Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 4/11/2006 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mary Caswell, Chair John Buette,Member Harold Kandetze,Member David Johnson,Member Dan Sturmon,Vice Chair Marc Panas,Member Mike Zinkin,Member ALSO PRESENT: Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Division Manager David Ronquillo, Senior Planner Jill Manion-Farrar, Planner Jonathan Lew, Planning Technician Arinda Asper, Recording Secretary Paul Loomis, Mayor Conny Culver, Councilperson K. C. Carter, Councilperson Scott Nelson, Special Projects Coordinator PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C:\Documents and Sethingsa.ersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OI..K 15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 2 of 17 CALL TO AUDIENCE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MARCH 14, 2006, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Member Kandetze MOVED to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Zinkin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried 7-0. CONSENT AGENDA A. OV13-06-13, KBP Architecture, LLC requests approval of architecture for the Robinson Residence custom home, located in the Canada Del Oro Estates subdivision, 10870 North Avenida Vallejo, south of Naranj a and west of 1st Avenue, Parcel #224-29-0240. C. OV13-06-15, Yarbrough Brothers Construction Inc., requests architectural approval of a custom home on lot 175 within the Desert Vista Subdivision, located at 11554 North Verch Way, Parcel 224-10-2940. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of Items A and C on Consent Agenda. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 7-0. REGULAR AGENDA B. OV13-06-12, Trevor Johansen, property owner, requests architectural approval of a custom home located in the Stone Canyon II subdivision, on the north side of Tortolita Mountain Circle, Parcel 219-06-0550. Scott White, architect, 1670 E. River Road#112, offered to answer questions. Member Panas asked what was directly behind the custom home site. Mr. White responded that the Tortolita Mountains are behind the home. Member Panas commented that if there wasn't anything else that is able to be built around there, other than other custom homes, it just seems very linear. Mr. White responded that on that specific road a lot of homes do appear linear because they are parallel to the terrain. His clients wanted to save a lot of the natural terrain. Other homes are already in the area, a home is built in the adjacent lot, and his client's home is compatible with what is already there. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha`:Local Settings\Temporary Internet F iles\OLK 15104-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 3 of 17 MOTION: Member Johnson MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, with conditions in Exhibit A, of OV 12-06-12. Motion SECONDED by Member Buette. Motion carried 7-0. 1. OV12-06-05, Dowl Engineering, representing Ventana Medical Systems, requests approval of a Development Plan for a building expansion on the southeast corner of North Vistoso Village Drive and East Innovation Park Drive, Parcel#219-20-8170. Chair Caswell said that the presentation on Items 1 and 2 will be combined, with the vote done separately. Applicant Gregg Forszt, Director of Facilities for Ventana Medical Systems, 1910 East Innovation Park Drive, began the presentation. Ventana is undergoing their first major expansion. The expansion will add three new facilities, totaling 182,000 square feet. This is their worldwide corporate headquarters, and includes all their research and development facilities and corporate offices. Ventana is proud of the ongoing collaboration with Oro Valley staff on development of the site. Mr. Forszt acknowledged work done on this project by Advantech Facility Design,Architect Andy Anderson,Novak Environment, and VML Construction. Mr. Forszt explained that Ventana Medical Systems is the market leader in automated slide stain technology. They used computer-driven equipment which injects a dye onto a glass microscope slide with stain of human tissue for the detection of cancer and other infectious diseases. They manufacture all that equipment and conduct all the research and development of new products at this site. Theirs is a very clean manufacturing process. When Ventana moved to the site in 2001, they had about 250 employees. Today they have over 500. In 2001, their annual sales were $100 million. Last year sales were just under $200 million, and the forecast for this year's sales is $236 million, with about 600 employees. The facility was originally designed for 300 employees. The proposed expansion is expected to accommodate up to 900 employees, and about $.5 billion in sales. The parking lot to the west of Innovation Park Drive is eventually to be developed. These future expansions would consist of parking garages and additional facilities on the 20 acres. Project Architect Andy Anderson, 4520 N. Hacienda Del Sol, began his presentation by giving an overview of the site and its location relevant to nearby roads and existing facilities and landmarks. Building expansion is going to take place to the south of Building 2, which is the center building on campus. Major ingress and egress is Tangerine Road to Innovation Drive, Oracle Road to Rancho Vistoso and to the campus. The neighborhood is zoned CP-1. Across the street from the facility is a 20 acre piece of land. Mr. Anderson also pointed out the properties adjacent to the Ventana property. On the existing campus there are three buildings. One piece is about 19 acres, another is 30 acres, and the future expansion will take place on the other side of the road. The expansion will consist of a two story addition to Building 2, a new commons building which will be a kitchen and cafeteria facility and a wellness center for employees, and a building for user and staff C:\T_)ocuments and Settings\lhershaTocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04111.12006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 4 of 17 training and the national marketing group. There will be a covered walkway linking the buildings together and extensive landscaping around the site. Part of expansion will involve elimination of parking on one side of the site to open up views to the mountains and relocating a good portion of the parking across the road. They plan to create a landscaped water retention lagoon, bufferyard screening around the site, and a major pedestrian crossing that will link the parking west of the site. He presented a view from Oracle Road and other pictures of the site. Mr. Kandetzke asked for the number of people who would use the pedestrian crossing daily, and whether there was a plan to cross those people safely. Mr. Forszt replied that the parking lot will be 571 spaces. Since Ventana is a one-shift operation, his estimate would be a maximum of 571 people crossing it twice a day, for a maximum of 1,200 a day. Mr. Forszt added that Ventana has been working with the Town and a hawk traffic signal, very similar to the type of pedestrian crossings at school zones, is included in their plans. Chair Caswell asked Bayer Vella if the crossing would be tied in to Item 3 or Item 1. Mr. Vella said it could be tied in to either, but would recommend addressing on this item. Member Zinkin expressed concern about the type of pedestrian crossing. He foresees that the building of Vestar will cause Innovation Park to become a thoroughfare for more than people who work there, and he is concerned how safe this type of proposed blinking light signal would be. He asked if it would be possible to install a pedestrian bridge there in lieu of a traffic signal. Mr. Forszt explained that the possibility of both a bridge and a tunnel was one of the first discussed with staff. Staff's opinion was that a bridge was the least acceptable of the option because views would be blocked and might generate neighbors' complaints. A tunnel would cost $3 million and,with the possibility of not needing it in the future, that option was discarded. Two major traffic studies were conducted; one of them has lead to a longer study that is going to put in a signal at Rancho Vistoso and Innovation Park Drive. As a result, the option of the hawk signal was the one they thought was best. Ventana is not opposed to a pedestrian bridge. Paul Keesler added that staff, in collaboration with applicant's engineers, have conducted a few traffic studies. A bridge, discussed from an engineering and not an aesthetic standpoint, was thought to be the least effective of all the options. With the extra effort it takes to ascend, cross and descend a bridge, it was felt that there was going to be a large contingent of people who are just going to go across the road, and without a signalize that would not be acceptable. A master traffic study for Rancho Vistoso has identified particular places where traffic signals will be installed. Because of the proximity of the two nearby traffic signals, an additional vehicular traffic signal cannot be installed at the Ventana site as it would be dangerously close to the planned traffic lights at Rancho Vistoso and at the Commerce Loop intersection. The alternative chosen was the hawk high-visibility traffic signal, very similar to the one on Flowing Wells across from Walter Douglass School just south of Prince. These types of signals effectively deal with pedestrians crossing traffic, and are user-friendly. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha`,,Local Settings\Temporary Internet F iles`,OLK.15104-11-O6 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 5 of 17 Chair Caswell asked if it would be possible to add traffic bumps on both sides of the signal, to slow the traffic down. Mr. Keesler acknowledged that traffic calming is needed, be it a combination of enforcement, and/or mechanical methods which would need to be studied, and therefore there isn't an answer at this time. Member Zinkin commented that there is a big difference between 500 employee, all going one direction one at once and in the opposite direction eight hours later, than there is with 150 elementary school kids with a crossing guard in the middle of the intersection to enforce the red light. He added that he still leans towards a pedestrian bridge, and can't believe that an aesthetically pleasing and economically feasible bridge can't be engineered. Mr. Kessler suggested that staff work with the applicant on getting some research from the City of Tucson. A bridge that comes to mind is the one across from Palo Verde High School on 22nd Street. At that bridge on any time of the day you can see kids running across the road and not using the bridge. He suggested working with the applicant to get data to find out what the use is. Member Zinkin commented that the difference might be in the actions of a high school adolescent and a mature engineer. Jill Manion-Farrar introduced staff reports for both the building expansion and the landscape plan into the record. The reason applicant is developing parking spaces across the road is in order to meet the required number of parking spaces for the site. The proposed development plan and corresponding landscape plan are in full compliance. She recommended approval of the development plan and corresponding landscape plan. Chair Caswell asked if staff would recommend working with the applicant to design a bridge. Mr. Keesler explained that town staff is not opposed to a bridge or a tunnel, but is concerned about providing the safest method. He suggested that they could look at a speed table to slow the traffic down. Chair Caswell asked that this issue be further looked at. Member Kandetzke commented that it would be easy to funnel pedestrian traffic to a bridge and have it be safer. He added that tunnels tend to draw in unwanted visitors. Member Zinkin commented that someone driving to the hospital is not going to allow a blinking red light to slow or stop them. He asked how the bridge condition could be added to ensure that it is pursued. Mr. Vella replied that there were several options. One would be to clearly express as a condition that a crossing bridge be put in, and that's an issue we will be researching between the time that the vote is taken tonight and this matter going to Town Council. Staff would present further findings on that issue to Town Council. Member Kandetzke asked if the proposed basin would have water year round. Ms. Manion- Farrar explained that it is a drainage basin that would temporarily hold water from rainfall but it is not meant to be a year-round water source. Mr. Kandetzke clarified that his concern was with water conservation. Ms. Manion-Farrar said the landscape is xeriscape and is primarily desert plans that, once established, will not need regular watering. C:\Documents and Settings\lhershaTocal Settings\Temporary Internet F iles\O1_,K 1.5\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 6 of 17 Member Kandetzke asked if there are going to be very large trucks coming into the loading zones. Ms. Manion-Farrar explained that the applicant anticipates office supply deliveries, food delivery trucks to the cafeteria, and a central loading area in Building 1 where applicant distributes items internally. There is also a loading zone for Building 5, which is also for internal distribution. Member Kandetzke asked if the loading zone was sufficiently large for a large truck to turn around or is there an opportunity for the truck to come in and go out in a different direction. Ms. Manion-Farrar explained that the loading zone for the central distribution was approved on the original site plan for Building 1. There is an entrance on the north side of the property and it has met the requirements. Vice Chair Sturmon recalled mention of an archeological study, and asked if any effort has been made to look at the parking lot across the street. Ms. Manion-Farrar explained that in a letter from Vistoso Partners, it is stated that there was a previous study and it was deemed that there were no surface archeological findings. Also, the site had been previously graded. The Zoning Code does provide that if there is any archeological finding once there is excavation, that there are measures that can be taken in order to safeguard what is found. Member Kandetzke asked if the pedestrian bridge was part of Exhibit A and what we would be voting on. Mr. Vella explained it was not part of Exhibit A but it can be made a part of Exhibit A, and incorporated into a motion. Chair Caswell commented that applicant had not made a presentation on landscaping, and asked applicant if they wanted the staff presentation to be representative. Applicant said yes. MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to include a pedestrian bridge in OV 12-06-05 as part of Attachment A. Member Panas SECONDED motion. Motion carried 5-2 (Sturmon, Buette). MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of 0V12- 06-05, development plan for Ventana Medical Systems building expansion with the conditions in Exhibit A, including condition number 12 that we work to design a pedestrian walkway. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carries (7-0). 2. OV12-06-05, Novak Environmental, representing Ventana Medical Systems, requests approval of a Landscape Plan for a building expansion on the southeast corner of North Vistoso Village Drive and East Innovation Park Drive, Parcel #219- 20-8170. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12-06-05, landscape plan for Ventana Medical Systems building expansion, subject to conditions in Exhibit A. Member Buette SECONDED C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet F iles\O .,K 1 5104-1 1-O6 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 7 of 17 motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. OV12-06-02, Dowl Engineering representing, Ventana Medical Systems, requests approval of a Development Plan for a parking lot on the southwest corner of North Vistoso Village Drive and East Innovation Park Drive, Parcel #219-20-8230 Chair Caswell said that the presentation on Items 3 and 4 will be combined, with the vote done separately. Architect Terrell Thomas, began presentation by explaining that this was a two phase project, and the parking structure needs to be built first. The parking lot on the west side of the road will have 521 stalls and the circulation is such that all of its focus will come to one hawk light previously discussed. Applicant will be studying the issue of the pedestrian bridge. As the company expands, the parking structures will be taken down and incorporated into a larger parking structure. As part of this development, applicant is utilizing the two existing access points that are on the west side of the street. There are an additional 248 parking spaces on the east side of the street, for a total of 769 spaces, which is twelve above the required number of spaces. Those twelve will be used by visitors. The front entry to the parking is aligned with the front entry to the main building. Parking is laid out on a 90 degree system because of the two entries. All parking spaces will have covered with canopies. Applicant is taking some of the covered parking structures on the east side of the street across the street and will be adding the rest of the covered parking to match the existing. Mr. Thomas presented a sample of the existing parking structures. They are painted a grayish beige that is the Ventana Medical color. It has a reflectivity of about 53%. They are low, approximately 8.5 feet tall. In terms of landscaping, large 6' walls and buffer trees are proposed along the north side to the projected property adjacent to the north. Along the west there will be 3' bumper walls of staggered construction and tree canopy buffer. Applicant plans to mimic the existing signage of the building site for the new site. Masonry walls which are on the existing side will be duplicated for the screen walls on the parking side. They will be split-faced masonry block. Mr. Thomas presented pictures depicting the views from the parking lot, showing how the views will be preserved. Chair Caswell asked if signage was part of this presentation. Mr. Vella said it was not. Member Panas asked where the parking structure would be once the site is fully developed, and also asked for an estimated timeline. Mr. Thomas replied that the long-range plan calls for parking structures to be a portion of the construction of the buildings on the other side. They would probably be a combination of one level underground and the rest above ground, within a parking structure. This is ten years in the future. Member Panas pointed out that this is a beautiful site, and there must be a way to break up the visual mass of the large parking lot. CADocuments and SettingsAhershaTocal Settings\Temporary Internet F iles\OI.,K 1.5104-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 8 of 17 Jill Manion-Farrar introduced staff reports for both the parking lot expansion and the landscape plan into the record. She pointed out that the parking lot layout has two 19' pedestrian pathways, designed in a way to try to break up the mass of the parking lot. They will be landscaped with meandering pathways, and every nine spaces will also have a landscaped island to break up the length of the parking aisle. There will also be berming and walls to screen the parking lot from Innovation Park Drive, and to prevent people from crossing Innovation Park Drive. The parking lot plan meets all the requirement of Oro Valley Zoning Code. Ms. Manion-Farrar made a recommendation for approval and invited questions. Member Johnson said that there is a pedestrian walkway that comes up from the hospital. He asked if it was going to continue on the east side of this parking lot. Ms. Manion-Farrar replied that the sidewalk will remain along the right-of-way, and will extend along Innovation Park Way on both sides. Member Zinkin said he understood a left-turn lane on Innovation Park for people going north. He asked if all 500 cars will go in through the same driveway. Ms. Manion-Farrar clarified that there will be two entry ways into the parking lot and pointed out where the second entry would be. Member Zinkin then asked if the berms and screening were going to block driver visibility once they exit the parking lot. Ms. Manion-Farrar replied that during staff review, it was determined that the landscaping would not interfere with sight visibility. Mr. Keesler added that the present configuration of the pedestrian crossing also ties into the visibility. We have to limit the landscaping put in the median to make sure that there is adequate visibility, and extra attention was paid to this. MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL ofOV12- 06-02, development plan for Ventana Medical System parking expansion. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Member Zinkin AMENDED his motion to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12-06-02,a development Plan for Ventana Medical System parking expansion, subject to conditions in Exhibit A. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. OV12-06-02, Novak Environmental, representing Ventana Medical Systems, requests approval of a Landscape Plan for a parking lot on the southwest corner of North Vistoso Village Drive and East Innovation Park Drive, Parcel #219-20-8230. MOTION: Member Buette MOVED to recommend APPROVAL, with conditions in Exhibit A, of OV 12-06-02, landscape plan for Ventana Medical System parking. Member Kandetzke SECONDED. Motion carried 7-0. C:\Docurnents and Settings`lhersha`,,Loeal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OL_,1 15104-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04//112006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 9 of 17 Recess: 7:10 p.m. Reconvene: 7:20 p.m. 5. OV12-04-09, Gregor and Grenier, representing La Canada Hills Custom Lots, requests approval of a Landscape Plan for the La Canada Ridge, a 33 single-family lot subdivision on 35.77 acres, located on the west side of La Canada Drive extension, south of Moore Road; Parcel#219-49-0040. Carl Winters, Planning Resources, 270 North Church, began by identifying the two main points of his presentation as a recreation area and the entry monument. This is a small project, with large lots. The small recreation area will have a couple of nice shaded play structures, two shaded picnic ramada areas and room for four parking areas. He presented a sample of the rock work for the entry monument. The center part is stucco and the rest is a rock veneer. Applicant has developed other similar projects in the Sahuarita area and they turned out very well. Vice Chair Sturmon noted that the design on the entry gate has more of an Eastern character, and wondered if rather than a block appearance if there was a way to stucco it. Mr. Winter said it was more of a sandstone type of façade and looks good against the stucco. Vice Chair Sturmon suggested that maybe the stone work could be behind the letters and then the stucco could be the rest of the wall, effectively reversing the proposed appearance. Mr. Winter said he would be willing to recommend that to the owners. Vice Chair Sturmon said he understood that twelve saguaros were located on the property, and that applicant plans to replace the twelve but not add any more. Mr. Sturmon asked if applicant would be willing to double the number of saguaros, to offset any potential loss of transplanted saguaros. Mr. Winters replied that he was sure that if the landscape architect recommends that twelve additional saguaros be planted, that would be fine with the applicant. Member Buette asked if the non-motorized recreation easement will be dedicated and managed by the Town, and was told that that was correct. Bayer Vella introduced the staff report into the record, and recommended approval of the project. MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12-04-09, La Canada Hills Customs lot landscape plan, with conditions described in Exhibit A, and one additional condition that the front entry be stuccoed with veneer brick behind the lettering, and with a second additional condition that twelve additional saguaros will be added to the landscape plan. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 6-1 (Caswell). 6. OV3-04-02A, Flouresco Lighting and Signs, representing Oracle Crossings, requests approval to amend the sign criteria for the Oracle Crossings Sign Shopping Center, located on C:\Docunnents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet biles\OLK15104-11-06 Minlutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 10 of 17 the west side of Oracle Road, just south of the intersection of Oracle Road and Magee Road, Parcel 225-51-3890. Applicant Andy Stash, Flouresco Lighting and Signs, 5505 South Nogales Highway, gave presentation. Applicant is requesting to change the sign criteria on the north and east elevation so the words "National Bank" are allowed to be reverse channel with white halo illumination, painted green for daytime viewing. The rest of the sign, the circular company logo and the words "of Arizona," are channel letters that meet the existing Oracle Crossing sign criteria. Staff has a conflict with compatibility of signage. This pad, which is a free-standing building, is on the far south end of the center and set away from most of the other buildings. Most of the buildings around it on the west and north are to be office buildings, and will not have a lot of impact on the center. Applicant read the sign criteria language from Paragraph 2 on Page 3 of the staff report, and said that the keys words were "avoiding excessive variety." The applicant does not believe that modification of a portion of two sign constitutes excessive variety. Applicant read the first bulleted point under the "Factors Against" list from Page 4 of the staff report, "The proposal would set precedent for future applicants to request halo illuminated wall signs." Mr. Stash said that he thought everyone knew that was not true, as this was not a precedent setting board. He added that there are various signs in the area with bold halo illumination and channel letter illumination. This sign proposal also contains both. Applicant, like Oro Valley, is very concerned with its image and how it conveys itself. Mr. Stash presented a slide which he said showed how a lower intensity type of illumination would be a better fit. Chair Caswell asked the bank's hours of operation. Mr. Stash said he imagined they would be open from 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. to 4 or 5 p.m. Chair Caswell asked if applicant understood the reason for the sign criteria that was set forth for Oracle Crossing, that there were a number of negotiated items to permit larger signs in the back portion of the property because of the distance from the road to those, and that Mr. St. John was very specific that he did not want to have the front buildings starting to change the signage. Mr. Stash said he believed applicant is aware, although he doesn't know if they are aware of the time and effort spent on the matter. He believes they conveyed that information, and it came across at the sub-committee meeting. Chair Caswell said she offered this information for the benefit of new board members who might not have known about the long, detailed sign criteria process. Vice Chair Sturmon said that when he reviewed this proposal he personally applauded the request because what we were trying to do with Oracle Crossing was to get away from the illuminated aspect and push the halo illumination. He prefers the halo illumination and personally believes that everything along Oracle Road that is facing east should be halo illumination because that is the entryway into Oro Valley. Jonathan Lew introduced the staff report into the record. The previously approved sign criteria for this site was approved by DRB on October 12, 2004. It utilized elements from Pima County C:\Docurnents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary!Internet Files\OL.K15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 11 of 17 Code, a pre-annexation development agreement, and the Oro Valley Zoning Code. Oro Valley generally supports and promotes the use of halo illumination within developments. In balancing this proposal, you have on one side the preferred softer form of lighting and on the other a compatibility issue. It is staff's position to side with compatibility in instances like this, and staff's recommendation is for denial on this proposal. Member Zinkin asked if La Entrada, the shopping center to the north, will be required to come under this same sign criteria when they go through sign changes. Mr. Lew replied that they would. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to recommend DENIAL of OV3-04- 02A, revision of the Oracle Crossing Sign Criteria, because it lacks internal compatibility consistent with the whole project. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 6-1 (Sturmon). 7. OV13-06-14, D.R. Horton, representing Red Point Development, requests architectural approval for five model homes to be located within the Tangerine Terrace Subdivision, on the south side of Tangerine Road, located approximately 1 mile west of La Canada Drive, Parcel 224-01-8270. Applicant Daniel Cucci, 5255 East Williams Circle, began by referring to the packet in lieu of a presentation. He referred to the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. Chair Caswell asked if there was an Exhibit B. Mr. Vella explained that Exhibit A is part of the packet. Exhibit B, which is essentially the same as Exhibit A, except one condition, is being presented in order to request that the setbacks be staggered. Exhibit B was distributed to DRB. Mr. Cucci continued with the presentation. He referred to Item 1 on Exhibit B, requesting staggered setbacks for each lot, and said that this was something that Applicant could agree do. Removal of garage extensions and 3-car garages is also something that, model by model, can be accommodated. Applicant has already eliminated some of the 3-car garage options. The same model not being placed adjacent to each other, This is something that is standard for Applicant. Member Zinkin commented that six color schemes for five models seems excessively varied. Mr. Cucci said that this was the first time he has received a request to reduce the number of colors. The colors are fairly uniform, they blend well together, and are not shocking colors. They can certainly pare down the color offerings if that is the Board's recommendation. Member Sturmon said that he really likes the Southwest Contemporary and the Craftsman, but feels that the Spanish Colonial elevation corresponding to Model 801, lacks character in terms of the front elevation. He asked if Applicant would be willing to drop that one elevation. Mr. Cucci said Applicant could comply with that request. Member Buette asked if Applicant had thought about incorporating courtyards or something to break up the streetscape. DRB has seen plans come through that really add to the entire C:\Docurnents and Settings\lhersha',,Loeal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 12 of 17 development by adding small courtyards that have walls, and that wouldn't be a huge expense but would greatly enhance the development. Mr. Cucci said that there hadn't been consideration of courtyards, but Applicant has done it on other projects and it is certainly something they could look at. Jonathan Lew introduced staff report into the record. Staff recommendation is for approval, subject to the conditions in Exhibit B. Member Johnson said he agreed with the previous comments about Model 801A. He added that on plots this small, 2-story homes are very dense and very visible from Tangerine. Chair Caswell interrupted to say that the placement of where the models can go has already been determined by the DRB and Town Council previously, and DRB now cannot change where to place the 2-stories. Member Johnson asked if DRB could change by eliminating a 2-story and go to 1-story. Mr. Vella explained that the arrangement of the lots has already been affixed on the preliminary plat. As evidenced in Exhibit B, staff is promoting regulation of the placement of 2-stories and to make sure that no two are aligned to each other. If there are targeted lots that DRB has concerns about for a model, that is germane. If DRB is interested in changing the lot configuration, that has already been settled. Member Johnson commented that he was very uncomfortable with a 2-story house with this development because the lots are small. Member Panas asked how the lot compatibility would change if the developer does the staggered setbacks as proposed. Mr. Lew said the developer does have some flexibility in terms of staggering the setbacks on the lots. Member Buette asked if it would be would be feasible with to add courtyards. Mr. Lew said that it was his opinion it would be feasible. Member Zinkin asked if it was correct that there would be 41 homes out of the 105 lots that would have lots with back yards of less than 10 feet in depth, and they couldn't put a pool in there if they wanted to. Mr. Lew explained that in terms of pool requirements, a pool must be located a minimum of 5 feet off the back property line and must meet the side and backyard setback. In terms of distance to the house, the building code issue, 5 feet off the front. Member Zinkin said he was concerned about making the footprint of the house smaller to make the back yard bigger. Mr. Lew explained that in terms of the TR zoning with the 10 feet rear yard setback, the size of the back of the yards would depend on the placement on the house on the lot. Ten feet is the minimum setback from the rear of the house, the front is 20 feet. Member Zinkin gave an example of model 803, that is 65 feet deep, without an extension, and then 20 feet for the front, making it 85, ending up with a 5 feet deep back yard. Member Zinkin asked for clarification and it was verified that not all the prospective models will fit on all the lots. He further asked for clarification that there would not be any two models that are the same next to each other. Mr. Lew said that was correct. Member Zinkin asked how restrictive that would make the development. Mr. Lew responded that it would be fairly restrictive. Exhibit A calls for different elevations. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 13 of 17 Member Zinkin further discussed the restrictive component with the lot sizes and the additional restriction on not having the same model adjacent to an identical model. Mr. Vella suggested that these types might best be addressed directly to the applicant. Chair Caswell agreed but also pointed out that it seems like there are a lot of questions, that maybe this whole project needs to be reconsidered, and giving the applicant some directions as to what the feeling is. Mr. Andrews added that it all has to comply with the zoning. It seems like we're more uncomfortable with the zoning allowing a big house on a small lot than we are about the fact that these houses are here. If these houses were on larger lots we wouldn't have a problem. The fact is if the house fits the lot, they have a right to it. Member Johnson suggested that perhaps applicant could identify which houses fit on which plots, and which don't fit. At some point, a developer has to say to a prospective buyer what houses fit on the lot the buyer is interested in. Why not do it now, up front? Mr. Vella explained that the applicant did provide a lot analysis with the applicant and suggested that the applicant present those findings. Applicant presented a lot fit list. Member Zinkin said he understood that if the development is in compliance with the zoning, he still hates to see homes sold with five foot back yards. Mr. Andrews said that the lot fit analysis could be added to Exhibit A. Chair Caswell asked if the lot fit analysis takes into consideration the variance of streetscapes or is it done without that. Mr. Vella said it was done prior to those conditions. Chair Caswell then said this then wasn't going to be accurate once the variations are done. Mr. Vella said that was correct. Member Johnson commented that the lot fit analysis shows the lot to be narrower than suspected. They are 60' wide, which means the 50' houses can be squeezed on 7' side yard setbacks, but when the front and rear yard setbacks, they would need to shave off some. Applicant explained that on the lot fit analysis, the setbacks are set up at the top of the column, indicating the front, side and rear yard setbacks. The setback requirements identify the building envelope. If there is a "yes" under the plan number under each of the two zonings, all lots will have a minimum of either a 25' or a 10' rear yard. It is simply not possible to have a 5' back yard. Member Zinkin explained that if the house was moved back two feet to make a setback requirements, you've just knocked off two feet. Applicant said that was correct, but even with the staggered setbacks, three of the houses are 60 feet or less, and any of those three houses would fit. MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to CONTINUE OV 13-06-14, D.R. Horton models, to give applicant more time to address DRB concerns (streetscapes, paring down of some colors, removal of model 801A). Member Zinkin SECONDED motion. Motion carried 6-1 (Buette). C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary] Internet.biles\OI_,K15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 14 of 17 Recess: 8:22 p.m. Reconvene: 8:30 p.m. 8. OV12-04-18, Gregor & Grenier Engineering Inc., representing LCB Investors, requests approval of a Preliminary Plat for 56 condominium units, located in proximity to the southwest corner of Oracle Road and Camino Cortaro, directly south of the Sunrise Office Park, Parcel 225-16-2810. Applicant Steve Gregor, Gregor Engineering, 5232 East Pima Street, along with Architect Al Cornelio, and landscape architect firm Novak Environmental, 4574 N. 1St #100, did not give a presentation but came prepared to answer questions. Applicant asked that Agenda items 8, 9, and 10 be addressed together, if possible. Chair Caswell responded that the items would be discussed as a single item but would be voted on separately. Member Zinkin asked for the dumpster locations, and applicant pointed out where the dumpsters were. David Ronquillo introduced staff reports for the preliminary plat, landscape plan, and architectural plan into the record, giving DRB members an opportunity to ask questions at the end of each specific component. Staff supports the alternative parking analysis, and recommends approval with the conditions set forth in the corresponding Exhibits A. Member Johnson asked whether approval had been received from the neighborhood regarding the northwest property boundary fire emergency access. Mr. Ronquillo understands there was approval reached with the adjacent subdivision. The Fire Marshall has approved this plan. Member Panas asked what kind of congestion is going to be created by access into and out of the area. Mr. Keesler explained that this development wasn't large enough to require a detailed traffic impact analysis. There are 56 units. The official rule of thumb for a condo is between 8 to 10 trips per day, so anywhere from 400 to 500 trips per day. It is not a tremendous amount of traffic. Member Zinkin asked if that was 400 to 500 in additional to what already exists, and asked how many units were already there. Mr. Keesler said that was correct. Mr. Ronquillo there is an existing 63 units, with a proposed 56. Member Zinkin asked if there wasn't a problem with doubling of the traffic. Mr. Keesler explained that because this is right on Oracle Road, it's ADOT's call with respect to the actual ingress/egress point. The Town can control everything within the property line, but ADOT is part of the approval process as well. Member Panas if there was a median if someone wants to go north on Oracle. Mr. Keesler said he did not know. C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet F iles\OLK 1 5104-1 1-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 15 of 17 Chair Caswell ask if that section of Oracle is going to be expanded. Mr. Keesler said that it was safe to say that all of Oracle will be expanded at some point. Mr. Kandetzke asked for a more detailed description of the buffer yard separating the property from the single family homes to the west. Mr. Vella clarified that the single family homes were to the north. There are apartments to the west. Mr. Ronquillo explained that the buffer yard meets the minimum requirements. There are no walls. Mr. Kandetzke said his impression was that there was 10 feet of open space between the developments. Mr. Ronquillo said the distance of the buffer yard is 10 feet but the distance to the closest home is further, 15 feet. Mr. Vella clarified that from the nearest condominium unit it would be 24 feet, plus the 10' buffer yard, and then you reach the closest residential unit. Mr. Ronquillo also said there was a common area from the parking lot to the closest house. Member Johnson asked for a breakdown of the size units that are proposed. Mr. Ronquillo replied that there are three building types. Each building type will have variations. There will be from one to three bedrooms units,but the exact combination within each building is unknown. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE • Dwight Lang, 8255 North Oracle Road #112, Oro Valley, 85704, 219-9435. He is president to the HOA. He realizes that there are going to be some disturbances through the construction phase, but overall the project will be beneficial to all to develop the rear portion of that land as proposed, • Dennis Dunn, 8255 North Oracle Road# 103, Oro Valley, 85704, 690-0676. He and his wife stand firm on supporting the development of Phase II. There are several things that are good for the community. One is the fire emergency entrance into the community. Right now, emergency trucks have to get people to move their cars so they can do a turn- around to come back out. The improved landscape and the new entrance are both very beneficial to the community and will be a vast improvement to the appearance coming off of Oracle. The boost in revenue will also help the appearance of the entire old Phase I of the community. He stands firm in support of Phase II. • Barry Rosen, 8271 North Oracle Road #152, Oro Valley, 85704, 200-1799. He is in support of this project. He didn't know if maybe he didn't hear about the sewage connection between Phase I and Phase II. His understand is there an agreement by the developer with Las Casas Bellas Homeowners' Association to include connection between two sewages. They had an emergency in January which revealed that necessity. To his knowledge the developer has agreed to make that connection. That was his only concern and apparently that has been addressed by the developer and so this is part of the document that is part of the proposal now. He is total agreement with improvements made at Las Casas Bellas II as long as this agreed upon. • Lynn Miles, 8255 North Oracle #202, Oro Valley. He is also on the board of the HOA. He echoed what everyone prior said, and is in favor of the expansion. Member Kandetzke asked for additional information on the sewer connect. Mr. Keesler explained that the existing Phase I sewer is spaced to the west and then down to the south C:\Documents and Settings\lhersha\.Local Settings`:"l'emporary Internet F iles\OLK 15\04-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 16 of 17 through the Sundown Village Apartments. What the applicant has presented to us within is an arrangement of buildings which does not impact the sewer. The residents of Phase I were concerned with respect of the interruption of their sewer. On the development plan it does show the existing sewer and it does show that they are working to build this around the existing sewer. We have received memorandums from the applicant's consultants stating that they are going to tie in the Phase I sewer into the Phase II sewer, which should alleviate some problems that Phase I has been exhibiting over the past few years. In one form or another, it has to be conditioned that either they do not impact the existing sewer and that it stays undisturbed throughout the entire construction, or they have to connect to it with their new sewer and pipe it out to the west where they are going with the Phase II. In either case, it works. What is presented in front of you works, but if they want to improve any existing situation, staff will support that. That is an issue to be worked out between the developer and the existing HOA, and staff would have to review the plans. Member Kandetzke said his concern is whether the sewer is going to meet the expectations of the homeowners in Phase I, as they just exhibited some concerns that this agreement be in place. Mr. Keesler said he did not know. Chair Caswell asked if applicant could clarify that. The applicant suggested making it a condition of the approval of the preliminary plat that they do tie in the Phase I into the new Phase II sewer. They can accommodate the Phase I sewer. Member Panas commented that on the preliminary plat there were ten items that seemed big, and asked Mr. Ronquillo how significant they were. Mr. Ronquillo responded that the conditions were such that they can be addressed and worked through. Mr. Keesler added that Items 3 through 10 are with respect with detailed engineering that staff needs to see on the plan, but are not going to affect the overall presentation of the development. Member Kandetzke asked Mr. Andrews if this was at a point where we can include the connection of Phase I sewer to Phase II on the preliminary. Mr. Andrews recommended that it show up on the final plat because the final plat, because of this sewer issue, has to be signed off by Pima County, as well as Oro Valley. So, if it's on the final plat it has to be done and they really can't break ground until they have a final plat. MOTION: Vice Chair Sturmon MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12-04-18, preliminary plat, for Las Casas Bellas Condominiums, with the conditions cited in Exhibit A, and with the additional condition that the final plat reflect the connection between Phase I and the current proposed Phase to be signed off on by the Town and the County. Member Zinkin SECONDED motion. Motion carried 6-1 (Sturmon). MOTION: Member Zinkin MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12- 04-18, Landscape Plan for Las Casas Bellas Condominiums, subject to conditions specified in Exhibit A. Vice Chair Sturmon SECONDED motion. Motion carried 7-0. C:\Docurnents and Settings\lhe.rsha\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OI.,K.15104-11-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06 04/11/2006 Development Review Board Minutes Page 17 of 17 MOTION: Member Kandetzke MOVED to recommend APPROVAL of OV 12-06-05, architectural approval, with conditions stipulated in Exhibit A. Member Buette SECONDED motion. Motion carried 7-0. STAFF REPORT Mr. Andrews said that the "Staff Report"was supposed to be the Planning and Zoning Update, and sees an open meeting problem for"Staff Report"because we don't even know what it is, and because the public doesn't know what we are going to discuss. There has to be something specific, as the Open meeting law is very specific. If"Staff Report"was followed by a specific description of what is to be discussed would be fine. Mr. Andrews suggested that a more appropriate heading would be "Planning and Zoning Update." ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Panas MOVED to ADJOURN the April 11, 2006 Development Review Board Regular Session at 9:15 p.m. Member Kandetzke SECONDED motion. Motion carried 7-0. Prepared by: Arinda Asper Senior Office Assistant C:\Docurnents and Settings\lhersha`�Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\,OLK 1 5104-1 1-06 Minutes.doc Minutes approved on 05-09-06