not an accurate picture of
what is being presented. Applicant clarified that that was the case, and further explained that the
exhibit in the staff report should be dated May 11th, and the one being presented tonight is June
8th. There are a lot of similarities, and Applicant will explain the differences and the results.
Paul Keesler further clarified by explaining that the May 11th submittal was a second submittal
that staff reviewed. Staff felt there was more that could be done before staff could recommend
approval for the grading exception. The layout on the May 11th report is not supported by staff.
pp
The applicant has subsequently met with staff, and has been able to work through the issues and
what is being presented tonight is that work, sans the staff report and submittal.
Chair Caswell suggested that the DRB listen to the applicant's proposal, but since the Board does
not have the complete staff report information, there is a possibility that we might continue to a
specific date and time and bring it up with a staff report. Mr. Keesler said that that was at the
Board's pleasure. He also stated that staff had done a cursory review, and based on that cursory
review everything looks as though Applicant has gone as far as they can with this particular
building. Staff will review this latest submittal and will be adjusting the report.
Chair Caswell stated that in fairness to the DRB, we would probably want to review the staff
report before making a decision, but will leave it up to the Applicant if he wants to give a
presentation.
Member Zinkin called for a point of order, and stated to Applicant that in fairness to the
Applicant, it would better for DRB to review the material three to four days ahead of time, so
legitimate questions could be asked of the Applicant.
Mr. Andrews said that this was noticed as a public hearing that would have to be opened and
closed for this evening. Because it was a public hearing, he would not recommend moving to
continue until DRB has held the public meeting.
Applicant gave overview of development layout and referred to the exhibits displayed. The
project will have two separate buildings — a smaller one at the front and a larger one to the south
of that. There is a street connection off of Oracle that comes up through the ADOT right-of-way,
at 5% maximum slopes on the right-of-way. That slope then increases to 8% up through the
drive aisle up to the first parking bay. There is a retention detention basin on the northern corner
and a second in front of the building. The slope continues along the southerly access way up to
the two levels of parking at the rear and it's all terraced up. Applicant is trying to minimize the
cut in back, but still blend the building into the site. There is about 60 feet of fall across the site.
This is a tough site to get a building on. There is a 5' — 7' retaining wall, and ADA
requirements further restrict the site.
The design changes made since the May 11th submittal were to push the parking back, raise the
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 19
parking by 2 feet, and increase the slope of the parking from the middle of the building to the
north about 5 feet. There are still slopes in the rear to allow for planting and buffering between
the site and the neighbors, and there still is alleyway. With these changes, the elevation is at 68.
The lower tiers are 57, then 65, then jump up to 73, and then about 81. Applicant has tried to
blend this into the building and take advantage and stair step this up on the hillside.
Applicant elaborated on the cross section diagrams displayed. With these changes, the staff
report originally had Applicant requesting a maximum cut of 15 feet, and that was reduced by a
foot. There is an isolated cut at the retention detention basin area. The original request for fill
was 16 feet and is now down to 13 feet.
Member Johnson asked if it would be possible to raise the last tier parking at the far rear end of
the project. Applicant pointed out that that was already at 5%. Chair Caswell interjected that
she believed that Member Johnson was looking at the packet from May 11th, and asked
Applicant if Member Johnson's questions would be answered by the new information.
Joe Andrews indicated that he would like to stand corrected based on a comment from Zoning
Administrator More earlier. If DRB opens the public hearing and continues this item, DRB
should probably leave it open until the next meeting so that that hearing can be held again at that
time. Basically, DRB does not have to close the public hearing.
Chair Caswell commented that since staff report isn't the correct staff report, it would it be
beneficial for DRB to ask for a staff report. Mr. Vella responded that staff would provide a new
staff report prior to the continuance date.
Member Panas commented that with all due respect to Mr. Peyton, he would prefer to continue
this to our June 29th meeting.
Mr. Andrew said that before DRB continues, he would like DRB to open the public. Chair
Caswell confirmed with the recording secretary that there were no blue cards submitted. Chair
Caswell noted that she was keeping the public hearing open until the motion.
MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend continuance until the June
29, 2006, DRB meeting, to allow Applicant and staff the opportunity to
provide updated materials. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
14. Preview, 0V12-05-36, Develop IT LLC, representing owner and applicant, requests
preliminary review of a Development Plan for the Copperstone Office Complex, located in
proximity to the northwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcels 225-11-1970, 225-
11-1980 and 225-11-1990.
Applicant Carl Winters, 270 North Church, Tucson, gave a presentation. This project is between
two apartment complexes. One of the reasons for the request for a study session is that, based
on discussions with staff, Applicant is requesting that the project be allowed to be a two-story
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-I3-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 19
office building, partly because the site where the building will be is on average 16' below the
Oracle Road grade. Even at the normal 25' Applicant would only be 9' above grade. In this
case, project has two and three story apartments on either side.
Applicants have met with the neighbors and noticed everybody within the normal 600 feet.
Three persons came: a representative from Suntree Apartments, a neighbor who does look
directly at the site; and one who looks out at Suntree Apartments. The neighbor who looks most
directly had a concern about drainage. There is a very heavily vegetated area, and none of the
neighbors on the other side look over in the direction of the development. Effectively, this
proposed project will help screen noise from Oracle Road.
Architect Dick Greene, from San Diego, presented elevations and overlays showing how the line
of the curb along Oracle Road corresponds to the height of the building. In order to blend in a
residential area and into the landscape, Applicant has designed a building that looks smaller, by
breaking it up into smaller elements that jut it in and out. On the rear view, which has an
overhang, Applicant sees no need to light up the back of the building at night.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked if there was any chance that drivers would see any of the air
conditioning equipment on the structure's roof. Applicant explained the screening for the air
conditioning is set back, and would preclude anyone from seeing the units.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked if such a large array of windows on an east sunrise line would create
Tare onto Oracle, and asked Applicant what type of reflectivity or tinting would be needed.
glare
Applicant said that there are sun shades that extend out all along, and the windows are set back.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked if signage might be placed up on the face of the building to identify
the offices. Applicant said he is aware that there is a very restrictive sign code. There is a plan
to have the signage stand out in front of the building. Applicant doesn't know if they will
simply have signage on the building and/or on a low profile sign.
Member Panas commented that no lighting at the rear of the building might be a concern from a
safety standpoint. Applicant said he didn't mean to imply they had no lighting, there would be
lighting both on the buildings and low lighting in the parking lot.
Member Johnson commented that he liked the scale, residential feel, and color scheme on this
project, but would have problems with signage and identification of the building. He suggested
using some type of common directory that identifies the project, and a local directory down on
the site. Applicant pointed to where they would include some public art and which will also
show the identity of the property. Applicant hopes to bring in some copper ore type of stone.
Mr. Vella stated that as a preview item, there is no action required at this time. The purpose of
placing this item on the agenda was to give Applicants guidance and direction, particularly with
p g
regard to the Board's viewpoint of having this be either a one-story or two-story building. Chair
Caswell commented that, based on what she was seeing and the fact that the site does drop
considerably at the site, she doesn't feel a two-story building would be inappropriate. She also
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 18 of 19
said that the design is a good one. Her only concern at this point was making sure that CPTED
is taken in consideration with regard to the lighting and landscaping.
Member Zinkin asked what the height code was for these buildings, and was told that it was 25
feet. He asked about reflectivity issues on the west side, for the setting sun. Applicant said
they will also have sun shades along the west side.
Member Johnson commented that with the scale of Oracle along there, a one-story project may
not be compatible. Since the site is so much lower than Oracle Road, drivers might be looking
at rooftop equipment if they were only one-story high, and does not think that is appropriate.
Member Johnson asked if the recess shown in sections, and asked if that was shown only in the
end units or if it was typical all the way across. Applicant replied that the treatment goes all the
way across the building.
Vice Chair Sturmon said he liked the proposed landscape, but at the same time asked Applicant
if they anticipated needing all of that first floor area, or could they use some of it for parking.
Applicant said they had originally designed the building in that fashion, but the cost was
prohibitive.
Vice Chair Sturmon asked if it would be appropriate to think about bringing the buildings up a
bit, and the parking more to the rear. Applicant replied that regulations require that the site has
to be cut through the middle, with half of the parking in front and half the parking at the rear.
Member Zinkin said that the project's two propose flagpoles, if to be seen from Oracle road,
would have to be rather high. Applicant feels that the flagpoles are important these days, would
like to include them, and though they will be subtle, they will be visible from the parking lot.
Chair Caswell asked Applicants if they had received adequate guidance, and Applicant said yes.
Chair and Board thanked Applicants for their presentation.
15. Discussion and possible action regarding election of a Chair and/or Vice Chair of the
Development Review Board (DRB).
Chair Caswell said the Board could take action now, although the DRB guidelines state that an
election would have to be held again in August. She suggested a discussion to perhaps continue
this for when the new members are on board or make a decision this evening.
Member Zinkin suggested that Vice Chair Sturmon chair the next meeting, and that this issue be
placed early on the August agenda. In response to Chair Caswell's inquiry, Mr. Andrews said
that since the item reads "discussion and possible action" it is possible that the Board could take
no action, so Board could decide to take no action and place it on the August agenda.
Member Panas suggested that we could place it on the June 29th agenda, especially since the two
new people are not going to be familiar with the existing members. Chair Caswell said that
C:\Docuxnents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
06/13/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 19 of 19
while that was true, there would be two more persons influencing the decision. Mr. Andrews
interjected that if a chair is elected on June 29th, the Rules state that the Board will again have to
elect in August. A decision was made to request staff to place this item on the August agenda.
17. Recognition of Chair Caswell and Member Johnson for terms of service as
Development Review Board (DRB) Members.
Members of the DRB and staff expressed their deep appreciation and thanked Chair Caswell and
Member Johnson for their tremendous contribution to the Board, Chair Caswell and Member
Johnson thanked DRB members and staff for their support.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to ADJOURN the June 13, 2006, Development
Review Board Regular Session at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried 6-0.
Prepared by:
Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary
C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-13-06 Minutes.doc
Minutes approved 08/08/06
