Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 9/14/2006 MINUTES ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM ROLL CALL PRESENT: Marc Panas, Acting Chair John Buette, Member Mike Zinkin, Member Harold Kandetzke, Member 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 Secreatary Paul Loomis, Mayor Terry Parish, Vice Mayor K. C. Carter, Council Member Al Kunisch, Council Member ABSENT: Tom Gribb, Member Scott Leska, Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 8, 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES The Board approved the minutes as written. REGULAR AGENDA 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 15 1. Election of a Chairperson for the Development Review Board In accord with the bylaws, a Chair must be elected by the membership in the month of September each year. Members Kandetzke and Panas nominated Mike Zinkin for Chair. Mike Zinkin was elected Chair by acclamation. 2. Election of a Vice-Chairperson for the Development Review Board In accord with the bylaws, a Vice Chair must be elected by the membership in the month of September each year. Member Buette nominated Member Panas. Member Kandetzke seconded the motion. Member Panas was elected Vice Chair by acclamation. 3. Announcement Regarding the Citizen Planning Institute The Town is accepting applications for the Citizen Planning Institute (CPI). The Institute is designed to provide citizens an overview of planning and zoning practices, zoning rules and enforcement, general plans, legal constraints and opportunities, and the roles of citizens in the planning process. Sessions are conducted in both the classroom and the field. To enroll, please go to the Town website at http://www.ci.oro-valley.az.us/. For more information regarding the CPI or inquiries regarding your application status, please contact Diane Chapman, Office Specialist at (520) 229-4815/ dchapman@orovalley.net or Pamela J. Pelletier, Planner at (520) 229-4813/ ppelletier@orovalley.net in the Planning and ZoningDivision. Class will begin on October Si", and there will be a series of eleven updated classes. The class is limited to 45 persons. Applications need to be submitted by September 21St. David Malin, Gary Grizzle, and Wayne Silberschlag will be volunteer presenters. 4. Continued item: 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 John Sersch, Phoenix, Arizona, made a presentation. Applicant is working with Storage USA, proposing to remove the existing sign face, replace it with the green Extra Space Storage sign, doing preparation work at the bottom of the sign monument, and adding address numbers. On the storefront fascia, Applicant is proposing to remove the existing signage, patch and paint, and install the new sign. Applicant displayed a layout and design of the letters. Applicant will add stone at the bottom of the sign. Board did not have questions of the applicant. Jonathan Lew introduced the staff report into the record. Board did not have any questions of staff. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend APPROVAL. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\,Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK.26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 15 DISCUSSION: Member Buette commented that he was part of the sign sub-committee and appreciates the Applicant taking the recommendation for the stone base. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0. 9. OV12-06-01, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC, requests approval of a Development Plan and a Landscape Plan for the Oracle-Hardy Office Development, located in proximity to the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcel #225-12-066C. Items #9 and #10 moved in the agenda to follow Item 4. Applicant Bob Lara, 5170 East Windgate Lane, Tucson, gave a presentation and displayed aerial views and renderings of the terrain change and landscape detail. The site will have a driveway that will be shared with the adjacent site. Applicant has met with neighbors to the east and has agreed to the conditions placed by the neighbors and staff. There is currently a commercial development on the north side of the site, and along the south is undeveloped natural desert. The building has been lowered below existing grade to mitigate the visual impact, and the site will be heavily landscaped. The site has an approximate 8% grade, is terraced, and will have a stair-stepping method, which involve vehicle overhangs, walls, shrubbery and trees. In response to Member Buette question, Applicant verified that there is one existing median cut on Oracle road, which ADOT wants lengthened. Matt Michels introduced the staff report into the record, and recommended approval of the project. Member Panas asked if the 16 conditions were major or minor. Mr. Michels and Mr. Kessler both said that the conditions were housekeeping and mop-up engineering, minor issues, and the Applicant has no problem with the conditions. Member Panas asked why the over-parking was necessary. Mr. Michels said that Applicant demonstrated that they have prior experience with their tenant and the tenant's needs require the number of parking spaces proposed. In response to Chair Zinkin's inquiry, Mr. Michels and the Applicant explained that in the interim, the future building site would be re-seeded. In response to Chair Zinkin's inquiry, Mr. Michels said the parking is for the first building. Applicant explained that the parking will not be a problem once the second building goes in, as the parking ratio will then be at 4.3. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Fred Roof, 9101 North Riviera, Oro Valley, commented that he has been watching this land for some time, and that he and the neighbors believe this project is good for the site. He asked what would happen to the C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\C)LK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 15 power lines. Many years ago, neighbors were told that any new development would be underground. If massive power poles are installed, that will upset the neighbors. Chair Zinkin asked Mr. Michels to address Mr. Roof's question. Mr. Michels explained that TEP will be taking off the existing TEP pole and all utilities taken from that pole will be underground. Existing poles will remain. Mr. Vella further explained that the Code requires that if a power line has to be upgraded, they have to go through a Conditional Use Permit process, where the issue of undergrounding is considered. It is more of an issue between the Town and TEP, rather than an issue for the Applicant. This issue will be examined when the Development Plan is submitted. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to recommend APPROVAL. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Member Panas is concerned that the project is over-parking spaces, and when the second building comes along DRB will be asked to do more. He suggested that the project stick to what the Code says and make an adjustment on the second building. Member Buette opined that it was not within DRB's purview to analyze what will come in the future. Mr. Vella explained that Applicant has planned the parking based on both buildings, and currently is at a higher ratio that is required by Code. If second building comes in as office use, there should not be a problem. It could become an issue if the second building comes in as a restaurant (although there is no reason to suspect this). What is before DRB today is the parking for both buildings. If the use changes, DRB will have another opportunity to look at that plan. With any alternative parking analysis, if the conditions that are part of that analysis change, it would return to DRB, and there are enough safeguards for this project to proceed. Member Buette commented that this submission is a great improvement over the previous plan. Chair Zinkin said he did not have a problem with the parking. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0. 10. OV13-06-26, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC, requests approval of the architecture for the first phase of the Oracle- Hardy Office Development, located in proximity to the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcel #225-12-066C. Items #9 and #10 moved in the agenda to follow Item 4. Applicant Bob Lara, 51270 East Windgate Lane, Tucson, presented material and color palette for the architecture and gave a presentation. The architectural renderings shown depicted earthtone colors, a combination of materials like split faced masonry rock, smooth faced block that is integrated in specific areas so that there is a variety of shade and shadow. There will be shadowing along the pedestrian levels and copper panels that C:\Docurnents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 15 will articulate the building, and architectural steel elements to break up the façade. Columns of varying heights will mitigate the massiveness of the building. Applicant displayed a rendering of how the building would appear from Oracle Road. Landscaping will include 36" boxed trees. Applicant has agreed to have the right amount of trees per Code, but will meet with the neighbors to make sure that the trees are staked out in a way that does not interfere with the residents' views. Applicant is comfortable with the conditions posed by staff. Member Panas commented that the current proposal is much nicer than the previous, and agreed with having a design feature at the top of the building to help break up the mass. He asked if the degree of slope from Oracle Road, looking up at the building, would help break up the top half of building mass. Applicant explained that the front part of the building will be one-story and the two story component is to the back, and that will break up the massing. Mr. Vella added that the staff report will present some mitigation efforts. Mr. Michels introduced the staff report into the record and recommended approval. Part of the presentation included a display of renderings showing changes to the tops of the building. The masonry piers will be raised in variation to address the issue of massing. Member Buette asked how the cooling towers would be screened. Mr. Michels explained that there would be a masonry screen and the landscaping. Chair Zinkin asked if the rendering showing the mountains to the rear was to scale. Mr. Michels replied that the mountains will appear more prominently than is shown. Member Kandetzke commented that this submission was a great improvement, and asked if the viewshed from the west side of the building would be blocked. Mr. Michels replied that the aim was to preserve the view and this was accomplished. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Motion Carried 4-0. 5. OV12-05-25, The WLB Group, representing Pepper Viner Homes Inc, requests approval of a landscape plan for Rooney Ranch Area Z, located on the southeast corner of Naranja Drive and First Avenue, Parcel 220-09-0160. Applicant Gary Grizzle, of The WLB Group, gave the presentation. This project is located in the area of First Avenue, Lambert Lane, CDO Wash, and retail center. On the north boundary of the property there is a natural buffer yard, another natural buffer yard along First. The project has native vegetation which will remain in place. Landscaping will primarily be along the travel ways, and there will be very little disturbance. There are two major recreational areas, which will include a tot lot, ramada, sand volleyball court, picnic tables, walking trails, and connections to existing trails. Many of the existing plants will be transplanted within the site. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 15 In response to Member Kandetzke's question, Applicant explained that they would be replacing non-surviving transplanted plants at a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1, per Code. In response to Member Buette's question, Applicant explained that the tot lot will be shaded with a fabric structure. Chair Zinkin asked if this was the project where no home could be visible from First Avenue, and if landscaping would be used to hide homes from First Avenue. Member Kandetzke commented that there was a view issue. Applicant explained the landscaping to be done is below the elevation of First Avenue and wouldn't help screen the homes. Some of the land itself will hide the homes, as will the walls which will be high enough. Mr. Vella introduced the staff report into the record and recommended approval of the project. Member Kandetzke asked about the previously discussed view issues. Mr. Vella said there was some concern in terms of enforcing the PAD zoning conditions. Any lot that was visible from First Avenue had to be one-story. There were some home sites for which there wasn't exact grading information. Staff has not completed the evaluation of this issue. The plat has not yet gone to Town Council. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL Subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 4-0. 6. 0V13-06-41, Robinette Architects, representing Copeland Construction Company, requests approval of architecture elevations for the Copeland Office Building, located on the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard, Parcel #223- 03-3520. Applicant Kelly Copeland, 3591 East Metate, Tucson, gave the presentation. He began by stating that Architect Rob Robinette was not present, and he would be presenting for him also. Applicant's specialty is high-end custom homes, and this project incorporates many of the features used in this type of construction. The structure will be a Santa Barbara, Santa Fe style house on a commercial site. There will be a red tile roof, and the colors being used will be adobe and earthtone. The windows will be Pella with wood on the inside and with bronze clad exteriors. The building will have a low profile pitch roof, and will be kept to a 16' height restriction, which is well below the requirements. In response to Chair Zinkin's inquiry, Mr. Vella verified that there was a 1% art requirement on this project. In response to Member Buette's question, Applicant said that this building would house 3 to 4 tenants, including Applicant, and the tenants would be in the construction trades. C:\Docurnents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26109-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 15 Mr. Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record and recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. In response to Chair Zinkin's question, Mr. Vella explained that the art requirement is required by Code, and it is therefore not necessary to include it in Exhibit A. Chair Zinkin asked if neighborhood meetings had been held. Mr. Manion-Farrar said that there was a neighborhood meeting, and that the project was well received. All conditions were recorded in the Development Plan. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to recommend APPROVAL. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Member Buette said that the design of this building is extremely attractive and it will be a nice addition to the Town. Members Zinkin and Panas agreed. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0. 7. OV13-06-38, AF Sterling Homebuilders, representing Scotia Joint Venture, request approval of Model 3333 and Model 2966 for Rivers Edge/Canada Del Oro Estates, Lots 1-45, located south of Naranja Drive between Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane, Parcel 224-29-033A. Applicant Robert Brack, 629 North Naranja Place, Oro Valley, gave the presentation. This project consists of 45 lots, with the average lot being 27,453 square feet,the smallest being 16,345 square feet, and the largest being 43,754 square feet. The project slopes from lot 1 to lot 19 approximately 78 feet. Due to the topography, the grading and open space requirements, some of the building envelopes are relatively small. We previously had six models approved for this project. DRB have been previously approved these two models in other developments, and these have very similar styles and details. Applicant is proposing 8 models for the 45 lots. The two models being submitted have smaller footprints, which allow for construction on some of the more challenging lots, and provide larger yards. Member Buette asked if on the previous approval there was a courtyard component. Applicant said that there are courtyards available for this project. Chair Zinkin commented that model 2966 doesn't seem to fit in with the other models. Applicant explained that at River's Edge, Applicant had to work on this model to get it to look more consistent, since it is 2-story and 24' tall, with a smaller footprint. The pop- out details, the eaves details, the paint and the tile are all consistent with the other models. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files`OLK26109-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 15 Chair Zinkin asked if there were any other models which would fit on these challenging lots. Applicant said that there a couple of models in the previous six that absolutely will not fit. Member Kandetzke asked exactly on how many lots will model 2966 be the only one that will fit on. Applicant said he believed there are three lots. There is another plan that will fit on the three lots, but it takes up the entire graded area and leave no yard. The three challenging lots will not be side by side. Ms. Manion-Farrar introduced the staff report into the record, focused on the features that unify the models, and recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Chair Zinkin asked on how many lots would model 2966 be the only model that would fit. Ms. Manion-Farrar replied that staff had not done a lot analysis. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to the conditions in Exhibit A and recommended approval. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Chair Zinkin said he was not comfortable with model 2966. VOTE: Motioned carried 4-0. (DRB took a 10 minute recess at 7:36 p.m. and resumed the meeting at approximately 7:48 p.m.) 8. OV13-06-19A, David Malin, representing Vestar Development Co., requests architectural approval of a building pad cluster within 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 Roads intersection, parcels numbers 21920052m, 22004006f, and 22004008r. Wayne Silberschlag, of Burlini Silberschlag Architects, 4400 East Broadway, Tucson, gave a presentation. Also present were David Malin, Mario Chavez, Dan Sharp and Artie Laskin. Mr. Silberschlag gave a quick overview of the Master Architectural Concept Plan which was previously approved unanimously by DRB on June 29, 2006. At that time it was approved conditionally, and those conditions have been met. Applicant also met with the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood Association and received their approval of the MACP. Now, Applicant is seeking approval of Group 1. The design issues were to create identity, a sense of place, to establish a positive, inviting streetscape, with consideration given to all the viewable sides of the building (making it a four sided building), making it a pedestrian-friendly center, using the maximum of public space, providing quality, character and distinction for the design of the building, using colors, forms, and materials and breaking down the development into smaller, distinct nodes (retail, office, and restaurant). Each node will have a different architectural design, but should also tie in to the overall architectural theme. The theme is contemporary C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLIK26\09-I4-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 15 southwestern, with regional architectural influences from Rancho Vistoso and the desert foothills, colors and materials blending in with the Catalina mountains and the surrounding environs. The colors and materials will identify the distinct nodes. It is applicant's feeling that they would like to use certain colors, forms, and shapes on certain nodes but still tie in all the buildings together. Applicant presented images of previously approved MACP concepts, including the front elevations of the shops, the rear elevations, as well as the different types of roofing materials, and the different types of block, Rancho Vistoso Stone, and the color palette. Applicant presented images showing the orientation of Building Group I, which is 1,100 feet long, and consists of 180,000 square feet of retail. Applicant also showed an image of the front elevation and an overhead shot (which shows the in and out front of the buildings). Applicant then showed the entire length of the building in segments and explained the details on each segment. Artie Laskin, of Laskin and Associates, 5112 40th Street, Phoenix, continued with the landscape presentation. Applicant has tried to incorporate the landscape and hardscape to complement the architecture, and to provide opportunities throughout the entire front for people to be in shade. Every building has a seating area. Mr. Laskin presented images showing masonry seat walls, colored scored concrete, decorative pavers, textured concrete surfaces, raised seating planters, 36"box trees, and large pots. Mr. Silberschlag continued with the presentation. The multiple seating arrangements, materials, and landscaping offer diversity. The side view carries the same theme as the front elevation. The rear elevations which are visible from Oracle look similar to the front elevations, except that there is no glass. The loading zones are enclosed, with doors, and with landscaping. Applicant presented viewshed analysis renderings, the purpose of the viewshed analysis was to determine the viewable areas pertaining to the rear of the structure on Oracle Road, and to aid in determining the amount of architectural treatment required for those facades. Applicant's renderings showed the distances from Oracle Road to the back of the building, how the view of the buildings vary from Oracle Road and how the treatment of the back of the buildings will be done to take this into account, as there is considerable amount of exposure at the south end of the building and less towards the north end. The roof screening will be a system that will hide the A/C units on the roof within a screened area, same or similar to what is shown on the renderings. In response to Member Kandetzke's question, Applicant verified that there would be different themes throughout the projects but there would be a consistent architectural plan throughout. There would be slight variances and Applicant gave examples of those variances. Member Kandetzke asked if the yellow color shown on one of the buildings was part of the color palette. Applicant said that was one of the accent colors, and it will be used sparingly in one or two parts. Applicant is also willing to deepen the color. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 15 Member Panas said he initially was concerned that the scapes weren't as varied as the scapes when DRB took their trip up to Phoenix, but today's explanation lessened his concerns. Along that line, Member Panas asked if the meandering walkway would continue from one area to another and will it coordinate. Applicant said that the walkway will integrate from one area to another. Member Panas said he would like to see brighter colors, like the project in Phoenix, because the added colors and offsets will add interest and will still match. Applicant noted that the accent colors at the bottom and they were added for variance. Member Panas expressed concern about the tops of the buildings, and suggested that Applicant use a bit more articulation. He also asked whether the A/C equipment could be placed on the ground and hide it behind some enclosures. Applicant said they could take a look at that, but they were going to be more concerned about trying to locate it in groups if it is relocated. Applicant's main aim was to try to put it into one area rather than spread out all over the roof. They would put on the ground what they can, and otherwise try to put them on 1 or 2 places on each roof. Chair Zinkin expressed concern that the shading on the west side pedestrian walkway might be insufficient for pedestrians in June, July and August, and wanted to get some assurances that this will be a pedestrian friendly walkway during the afternoon sun and sunset. Applicant explained that on areas that didn't have covered, shaded pedestrian walkways, they would be relying on trees planted on the west side pedestrian areas to provide shading, and added this would consist of a massing of trees. Chair Zinkin asked if the tree canopies parallel to Tangerine would be the same size as the tree canopies which will be parallel to Oracle, as he didn't think the heavy massing would not be as necessary on Tangerine. Applicant said that the canopies would be 15 — 16 feet deep, but when the shops along Tangerine are built, the size of the canopies will depend on what stores are there. Applicant added that other than stretching one long canopy, some portions along the west exposure will be in the sun, yet Applicant is trying to stay away from making one long straight canopy. Misters could be used. David Malin, Vestar Development, 2425 East Camelback Road, Phoenix, added the comment that what is being addressed here is a major challenge for Vestar and goes all the way back to a few years ago when Vestar started with the site plan and all the buildings were flipped over and facing north and east, which was Vestar's preferred layout. Through discussions with the neighbors and the staff, and because of transportation and circulation issues, the site plan evolved into what is before DRB tonight. There is unfortunately nothing that Vestar can do about the fact that we are now facing west and southwest. That is one of the reasons why Vestar presented the MACP, trying to limit the amount of glass we had. Vestar has been able to work with staff to come to a compromise on that. As far as the shading, the architect and landscape firms have worked well trying to address that challenge, by using canopies and massed trees for shading, and will do all of those things to try to alleviate the concerns. C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 15 Chair Zinkin asked for Applicant's response to Condition 1 on Exhibit A. Mr. Malin said he has read it and is completely against it for several reasons. In Vestar's twenty- year history they have never been asked to provide this, and don't know of any other shopping center which has been asked to provide it. In Burlini Silberschlag's 30 years of architecture for retail projects this has never been requested. We could have a 10 to 15 foot canopy or we could have a 60 foot canopy, it will not change the direction that we are facing and the strength of the sun on certain times of the day and certain times of the year. Fortunately for retail there is virtually no store where everything is happening 3 to 5 feet near the glass. What is happening inside the store is about 15 to 20 away from the glass, and the merchandise and customers are further away from that. Chair Zinkin said he was more concerned about the pedestrians outside of the shops than the people inside. Mr. Malin explained that this type of integration of canopies and landscaping that is something that is part of all Vestar projects, they have been successful, and wish to continue with that success. Mr. Malin also mentioned that Building Group 1 was submitted already to Rancho Vistoso HOA and it was approved. Mr. Silberschlag explained that normally solar studies are done in conjunction with an office building or something similar to that, where there are windows and people are sitting at desks next to that window facing west. The solar study looks at what type of eyebrow or some kind of shade you would put outside the building over that window that would keep the sun from coming in. Those are kind of shading and solar studies that his firm is familiar with, but he has never done a solar study on a shopping center. Member Kandetzke asked if Applicant was adverse to providing an appropriate depth of canopy overhang that will ensure a moderate level of shade throughout the year, or if it is the study itself that is causing the reluctance. Mr. Silberschlag said that there is reluctance only from the standpoint that when Applicant went out there today at 4:30 p.m., the sun was at about a 45 degree angle. At that time those windows with a canopy over them would have still been shaded, but probably by 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., when the sun is low on the horizon, those windows would not have been shaded. Member Kandetzke said that there is a condition in Exhibit A and if we approve it we approve it with the conditions in Exhibit A. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what is going to happen with that condition. Member Kandetzke asked how that was going to affect this. Mr. Silberschlag explained Applicant would pick two or three days during the year, maybe the shortest and the longest days of the year, and figure out what time the sun finally sets to go into those shops. If it's at 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. and it creeps in there for only the next hour, if that is moderate, then we're fine. It's not up to Applicant to define the word "moderate." Mr. Malin interjected that there is probably a simple solution, which is to pin down what "moderate" means, and that he had confidence that Bayer can figure out what that means. Chair Zinkin said that his concern is not what is happening inside the store, but with the pedestrian area. Mr. Malin said that Vestar's concern is that if we do pin down what C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 15 moderate is, and it turns out we are required to have some abnormally long, non- customary canopy that would increase constructions costs. Chair Zinkin referred to the renderings of the front elevation of the building on page 27, and said that he had hoped to be more "wowed" by the look of the buildings. The front of the building, which is probably number 31 or 32, has gingerbread features on places, but there is a whole wall which is rather plain. Mr. Silberschlag explained that the wall that Chair Zinkin refers to will have trees in front of it. Some of these will be 16" and 36" trees, and most of them will be 25 to 30 feet. Mr. Malin further explained that this had been discussed with Mr. Vella, and said that if one looks at the building, which is 30,000 square feet, stripped away of landscaping, there are four layers to the building. Layer number one is the tilt-up wall itself, layer two is on the right side of that elevation, the darker wall with the green awnings. Layer three is behind the gable structure, the brown and the three Vistoso Stone posts. Layer four is this other, possibly tilt, but mostly gabled structure with the Vistoso stone on pillars at the base of that. In addition to the four layers, there is a gabled roof with faux windows at the top and a metal arch-shaped awning across it. There are four layers and three articulations on top of the final. That is a tremendous amount of articulation on one store. The landscaping on each side hides the fact that this is a 30,000 square foot store. Mr. Vella introduced the staff report into the record. His emphasis was on the amount of work that went into the Master Architectural Concept plan, and how what is before the Board measures up to the MACP. Mr. Vella presented comparative images showing how the Building Group I submission elements before DRB today match up with the original MACP images. He explained that was being presented is a more developed concept plan. Mr. Vella clarified that Vestar's intent was not to provide one long, gigantic canopy but to provide continuous shade opportunities for someone walking by the stores, and a look that provides variation and interest. Mr. Vella explained that Condition # 1 on Exhibit A is about the canopies, not so much about the trees. The expectation is a 10' to 18' foot canopy to provide a moderate amount of shade. With regard to the rear of the buildings, Mr. Vella pointed out that the rooflines and tops of the roofs will be visible from Oracle, and applicant has gone beyond what the MACP provides in terms of higher level stone and extra features. The Architectural submittal before DRB exceeds expectations of the MACP, and in some areas it meets the expectations. Member Kandetzke asked where the MACP is in the Code. Mr. Vella explained that the Zoning Code's focus in on a Master Development Plan, with the criteria being to provide architectural details. Beyond that, the Code doesn't give much definition to direct how far the architecture should go. Generally, for a site this size, applicants tend to not do a Master Development Concept Plan. This applicant chose not to do a general plan, and instead did a specific Development Concept Plan. Staff was very concerned about trying to approve the architecture node by node on a piecemeal basis. C:\Docurnents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 15 Member Buette asked how firm (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the least and 10 being the greatest) staff was in having Applicant complete the solar study, and asked what the need was for that study. Mr. Vella replied that this was a 10. Staff feels strongly because Tucson area shopping centers have not paid attention to this issue in terms of providing a shade balance. Applicant has done an outstanding job in the Phoenix area, and staff' aim is to work with the Applicant to find a reasonable level (to provide shade opportunities, yet remain reasonable). Staff can report to the Board on future conditions. Member Buette asked the cost of the solar study and if these types of studies definitive. Mr. Vella explained that while he could not say what the exact cost would be, this was a very basic study that graduate students can do. It does not involve a 3-D programming model. The suggestion of the solar study was made by a building official who is a registered architect who has designed commercial buildings for retail uses. The study will provide us a point to work from, and is a very useful tool. Chair Zinkin asked if Groups 2, 3, and 4 will not have this in Exhibit A because the study will cover the entire project. Mr. Vella replied that staff requested the study on elevations that face west, not on individual pads. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE: Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, stated that the Zoning Code does not authorize or comply with the concept plan, and said that compliance with something that is not authorized and not defined is legally and professionally is irrelevant. His concern is not with the concept plan, which as far as he is concerned doesn't exist, but with the rear elevations because they face scenic corridors. He added that the Town is required to treat architecture facing major thoroughfares and our scenic thoroughfares in an aesthetic fashion, and the varieties of textures, materials, and designs on the rear elevations are required to be replicated in the same fashion as the most attractive front elevations. He strongly disagrees with the new analysis. He went to the site, and driving south on Oracle or eastbound on Tangerine, those buildings are viewable. There is some suggestion that ADOT will widen Oracle in the future, and those elevations will be more viewable. He is also concerned about the architecture design on the rear elevations which allows the signage, which to him is an absolute no- no. There is no rear signage on Target, Fry's, OfficeMax, or Home Depot, and they are all very viewable from Lambert and First Avenue. You don't want signage on the rear elevations. Before the signage program comes to DRB, let's tell Mr. Malin that we don't want signage on our scenic corridors on the rear faces of buildings. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, subject to the Conditions specified in Exhibit A. Member Buette SECONDED the Motion. DISCUSSION: Member Buette said that the solar study caused him concern, but if Mr. Vella says it's a ten, it's a ten. Mr. Adler brings up a good point about the backs of the buildings, but he also called attention to the fact that the Applicant has done a good job making the backs of the buildings looks presentable even though C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 15 they don't look exactly like the fronts. This is a great project and tonight's presentation represents a lot of hard work and it will be a great addition to the town. Member Kandetzke expressed his concerns about the signage at the back of the buildings, although he likes the project. Do we really need this? It is not elsewhere, as Mr. Adler noted. Chair Zinkin asked if the signage would be addressed later. Mr. Vella explained that tonight's approval has nothing to do with the signage, and does not bind the Town in any way. That issue will be addressed when the Master Sign program is presented. It will be a custom sign packet and will include element that will be per Code and elements that exceed Code, and will be before DRB and Town Council. Placement of signage was something that was requested by staff to get an idea of how the architecture and signage would be shown, for illustrative purposes, hence Condition # 2 on Exhibit A, which crosses the line between architecture and signage. Board is not approving anything with regard to signage tonight, except asking that if it is put on the back of the building that it be framed within an architectural feature. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0. 9. OV12-06-01, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC. Items #9 and #10 moved in the agenda to follow Item 4. 10. OV13-06-26, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle and Hardy 66, LLC. Items #9 and #10 moved in the agenda to follow Item 4. 11. 0V13-06-39, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC, representing Oracle Crossings LLC, requests approval of the architecture for pads 6 and 9 within the Oracle Crossing Shopping Center, located near the southwest intersection of Magee and Oracle Roads, Parcels 225-51-3870 and 225-51-3900. Applicant Mr. Lara, 1001 North Alvernon Way, gave a presentation, and submitted one exhibit. Applicant explained that the architecture on this project is very similar to other buildings on site. Design features include stone clad columns with steel accents, and staying with the previously approved color palette, battered walls. Applicant is incorporating architectural elements to the back side of the building. Mr. Vella introduced the staff report into the record. In response to Member Panas' question, Mr. Vella clarified Condition 2b on Exhibit A. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to recommend APPROVAL C:\Docurnents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\09-14-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006 09/14/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 15 subject to the conditions in Exhibit A, with the inclusion of the new elevation on Pad 6 as indicated in the Applicant's presentation, be provided. Motion SECONDED. Motion carried 4-0. 12. Discussion regarding the merits of establishing a standing second meeting each month to be utilized as needed. Mr. Vella explained that the need for discussion of a second DRB meeting, to be scheduled as needed, is based on the number of cases that are forecast. This system is used by surrounding jurisdictions and allows greater review time for each item. Option is to make a second mandatory meeting date, down the road. Board would know, one month in advance, if the upcoming month would have one or two meetings. Member Kandetzke said the second meeting option was agreeable to him, as it would speed up the review process and make staff more productive. Member Kandetzke praised Mr. Vella on his preparation and presentation on tonight's meeting. Chair Zinkin asked that the secondary meeting date be a Monday. Mr. Andrews pointed out that this wasn't an action item, and the Board could establish the meeting date at the next meeting. Member Kandetzke asked that the Board remain flexible, and pointed out that there were two members absent tonight. Mr. Vella asked if the Board would prefer to place this on next Tuesday's agenda, and the Board agreed. Mr. Vella added that he would check on the availability of Council Chambers on the first, third or fourth Monday of the month. Board members agreed. 13. Appreciation to Dan Sturmon for Service on the Development Review Board The Board expressed their appreciation of Mr. Sturmon's work on the Board. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Prepared by: Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary C:\Documents and Settings\cpickering\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26 09-l4-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved 10/10/2006