Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 6/29/2006 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mary Caswell, Chair David Johnson, Member Marc Panas, Member Mike Zinkin,Member Harold Kandetze, Member(6:17) ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Melinda Garrahan, Town Attorney Sarah More,Planning&Zoning Administrator Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager Matt Michels, Senior Planner Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary K. C. Carter, Councilperson Helen Dankwerth, Councilperson Terry Parish, Vice Mayor Al Kunich, Councilperson Elect Scott Leska, DRB Member Elect Thomas Gribb, DRB Member Elect ABSENT: Dan Sturmon, Vice Chair John Buette, Member 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 12 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REGULAR AGENDA 1. OV13-06-19, David Malin, representing Vestar Development Co., requests approval of a Master Architectural Concept Plan involving a 114 acre shopping center known as the Oro Valley Marketplace, located within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 4 at the southwest corner of the Tangerine and Oracle Road intersection, parcels numbers 219-20- 052M, 220-04-006F, and 220-04-008R. Applicant David Malin, Project Manager, 2425 East Camelback # 750, Phoenix, Arizona, gave a brief overview of the project's progress. In January 2006, the DRB approved the Master Landscape Plan. In February 2006, Town Council approved the Development Plan. In March 2006, voters approved the Development Plan. Since then, the Vestar team has been working to put together the following: • Design and architectural review of the entire project. If the project receives DRB approval, Vestar will return to the DRB and submit to staff four different building groups for individual review. DRB, over the next 6-8 months, will have a lot of opportunity to review each of those building groups. • Complete sign package, which will need to be reviewed by the Sign Review Board and Council. This process will take 6-8 months. • Improvement plans for the entire site, which will also take 6-8 months. This project started in March 2006, and it will take another 8 months to get through these three processes, from beginning to end it's about a year's worth of work to get the needed approvals, so that construction can begin. Construction will take approximately 12 — 14 months, before project opens in fall 2008. Time is absolutely critical to work through these processes. As part of the overall plan, in May 2006, Vestar attended the Las Vegas ICSC convention, which is the annual convention of all the country's developers and retailers. Vestar presented the Oro Valley Marketplace to different retailers, and the project was very well received. It is too early to mention names, as retailers are very sensitive about announcing who is interested in a project. Vestar is not currently negotiating. The retailers will do market studies to determine whether they can approve a store in a market like Oro Valley. Then they open up discussion to work on a letter of intent and negotiate the deal point. That takes several months to go through. The retailers then take it to their Board for approval, then go to lease, and this can take from a few weeks to a few months. Vestar hopes to announce their tenants in early fall of 2007. Applicant's PowerPoint presentation included a location map, background, next steps, architectural theme, and material and color palette. Mr. Malin introduced the project team, Wayne Silberschlag and Dan Sharpe from Burlini Silberschlag Architects. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 12 Vestar's goal is to create a unique, attractive and diverse signature destination for Oro Valley. The design and architecture will fit in with the beautiful setting and the views of the Catalinas. Vestar wants to integrate their design architecture with the overall theme of the Rancho Vistoso PAD, and will be using Vistoso stone as an accent feature throughout the project. They will also blend the colors to complement the mountains and the desert setting. By September 1, 2006, Vestar will be submitting to staff the improvements for Phase I, which are basically all the common areas in the project(loop road, restoration area, open space). The architectural theme is based on information gathered at 9 neighborhood group meetings, 4 community-wide open houses, multiple neighborhood and owners' association meetings, the Rancho Vistoso Architectural Review Committee review, and Town Council and town staff review. Vestar had to become fully aware of and incorporate into their plans several codes and ordinances, including the Oro Valley Zoning Code, the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District, the Tangerine Road Overlay Design Guidelines, and the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Wayne Silberschlag, Principal with Burlini Silberschlag, Architects & Planners, 4400 East Broadway# 400, continued with the presentation. In approaching this project, there were several critical design issues that made part of the evolution of the design: • Identity and sense of place; • Establishing a positive, inviting streetscape with consideration given to all viewable sides of the five-sided buildings; • Pedestrian friendly, with nice landscaped and seating areas so people can wander about; • Maximize the use of the public space--there is a large area in the center of the site; • Provide an essence of quality, character and distinction; • Break down development into smaller, distinct nodes. There are distinct areas in the center itself. The majority of the center is retail, as well as restaurant areas, an office complex to be discussed at future meetings, and the theater area. While the architectural design in each node may differ, it will be consistent with the overall architectural theme approved by the master architectural plan. Architectural plans for individual nodes will be presented to the DRB in the future. The theme will be contemporary southwestern style with regional architectural influences from Rancho Vistoso and the desert foothills. Vestar is using many of the materials used in Rancho Vistoso and elsewhere in Oro Valley and are tying that in with the colors of the foothills around this area. Interesting colors and materials and a variety of shapes and forms will identify the distinct nodes, to create diversity. Applicant presented images of different elevations and of the materials, colors, accent, and integrated landscape. The profile of the buildings is of different shapes, sizes, and materials, and the fronts of the buildings are not linear, but go in and out at intervals underneath different canopies and open areas. The roofs are also of different shapes, sizes, and of different materials. The fronts of the buildings have quite a bit of glass, which is normally something that retailers are not fond of, but Vestar is going to work with the retailers to incorporate the glass fronts. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 12 The rear of the buildings along Tangerine Road will be treated to make the appearance attractive, and for safety reasons will not have glass. The loading zones are angled and plantings are placed alongside the loading zones. The treatment of the tops of the roofs or towers will look like the fronts of those same roofs, and will have some depth to it. The inline shops along Oracle Road are not as visible as the ones along Tangerine Road. There is a point from where the top portion of the buildings are visible, but that will also be looked at to mimic the appearance of the shops along Tangerine, although with not as much detail. The pad elevations will consist of smaller shops, banks, and restaurants. There will also be smaller retail tenants along the inline shops, but they will be clustered under one canopy. Not much has been done with regard to the theater because Vestar does not yet know what theater is going in. The shops in front will be positioned along the two sides of the entrance and will probably be food type stores, candy stores, ice cream shops. The large open public space will allow the different shops to feed off of each other, and also create overflow for the theater. Applicant presented images of bridges that will go over the large open space. The bridges will have stone pillars similar to the stone used in the center, to blend it into the desert environment. There will be a transit station and its design will blend in with the architecture, and will have many of the same materials used at the center. There will be restrooms and waiting areas, and canopies with wooden trusses that will give it a feel of a transit station. Applicant presented images of the light fixtures, which are contemporary with an eclectic look. Applicant presented a board with the materials and color palette to be used. It includes 14 primary colors, 5 accent colors, 7 highlight colors, 3 types of stone (based on Rancho Vistoso stone), 3 tile colors for the roof(including a copper color), a metal roof, 2 concrete colors, and 6 masonry colors. David Malin continued with the presentation. Vester has contracted with GOVAC to assist in meeting the public art requirements. GOVAC is in the process of putting together a call to the artists in the community based on the different components on the site plan. Regarding the glass on the front of the buildings, Vester is going to do their best to ensure that the retailers have that amount of glass at the front elevations. This will be a major endeavor and a huge challenge to have the retail community to agree to have that much glass, as it is more than what they typically would like to see on their front elevations. The Vistoso stone on the front elevations, the tiers and undulations and the ups and downs along the parapet and the ins and outs on the facing are substantial upgrades to a typical architectural elevation. On the rear elevations visible from Tangerine Road, Vestar wants to add as much embellishment as they can. However, in areas along Oracle where only the top two feet of the (':'\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 12 building are visible, and where the only people who will see the lower portion of the building are delivery folks, Vestar would prefer to limit the embellishments to the top portion. Chair Caswell asked Member Kandetzke, who came in after meeting had started, to step up to the dais. She also introduced Mr. Malin to the new DRB members, Mr. Scott Leska and Mr. Thomas Gribb, who were in the audience. Member Zinkin asked if there would be shaded walkways all along the front. Mr. Silberschlag said that there would be covered walkways, but not from one end to another. Eighty percent of the front will be covered. There will be areas where there will be trellis work and which will a little more open. Vestar is trying to design this so that people can walk through and be able to see the buildings and the landscaping, rather than just walking underneath a straight canopy. Member Zinkin asked if there would be signage on the rear of the buildings. Mr. Malin replied that Vestar is in the process of putting together a sign package and there will be some signage proposed where the signs would be visible to the two major roads. Chair Caswell asked why retailers do not want glass at the front of the building. Mr. Malin explained that they want to have some glass, but it's a matter of degree. With more glass, there is a greater safety and break-in risk and lessened area for stocking merchandise. Chair Caswell asked if the plans have gone to the Police Department, and asked what CPTED's take is on the glass. Mr. Vella said he would address that issue in his staff report. Member Kandetzke asked if the bright blue sign shown on page 12 of the exhibit packet was a color that would be used. Mr. Malin said it was Vestar's intention to use it to the extent that there sometimes are key tenants who insist on using signage and colors specific to their logos and trademarks, and who will not sign a lease without being able to use their distinctive signage. Member Zinkin asked for Mr. Malin's response to Condition 2 on Exhibit A. Mr. Malin said he was comfortable with being part of the sign review. Bayer Vella introduced the staff report into the record, and noted the following challenges, restrictions and considerations: • Buildings face inward, and towards the existing neighborhood; • Significant height differences within the project; • Catalina Shadows subdivision facing the project site and at a higher elevation; • Significant open space swath that bisects the site; • Taller buildings are up against the hillsides and smaller buildings are closer to residences; • Variation in colors will add interest and will avoid a homogenous look; • Emphasis on appearance of rear elevations where the buildings are visible from roadway; • Pedestrian scale features(adding interest and functionality), landscaping and hardscaping; • Shade opportunity (using overhangs and trellises with the hardscape and landscape plan); • Expanse of windows (designed to have people take their time window-shopping). C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 12 Mr. Vella suggested modifying Condition 7 on Exhibit A, to read, "The elevation of the Tangerine Road inline shops must incorporate additional windows in areas indicated as part of Exhibit B in the staff presentation." Staff recommended approval subject to Conditions 1-8 on Exhibit A, as modified. Member Johnson concurs with Mr. Malin concerning the Oracle Road rear facade. If the public can't see it, why put gems on it. Glass reflectivity does it matter here, since there will 1 not be any cars going by. If Vestar is having problems with tenants about the glass, he would be okay with wainscoting windows. Regarding the covered walk, 10% to 15% in uncovered areas is acceptable, but if it is more than 50% then that is not comfortable. Mr. Vella agreed with Mr. Johnson's comments regarding the elevations. The Oracle Road Scenic Corridor and the Tangerine Corridor specify that glass reflectivity be kept at 20% or less, and although there will not be any glass at the back of the buildings, staff wanted to maintain that requirement as mitigation towards the homes looking down on the site. On the glass at the front of the buildings, a compromise seems to have been reached by not using a number but ensuring that the condition is there. In terms of providing a shaded walk area, the idea is not to have one long continuous overhang, but to provide a mixture of landscaping, trellises, and overhangs. In response to Chair Caswell's questions regarding CPTED, Mr. Vella explained that there were two somewhat contrasting axioms. One is that more windows are better, as they are the eyes on the street, sidewalk and parking lot. The other is that there is more crime associated with more windows. Mr. Vella said that it is a balance and perhaps a wash. Chair Caswell commented that with the Police Substation located in the Marketplace that would not be as much of an issue. Member Panas said he agreed with Mr. Vella regarding the color palette, and asked if Mr. Vella would like to have a condition that the color palette be expanded. Mr. Vella said yes. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye, thanked Mr. Malin for his general outline but said he thinks it is hazardous to approve generalities and would recommend withholding authorization until specific details are provided. He referred to the Oracle Crossings project, where a concept plan was provided, and then when improvement plans were submitted, the Legal Department said the Town could not make those changes because they would potentially violate the concept plan, which was a contractual agreement. Nowhere in the Zoning Code could he find any reference to an MACP, so in his opinion this is a complete invention. The design criteria for development review, Section 22.06, doesn't allow for review piecemeal, doesn't allow for making approvals of one document or part of one document, like an architectural plan. As the General Plan says, this is to be done coherently. What is being proposed is not authorized by the Zoning Code and is unjustified. He said that he disputes the visibility issue, as there are pedestrians, bicyclists, and joggers who would see the backs of the buildings. He asked a friend to stand down in that area as he drove on Tangerine, and he could see that individual from his vehicle. He acknowledged that a view-shed analysis is coming in the future, but to approve the theme or concept he believes is unnecessary, unauthorized, and hazardous because it commits DRB to a concept which somebody later could say is really a C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi[es\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 12 commitment. To grant approval for something without the particulars is unnecessary, and he hopes DRB does not approve it. In response to Chair Caswell's request, Mr. Vella gave a clarification of MACP. The idea of a Master Architectural Concept Plan (MACP) comes out of the Zoning Code description of Master Development Plan. When an applicant does a Master Development Plan, they specify nonspecific elements such as architecture. In this case the applicant did not do a Master Development; they did a specific Development Plan for the entire site, which is highly unusual for a site of this size. Staff led the approach, requesting that they come in with architecture that sets the tone and stage for future submittals. Staff took this same approach with the Donley site at Mercado Del Rio. They have used that to measure each pad which has come in and it has been a very positive example. An example of how an architecture concept did not work well is Oracle Crossings, where they did not do a MACP but came in pad by pad and strung it together. It created big challenges for the 40-acre site, and extrapolated to a 120-acre site would create greater challenges, so staff strongly feels that the MACP is vital to making this work. Chair Caswell mentioned that when Steam Pump was adopted, that they came in with three separate proposals instead of a cohesive plan such as this one. Member Zinkin asked to what extent is the concept equal to commitment. Mr. Vella said that by approving a concept, it is a commitment made by the applicant and the DRB that this is the accepted protocol, so that when future submittals come in it is used as a benchmark. If the applicant wishes to not apply and bring in something that is different from the concept plan, the applicant has the opportunity to request that the Master Plan be changed. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, subject to the conditions specified in the amended Exhibit A, to change # 7 to read "the elevation of Tangerine Road inline shops must incorporate additional windows in areas indicated as part of Exhibit B in the staff presentation," and an additional condition #9, that additional colors may be considered during specific architectural analysis. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Continued item: Public Hearing, OV12-06-01a, Rick Engineering Company, representing Oracle and Hardy 66 LLC., requests approval of a grading exception for the proposed Oracle-Hardy Office Building site, located within the Shadow Mountain Estates East Subdivision on the east side of Oracle Road and approximately one tenth of a mile north of Hardy Road, parcel 225-12-066C. Applicants Rick Payton, Rick Engineering, 1745 E. River Road # 101, and Victor Bolduc, Principal Architect, 1001 N. Alvernon, gave a presentation. The request before the DRB is for a grading exception continued from an earlier DRB meeting. In 1997, the DRB approved a grading exception for an assisted living facility. Applicants processed an approval of a development plan but that project eventually was dropped. The project currently before the C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 12 DRB is for an office building, and applicant is proposing to construct a Phase I building, with parking in front and in rear and a south access drive. Applicants provided a three-dimensional visual representation and photographs of the site, showing that there is 60' of fall from the southeast to the northwest corner of the site. Applicant provided exhibits showing where the cuts and fills and grading changes would be. The fill is limited to existing natural drainage areas in the middle of the property. The fill would be done in an effort to try to blend the building and the parking into 50' to 55' of fall from front to rear. The cuts in the front are for a retention detention basin. The nature of the site and the design is that it starts at Oracle Road at 45 grade and comes up using a 12% maximum grade, and comes into a lower tier parking area with a rough elevation of about 57, with a 5' to 7' wall, going to a 65 elevation to the main entry into the building. There is a further elevation, taking it to 68. In the back of the building, staff requested changes which resulted in a two-tier parking system and quite a bit of open space before the first tier parking. The building is at 68, the open area is at 73, and then it steps up again another five feet. At the easterly boundary, there would be a 5' to 8' retaining wall, and above that, there would be a 3 to 1 slope with a 20' buffer yard that is going to allow applicants to put in dense screening of plantings. There is also a consistent alleyway, which gives a 40' horizontal separation. Applicant sited the building right through the middle of the existing property, trying to balance the fills in the front and the cuts in the back. Applicant provided a slide of the color palette, showing the stone and paint colors which will be used to minimize impact on the site. The retaining wall will be of the same material type, color, and architectural features. The rip rap that would be put in would be colored rock to blend in to the natural coloring. Applicants believe they have met the five standards of criteria that are required for a grading exception, they appreciated working with staff and receiving their comments and guidance, and they believe they have a much better product and scenario than when they first started. Member Panas asked what the process was for changing the existing topography to create the terraces and cascades. The applicant that the road would be roughed in first. Then, the digging would begin at the location where the building will be, taking that dirt and bringing it to the front, and then continue to the back. As the back is contoured, there will be more dirt coming out than what is needed for the site, and that excess dirt will have to be trucked off site. Responding to Member Panas' inquiry, Applicant confirmed that the building would be an area that is lower than what the natural ground would be. Member Panas asked if cuts would be visible to the public. Applicant explained that when the project is finished the cuts would not be seen, the parking lot and the slopes would be smooth and will blend together. In response to Member Kandetzke's question, Applicant explained that the proposed cut and fill is the minimum requirement for this building footprint. Member Kandetzke asked if Applicant could accomplish the same project with a different style building design and footprint. Applicant said that the building style, design, and footprint is driven by their client's needs and C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 12 wishes. The front part of the building is 18' in height, and then the two-story portion starts at the 300-foot line. Applicant said that they could not design the building differently and accomplish the business objectives because the client wants a two-story building due to adjacencies between uses on the first and second floor. A two-story building actually has a lessened impact on this site than a one-story building would. Member Johnson commented that if the client and Oro Valley didn't require parking there would not be an application for this cut and fill. The parking is what is requiring the grading, especially since the footprint for the parking is greater than the footprint of the building. Chair Caswell asked if Applicant was overparking the building, and Applicant said that was correct. Applicant explained that ordinance is 1 to 330 square feet, or 3 for 1000 square feet, and Applicant is parking at 5 for 1000 square. This is due to the nature of the office building. Member Zinkin commented that the building seems to have been designed first, and the lot made to fit. Staff made reference to a building at Ina and Oracle, where as one goes to the rear of the building one is actually entering on the second floor because of the existing grade. Instead of lowering the grade for the building, they made the building work with the grade. So they still have the two-story, except the top story wouldn't have a bottom floor. Member Zinkin asked if Applicant could make the building meet what is already there in terms of topography. Applicant replied that they had looked at the back of the building, but on this particular site there are great views to the east, and they wanted to keep those, otherwise the back view would be of a 12' high stone wall. Applicant wants to keep some distance between the building and the parking lot. If Applicant integrated the building into the topography they wouldn't gain any vertical height. Applicant said that they are comfortable with all the conditions of approval, with the exception of#6, on which they would like some clarification or a slight modification. Condition # 6 calls for a 10-foot landscaped planting area between the terraced parking. Currently, between the lower tier in the front and the upper tier, there are five feet, with a proposed jogged retaining wall to break up that expanse. Applicant could accommodate the 10 feet in the front by pushing the lower tier into the 100' buffer yard five feet, to achieve that horizontal distance. In the rear, between the two parking bays, there is currently 5' but Applicant proposes having covered parking there, so it would not be practical to try to plant a tree or a shrub by the covered parking stalls. Applicant can accomplish the condition at the front but the back is more difficult. Matt Michels introduced the staff report into the record. Any type of economic development on this property would require some type of waiver. The question is to what extent, and relates to the discussion of the five-part findings of fact, to be addressed by Paul Keesler. Paul Keesler explained that on the grading waiver, Public Works examined the five findings of facts for the grading exception. One issue is whether Applicant meets substantial compliance with the findings of fact. Planning staff based all judgments of the Applicant's design on the proposed building and the parking layout, and the number of parking spaces that the Applicant needs. Public Works evaluated the site and determined that for that building and that parking arrangements, Applicant has mitigated as much of the requirement to exceed the grading limits per Code as possible. Of the five findings of fact, there are 13 requirements. Staff supports 9 of C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 12 the 13, staff does not support two, and two are not applicable to a commercial site. Public Works gives their support to the Applicant's grading waiver, with the caveat against the building and the parking, and with the important caveat that Public Works is relying on the DRB to determine whether the building meets the site or the site meets the building. Member Panas asked which two requirements are not being supported. Mr. Keesler said that staff is not in support of Item #3 (conditions on the property are unique such that strict adherence to this ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship which substantially limits the preservation and enjoyment of property rights). Other developments up and down the east side of Oracle Road have adhered to the terrain and the natural contour, so there are alternatives. The issue with the Applicant is that those alternatives do not fit his client's plans. Staff also does not support # 4 (exception imposes conditions so as not to constitute a granting of special privilege). This is a judgment call and Public Works is looking for DRB guidance to assess whether the building meets the site or the site fits the building, and which is more important. Member Panas commented that the staff comments on page 7 states that "...granting this grading exception may or may not appear to constitute the granting of special privilege," that could be considered that it is a special privilege. Also, in terms of the mitigation of the terracing, that may or may not be offset by that mitigation. Member Panas asked the size of the building footprint. Applicant said that it is 96' wide in east/west direction and 170' long. Mr. Vella added that the building consists of two buildings. Member Panas asked why the development is being overparked. Applicant said that the client requirement is 5 for 1000, and the parking is for the two buildings. When second building come in, it will modify the parking to 4.25 for 1000. In response to Member Kandetzke's inquiry, Mr. Keesler verified that Applicant is aware of Public Works' concerns, and this is the reason for the last month's continuance. Up to that point, staff could not give this project its support because staff felt there were more things that could be done. Applicant has made it clear that this is the building that the client requires. The building that staff had suggested was not in context to what they do for this development. Mr. Kandetzke asked if it would be true to say that staff and Applicant had tried to find some common ground, and did not find any room to negotiation. Mr. Keesler said that it was correct for the building itself, but there was negotiation on the site itself. Mr. Michels continued with the staff report. Chair Caswell granted Applicant's request to make an additional statement. Applicant said they had worked closely with Mr. Keesler on this third generation site plan. Applicant believes they have met all the requirements with regard to the building, the driveway, and the parking lot. What shifted was basically the distance between the buildings on the back side, when they pushed the building into the grade. Initially there were three tiers of parking on the back side of the building, and have since removed one level parking and pulled it to the front. This gave C:\Docurnents and Settings\Ihersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 12 Applicant more distance from the building. Initially they started with 30 feet and increased it to 40 feet. In response to Member Panas question, Applicant said that this was to be the corporate offices for Pulte Homes' Southern Arizona operation, and a mortgage company and title company. Member Panas said there has to be a better design to minimize the cuts on that grade, because it's been done in the past. If Applicant's client has an issue with an end product that they have to have, its appearance needs to be minimized. Applicant said they have a requirement of 40,000 square feet and construction of a two-story building has a lessened impact on the site. Mr. Keesler stated that one of the impacts is the result of the building review, where it was suggested that the building be lowered with respect to the view of the neighbors behind the site. Based on the findings of fact, there is one advantage to this layout, and that is that the view for the neighbors behind the building will remain intact. Member Zinkin asked Ms. Garrahan if the DRB needed to weigh the majority of the findings equally or if one finding is paramount or enough. Ms. Garrahan explained that the key is substantial compliance, and it is at the discretion of the DRB. One finding could entirely carry the weight over the others, or they could all be substantive and taken into account. Member Panas followed up by asking if all are met, it's a very clear-cut picture. If three out of the five or four out of the five are met, it's a questionable call on the DRB. Ms. Garrahan said she didn't believe it would be a questionable call on DRB's part. She added that DRB are here to exercise discretion. The actual legal standard is arbitrary and capricious, so that means that the DRB's decision would have to be very far out of whack for it to be legally questionable. Member Kandetzke asked Applicant if they felt there was room for further negotiation. Applicant said they had been negotiating for a while, that the building works well with the site and has a very sound plan and a good parking allotment, the views are great, and Applicant has a responsibility to the client. Applicant had meet the client's requirement of building a 40,000 square foot structure, has lessened the footprint, has minimized the impact to the site as best they can, has met with neighbors, and done their very best to meet the building requirements. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend DENIAL, based on the concern that the land is being adapted to the building, and though it was hoped that there could have found some common ground for staff and Applicant to be more in agreement, but the conditions on the property are at strict adherence. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION:Member Zinkin asked if the motion was legally acceptable, or did different wording need to be included. Ms. Garrahan said that her understanding of Member Kandetzke's motion is that there is not substantial compliance with the five factors. Motion carried 4-1 (Johnson). C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06 06/29/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 12 3. OV13-06-26 Preview, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC., requests discussion of architectural concepts for the proposed Oracle-Hardy Office Building, located within the Shadow Mountain Estates East Subdivision on the east side of Oracle Road and approximately one tenth of a mile north of Hardy Road, parcel 225-12-066C. Chair Caswell asked if, based on the previous item's motion and vote, the DRB would continue to hear the presentation with Item 3. Mr. Vella recommended asking the Applicant that question. Chair Caswell asked the Applicant if they preferred to present or continue to the next meeting. Applicant said they would continue. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to ADJOURN the June 29, 2006, Development Review Board meeting at 8:31 p.m. Member Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Prepared by: Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\06-29-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 08/08/06