Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2/3/2015 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION AMENDED AGENDA February 3, 2015 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Rodman called the February 3, 2015 regular session of the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Rodman, Chairman Bill Leedy, Vice-Chair Greg Hitt, Commissioner Frank Pitts, Commissioner Melanie Barrett, Commissioner Charlie Hurt, Commissioner EXCUSED: Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT: Joe Hornat, Council Member Lou Waters, Vice-Mayor Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Rodman led the Planning and Zoning Commission members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker request. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 8 1. COUNCIL LIAISON UPDATE Council Member Hornat updated the Planning and Zoning Commission and audience on the following: - Senior Care codes have been continued - Accelerator location has changed - Ventana has a 25,000 foot expansion planned - El Conquistador Country Club purchase was approved by Town Council - Kai Property North was approved by Town Council - Nakoma Sky was approved by Town Council - 1/2 percent sales tax dedicated to the El Conquistador Country Club purchase was approved by Town Council - Conditional Use Permit for Caliber Collision will be heard by Town Council on February 4th - Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance was removed from the February 4th Town Council agenda - Court case pending for the petitions on the purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club 2. DISCUSSION ITEM: SELF INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES TO THE COMMUNITY AND EACH OTHER. Each of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners gave a brief introduction and background on themselves. REGULAR AGENDA 1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 6, 2015 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to approve the January 6, 2015 Regular Session meeting minutes MOTION carried, 6-0. *2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE A 16.3 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CANADA DRIVE FROM R1-144 TO R1-7 AND APPROVE TWO ESL FLEXIBLE DESIGN OPTIONS RELATED TO MODIFIED REVIEW PROCESS AND REDUCED FRONT BUILDING SETBACKS, OV914-006 February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 8 Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following: - Requests - Project Overview - Zoning Map - Background - 2014 General Plan Amendment - Rezoning Request - Flexible Design Options - Environmentally Sensitive Lands - Access Map - Public Participation - General Plan - Recommendation David Laws, Permitting Manager, responded to a question from the Commission in regards to drainage. Stacey Weaks, Norris Design, representing the applicant, presented the following: - Vicinity Map - Approved Development Plan - Approved General Plan Amendment - Rezoning Application - Development Patterns - Residential Master Plan - Planning Elements - Viewshed Study - Sunkist Road - Front Building Setback - Rezoning Overview James Hardman, Desco Southwest, responded to a question from the Commission in regard to the time line for the proposed technology park. Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing. Greg Patchen, non Oro Valley resident, commented that this in an unacceptable encroachment of Sunkist Road between La Cholla and La Canada. Mr. Patchen would like to know the background and history of the applicant in building of subdivisions, maintaining habitat and being rigorous and conscientious about following through with their commitments to the officials of the Town. Speaking of hydraulics and the wash, there is an inlet side and an outlet side to culverts and the detention basins that Mr. February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 8 Laws is speaking about would be one big very ugly concrete device and would need multiple inlets on the north side of Tangerine Road to channelize the water velocity safely. There is a lot of equestrian activity on Sunkist Road and the traffic volumes will be a problem. Barbara Benedict, Oro Valley resident, requested the proposed project revert back to the vision of the General Plan. Ms. Benedict suggested that this rezoning be denied based on inconsistency with the overall vision of the General Plan. The Town vision points to a well planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today against the needs of future generations. At the neighborhood meetings open space was the discussion and mixing one and two stories. She doesn't see this in the proposed project. She doesn't understand the rush and suggested placing a moratorium on any housing such as the one being proposed. Chuck Boreson, non-resident, stated that the County has maintained most of the dirt portion of the road. There is a portion of the dirt road that is a private easement that is not maintained by the County. Should this project be approved, who will maintain and be held liable for the new paved road? Pat McGowan, non-resident, expressed his concern with the light pollution that will be reflected into his home. The proposed project affects their rural lifestyle, which includes: horses, neighbors riding horses, kids on quads, and kids on bikes. Mr. McGowan just can't see where the proposed project is consistent with the area. There has been discussion about the wash being beat up; the wash is beautiful. Sarah McGowan, non-resident, asked the Commission to deny the proposed project for the 16-acre parcel of Miller Ranch and the proposed entry way. When they bought their home they were told the 16-acres directly south of them would remain as intended, suburban ranch. The building of 37 homes is inconsistent with the surrounding large parcels and does nothing to restore the land that the applicant has said has been depleted by ranching in the past. Ms. McGowan does not see how building homes, driveways, roads, streetlights, etc. restores this open space or riparian area. That parcel of land is home to deer, coyotes, bobcats, quails and many other indigenous forms of life and the building of these homes would not be in the name of conservation. The burden of this neighborhood should not fall squarely on the shoulders of the current residents along Sunkist Road. The burden of this should be the sole responsibility of Oro Valley. Susann Duperra, non-resident, stated that the building density is 2.3 homes per acre. The reality is it more like 4.4 - 5.5 houses per acre. There are areas that the developer cannot legally build on. The reality is that the proposed project is not medium density, it's more like high density. Ms. Duperra raises livestock (sheep and goats). Her lifestyle is not compatible with these homes. What kind of complaints is February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 8 she going to be receiving on a regular basis? There should be some assurance that the property values will be maintained and not destroyed by a small community that is zoned high density. Amber Peterman, non-resident, stated she maintains the dirt road with her red tractor. Sunkist Road is a rural community and is asking the Commission to deny the proposal. Nolan Reidhead, non-resident, commented that prior to living on Sunkist Road he lived in Oro Valley and is aware of clustering of homes and the amount of traffic that is generated from subdivisions. Mr. Reidhead is concerned with the traffic on Sunkist Road and La Canada, as well as no sidewalks, equine traffic and the bus stop on Sunkist Road with children walking home. Without the ability to maintain traffic with sidewalks and other areas, this is a big concern. Mr. Reidhead went on to comment that there is no need for the tech park with other parks empty nearby and is asking the Commission to deny the proposal. Richard Paquette, non-resident, commented that Sunkist Road is not maintained by Pima County. Sunkist Road is paved half way because the residents paid to have the road improved and paved. The net result is the community makes repairs to the road and keeps the road maintained. What are the residents supposed to do with increased traffic with the 37 proposed homes? This is a 144% increase in traffic flow through an area that has no physical means of support. Mr. Paquette strongly recommends that an environmental survey be done on this proposal. Adelina Kempner, Oro Valley resident, commented that the gate on Sunkist Road was removed about four years ago that stopped thru traffic. Ms. Kempner stated that the discussion to have only one ingress and egress to the development on Sunkist Road should not be left to an accelerated modified review process. The developer knew all along that the proposed project was a narrow skinny development and knew about the challenges of egress and ingress off Tangerine now suddenly a revelation that Sunkist Road is the ingress and egress and should be implemented. After all the major reviews, the ingress and egress through Tangerine Road has been deleted entirely and the access to the residential development has been switched to Sunkist Road. This is a significant change done without the proper review done for impact upon the neighborhood. A neighborhood meeting after the major review milestones have passed is not adequate to protect the public's interest. The impact of the ingress and egress off of Sunkist Road was never part of the earlier public record and discussion and the screening mechanisms in place to protect the interest of neighbors have effectively been bypassed. You can never know the long term impact of opening up Sunkist Road because this analysis has never received due process. Mr. Kempner respectively asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject the ingress and egress on Sunkist Road. February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 8 Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing. David Laws, Permitting Manager, responded to the access to and from the proposed property. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Pitts to recommend denial of the Miller Ranch Rezoning from R1-144 to R1-7, based on the finding that the request is not consistent with the General Plan, specifically on the determination with respect to compatibility of the proposed project with areas surrounding especially to the north and west. MOTION carried, 6-0. 3. YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE PROJECT UPDATE AND REVIEW OF COMMITTEE PROGRESS Elisa Hamblin, Senior Planner, presented the following: Your Voice Our Future Project The General Plan Who is responsible? The Public Participation Plan How to make it happen Project schedule Phone Survey A Sound Phone Survey Elements Enjoyed Most About Living in Oro Valley Elements Enjoyed Least About Living in Oro Valley Biggest Challenges Facing Oro Valley in the next ten years Importance of various qualities that might describe Oro Valley's future Key Values Confirmation Methods of Engagement Media Coverage and Publicity Community Events Online Participation Survey Methods Survey Results Vision and Guiding Principles Oro Valley's Vision Guiding Principles Tracking and Progress Committee Formation February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 8 Committee Work Committee Challenges The Workbook Continued Outreach Next Steps Get Involved 4. YOUR VOICE, OUR FUTURE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE Commissioner Leedy gave an overview of the Your Voice Our Future update: - Impressed by the extraordinary amount of outreach that the Town has engaged in trying to get the community involved - Ms. Hamblin is doing a terrific job and likes the way she directs the meetings and works with a broad variety of opinions - A couple of different committees, exploring what constitutes a major general plan amendment and what constitutes a minor general plan amendment and what is the criteria that must be satisfied to achieve each of these. - Zoning Code says something different than what the general plan states - Challenges we face are the very fundamental subject of whether or not the general plan should be prescriptive or general - Guiding principle that in the end it is going to guide or narrow the focus of this activity with two limiting factors: authority and capacity PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following Planning Update: - Town Council agenda for February 4th - Upcoming neighborhood meetings ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Leedy and seconded by Commissioner Hitt to adjourn the February 3, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:47 PM. MOTION carried, 6-0. February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 8 Prepared by: /01% / AO Ar Afral Roseanne Flores Recording Secretary I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 3rd day of February 2015. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 8