Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 8/8/2006 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY,AUGUST 8,2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Dan Sturmon, Acting Chair John Buette, Member Thomas Gribb, Member Scott Leska, Member Marc Panas, Member Mike Zinkin, Member ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager Jill Manion-Farrar, Planner Matt Michels, Senior Planner Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary Mayor Paul Loomis K. C. Carter, Councilperson Al Kunisch, Councilperson Phillip Saletta, Water Utility Director ABSENT: Harold Kandetzke, Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 9 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 13, 2006, JUNE 29, 2006, AND JULY 11,2006, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to APPROVE the June 13, 2006, June 29, 2006, and July 11, 2006 DRB Meeting minutes, with the condition that the recording secretary research and correct the Condition number on Page 6, Paragraph 6, Line 1 of the July 11, 2006 minutes. Member Gribb SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-06-31, The Murphy Studio, representing the property owners,Antonio and Judith Sago,requests architectural approval for a custom home on Lot 152 of the Stone Canyon II subdivision, located on the southeast corner of Tortolita Mountain Circle and Mountain Mirage Place, Parcel #219-06-0330. C. OV13-06-33, Ducati Development Group L.L.C, requests approval of architecture plans of the Saguaro 2760 model for a single family residence to be located on Lot 13 of the Big Horn Point Subdivision, Parcel #220-14-0920. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items A and C, both subject to the conditions set out in Exhibit A. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE: Misty Murphy, 11440 East Prospect Lane, said that on OV 13-06-31, the property owner's name is Sago, not Sage. REGULAR AGENDA 4. (Applicant requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. Chair Sturmon moved the item to the top of the Regular Agenda, rather than delay audience members who wished to address that item.) OV13-06-26, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC, requests approval of the architecture 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. B. OV13-06-32, Konrad Kundig, property owner, requests architectural approval for a custom home located at 12855 N. Corsair Dr., located on the north side of Moore Road and lying within the S W 1/4 SE1/4 of Section 27, T115, R 13 E, G&SRM, in the La Cholla Airpark area, Parcel #219-23-0570. C:\Docutnents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files OLK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 9 There were no applicants present on this item. Matt Michels introduced the staff report into the record. He clarified the error in the third column of the first table on Page 2 of the report. The setbacks provided reads 30 feet, but should read 95 feet. MOTION: Member Gribb MOVED to recommend APPROVAL Subject to the conditions defined in Exhibit A, as amended. Member Zinkin SECONED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 1. Continued Item: OV12-06-03, Coronado Engineering, representing JREM LLC, requests approval of a preliminary plat for an 11 lot subdivision, located in proximity to the northeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranj a Road, Parcel #224-11-049A, #224-11- 045A, and#224-11-045B. Applicant Jason Rulney, 1803 West Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, property owner, gave a presentation. He addressed items that were issues at the last DRB meeting. Images displayed included ones of the easement area, showing it has had quite a bit of disturbance caused by construction trucks doing work on the single family homes near the property. Applicant wants to use the already disturbed areas for roads, in order to avoid the undisturbed riparian areas. Applicant presented a profile of the road's evaluation changes and images of other developments that have the type of median islands and gated entrances that is being proposed on this project. Applicant is proposing placing four of these islands, evenly spaced along the road, and believes that the gate, the topography and the median island address the traffic calming concerns. The water utility has been have been worked out. Member Leska said that the purpose of a traffic calming device is to make vehicles slow down and veer around it, and the median islands proposed do not achieve this effect. Applicant pointed out that the image of the median island he presented is on a road that is much wider than the road on this proposed project, and in reality a median island will make the cars veer around. Applicant said he also was concerned about the safety issues, and wants to cooperate to make this project work. Engineer Ambrosio Isla, Coronado Engineering, 1630 South Research Loop Suite 150, Tucson, AZ 85730, explained the road profile image in detail, and stated that the road had a 4% slope, translating into a difference of two feet. Member Gribb thanked Applicant for working with staff, and expressed concern about the visual impact of the straight road, and with the appropriate vegetation and the islands it will make a difference. Member Gribb asked if Applicant had any plans to put islands before either of the two turnarounds. Applicant said he was open to it, but needs to make sure that emergency vehicles have room to turn around. Member Leska said that traffic calming devices such as the traffic circles the City of Tucson are much safe, as they make vehicles diverge and are also large enough for a large vehicle to turn around in. The street section with the island, shown on sheet 4 of 4 of the C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings;Temporary Internet Files`\LK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 9 plan set, is 8 feet wide are not wide enough for a bus or a fire truck, which are both more than 8 feet in width. Applicant said he was willing to bump it up. Member Leska said that if it is bumped up there is the concern of a small vehicle going through it, and said that Applicant's engineer did not give Applicant enough direction on what a traffic calming device is. Member Zinkin requested that the staff report be modified to state that "...islands WILL be landscaped with sahuaros," as there is nothing in Exhibit A or in the general notes to ensure that that will occur. Mr. Vella said that it would be better to have that included as part of the Landscape Plan. Member Leska commented that the normal cross slope of a street is 2%, which is pretty flat. A 4% to 5% slope, which appears to be the steepest slope on this roadway, is also rather flat, so the argument that the little dips are traffic calming devices is invalid. Applicant stated that he and his engineer are willing to do what it takes. Ms. Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record. Staff has worked with the applicant to address safety and visual issues. The placement of the road was designed to use the already disturbed areas and in order to preserve the riparian areas. At the landscape island, the proposed road would be 8 feet wide, but that area also has a 4 foot shoulder. Mr. Keesler added that Member Leska is correct in saying that an 8 feet wide road is too narrow, and that the road will have to be 10 feet wide. Ms. Manion-Farrar continued with the presentation. The Landscape Plan has not yet been submitted, so any landscaping issues will be addressed at that time. She displayed an aerial photo of the area, showing how straight the road is and how it is already disturbed. There was some concern and input from the public regarding the placement of the road being quite close to their property boundaries, and the Applicant is aware of this. There was some concern regarding the verbiage about what water utility would be supplying water to this development. Applicant and staff have agreed to use language stating that Oro Valley Water or another water utility with legal rights and a 100-year assured water supply will be adequate. There would have to be a resolution before the passing of the final plat, but at this time both staff and Applicant are happy with this. Mr. Keesler added that staff has suggested using of a 10 foot lane, which is a common traffic calming device all upon itself, in that it will cause traffic to go slower. This 11- lot, private, gated development will not see a lot of traffic. Another traffic calming device is the vertical relief that drivers will experience as they drive through the 2% slope change. He explained that driver going fast will experience a disrupting feeling similar to when one crosses a main intersection (which has a 2% slope going in one way and 2% going out the other). Engineering is in favor of Applicant's design. The Town looks at this a private drive, not as a street. Ms. Manion-Farrar stated that staff recommends approval of the project, subject to conditions in Exhibit A. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files OLK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 9 Member Zinkin expressed his concern that no one will read General Note 35, and consequently the HOA will not have oversight of the management of the riparian area because the HOA will not know that they have this responsibility. Mr. Vella explained that as far as oversight of the riparian area, the HOA is the first line of defense. The second layer is the Town. A commitment has been made on the plat to preserve the riparian area. The Town's zoning enforcement staff can impose fines and bring the issue to court, just as is done on violations of signage. Member Zinkin said that those measures would be taken after the fact, when the damage would already have been done. Mr. Vella said that the third layers of defense is a pro-active one, a proposal to provide a tubular steel fence along the edge of all currently designated riparian areas to prevent damage of the riparian area. Member Leska asked if the proposed fence would be a steel fence or just posts. Mr. Vella replied that in the primary riparian area there will be a steel fence. At the edge of the riparian area, steel posts are proposed. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Aseem Bansal, 11782 N. Pyramid Point Drive, Oro Valley, 85737, said he is currently building a home at 11260 N. Shadow Vista Place, which is adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Bansal's concern is that, which the road of the new subdivision being about 4 feet from his property line, there will be increased noise and traffic, loss of privacy, and decreased property value, and requested that the owners and engineers consider an alternative so that the road is not immediately behind his property. MOTION: Member Leska MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A, with the additional condition that the road be widened to Town specifications to allow emergency vehicle access, and with a second additional condition that the proposed island be replaced with a larger traffic circle that allows emergency vehicle access and is subject to Town Engineer's approval. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Member Zinkin said he didn't know that a traffic circle is needed at lots 6 and 7 because it would infringe on those lots. Mr. Keesler said the condition can be reworded "...as possible, with adequate turning..." because it's not a full circle but rather a semi-circle. Member Leska agreed that making that semi-circle bigger it will decrease the size of lots 6 and 7, but by decreasing the lot sizes by a couple 100 square feet, it will increase safety. Mr. Vella pointed out that lots 6 and 7 cannot be reduced in size even one foot, subject to zoning compliance, as they are right at the threshold. Mr. Keesler said this may be able to be done by using easement and common areas, and believes there are alternatives. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 9 Member Zinkin expressed concern that something should be included in Exhibit A that staff research all possibilities to reduce noise. Mr. Keesler said there may be something that can be done with respect to noise. There is nothing to prohibit someone from hopping into neighbor's yard, but that would not be any different that it is today. Mr. Bansal said that he plans to build a 5 foot wall around his property, and asked if anything could be done to move the road further away from his property. Mr. Keesler said that the road will be 12 feet away from Mr. Bansal's property line, and there is an opportunity to gain another 4 feet. Additionally, Mr. Bansal's house will be 40 feet away from his property line. Member Sturmon asked why speed bumps were considered on this project. Mr. Keesler said that speed bumps are used as a last resort, partly because they are detrimental to cars, and this roadway will not have the amount of traffic that requires these measures. Mr. Andrews pointed out that if traffic calming measures such as speed bumps inhibit emergency vehicles from getting to an emergency, persons who put those speed bumps in may then be named in a lawsuit. VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. 2. OV13-06-34,Rio West, requests approval of architecture plans for the Rio Wong Venture office building located on Lot 1-B of the Suffolk Hills subdivision, in proximity to the southeast corner of Suffolk Drive and Oracle Road, Parcel #225-51-0200. Applicant Walter Hoge, 4556 East Camp Lowell Drive, Tucson, 85712, gave a presentation. The project is the second building of a second phase development that was first processed in Pima County. The parcel was always contemplated to be a two building complex, and applicant held out on finalizing the development until an interested purchaser was identified. Applicant presented images of the previously approved development plan. Currently, utilities are being put in. The proposed building will be 8300 square feet, and will include a courtyard area which will divide the building into four distinct spaces. Applicant presented colors elevations which will be the same as the existing A.G. Edwards building. Applicant presented the four elevations, which will consist of split faced wainscoting with stucco above, and with eyebrow treatments in conjunction with reveals above the windows. This is a completion of the proposed project and enhancement of the overall site. Member Gribb asked if there would be a separate landscaping plan. Applicant said that the landscape plan initially submitted with the development plan incorporated the entire site. That plan was submitted and approved when the first building was constructed and subsequently reviewed by Oro Valley. Member Gribb noted a difference between the photograph of the site and the landscaping shown in the architectural rendition. Applicant said that the landscaping would be a continuation of the existing landscape design. There is landscaping between the building C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 9 and the sidewalk and among the north side of the parking lot, and along the west property line as it is adjacent to Oracle, and a landscape buffer along the east side of the property. Mr. Andrews explained that the landscaping plan has already been adopted and tonight DRB is reviewing the architecture. Member Zinkin asked if this project would be required to designate 1% of the project's cost for art. Mr. Vella said that the answer lies in when this was brought to the Town, and whether or not there was a translational provision, which was not known at this time. Mr. Andrews asked if that was normally a development plan or an architectural plan. Mr. Vella said that it was a separate approval. Applicant said that his understanding was that the standards that were reviewed and approved by Pima County would be accepted by Oro Valley. In response to Member Buette's question, Applicant verified that this is a multi-tenant building but could possibly be owner/user. Member Leska asked Applicant if he had thought about using a vertical element to break up the monotony of a straight line roofline. Applicant said they had considered it but had difficulty balancing and integrating a vertical element with the existing A. G. Edwards building. The proposed building is square, and the A.G. Edwards building is more rectangular. The proposed building has some vertical element that is being considered, in a different use of a block material, for additional focus, but in terms of anything beyond, Applicant displayed renderings showing the potential vertical treatments. Member Zinkin commented that the staff report states that a condition has been added to Exhibit A for the applicant to provide reflectivity values for the paint to ensure that reflectivity does not exceed 60%, but Exhibit A does not specify the same. Applicant is replicating the same color scheme on the existing A.G. Edwards building. Ms. Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record and recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Vice Chair Sturmon asked Ms. Manion-Farrar to look at the renditions displayed by Applicant, and asked if the roof line change is what was discussed. Ms. Manion-Farrar verified that it was discussed but staff was happy to accept it as it was. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, subject to the conditions on Exhibit A. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Member Zinkin requested a friendly amendment made to Exhibit A, to add the words "...to ensure reflectivity value does not exceed 60%." Member Panas said that he felt what was included was sufficient. Mr. Vella interjected that the reflectivity value issue is a Code requirement and what is included in Exhibit A is sufficient. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 9 VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. 3. OV3-06-01, Design Signs representing property owner Storage Portfolio Bravo LLC,request approval for new signage for Extra Space #814, located 400 feet south of Hardy Road on the east side of Oracle Road, Parcel #225-14-169A. Applicant was not present. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend continuance to give Applicant the opportunity to make a presentation at a later date. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Member Leska commented that the existing sign is an eyesore, and asked if it is possible to request that the sign have a faux look. Member Panas questioned how this could be discussed, since the Applicant is not present. Vice Chair Sturmon asked staff if it would be appropriate to ask the staff to answer questions, or should DRB continue on with the discussion since the Applicant is not present. Mr. Vella that was entirely up to the DRB's discretion. Member Leska said that his intent was to go record that he would like to see a faux type of finish instead of the solid eyesore green. Vice Chair Sturmon said he agreed with Member Leska. Member Buette commented that the Sign Committee met and Applicant also was not present there either, so a continuance is appropriate. VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. 4. OV13-06-26, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC, requests approval of the architecture 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 Moved to Item 1 on Regular Agenda. 5. Presentation regarding Town Council Liaison Policies and Introduction of the new Town Council Liaison to the DRB. Mr. Vella disseminated copies of the Town Council Policy regarding Council Liaison to Boards and Commissions. The DRB liaison's purpose is to facilitate better communication between Town Council and DRB. There is an expectation that the liaison would attend Board meetings, prepare summaries and reports to Town Council, as C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\08-08-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006 08/08/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 9 well as communicating Town Council actions back to the Board. Council Member Al Kunisch has been appointed as DRB liaison. Mr. Kunisch served on the DRB from July 2001 through June 2005. PLANNING & ZONING UPDATE Mr. Vella announced that the September DRB meeting agenda will include the election of DRB Chair and Vice Chair. This meeting has a potential to have an enormous agenda and there is the possibility that the agenda will be broken up into two meetings. Mr. Vella reported that at the August 2, 2006, Town Council meeting, the Sunset Canyon Estates final plat (which was reviewed as a preliminary plat by the DRB) was approved. Also at that Town Council meeting, the grading waiver corresponding to the Oracle/Hardy office complex project was appealed to Town Council. Council moved to approve the item under the condition that the Landscape Plan be reviewed by Town Council when that comes through. Three final plats for the Vistoso Town Center were approved. ADJOURNMENT Member Zinkin thanked Vice Chair Sturmon for his work on the DRB. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to ADJOURN the August 8, 2006, Development Review Board Regular Session at 7:45 p.m. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Prepared by: Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\08-08-06 DRB M inutes.doc Minutes approved 09/14/2006