Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 9/19/2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 1 of 18 ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mike Zinkin, Chair Marc Panas, Vice Chair John Buette, Member Harold Kandetzke, Member Scott Leska, Member Tom Gribb, Member Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager David Ronquillo, Senior Planner Pamela Pelletier, Planner Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary Barry Gillaspie, Council Member K. C. Carter, Council Member Al Kunisch, Council Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, opined that the DRB ignored the requirements laid out in the Oracle Scenic Corridor Overlay District, and said he wanted to be sure that this does not happen again when Vestar builds along the architectural elevations within the Tangerine Scenic Corridor. He named the relevant pages in the DRB members Zoning Book, and said he hoped that it isn't overlooked in the future. He added that DRB members need to be knowledgeable about what the requirements and guidelines are. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Continued item: OV12-05-35, Advantech Facility, representing Beverly Harold, requests approval of development and landscape plans for the Vistoso Memorial Chapel, located within the Rancho Vistoso PAD at the corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Commerce Loop; Parcel#223-02-017N. Architect George Federico, Advantech Facility and Design, 3820 East Hemisphere Loop, Tucson, gave a presentation, and named the parties involved in the project. This project consists of a new 14,177 square foot funeral home and parking facilities. It will have 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 18 viewing chapels, crematorium, a casket display retail area, and offices. The site is at the northeast corner of Vistoso Commerce Loop and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, and is zoned under Rancho Vistoso PAD C-1. Mr. Federico introduced the engineers who presented the Development Plan and Karen Novak, who presented the Landscape Plan. The engineers explained that when the property was purchased and conveyed to the current owner it was done in the old standard, subsequently the Town of Oro Valley adopted the minor land subdivision requirements. This was discussed with the staff, and the previous landowner retroactively submitted a minor land subdivision application to the Town. Review and approval of that application resulted in three conditions: 1) no new curb cuts on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, 2) shared access between the two adjacent parcels, 3) cross axis between these two parcels and the parcels on the northwest corner of our site. Primary access is a driveway access off of Vistoso Commerce Loop, which provides direct access from Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and direct access out to Oracle Road via Vistoso Commerce Loop. Applicant will provide a future driveway connection onto the adjoining parcel. Right now there is a looped driveway system all the way around the building. There is garage access to the back of the building, and a main entry drop-off that faces southeast. The building won't have any driveways off of Rancho Vistoso. The type of use didn't directly fit into the designation for parking within the Town of Oro Valley Land Use Code. Staff did their analysis based on their understanding of what is occurring in the building and applied the Town of Oro Valley standard to it. The design team did analysis of what the Town of Marana, Pima County, and the City of Tucson require for a similar use. Applicant is requesting and has provided 83 parking stalls on the site. Applicants feel they have met the parking requirements and presented an alternative analysis for DRB to consider. Another issue that was addressed was drainage. When Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Commerce Loop were developed, there were concrete arch culverts and a wash through the site. Applicant has elected to collect the water flow at the property line and then treat what is being developed on the site with the critical basin requirements meeting the Town of Oro Valley drainage criteria. Applicant has developed a linear drainage basin, which will discharge at the point where it would normally discharge. Karen Novak, of Novak Environmental, 4574 North First Avenue #100, Tucson, stated that the Landscape Plan meets or exceeds the Town's requirements. Applicant did a native plan survey and inventory, took aerial photos, and used that information to develop the landscape plan. The site has a lot of existing vegetation, so the landscape plan reflects a lot of features on site. Applicant will be transplanting and adding plantings. Some of the highlights are: the entry has visibility issues that have to be kept in mind; the drainage basin will not be landscaped but will be screened from the parking lot side by a 3.5' masonry wall; and several large trees will provide screening. Honey Mesquite trees will be planted to meet the tenant/client desire for a backdrop to the building to give it a feeling of an enclosed, serene looking place. The future access is an important feature, and how it will be landscaped will provide an entry focus to the site. The corner will have 3.5 foot high berms to break up the landscape and provide 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 18 screening. Applicant presented images showing the layout of the vegetation. The design will have drip irrigation. In response to Member Gribb's question, Applicant explained that staging for a funeral procession would be done on the premises. Member Gribb asked if the plan had sufficient handicapped parking spaces. Applicant explained that 4 spots are what are required. Funeral Director/Co-Owner Doug Harpold explained the process of putting up a portable shade in front of the funeral home and would have clients pull up to the front door, so 4 parking spaces are sufficient. Vice Chair Panas asked if Applicant was in agreement with the additional requirements by staff. Mr. Federico said he did not have any issues with the requirements. Mr. Federico added that he also believed the four parking spaces should suffice. 2. OV 13-06-40, Advantech Facility, representing Beverly Harold, requests approval of Commercial Architecture for the Vistoso Memorial Chapel, located within the Rancho Vistoso PAD at the corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Commerce Loop; Parcel #223-02-017N. Applicant George Federico presented the color palette and the elevations. The parapet is 23' 4" high, the light tower in the lobby is 27' high, and both are under the height requirements. In response to chair Zinkin's inquiry, Applicant clarified that the color depicted on the presentation images was not accurate, and that the correct colors are those shown on the exhibit. Pamela Pelletier introduced the Development Plan and Landscape Plan into the record, and recommended approval of both on the conditions on Exhibit A, with the additional condition that a cross access easement be provided for recordation prior to certification of the Development Plan or approval of the Improvement Plan. This is to ensure that the shared cross access which are shown on the plans are provided for legal access. Ms. Pelletier introduced the Architectural Plan into the record, and recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Vice Chair Panas asked if there was a curb cut on Vistoso Commerce Loop to allow the traffic procession to go out either way. Ms. Pelletier referred the question to Paul Kessler, who explained that Vistoso Commerce Loop is a striped median, so one of the conditions is the inclusion of modifications of that striping to allow vehicle traffic flow. Vice Chair Panas asked how the crematorium deals with emissions. Ms. Pelletier replied that staff reviewed the Arizona State requirements, and referred the question to Doug Harpold. Mr. Harpold explained the emissions are regulated annually by the State. There are sensors in the stacks and the crematorium that do not allow beyond a certain amount of emissions, and which would shut down automatically if it gets to a certain 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 18 level. There are very minimal allowable emissions from a crematorium and there are substantial fines associated with a violation. Vice Chair Panas asked if the process emits odors. Mr. Harpold responded that neither smoke nor odors are emitted. In response to Member Kandetzke's questions, Mr. Harpold explained that not every body would be cremated, and there are specific requirements for removal of medical and biohazard waste, and none of the waste would be flushed into the washes. In response to Member Buette's questions regarding parking overflow, Mr. Harpold explained that there is no overflow parking at this time. Mr. Harpold added that he currently works at another funeral home and they have not had any parking problems. Ms. Pelletier added that staff had looked at the overflow parking issue, and noted that Applicant could make arrangements for overflow parking with the neighboring business. In response to Member Leska's question regarding the number of parking spaces, Mr. Keesler explained that the Town policy is the ADA minimum, which are four spaces per 84 parking spaces. Chair Zinkin asked what would happen if more than four handicapped people attend a funeral. Ms. Pelletier pointed out that the Applicant is providing a drop-off zone. Mr. Keesler added that if the number of handicapped spaces is increased, this disrupts the ratio. If Applicant needs more, they can certainly provide more, but the ADA parking requirements are minimums, and the Town's requirements are per the ADA. Chair Zinkin asked if there would be a stop light in the near future. Mr. Keesler said that there will be a stop light at Commerce Park Loop and Rancho Vistoso in the near future. Chair Zinkin asked how the light would work during a funeral procession. Mr. Keesler explained that there are provisions and requirements for police escorts, and deferred to the Applicant. Mr. Harpold explained that motorcycle escorts are required; they will block the intersection, but this can be done within a two-minute time frame. The escorts use discretion. The procession will probably go down to Vistoso Commerce, head to the southwest and then south on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. CALL TO AUDIENCE Donna Lindquist, 13352 N. Wide View Drive, commented that from where she lives she will be looking at the back of the proposed building, at the garage and hearses. She is concerned about the traffic, and she wondered why this location was chosen for this use, and that it would be more logical for this business to be closer to medical facilities. Camille McKeever, 13215 N. Hammerstone, commented that she had no objections to the memorial chapel, but does object to the crematorium. She asked if there were specific times when the crematorium would be in use, would smoke be visible, if the parking lot would be lit, and do homeowners have to disclose the proximity of the crematorium to future prospective buyers. Mr. Harpold addressed Ms. McKeever's questions, as follows. Per ADEQ's requirement, the crematorium can only be operating 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 18 from sunup to sundown. The crematorium produces very minor emissions, the stack is screened by a parapet, smoke will not be an issue, but heat distortion might be seen. Applicant was required to notify residents within a specified distance, but no one lives within that distance. Parking lot lighting will meet code and will all be ground lighting. Brian Ashley, 2324 E. Mortar Pestle Drive, asked if the parking lot lighting will be dimmed at night. Mr. Vella explained that the Oro Valley Code requires signage dimming at 10:00 p.m., and parking lot lights also can't be dimmed below a safety standard. Mr. Ashley further asked who he would complain to if he detects any odors, who can be blamed when his property values decline. Member Kandetzke asked that the call to the audience question regarding obstructed view be answered. Mr. Keesler said the site drops by approximately 10 feet from side to side and building will be placed in the middle, approximately five feet below neighbors' view line. Ms. Pelletier said she believed the neighborhood being represented is further north from the property. Member Gribb asked the distance from the first residential street north to the site. Mr. Keesler said the portion of the site along Vistoso Commerce Loop is approximately 227 feet long, so if you extrapolate that, it is about three to four times that distance, so the distance is approximately 1,000 feet. Chair Zinkin followed up on the call to the audience questions regarding the enforcement policy. Mr. Andrews explained that the Town of Oro Valley does not have the authority to regulate air quality, and that enforcement would be up to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality or the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Member Leska asked if there would be any visible signage and would that be addressed in a separate review. Ms. Pelletier said that the signage would be presented at a later date. Chair Zinkin clarified that the Development Review Board does not have anything to do with Land Use regulation. The site has already been zoned and if the Applicants meets zoning and setback requirements, it is out of the DRB's purview. MOTION(On Item 1, OV12-05-35): Vice Chair Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to the conditions in Exhibit 1, with the additional condition # 24, to provide cross access easement to be provided for recordation prior to certification of Development Plan or approval of Improvement Plans. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Chair Zinkin suggested a friendly amendment to somehow create additional parking places. Mr. Andrews offered the suggestion that a condition be added stating that staff work with the Applicant to add an appropriate number of additional handicapped places. Vice Chair Panas and Member Buette agreed. MOTION carried 6-0. MOTION(on Item 2,OV 12-05-30): Vice Chair Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL subject to 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 18 The conditions listed in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. MOTION carried 6-0. 3. OV12-05-30, Olsson Associates, representing NCH Corporation, request approval of a preliminary plat and landscape plan for six (6) condominium buildings; located northeast corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Morning Vista Drive; Parcel # 219-20- OO1C. Attorney Mary Beth Savel, Lewis & Rocca, gave the presentation. She named the members of the project team; however, due to considerable background noise, the individual and business names were not audible. This 3.51 acre site, located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Morning Vista Drive, is zoned high density residential. Applicant displayed images of the site. The zoning is part of the Rancho Vistoso PAD, Neighborhood 3, also subject to the Oro Valley Zoning Code and the Oro Valley General Plan. The majority of the surrounding properties are also zoned high density residential, with one exception. The density allowed is 21 units per acre. This project is being developed at 11 units per acre. The building heights within this area allow a maximum of 34 feet. This particular project is only two stories, the maximum roof height will be 26 feet and some of the roof gabling and additional architectural design may go up to 32 feet. The setbacks are established by the Rancho Vistoso PAD and the project is in compliance with all of the setbacks except for one. The rear setback of the Rancho Vistoso PAD is supposed to be 5 feet, but project is at 10 feet at one point. The site looks like it was used as a storage area for other subdivision development in the area. There is a small covered asphalt spot, the site has been graded, and some of the vegetation has been damaged. On the northeast portion of the project there is a very substantial drainage that runs through the property and has very lushly landscaped. One of the challenges associated with this project is the issue of a sewer connection. Applicant will be connecting from the site and into Pima County sewer that runs on the north side of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. It will not be connecting to the private sewer system that serves the Monterey Vistoso neighborhood. The height of this property has been a challenge because it is higher than the Monterey Vistoso development, anywhere from 4.5 to 7 feet. Part of the process has been to address neighbor's concerns by reducing the impact of the height of the site itself. One acre of the 3.51 acres is designated to open space. Ms Savel briefly described the architecture, as it is important in understanding the project. This is a condominium project, with 39 units without the apartment complex look. The architect describes it as a"big house" concept, which is designed to allow for a multi-family dwelling that appears to be like a single family residence. Each of the units has its own garage on the main floor, so there is no open parking for the residents. Each unit had its own ground floor entrance and its own chimney. Each of the units has 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 18 6 units, and it is a condo complex for extremely nice residential uses. There are four building designs, the units range from 1 to 3 bedrooms, and the average size is 1300 square feet. The architect described the architecture as emerging Tuscan and Southwest design, with natural stone, stucco, and tile, ironwood, concrete, and wood, all merging into a nice look. The unit has quality amenities such as a pool, a cabana, a barbeque area, a picnic area, a tot lot, and beautiful landscaping. This is right next door to a well-established subdivision. In the early part of this year, the developer held six neighborhood meetings. Two additional meetings were held on site, where staff, neighbors and the development team walked the site. The original design shown on page 18 has changed substantially. There were neighborhood concerns about the building heights, the height of the site itself, setbacks, lighting, balcony overviews for privacy purposes, pedestrian connectivity, screening of landscape, and entry into Morning View Drive. The biggest change made was to move Building#6 to the center of the project and away from the existing homes. The pool and recreation areas were moved to where Building # 6 was originally, with screening of visitor parking and the pool area. The second major change was lowering the overall site elevation. The original plan called for raising the site elevation, but as a result of the neighbors' concerns about the height of the buildings, the site will be lowered. The landscaping will be terraced. The third major change was to rearrange the balconies and windows to give the established neighbors privacy. Most of the windows and balconies were moved to face the inside of the project. There will be a new sidewalk going along Rancho Vistoso Drive. The wall heights and landscaping were important to help screen the site. The neighbors, the developer and Town staff walked the site and decided on the different wall heights. The Town Code does not require a wall height. The walls will start with a 7 foot wall and taper down to a 5 foot wall in places. The lighting will all be ground lighting; there will not be any pole or wall lights. These big houses are designed to look like residential single family homes, and the lighting will comply with Oro Valley Zoning Codes, and with the Pima County Dark Skies Ordinance. The gated median entrance into Monterrey Vista on Morning Vista Drive will be redesigned so that there are no conflicts with the entry into the project. Additional screening will be put in as you come out of the entrance of this project onto Morning Vista Drive, so that lights from the cars will be screened. There will be additional landscaping added to increase the screen. The other significant landscape buffer is in the common area between Building# 5 at the homes on Bushwacker. This is a 9,000 to 10,000 square foot common area that belongs to an adjacent homeowner's association. The area is not landscaped; there is a slope, there is rip rap, there is erosion. Applicant is awaiting an easement from the HOA in order to put in trees to create and maintain a substantial canopy to create a buffer. The Landscape Plan is going to have a substantial number of important features. The landscaping palette is going to conform to both the Rancho Vistoso plant plan and the Oro Valley plan. Applicant is looking at low water indigenous plants, reusing boulders, 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 18 integrating colors, using an irrigation and water recycling plan for the property so that water run-off will be collected, and the landscaping will be terraced. The last change involves the Rancho Vistoso PAD Open Space Trade, which was an easy to calculate trade. In this particular project, the open space area is a little over 17,000 square feet in area. On the original site plan there was no encroachment. When Building # 6 was moved away from the neighborhood, the developer encroached into the open space area by about 9,700 square feet. The area Applicant is proposing to trade is approximately 12,000 square feet which has not been previously disturbed, and which runs along the heavily vegetated area. It is an appropriate, meaningful use of open space, in an area that hasn't been affected or graded, and it's in a natural drainage area, and it enhances the buffer. In response to Member Kandetzke's question, Ms. Savel said that the smallest building setback relative to the neighborhood is ten feet for the rear yards. Member Kandetzke asked if there was any way to increase that setback without destroying the project. Len Schwartz, Civil Engineer, further explained that the whole site is set at minimum widths in an effort to maximize Applicant's use of land and minimize the footprint, so there really isn't any room to move everything together without going below what Applicant would be comfortable with. Member Kandetzke commented that it seemed like the proposed trade area buffers that area considerably more than what it was. Ms. Savel said that was correct, and explained that when Applicant added the parking lot and swimming pool, which creates a substantial distance, so the only building that is close to the neighborhood is Building # 5, on the south side, and the area immediately south of that which will have the additional landscaping and screening in the common area. The distance from the building to the homes is 35 feet to the wall and 60 feet to the house. Vice Chair Panas asked if there was a way to move Building E so that there is a large swatch of area that is away from all the homes. Applicant explained that the area that is not developed, where the open space trade and 30% open space requirement are located is the only space that could be used, and that meant dealing with encroaching into a drainage area and having to do some additional fill to build up the property. The proposed suggestion would have a greater overall impact on the site and would require more earthmoving and construction to be done. Member Panas asked if any thought had been given to eliminating that building completely. Ms. Savel replied that elimination of that building would come down to the number of buildings and units that make the site commercially economical. Elimination of that building would mean eliminating 6 units, and at some point it starts cutting into profitability, so the answer is "yes"and"no." Member Leska asked if they had explored the possibility of making that a one-story building. Ms. Savel said that Applicant had looked at the different possibilities, and reminded the Board that the allowable density on this project is 21 RAC, which would allow for 70 plus units, almost twice what Applicant is proposing. Applicant is building 39 units, which is a substantial reduction to accommodate the neighbors and the open space, and to create a nice, open, simple, smallish development. So the answer is that reduction of one building to a one-story is not one of the choices that the Applicant has. 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 18 Chair Zinkin asked if the preliminary plat's approval is based on the land swap being approved. Ms. Savel explained that the PAD open space exchange was required when Applicant moved Building 6 further away. If Applicant does not get the additional trade, then that particular space will be encroaching. Chair Zinkin clarified that his question was more of a parliamentary nature, on whether the Board needs to vote first on the open space trade before talking about it. Mr. Andrews replied that that would make sense, because if everything else is approved but the open space trade, then the Board would have approached an encroachment with the trade. This is actually a package deal, where the Board is voting on a lot of things at once. The preliminary plat includes the trade. Member Kandetzke asked for clarification that the location and the encroachment is because of neighbor concerns to move that building. Mr. Vella said that was correct. Applicant has offered to move the Building north and thus created the need for proposed open space. If the open space trade is not approved, the building would return to where it was before the proposed trade. In response to Chair Zinkin's question, Ms. Savel explained that the balconies on Building E, which was the closest the neighborhood, were the only ones that were moved for privacy concerns. In response to Member Kandetzke's questions, Mr. Vella explained that the adjacent neighborhood is High Density Residential. This is the same zoning for the proposed site and the surrounding neighborhood. The builder of the established residential development chose to put lower density onto that property. Ms. Pelletier introduced the staff report into the record. Mr. Keesler provided the traffic access, safety, and drainage portions of the presentation. Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan, with the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Gribb asked about the presumption that there was going to be a church on this property and some deed restriction. Mr. Andrews explained that a deed restriction is between the buyer and the seller of a piece of land. The law is set up in such a way that municipalities don't have the jurisdiction to enforce deed restrictions. This particular one specified that the homeowners' association would not have the ability to deny a church to build on the property, but would not involve the town, it's a private property issue. Ms. Pelletier further explained the deed restriction was that it wouldn't exclude a church but also would not preclude any other type of use that was permitted under the Code. Mr. Andrews elaborated that it was a covenant that a church could not be disallowed, more than a restriction, and added that this issue is not really relevant to the decision of the Board, as it involves a private property matter. Member Kandetzke asked if it was a private property matter, doesn't the deed restriction go right along with the property to the next owner when it's sold. Mr. Andrews said that it does, if in fact it is a restriction, but it is between the parties. Mr. Vella suggested this might be a good question to ask the Applicant. Mr. Andrews located the documentation on the deed restriction, and read, "The following issues shall be specifically permitted by the applicable statutes, laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances now or hereafter promulgated by applicable government authorities: churches or similar places of worship 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 18 including parish houses, parsonages, rectories, convents, and dormitories necessary thereto, except temporary revival tents or buildings." The pertinent language, Mr. Andrews pointed out, is "shall be specifically permitted" but is not to the exclusion of anything. Ms. Savel explained that sometimes neighborhoods don't like churches to come in because they have very high traffic flows for very short periods of time, and so this is was a covenant to allow for the future development of a religious use on the site if one would have come in, but this doesn't exclude any other use, it only permits this use. Chair Zinkin referred to a letter in the package from the Lutheran Ministries, commented that all the area, including the area where these neighbors live, is high density zoning, asked if he was correct in stating that any establishment that goes in there that is less zoning than high zoning is permitted. Ms. Savel explained that the Rancho Vistoso PAD specifically outlines the kinds of uses that are permitted in a high density residential, and one of those uses is a condominium use. Ms. Savel added that she doesn't have the excerpt before her, so she can't say what other uses that might otherwise be permitted. For residential use, the maximum density that is permitted is 21 units per acre. Vice Chair Panas asked what the maximum traffic that should be allowed on a collector street. Mr. Keesler said that for collector streets it is based on geometry, or half of what a local street has the capacity for. In response to Vice Chair Panas' question, Mr. Keesler said that with Stone Canyon going in across the street, in the future there might be need for a traffic light at that location, but not now. Chair Zinkin expressed concern regarding construction vehicles being able to make that left turn and into that median and into that cut. He asked if it would be possible to have a construction entrance on Vistoso Boulevard and have the Applicant restore that entrance to its original state after the construction is over. Mr. Keesler said that if construction commences, Applicant will have to have the appropriate traffic control both for Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and for the site. He pointed out the elevation difference along Rancho Vistoso. The heavy equipment could be brought in, but after a while that equipment will become landlocked because of the cutting involved to get the site down to appropriate heights for the neighbors. Applicant would be digging themselves into a corner if they used Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as the primary construction access. Appropriate traffic control is going to have to be approved through the Town because Morning Vista Drive at this location is a public street, so all the responsibility to keep the traffic flowing safely is on the Public Works Department. Chair Zinkin asked if the school buses use Morning Vista Drive. Mr. Keesler said he had seen a school bus drop off children on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard on the north corner. Mr. Keesler said he would verify. Chair Zinkin commented on how well staff, and specifically Ms. Pelletier, had handled the neighborhood meetings. 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 18 Member Kandetzke asked if staff had received an opinion on the fire access into this. Mr. Keesler and Ms. Pelletier confirmed that Fire had approved the site, all Town departments have commented on the project. Member Buette commented that it seemed to him that the Town traded some useable space for drainage, and asked if this trade violates the Open Space Law. Ms. Pelletier explained that the definition of PAD open space specifies criteria regarding space that is "meaningful." The Oro Valley Zoning Code's definition of open space has four categories, which are natural open space, landscape, and two other types of open space. The Board has discretion to decide whether or not that constitutes meaningful open space. The drainage area is not useable, and that is a concern, but the additional landscaping that will be provided along the edge of the open space trade area is to help blend the developed environment with the natural area. The PAD designated open space area currently there is useable, and Applicant is proposing this area for part of the pool and part of the building on this area. Mr. Buette asked if it was true that if DRB did not allow the trade, then that could be detrimental for the neighbors because it could bring in Building 6. Ms. Pelletier stated she would have to defer this matter to the applicant. Applicant did not have the opportunity to respond at this time and the discussion continued. Chair Zinkin commented that Exhibit A presupposes that there will be an agreement with the HOA and the easement. He asked if there isn't, would the Applicant have to return to DRB with the revised Landscape Plan. Ms. Pelletier deferred part of that question to the Applicant, and added that the supplemental condition that requires approval by the HOA, if the HOA does not approve,won't hinder Applicant's proposed Landscape Plan. Member Leska asked if the compatibility to the adjacent properties has been addressed. Ms. Pelletier responded that the Planning Division has to respect what the development rights are for a property, which is why at the beginning of every development project staff strongly encourages neighborhood input. This neighborhood was very attentive, went to all six meetings that the Applicant hosted, and the issue of compatibility would be left to the neighbors' comments, but staff has to respect the development standards, and also to look out for the people who are not in the room. Member Leska said that one of the main things that the Applicant had addressed was just to move and lower the building, but Applicant didn't really address lowering the density, though he understands they are okay to do 21 units per acre, and there are 11 here; however, he didn't see any way to make the surrounding neighborhood more at ease with the development. Mr. Vella interjected that it needs to be made very clear that the Applicant has met all Zoning Code requirements, except one, which is the Open Space issue which is before DRB for consideration. Three quarters of the presentations by both Applicant and staff has been about mitigation: lowering the site, moving the balconies, increasing the open space, increasing setbacks. CALL TO AUDIENCE: • Kevin Burns, 13741 North Carlynn Cliff Drive, said that this site is surrounded on three sides by Monterey Vistoso neighborhood. The proposed plan shows that 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 18 there is little that even hints at a close encompassing neighborhood. The site is a small site, with approximately two buildable acres. The six big house complex housing 39 individual units is intended to maximize the allowable density while considering the open spaces. The proposed project will dominate adjacent neighbor homes, will eliminate views of the Tortolitas, will eliminate privacy and sunshine, and will tower over adjacent homes. There has been a general lack of consideration by NCH. Although NCH has moved the one building, they have not made any concessions on the appropriate size, shape, number of units, and height. Allowing this project to proceed will set a dangerous precedent for Rancho Vistoso homeowners. • Lynne DeStefano, 42 W. Golden Spur, said that the buildable space that is being built is 1.17 acres, which means that that about doubles the density that is allowed by high density. That is why buildings don't seem to fit and everything seems very crowded. She realizes that mention has been made about concessions made regarding the density, but there has to be a point where that is not allowed. If it was 5, 10, or 15 acres but they could only build on a single acre, would the entire density be able to be placed on the one acre. She called for lowering the density, lowering the size and the number of buildings. The Applicant made it clear from the beginning that there would be no concessions on those issues, and that is why most of the agreements involved landscaping and parking lot lighting. The neighborhood will no longer have city or mountain views. There are ten bus stops that come to the corner of Rancho Vistoso and Morning Vista, two that actually come up Morning Vista. Children will be walking directly in front of this passageway that is being used by construction people and 39 residents. There is also the consideration that the neighborhood could go to the School Board to have more buses come into the neighborhood, if there is a health and safety issue with our children having to be at this corner where all this construction is going on. Another issue is the height, which should be in compliance with the neighboring community. The mass of these big houses is four times the size of the single story houses in the neighborhood. She does not see how DRB cannot disapprove the plan as presented. • Scott Wlton, 13785 N. Bushwacker Place, stated that he appreciated the meetings held by the Applicant, but at one of those meetings it was made known that the neighbors had no choice, so all the concessions that were talked about were in the minutiae. One of the concessions discussed was that we are allowing them to put additional vegetation. This additional vegetation will result in providing a beautiful view to the 39 units looking into his back yard. His house is the black hole of Bushwacker Place, probably the lowest point behind this area. There has been a lot of talk about lowering the level — they didn't lower the level, they simply said they were going to build it up and now they're not going to do that. There was some talk about compatibility between low density or medium density and high density. There is no compatibility. He has lived here for seven years and suggested that the Town is not a perfect example of traffic flow. He thanked Applicant for not building 40 foot walls, and said that he'd probably seen enough sunsets and doesn't need to see any more. He thanked them for deciding that it's okay to have construction traffic going in and out of the neighborhood where his kids get on and off the school buses. There will be up to nine school buses going into our neighborhood because we are certainly not going to allow our kids to 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 18 walk through that high traffic construction. He thanked DRB for the time and appreciate your consideration. • Chuck Brill, 164 Red Pepper Place. He said that his house is across the wash at Morning Vista, so his back yard will look right at those monstrosities. He said that when the Applicant bought the property they must have known there was a deed restriction. He asked if the deed restriction automatically goes away or do they have to get it removed, once the property is sold. (Chair Zinkin told Applicant his question would be researched.) Mr. Brill said that a lot of the people in the subdivision would have been happy with a church. Chair Zinkin asked Mr. Andrews to again clarify the deed restriction. Mr. Andrews explained that for the relationship between the Town and its residents, the deed restriction is really outside of our purview. But a deed restriction generally runs with the land, if in fact it is a deed restriction. This particular one, isn't so much of a restriction, but as a permissive matter, as was pointed out, that the Homeowners Association could not later tell the church they couldn't build there, but if in fact there is a deed restriction, this is a matter between the Homeowners Association and the individual residents in the area. It's not a Town of Oro Valley issue. Chair Zinkin asked if there were indeed a deed restriction, would the Town have the authority to grant a building permit for multi-use with the deed restriction. Mr. Andrews said that the Town would, because the Town is under the law explicitly precluded from regulating under deed restrictions. That is something that the home owners would have to take up with their Association and/or each other, depending on how the restriction is drafted. Chair Zinkin told Mr. Brill that he hoped that answered his questions, although he was sure that it wasn't satisfactory to Mr. Brill. Member Gribb asked if someone could answer Ms. DeStefano's issue about the 1.17 acres. Chair Zinkin said that could be addressed during the discussion. MOTION: Vice Chair Panas MOVED to recommend CONTINUANCE, due to incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. (Hearing no SECOND,the motion dies.) MOTION: Member Leska MOVED to recommend DENIAL, for the reason that it is not compatible with the surrounding areas, as pointed out in Chapter 22 of the Zoning Code. (Hearing no SECOND,the motion dies.) MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend APPROVAL with the conditions specified in Exhibit A. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 18 DISCUSSION: Member Kandetzke explained his reason for his motion. He believes that the Applicant has the wherewithal to build on the property with the first plan that he proposed, and he tried to mitigate the detrimental effects of that building by moving the building, which pushed us into the trade area. Assuming we don't approve this, the Applicant moves the building and it would be more detrimental to the neighbors with that plan. He does not see compatibility either, but he believes that that was a use issue to begin with, and that the original developer chose to lower the density, and he does not believe that the Town can hold the Applicant to that lower density. Compatibility comes in a lot of different flavors, but there was mitigation to try to compensate the height to the big house to the two story buildings. This is the best deal that he thinks we can get. Member Gribb said he agrees with Member Kandetzke, and he emphasizes with the homeowners but also with the developers (who have certain rights) and he didn't second the motion to deny because he felt it would be futile to deny the developer's rights. We could do it here, but we're not the governing body ultimately, we can only make a recommendation. Member Gribb asked that Ms. DeStefano's question be addressed. Mr. Vella explained that density is calculated based on total gross area of the development. There are other constraints and other zoning criteria that provide extra protection. Member Leska explained the reasoning behind his motion. The home owners in that area knew, or should have known, the density zoning before they bought their homes. This was a vacant piece of land that would be built up someday, and the density could be 21 units per acre. However, I have a problem with the due diligence of the developer. It seems that only one of the structures is incompatible, so to make an entire neighborhood incompatible with one structure is unreasonable. Member Buette expressed his opinion that this is never easy, and said he empathizes with the neighbors. This is tough for the Board, and hoped that the neighbors realize this. The developer has an undeniable bundle of rights. It would be very nice to have that site go undeveloped, but that is unrealistic. This developer has really done a lot to work with the homeowners. He walked the site, and wasn't really in favor of this trade agreement, but in looking at the totality of it and what not allowing the trade would do to the home owners, he is for the project because it's good for the home owners, and believes the developer can come in and build something much worse, and is totally in agreement with Members Kandetzke and Gribb. Member Panas said he doesn't disagree with what Member Buette said. The developer owns property that is already zoned, and the only thing that concerns him is that if DRB declines something, it's out of our control. If DRB approves it as it sits, it's out of our control. The reason he asked for a continuance is that it allows the developer time to reconfigure something that may make it more palatable. He would ask the developer if he would look really closely at the neighborhood, it doesn't really match, it doesn't fit. The developer has also done 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 18 a tremendous amount of work trying to mitigate factors, and we can't please everybody, and he was just suggesting a compromise by allowing additional time. He added that there are six members here, and if there is a deadlock, we are in trouble, because it then goes direct to Council. Member Buette commented that the DRB is not the final authority. Member Panas said that was correct, and he suggests more mitigation. Chair Zinkin commended the developer for the work that has gone into this project. Building E seems to be the major point of contention. He suggested adding a condition in Exhibit A to do further mitigation with Building E, possibly making it a one-story, lowering it, making it one bedrooms. He does sympathize with the homeowners, but there are rights that the property owner has, and just because the person who built Monterey decided to put in 3 units per acre doesn't mean that these people can't put in 12 units per acre, it's the same zoning. He suggested something being included in Exhibit A, where staff goes back with the developer and does something with Building E. Mr. Andrews suggested that the attorney discuss the matter with the Applicant to find out if they are willing to go there. Ms. Savel said that the problem with changing this design is that the "big house" concept goes away, but the big house concept currently allows for garage parking. If it goes away,then surface parking has to increase. Ms. Savel said she appreciates the suggestion, and will check with her client, but would prefer to go with the existing project design. VOTE: Motion carried 4-2 (Buette, Kandetzke, Gribb, Zinkin voted for the motion; Panas and Leska voted against the motion). (Board took a fifteen minute recess.) 4. OV12-05-36, Physical Resource Engineering Inc., representing Copperstone Development LLC., requests approval of a development plan for the Copperstone office building, located in proximity to the northwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcels 225-11-1970, 1980 and 225-11-1990. 5. OV12-05-36, GRS Landscape Architects Inc., representing Copperstone Development LLC., requests approval of a landscape plan for the Copperstone office building, located in proximity to the northwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcels 225-11-1970, 1980 and 225-11-1990 6. OV13-06-37, Richard M. Greene — Architect, representing Copperstone Development LLC, requests approval of architectural elevations for the Copperstone Office building located in proximity to the northwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, Parcels 225-11-1970, 1980 and 225-11-1990. Applicant Carl Winters, Planning Resources, 270 North Church, Tucson, gave the presentation. Applicant asked to combine the development plan, landscape plan, and architectural plan simultaneously. Applicant has requested a height variance from the 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 18 Board of Adjustment because the site is so much below Oracle Road that even with the variance the building is not higher than if they had stayed within the height limits and were on the other side of Oracle Road. One of the issues on the height is that the front of the building is going to be 34 feet and the height on the back of the building will be 28.5 feet, so neighbors can see over the building. Some of the front of the building is parapet to hide the HVAC system. The other good news for the neighbors is that these are not apartments and will serve as a very good noise barrier from the Oracle Road noise. Dan White, Physical Resources Engineering, 4655 N. Flowing Wells, gave the development plan presentation. The site is 3.4 acres, on Oracle South of Calle Concordia. Topographically, it descends 4% from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. There is roughly a difference in elevation of about 30 feet. It is proposed to have a commercial development. The site provides for circulation in both directions, access is to/from Oracle Road. It provides for about 160 parking spaces. There are two buildings located on the site, for a total of 41,000 square feet. Drainage will be handled in the direction that it is handled right now, with the water coming off of Oracle Road. Some of it will drain along the small retaining wall that there will be on the east side of the property and will descend to the south. On the west side of the property there will be four detention basins. The buildings will set back 170 feet from the street (the requirement is 120 feet), and 195 feet from the nearest neighbor. In response to Member Buette's question, Mr. White verified that this will be a condo project, with an unknown number of spaces. In response to Member Kandetzke's question, Mr. White explained that this project encompasses three separate parcels, which will be combined. Greg Schinn, GRS Landscape Architects, 1530 W. Wetmore, continued with the landscape presentation. One issue involving this project was the scenic corridor, which requires that the landscape should be native and low water use. Applicant will be preserving 10 existing trees and will be transplanting an additional 7 trees from other portions of the site. The front entryway will have a native plant palette. Applicant believes he has met the overlay district requirement. They will also be putting in 36" to 48" box trees, and the massing of trees will create canopies. Applicant will be transplanting 50 trees off of the site. In response to Chair Zinkin's question, Applicant explained that the tree canopy will be to the east of the dirt road that runs along the west side of the site. Richard Green, designer/architect on the project, 3673 Kirby Street, San Diego, continued with the architectural elevations presentation. Applicant has attempted to make this project blend in with the surrounding development and the terrain. Applicant presented images showing the Pueblo Contemporary design style. One of the reasons Applicant chose this style is that it is a style that hugs the ground. Applicant picked 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 18 colors based on the surroundings, although the colors shown on the image appear darker, but the copies given the Board are accurate. These buildings will eventually be condos, and whatever eventually happens inside the building will not affect the exterior appearance. The building will have a glass railing across the front, and the railing heights are broken up by the use of different colors. The backs of the buildings will not have any walkways. The back of the building will be lower than the front so that the neighbors' views won't be blocked. The air conditioning units will be to the front of the building and will be shielded from view. The back will have low lighting. In response to Vice Chair Panas' questions, Applicant explained that the east elevation is the one that faces Oracle Road, that the buildings will have balconies, and the staircase structures are stucco. Vice Chair Panas commented that the big staircases make the building seem heavy. Applicant explained that the staircases are in the middle of the building, not at the ends. In response to Member Leska's questions, Applicant said that there could be up to 12 units, but Applicant does not necessarily know how many tenants there will be. David Ronquillo introduced the Development Plan staff report into the Record, and recommended approval of the Development Plan. Member Kandetzke asked what the impact was on the Oro Valley Scenic Corridor. Mr. Ronquillo explained that as part of the Development Plan process, the Applicant has to submit a view shed analysis, to basically look at the site and determine what impact it is going to have from Oracle Road. In this case, there was no view corridor defined. In response to Member Kandetzke's questions, Mr. Ronquillo verified that there was no impact on the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor and the building and buffers met all scenic road requirements, and it doesn't need to be any mitigation. Mr. Ronquillo introduced the Landscape Plan staff report into the record, and recommended approval of the Landscape Plan subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke asked if the west side neighbors' views were impacted, in need of mitigation, or improved as a result of the landscaping. The back of the building is lower than the front, so the residents' views will not be obstructed. The landscaping will help provide a screen from the building. Chair Zinkin asked about parking lot lighting. Applicant has met the lighting code requirements. Mr. Vella added that when lighting abuts a residential development, the Code provides that it has to start at a lower height at the perimeter of the site and the lighting height increases as it gets closer to the building. In response to Member Buette's question, Mr. Ronquillo said the road noise from Oracle Road will be minimized to the neighbors to the west because of this project. Mr. Keesler added that ADOT conducted side wall noise tests, and the heights of the buildings are about the same size as sound walls would be, so building will act as a sound wall. 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006 09/19/06 Development Review Board Minutes Page 18 of 18 David Ronquillo introduced the Architectural Plan staff report into the Record, and recommended approval of the Architectural Plan subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. In response to Chair Zinkin's question, Mr. Ronquillo explained that technically drivers won't be able to see the roofs of these buildings from Oracle Road. Mr. Vella added that the mechanicals on the roof are to be entirely screened. In response to Member Leska's question, Mr. Ronquillo explained that this building could possibly be used as a combination residential/commercial, but if there is any change in use, the Development Plan would return to the DRB. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12-05-36 (Development Plan) subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to APPROVE OV 12-05-36 (Landscape Plan) subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to APPROVE OV 13-05-36 (Architectural Plan) subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Member Panas SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING UPDATE • Mr. Vella discussed the possibility that the next meeting will have approximately ten items.. • Mr.Vella thanked the Board for rearranging their schedules in order to make both meetings. • Mr. Vella thanked Arinda for her work on the Board. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Member Gribb SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:52. Prepar-d by: • 0;d / Arinda Asper, Recording Se•,etary 09-19-06 DRB Minutes.doc Minutes approved 11-14-2006