Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/14/2006 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 14,2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mike Zinkin, Chair John Buette, Member Harold Kandetzke,Member Tom Gribb, Member Scott Leska,Member Shelley Solomon, Member ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager David Ronquillo, Senior Planner Matt Michels, Senior Planner Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician Deanna Ruiz, Recording Secretary Paul Loomis, Mayor Terry Parrish, Vice Mayor K. C. Carter, Councilperson Al Kunisch, Councilperson ABSENT: Marc Panas, Vice-Chair 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 19 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO AUDIENCE Open and closed without comment. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2006, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES AND OCTOBER 10, 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-06-44, Telexis Development, representing Mark Lawson, requests approval of architecture elevations for a custom home for Lot 8 in Canada del Oro Estates, located on North Avenida Vallejo, Parcel #224-29-0080. The is a two-story 6,900 square foot home placed on a 1.59 acre (69,309 sq ft) lot. B. OV13-06-45, Stellar Homes Construction requests architectural approval of a custom home, located at 339 E. Kezar Drive, Lot 25, in the Sunterra subdivision, Parcel # 219- 54-3250. The custom home site is 0.28 acres (or 12,246 square feet) and is zoned Rancho Vistoso PAD High Density Residential (HDR). The proposed home is one story, with 2,292 square feet of living space. C. OV12-06-03, Tierra Right of Way Services, representing JREM LLC, requests approval of a landscape plan for Naranja Ranch Estates, an 11 lot subdivision located in proximity to the northeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranja Road, Parcel #224-11- 049A, #224-11-045A, and#224-11-045B. The preliminary plat was approved by Town Council on September 20, 2006. The landscape plan depicts native species arranged within private road common area. F:\MINUTES\DRB\11-14-O6.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 19 MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to approve Consent Agenda Items A, B and C. Member Gribb SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0 REGULAR AGENDA 1. OV13-06-19B, David Malin, representing Vestar Development Co., requests architectural approval of select building pads 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 Applicant is not present and is represented by Wayne Silverschlog, Silverschlog Architects, 4400 E. Broadway, Tucson Arizona. Mr. Silverschlog presents Architectural Design Package for buildings 2 and 3 of the Oro Valley Market Place. Applicant reviews and recaps the Master Architectural Concept plan from 6 months ago. The project will be mixed use including office, retail, theater and restaurant areas. Theme is southwestern, contemporary southwestern. Applicant reviews material and color palette. Applicant presents the site plan for building group 2. Side, front and rear elevations including hardscape and landscape. Applicant reviews the definition of View Shed Analysis and the purpose. Applicant continues with Building Group 3 reviewing front, side and rear elevations along with the hardscape and landscape. David Malin representing Vestar, 2425 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix, states the applicant is in negotiations with potential lessees. Applicant has been working with GOVAC and has received 106 art submittals for this project. Applicant recognizes staff and expresses the importance of the timing of this project. Applicant anticipates breaking ground July of 2007. Starting work on April 1, 2007, with a projected completion date of September 2008. Member Kandetzke states that Building group 2 is in the Tangerine Scenic Corridor and requests explanation of the applicant what has been done to remain in compliance with the corridor. Applicant responds with their plan for varying heights of the buildings, using pieces of metal and other material to break-up the appearance of the buildings. Applicant also discusses the distance from Tangerine Road to the buildings. Member Gribb asks for definition of the opening date of September, 2008. Applicant responds that the developer initially believed this to be a four phase project. Response has been positive that this has become a two phase project. Chair Zinkin requests of staff and the applicant that DRB be allowed as much time as possible to study future packets. F:\MINU'ITES\DRB\11--14.O6.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 19 Member Solomon notes the pedestrian walkway and questions the purpose. Applicant explains that there will be parking in the rear. Member Leska requests staff to clarify what portion of this project is before the DRB. Bayer Vella, Principal Planner responds that the landscape and hardscape will be presented at the December 12th DRB Meeting. Mr. Zinkin questions the look of the rear elevations. The applicant responds the area in question will be covered with trees. Bayer Vella, Principal Planner introduced the staff report into record. Mr. Vella reviews • Master Architectural Concept Plan • Group 2 Buildings • Front, back and rear elevations • Defines the Tangerine Overlay District CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, commented that he was disappointed in the architecture and was not pleased with the lack of compliance with the town code. Richard Ulmer, 1800 E. Andromeda Pl, is in agreement with Mr. Adler. Comments that developers learn as children do, by being disciplined. John Mitchell, 1459 W. Fairway Wood Ct, this board has to ensure that the town gets the aesthetics that the community is looking for and does not feel that this architectural plan reflects that. Brady Buckley, 11526 N. Civano P1, requests that the town require the developer to maintain the landscape in the rear of the buildings. Response by staff that works begins on April 1, 2007. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to approve 0V13-06-19B, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A, Vestar Development. Member Gribb SECONDED the motion. The discussion continues with Chair Zinkin reading the Tangerine Overlay District code for architectural design. Mr. Kandetske speaks of the perception of the project and feels this project is inline. F:\MI.NUTE5\DRB\i 1 M 14-06.doc Approved. 1212-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 19 Mr. Leska states the project is between blah and spectacular. Mr. Leska has concerns of the view shed. Mr. Zinkin asks if the Board feels that they have had sufficient time to review the material presented. Responding to Mr. Buckley, Mr. Zinkin explains that the requirement to maintain the landscape is part of the town code. Member Gribb briefly discusses that this package is essentially review of what the DRB has been reviewing for a period of time. Motion carries 6-0 2. Public Hearing, OV3-06-03, David Malin, representing Vestar Development Co., requests approval of a PAD Exemption from the sign requirements of the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development. The proposal involves 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. David Malin,Vestar Development,2425 E. Camelback Road,Phoenix and Mary Beth Savell, Lewis and Rocca, 1 South Church, Suite 700, Tucson. Ms. Savell states that this item is in combination with item #3. She continues that the codes were written in 1987 designed for smaller projects and that this project has been approved by Rancho Vistoso. Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician, introduced the staff report into record. Mr. Lew reviewed • Procedure • Guidelines • Summary Mr. Lew states that staff recommends approval. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE: Richard Ulmer, 1800 E. Andromeda Pl, expresses concern regarding the signage at Best Buy and the color scheme of the potential sign. Member Kandetzke questions the applicant as to the scope of the exemption. Applicant responds that they are requesting complete exemption for the Rancho Vistoso Sign Code and instead will evaluate the Master Sign Plan which is the next item on the agenda. Member Leska asks the Town Attorney to clarify that the DRB is not giving carte blanche to the applicant. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, responds that the DRB is only exempting the applicant from the PAD for the brief instance from this item and item 3. F:\MI:NUTES\DRB\1.1-14-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 19 MOTION: Member Gribb MOVED to approve OV3-06-03, Vestar Development requests approval of a PAD exemption for the sign requirements of the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development. Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 3. OV3-06-02, David Malin, representing Vestar Development Co., requests approval of a Master Sign Program involving a 114 acre shopping center known as the Oro Valley Marketplace, located within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 4 at the southwest corner of the Tangerine and Oracle Roads intersection, parcels numbers 21920052m, 22004006f, and 22004008r. David Malin, Vestar Development, 2425 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix, states that the timing of approvals for this project is critical. Paul Bleiier, 2030 W. Desert Cove, Phoenix is the sign consultant for Oro Valley Market Place. Mr. Bleiier states there are 2 parts to the comprehensive sign plan. Free Standing Signage and Wall Mount signage. Free standing signage is what you see driving around. Mr. Bleiier presents the following on Freestanding Signage: • Color Palette • Sign matrix • Mitigation efforts Mr. Blieier continues with presentation showing location of signage through out the proposed Oro Valley Market Place. ST 1 signs are located at the entrances of Tangerine and Oracle Roads. Mr. Bleiier shows the features of the entry ways stating that one location is 200-250 feet south of Tangerine road and is the entryway feature to the "Loop Road". This is a private road. The Loop Road feature is 5-6 lanes across going in both directions to move traffic in and out efficiently. The entry feature is an important part of our sign program. The entry way is meant to span the first entry point with a column that is anchored at the median with a matching column that provides the balance between the two. Above the top there are individual letters that will be backlit illuminated that will read Oro Valley Market Place. There is a 17 foot clearance below the canopy. Mr. Bleiier continues with slides explaining that this project is attempting to not make the roadway boring. There are no signs on the back sides and no forms of illumination will be on the back side. This should mitigate any kind of visual impact to the adjacent neighborhood across the big wash. Illumination will be turned off at 11 pm or one hour after the movie theatre closes whichever is later. There would be 2 of this type of signage. F:\miNUTES\DRB\11-14-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 19 Ground illumination signs have been eliminated throughout the project except for these ST 1 signs. The fixtures will be fixed so as to not to allow the lighting to be manipulated by hand. Mr. Bleiier defines the ST2 displays as Multi-tenant primary signage. This is meant to be placed on the private loop road adjacent to key driveway locations. This allows the developer to place the names of major tenants at the best point of entry from the driveway. Mr. Bleiier explains the only illumination at night will be the names of the tenants with push through graphics. All lamps in these signs will be the same type. All of these signs are perpendicular to the roadway. They are located outside of the visibility triangle. The applicant continues and reviews the mitigating efforts made by the applicant that include: • Minimizing the viewing from the adjacent neighborhood • All of these signs will be turned off at 11 pm per town code • No ground illumination will be added to these signs and they will only be internally illuminated. Mr. Bleiier presents the Pedestrian Directories or ST 3. He begins by stating that locations have not been determined yet. These directories are three sided displays that will include a map, tenant listings, advertising display. The developer anticipates approximately 20 displays. These signs will turn off at 11 pm, they will only be internally lit and the word Directory will be non- illuminating. Continuing Mr. Bleiier discusses Traffic directional signage. These will be single face or double face and non-illuminated. They will utilize a reflective vinyl. These signs will be placed at traffic intersections and driveways to direct vehicular traffic throughout the project. The developer anticipates approximately 30 signs of this type. Mr. Bleiier reviews the General Requirement section of the sign program, stating that this document is the "teeth" of the sign program. This document includes maintenance, enforcement, size regulations and notifies any applicant that Vestar has its own restrictions and any tenant must have approval of Vestar before requesting signage from the town. Mr. Bleiier provides a variety of sign slides showing the different types of signs. Adding that the examples being shown do not reflect future tenants of the development, they are simply examples of types of signs. The color palette is introduced by Mr. Bleiier. This color palette is for tenants that do not have trademarked signage. Mr. Bleiier reviews the sign matrix. The presentation continues with a review of the sign for Best Buy. Mr. Bleiier shows slides of how the size of this particular sign has been reduced. Showing slides of the sign as it appears lit at night Mr. Bleiier explains that Best Buy has agreed to use this type of backlit sign. M1_NU'I F S\DRB`1.1-1.4-06 doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 19 Mr. Bleiier presents signage at the rear elevation of the development. Stating that Sub- Committee members have requested that more tenant signs could be shifted to the rear walls and use the same color and font Mr. Bleiier expresses technical issues such as trademarks. He also states that tenants will have issue with what competitor is place on their particular wall space. Tenant signage will be internally illuminated, backlit or a combination of both. Building sign Matrix for shop tenants is reviewed by Mr. Bleiier as well as the shop elevations. PAD and Office Tenant Signs are reviewed by the applicant. Locations of sign In conclusion, Mr. Bleiier reviews the theatre signage. Explaining Building Signage, Image Panels, Posters and Electronic Informational signage that show movie times. LED lights will be used for the illumination of signage for the theatre. Member Solomon questions the applicant on the reflectivity of the signs. Member Leska asks if the blue background of Best Buy is a trademark and does it have to be the present size. The applicant responds that the ticket is the trademark and that the size of the blue area is dictated by Best Buy. Member Leska also states he prefers backlit lighting and has concern for the residents who live above the development. Mr. Leska expresses concern of signage that is at the entrance because of the lighting that will be used. Chair Zinkin shares Member Leska's concerns. Stating that the only legal requirement is the Best Buy ticket and we (DRB) can only regulate size. DRB has the ability to eliminate the blue wedge of the Best Buy logo. Mr. Zinkin also requests that the reds in the color palette be negotiated away. Mr. Zinkin believes the storefronts should be similar to Rooney Ranch. Member Buette asks the applicant what the minimum of directional signs will be. Applicant responds that there will be approximately 18-20 and possibly 24. Applicant asks that the DRB formulate what the concerns are and the reasons behind the concerns and forward this to town council. Member Leska, using Fry's food store at La Canada and Lambert as an example, states that national retailer has a faux look to their sign that blends with the community and desert and asks if the developer and Vestar is willing to use similar type of signage. Applicant responds no. Applicant believes that during that time the town was requiring all signs to have a patina look. Subsequently, there have been court cases that have affirmed that trademark signs can be in their correct colors. He states that there a number of major retailers that are community members and want to be here they want to be a part of the community. The national company's will not agree to this. Applicant continues by explaining that if this is the direction that the Board is going any requests such as this must go back into the chain of schedule that Vestar is having with national retailers. If they (Major Retailers) say no, then Vestar starts making decisions. F":\MINUTES\DRB\11-14--06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 19 Zinkin asks town attorney to clarify whether DRB is recommending or approving signage Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, responds that with regard to the sign criteria they (DRB) are only recommending approval. Bayer Vella, Principal Planner, reports that the DRB has approval authority and the Master Sign Program is a legislative act. Member Solomon requests that the applicant blends the culture with the commercialism and feels that it is not being addressed and challenges the national retailers to do so. Applicant states that they will pass all concerns and comments to their clients. Gribb states that there are two sides to this issue and that DRB has merely heard one side. He shares the concern of the member with regards to Best Buy but states he likes the rest of the plan and finds it attractive. Jonathan Lew, Planner, introduces the staff report into record. Reviewing: • Entryway Signage • Freestanding Signage • Computation of the area of the sign Member Leska asks the applicant to explain push through graphics. Applicant explains. Kandetzke asks for clarification on the exemption and Master Sign Program. Vestar has a written guideline for the Master Sign Program and Mr. Kandetzke asks how this conforms to the Oro Valley sign code. Applicant responds the Master Sign Program is within the Oro Valley sign code. Kandetzke asks if Rooney Ranch is within the code and staff says no. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney, says the applicant is asking for the DRB to review criteria that the applicant's signs may or may not be approved from no on into the future. They are asking for a code that the town will adopt. Mr. Vella explains that there have been several meetings and over 120 hours of staff time and request DRB provide an approval with limited additions in Exhibit A CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Richard Ulmer, 1800 E. Andromeda P1, feels that the entryway signage is going to cause an enormous traffic jam for the people turning into the market place off of Oracle Road particularly but also off of Tangerine Road. Strongly encourages doing away with these signs and use the sign that will be located in the loop road. -`:\MI:NUTES\DR.B\1.1-1.4-O6.doc Approved. 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 19 Brady Buckley, 11526 N. Civano Pl., Thanks Mr. Vella for taking time to go over the sign package and is in favor of the plan with the exclusion of the Best Buy sign. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Pl, believes that this plan violates the scenic corridor. He believes that this plan simply advertises. Reading the sign code section 28-45 paragraph C. There is no consistency of typeface, illumination or color. If you recommend that this complies with town council it does not. Change the architecture of the building rather than allow the sign to jut outward. Doug McKee, 11836 Cassiopeia, I am a resident of Catalina Shadows and is in support of Mr. Ulmer and Mr. Adler. In addition requests clarification about illumination at the theatre. Is there a code on how late the theatre can remain open? He feels that the illumination Sign package has to be considered in combination with the parking lights. Does not understand why signs are needed after closure, as long as there is enough lighting for employees to leave. Lastly, the signage package really does not impact the applicant's ability to start construction on this project; he recommends that DRB continue the item. Close call to the audience. Member Leska asks Mr.Vella to clarify Exhibit A. Mr. Vella explains the following: The signage on the rear elevations must be positioned in a manner to be framed by specific architectural elements. The applicant has agreed to remove all references to fiber optic illumination and replace with L.E.D. lighting. The applicant has provided a letter that has been entered into record. Only backlit signage (halo illumination) may be utilized for wall signs — excluding the movie theatre signs. MOTION: Member Leska MOVED to approve OV3-06-02, David Malin, representing Vestar Development Co, a Master Sign Program involving a 114 acre shopping center known as the Oro Valley Marketplace, located within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 4 at the southwest corner of the Tangerine and Oracle Roads intersection, parcels numbers 21920052m, 22004006f, and 22004008r, subject to conditions in Exhibit A and the following conditions, allow backlit lighting on the storefront only, excluding the theatre, and remove all store front signage facing Oracle and Tangerine Road, eliminate the blue wedge of Best Buy. Reduce the yellow tag to the smallest size possible. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion with a friendly amendment that the color palette eliminates Vivid Rose, Cardinal Red and Red. Member Leska accepted the friendly amendment to the original motion. Member Kandetzke makes an additional friendly amendment to remove entryway pillar signage. Member Leska and Chair Zinkin accept the additional friendly amendment to the original motion. F:\MINUTES\DRB\11-1.4-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 1.I/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 19 The discussion continues with Member Gribb expressing concern that all shopping centers look the same in Oro Valley. He finds the signs boring. Member Leska explains that he strongly does not want to have grotesque, loud ambient lighting. Member Buette states that he will not support this motion. VOTE Member Buette Nay Member Kandetzke Aye Member Gribb Nay Chair Zinkin Aye Member Leska Aye Member Solomon Aye Motion carried 4-2 4. Public Hearing, OV12-06-16A, Rick Engineering Company, representing Builders Land Holdings LLC., requests approval of a grading exception to exceed the Zoning Code cut and fill limitations, located on the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Naranja Drive, Parcel 224-10-002B Bruce Payton 1745 E. River Road, Rick Engineering. The applicant shows a slide presentation of the site and the current condition of the site. In addition,the slides show the following: • Proximity to the current developments • Site layout • Cross sections showing east to west and north to south • Depths of the cut and fill mapping of the site • Proposed condition(Proposed Development Grade) The applicant informs the DRB that the site has been previously graded and is a health hazard because of the inability of the area to drain properly. Chair Zinkin asks if the golf cart pass will be adversely affected. The applicant responds that they are not proposing any fill within that channel. Mr. Zinkin asks the applicant who was responsible for the condition of the site and that he believed it was the town of Oro Valley. The applicant responds that it is probably the result of the building of La Canada Road and he did not have a complete history. F:1MI:NUTES;DRB\1.1-1.4-06.doc Approved 12--12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 19 Member Kandetzke comments that granting the exception constitutes the minimum to allow the proposed improvement and questions the applicant how they have determined what the minimum is since they have not addressed the development. The applicant states that they have addressed the development through the conceptual grading plan. David Ronquillo, Senior Planner presents the staff report into record. Mr. Ronquillo reviews the following: • surrounding usage and • grading and view shed • mitigation measures • Exhibit A conditions Chair Zinkin asks staff what will take place at this particular site when the widening of La Canada Road takes place. Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager, states: 1. The two pits that do not drain were a direct result of the creation of La Canada 2. The Department of Public Works feels that this site is a hazard of public health because it has no drainage. The development of this site will mitigate this risk to public health. 3. The minimum amount of fill needed had to do with the Hydrology Report. Mr. Keesler continues and states that there are two stipulations that need to be added as part of Exhibit A; 1. If La Canada is widened first, the developer must grant the Town of Oro Valley a slope easement to extend beyond the border of the row into the property. OR 2. If the developer constructs this project prior to the La Canada Road widening, the developer will extend the site grading to La Canada to provide positive drainage. Member Leska asks if the drainage will empty onto this site. Mr. Keelser responds that he cannot answer this with all certainty. Mr. Leska asks if this site is out of the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Keesler responds that is the purpose of the fill. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, states that the grading exception and a health hazard should not be connected. Bob Keys, 11280 N. Scioto Ave. states he is undecided on the matter but if the developer does what was presented then he would support the plan. He will not support a three story building. Chair Zinkin asks staff why we have allowed this health concern to exist. F:\M1NUTES\DRB\11-14-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 19 Mr. Keesler says that he is not aware of any law that we have that can force the property owner to rectify. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney responds to the question stating that we do not have an Oro Valley Health Department and almost everything would be sent to Pima County Health. This is an intermittent problem only when the areas pond. People are unhappy when it is happening and then it dries up and goes away and everyone forgets that it exists. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to approve OV12-06-16A, Rick Engineering Company, representing Builders Land Holdings LLC., requests approval of a grading exception to exceed the Zoning Code cut and fill limitations, located on the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Naranj a Drive, Parcel 224-10-002B subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" and additional conditions as follows; If La Canada is widened first, the developer must grant the Town of Oro Valley a slope easement to extend beyond the border of the row into the property and If the developer constructs this project prior to the La Canada Road widening, the developer will extend the site grading to La Canada to provide positive drainage. Member Leska SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 5-1. Member Kandetzke voting nay. 5. OV12-06-22, Rick Engineering Company, representing Golder Ranch Fire District, requests approval of a development plan and landscape plan for the Golder Ranch Fire Station, located in proximity to the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, directly west of the Children's World Learning Center, Parcel 224-25-023D Bruce Payton, Rick engineering 1745 E. River Road, presents the exhibits for the applicant including: • Site Layout • Proposed Grading • Landscape Plan • Lighting and Noise Mitigation Safety concerns of staff and the neighborhood during discussions had to do with the exit movement of the fire trucks. The applicant has proposed the installation of coordinated flashers along with the safety features already in place. The applicant agrees with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke asks for the location of the flashers and is informed by the applicant that they will be located on La Canada. The exact location has not been determined. F:\MI:NUTES\DRB\11-14-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 19 Chief John Fink, Golder Ranch Fire Department 3885 E. Golder Ranch Road there has been a traffic impact analysis completed on this site and their recommendation placement of the flashers is at 125 feet to the north and south. The flasher system will trigger at the exiting of the fire truck automatically or by the engineer themselves upon exiting the station. Applicant describes the safety features currently in place a Children's World. Member Gribb asks if consideration was ever made to blocking the driveway at La Canada The discussion continues regarding a variety of traffic situations. Mr. Fink gives an overview of the egress and ingress of the fire trucks currently and what is proposed. Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager explains that the proposal is to have north and south warnings and opposing traffic will see lights and sirens if necessary. There will be speed limitations for the fire trucks. Chair Zinkin asks what the agreement is with regard to maintaing the plants in the landscaped area that belongs to the HOA. The applicant states there is an agreement in place and signed and the applicant will maintain the area for a period of 3 years. After 3 years the maintenance will be the responsibility of the HOA. Member Leska asks if the Traffic Engineer suggested the use of the emergency stop lights. Applicant responds that they were willing to install what was recommended by the engineer br the town. David Ronquillo, Planner introduces the staff report into record identifying; • Residential impact • Improvements • Traffic circulation • Visibility Mr. Keesler adds that the traffic movement has been analyzed and the flashing lights have been approved by the town Engineer. The Fire Department has agreed to a maximum speed of 25 MPH for the fire trucks upon entering or exiting the proposed development. Mr. Keesler explains the ingress/egress routes. Mr. Ronquillo states that staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in Exhibit A. Member Solomon asks if Golder Ranch Fire has any plans to expand. Mr. Fink responds that there are no plans at this time to expand. Mr. Ronquillo presents the Landscape plan. ":\MINUTES\DRB\11-1.4-06.doc; Approved. 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 19 Member Gribb describes the letter received from the area residents. Mr. Ronquillo responds that all issues have been reviewed as part of the Development and Landscape plans. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE John Mitchell, 1459 W. Fairway Wood Ct, speaks in support of the plan and states that there has been an agreement reached. Mr. Mitchell briefly describes the lighting. Close call to the audience. MOTION: Member Gribb MOVED approve, OV12-06-22, Rick Engineering Company, representing Golder Ranch Fire District, requests approval of a development plan and landscape plan for the Golder Ranch Fire Station, located in proximity to the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, directly west of the Children's World Learning Center, Parcel 224-25- 023D subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A". Member Solomon SECONDED the motion. Member Buette states concern with the egress/ingress that is compromised and the excessive grading Chair Zinkin reads from staff report that states approval will need to come from Children's World and Walgreens. Mr. Fink states the development has letters of support from Children's World and Walgreens. Vote Buette Nay Kandetzke Nay Gribb Nay Zinkin Yes Leska Yes Solomon Yes Motion fails with a tie. Mr. Fink informs the DRB that his facility is in the safety business and would not propose anything that would jeopardize the safety of the community. F:\MINUTES\DRB\11-14-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 19 Mr. Kandetzke requests the staff elaborate on the restrictions of Lambert Lane. Mr. Keesler informs the DRB that the intersection for Walgreens is a right in only. In the future the town will re-configure that intersection to allow for an entrance and exit at Lambert. The town engineer has reviewed the traffic patterns and in our professional opinion this is the safest situation possible. Member Leska states the site is a difficult one to develop and we will continue to have circulation issues. Member Buette proposes that DRB approve the motion and get the item before Town Council. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to approve, OV 12-06-22, Rick Engineering Company, representing Golder Ranch Fire District, requests approval of a development plan and landscape plan for the Golder Ranch Fire Station, located in proximity to the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Lambert Lane, directly west of the Children's World Learning Center, Parcel 224-25- 023D subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits "A". Member Leska SECONDED the motion. VOTE: Buette Aye Kandetzke Nay Gribb Nay Zinkin Aye Leska Aye Solomon Aye Motion carried 4-2 Recess: 10:4 7 p.m. Reconvene: 10:57 p.m. 6. OV12-06-14, The WLB Group, representing Venture West Construction, LLC, requests approval of a Preliminary Plat, Development Plan, and Landscape Plan for a commercial development located within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Innovation Corporate Center-East, located northeast of the intersection of Innovation Park Drive and Tangerine Road, Parcel 223-02-021B. Paul Oland, WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. presents • Master Plan F:\M1NUTES\DRB\11-1.4-06.doc Approved 1212-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 19 • Open Space Realignment • Overall Site Plan • Drainage Corridor Applicant states the proposed development will consist of 12 buildings, professional and medical. Gary Grissell,WLB Group,4444 E. Broadway,reviewing; • Landscape Plan • Buffer yard Treatment • Courtyards • Common Area"A" • Recent Venture West Projects • Courtyards that will provide seating Chair Zinkin asks applicant if offsetting Building 10 will result in the loss of parking spaces. Applicant responds that this will not affect the parking. In addition, Mr. Zinkin asks the applicant if they have issue with the items listed in Exhibit A. The applicant states that they have worked diligently with staff and have no issues with anything listed in Exhibit A. Mr. Zinkin asks the applicant about the disposal procedure of the pending doctors' offices with regard to tissue and/or needles. Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney explains that by law the doctors' offices have a standard of procedure that must be followed to dispose of any such items. Member Solomon asks if the area of the burrow is strictly vegetative or if it houses small animals. The applicant responds that the area will be graded at a maximum 3-1 slope and the entire area will be re-vegetated. The applicant continues and explains the process of re-seeding. Mr. Zinkin asked where the natural flow of water was during the monsoon. Gary Grissell, WLB Group 4444 E. Broadway, shows the DRB the flow of water as it is now and what the proposed flow would be,he continues with: • Landscaping • Buffer yard treatment • Courtyards • Common Area"A"with seating and pedestrian paths • Recent Venture West projects. Matt Michels, Senior Planner introduces the staff report into record. Emphazing on the following: • Quality and Quantity of open space • ESL Riparian area • Detention area • Landscape Plan,buffer yard and courtyards • Common areas 2:\MINU'ITES\DRB\1.1-14-O6.doc Approved 1212-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 18 of 19 Mr. Michels states that staff recommends approval with conditions listed in Exhibit A. MOTION: Member Kandetske MOVED to recommend approval of OV12-06- 14, The WLB Group, representing Venture West Construction, LLC, requests approval of a Preliminary Plat, Development Plan, and Landscape Plan for a commercial development located within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Innovation Corporate Center- East, located northeast of the intersection of Innovation Park Drive and Tangerine Road, Parcel 223-02-021B subject to conditions in Exhibit "A" Member Buette SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Recess: 11:32 p.m. Reconvene: 11:35 p.m. 7. OV13-06-46, Eglin/Cohen Architects, P.C., representing Venture West Construction, LLC, requests architectural approval for 11 one-story office buildings on proposed Lot 1 of the Innovation Corporate Center-East project, in proximity to the north east corner of Tangerine Rd and Innovation Park Dr, Parcel #223-02-021B. Evan Eglin, Eglin Cohen Architects, 7391 E. Tanque Verde Road, this proposal is for two building types, a 4000 square foot and 2000 square foot buildings. Showing a presentation of slides to the DRB the applicant shows; • Elevation types • Building types with varying entrances • Four color schemes • Material options Chair Zinkin wants the applicant to clarify that buildings that are next to one another will not have the same elevations. The applicant responds that is correct. The applicant explains to the DRB that there is a concern an item 2 listed in Exhibit A with regard to the request of five sided screening. The applicant states that with small packaging it will be difficult to achieve this. He proposes instead to fully screen the unit and paint the unit the same color as the roof. Bayer Vella,Principal Planner explains to the DRB that setback is based on the outer perimeter. F:\M1N U'rEs\DR.B\1.1-1.4-06.doc Approved 12-12-2006 11/15/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 19 of 19 Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager, states that any setback issues will be dealt with at the architectural stage. Member Solomon asks if the purchaser will have the option of choosing the architecture from the options shown. The applicant responds that the developer will choose which of the designs will be used. Matt Michels, Senior Planner introduces the staff report into record stating that the applicant has given a fair overview of the project. With regard to item #2 in Exhibit A, Mr. Michels re-iterates that all equipment should be fully screened from public view from Innovation Park Drive. Chair Zinkin states that in Exhibit A, #2 should read amended to read that all roof and ground mounted equipment shall be fully screened from public view. If any rooftop mechanicals are visible from Innovation Park Drive, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parapets will fully screen them. Mr. Michels explains that #7 of Exhibit A should read no two identical building elevations will be side by side. MOTION: Member Leska MOVED to recommend approval of OV13-06-46, Eglin/Cohen Architects, P.C., representing Venture West Construction, LLC, requests architectural approval for 11 one-story office buildings on proposed Lot 1 of the Innovation Corporate Center-East project, in proximity to the north east corner of Tangerine Rd and Innovation Park Dr, Parcel #223- 02-021B 223- 02-021B with amended conditions of Exhibit "A", and the added requirement of #7 that no two building elevations will be side by side. Member Gribb SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Leska MOVED to adjourn the November 14, 2006 Development Review Board Meeting Regular Session at 12:04 a.m. Member Gribb SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 6-0. • Respectfully submitted by: Deanna Ruiz, Recording Secretary F:\M1_NUTE5\IRB\1.1-1_4-O6.doc Approved 12-.12-2006