Patty Hayes, Senior Planning Technician, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location Map
- Lot Layout
- One-Story Homes
- Two-Story Homes
- Side Elevations
- Enhanced Side Elevations
- Rear Architectural Features
- Nearby Homes Comparison
Applicant, Dan Cucchi, Project Manager with Mooradian & Asssociates, representing Mattamy Homes, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Site Map
- Model Elevations
- Sonoran Elevation Model Architecture
- Desert Contemporary Elevation Model Architecture
- Rustic Spanish Model Architecture
Key topics and questions raised by the Board:
- Window size ratio with regard to room square footage
- Right elevation design guidelines on two story models 4002 and 4004, additional architectural elements were needed
- Alternative design features
- Left rear elevations two smaller windows disproportionate in size
- Windows in kitchen area
Jeff DeSpain, of Mattamy Homes, addressed questions on right side elevation window and windows in kitchen area on Model 4004.
MOTION: A motion was made by Dick Eggerding, Member and seconded by Nathan Basken, Member to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for the Mattamy Models for the Viewpointe at Vistoso Trails I and II as provided within Attachment 1, with the conditions in Attachment 4, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards in the Zoning Code, including an amendment that right side elevations of Plan 4002, Desert Contemporary and Spanish and Plan 4004, Sonoran and Spanish be revised to include some type of architectural element to satisfy 4-sided design criteria.
Member Linton asked for clarification of the approval of the site plan for Vistoso Trails 2.
Michael Spaeth, Senior Planner, provided clarification that there is a site plan approved for the first Viewpointe on Rancho Vistoso Blvd. Staff is currently reviewing the 2nd site plan to the east of the preserve and it is anticipated it will come before the Board in the next couple of months.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Discussion of the viewpoints of potential consolidation
- Discussion on Study Session issues that were raised
- Core message - Nothing is broken except the duplication on site plans when rezoning is done
- Discussion of Planning and Zoning facts and figures
- Opportunity to improve the process due to lower case load
- Neighbor commitment: worst case vs. best case scenarios in terms of total number of meetings an interested neighbor must attend
- Process is not linear, it is interrelated. Board and Commission decisions impact each other. Public art is the most subjective and review would not go away
- Design elements have been incorporated into the Zoning Code and are now required
- Board qualifications and balance
- Overview of other Arizona communities with design review processes
- Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a recommendation in May and Town Council will consider in June
Member Eggerding asked staff to research the city of Tempe's review processes' as it relates to the integration of private and public art.
Mr. Vella spoke of the next steps in the process:
- May 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation vote
- June 2017 Town Council vote will take this recommendation into consideration
Member Linton raised the following topics:
- Development experience criteria
- Opportunity and value of volunteers in the community
- CDRB design requirement skills. What design skill set would be required for a combined board?
Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney, stated the code requirement is that the member is a legal resident of Oro Valley.
Mr. Vella agreed volunteers provide an enormous amount to the town. The focus is to figure out ways to best help our customer which is not just the developer. This is also the person living next door to the development to make sure they are heard in an efficient and thorough manner without an excessively long process.
Member Basken expressed the following:
- Consolidation may not be the only answer. Are there other alternatives that have been explored?
- Concerned that it may not be a practical expectation in putting all pieces into one board's responsibility. Discussed the potential for increased meeting lengths and the time of the individual volunteer needing to be considered
- Generalist members viewpoint on the board is important
Mr. Vella and Mr. Andrews addressed historical case numbers and examples of meeting length.
Mr. Vella explained the design review process that happens after approval from the CDRB. No substantial changes to design in the process.
Chair Wyckoff is in agreement with the importance of a generalist viewpoint on the board and is not supportive of the proposal of preferred design background for two members.
Member Linton feels the reduction in case load allows boards to concentrate more on the items at a critical time. The last 5 percent is just as important as the first 95 percent. Inquired on how consolidation will speed up the process.
Mr. Vella spoke of the process after the design review approval. Overall design does not change.
Member Donley expressed the following:
- Comfortable combining the two boards due the exhausting number of meetings
- One board would be more up to date with all current issues regarding a project
- Residents are better served with less meetings
Member Linton expressed the following:
- Positive changes have occurred from the design review volunteers
- This is the wrong message to lower volunteer opportunities
- Questioned if the CDRB gets to submit a formal position on the consolidation
Mr. Vella let the Board know if there is a consensus on this issue he will pass this on to Town Council.
Chair Wyckoff replied that there is no majority consensus and is concerned about the streamlining process.
Member Eggerding expressed the following:
- Sees all the benefits and is concerned about the art issue
- Art code we currently have was drafted from Tempe and would like these guidelines researched
- Expressed he felt the decision was a done deal
Mr. Vella respectfully rejects the notion that this is a done deal. This is not a judgment of the members work or the value of resident review. The drop in caseload merits this discussion.