Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1/13/2011 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING January 13, 2011 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE • CALL TO ORDER AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. Special Chair Swope called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Robert Swope, Special Chair Don Cox, Vice Chair Alan Caine, Commissioner John Buette, Commissioner Robin Large, Commissioner Mark Napier, Commissioner ABSENT: Robert La Master, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Special Chair Swope led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE (Non Agenda Items Only) Joe Hornat, Oro Valley Resident, Oro Valley Council Member, commented on the current Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hornat's goal for the Planning and Zoning Commission is to see the commission well versed in the code and handling the different items accordingly. 1. Election of Chair, discussion and possible action to nominate and elect a Planning and Zoning Commission Chair. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Caine and seconded by Commissioner Buette to nominate Commissioner Swope as Chair from today through January 30, 2012. MOTION carried, 6-0. 2. Election of Vice-Chair, discussion and possible action to nominate and elect a Planning and Zoning Commission Vice-Chair. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Cox and seconded by Commissioner Caine to nominate Commissioner Cox as Vice-Chair from today through January 30, 2012 MOTION carried, 6-0. 3. Public Hearing: Evergreen-Steam Pump LLC., requests approval of a Planned Area Development (PAD) amendment for Steam Pump Village. The amendment will include revisions to the PAD relating to convenience uses, building heights, administrative clean up and changes to development standards and permitted uses. The site is located on the west side of Oracle Road between Rams Field Pass and Hanley Boulevard, OV910-001. David Ronquillo, Planning Division Senior Planner, presented the following: -Application Context - Location Map - Summary of Proposed Amendment - Reason for Request - General Plan Designation - General Plan -Applicable Policies - Staff Analysis - Substantive Items -Adjacent Residential Homes - Building Height Section - Looking North - Project Timeline - Summary David Williams, Oro Valley Planning Division Manager added staff would like to see the building height step down as it gets closer to the river park. Commissioner Cox asked if there was anything currently planned for the Steam Pump Ranch property. Mr. Williams said only single stories adjacent to that site because of the historic rural nature of the property. Commissioner Caine asked if the document given to the commission was the proposed PAD amendment the applicant proposed. Mr. Ronquillo responded that the PAD document reflects all the changes. Commissioner Caine asked for clarification that this is not the final document that staff is proposing. Mr. Williams said rather than asking the applicant to keep revising and giving us new versions, staff forwards a version that is marked up like the one you have with any additional changes. Commissioner Caine asked whether the staff recommendation on the modifications of the PAD was included on the marked up version. Mr. Williams responded yes. Chair Swope asked if the revisions the applicant makes and provided back to staff would come back before the commission. Mr. Williams said it is not our practice to ask for a clean document before we go to council, this way everybody will be able to see the changes that are being made in the strike out format. Commissioner Caine commented that the commission would like to see the revisions. Mr. Williams said if that is the pleasure of the commission, staff understands. Commissioner Caine commented that it is common practice for drive-through uses to go through the conditional use approval process, and if whether that is the case in this instance. Mr. Ronquillo responded yes. Commissioner Buette asked if the number of convenience uses are doubling from four to eight. Mr. Ronquillo replied yes. . Commissioner Buette asked what is the allowable number of convenience uses and why does the PAD state it is exempt from the number of convenience uses. Mr. Williams said that the number of convenience use is limited by the site area, you can only have one per 4.5 acres of site. Commissioner Buette asked if there are any limitations on drive through conveniences under the new proposal. Mr. Ronquillo said the amendment states convenience uses would be limited to eight, four with a multi tenant building or four individual. So there is a limitation on how many businesses that can have a drive-through on that site. Commissioner Large asked how residential uses will be integrated with commercial or employment uses and in what manner. Mr. Williams said it is a horizontal integration verses a vertical. Chair Swope commented staffs response section was vague and lead to a number of questions from the commission. It doesn't tell us specifically what staff was agreeing to or not agreeing to in terms of the heights, setbacks and other requirements. It would have been helpful if there had been more specificity and direction. Chair Swope asked if there were any view impact analysis conducted to show what kind of impact it might have on the Palisades neighborhood. Mr. Williams said we did look at elevations and the nearest homes are about 40 feet higher than the elevation at Steam Pump Ranch. Chairman Swope asked for clarification on gas stations, convenience stores and other uses that are conditional under C-N, C-1 and C-2. They are now going to be allowed but as a conditional use, is that correct. Mr. Ronquillo said that is correct, unless specifically prohibited on the list on page 69. Chair Swope added that in the applicant's letter there was a fair amount of discussion about gas stations, yet on page 69 auto services are prohibited use. Mr. Williams commented that gas stations are not auto service per our code definitions, they are a distinct use. Vice Chair Cox asked what are the building heights currently on the property. Mr. Williams replied that the tallest structure is hotel. Paul Keesler, Oro Valley Permitting Manager, added that the height of the hotel is 39 feet. Vice Chair Cox asked if any complaints were filed regarding the current heights of buildings during the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Williams responded none that staff was aware of. Keri Silvyn, from Lewis and Rocca, representing Evergreen LLC, presented the following: Total Project Size - 40 Acres Major Onsite/Offsite Improvements Master Detention System Park Improvement Public Art Pedestrian Pathway and Utility Extensions Parking, Lighting, utilities, Etc. Vision now Site Plan • Phase I Pad A Existing PAD Area's A, B, C & D Design Guidelines Comparison Table Cross Section & Photograph Location Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2 Permitted Uses Prohibited Uses Convenience Use Requirements Conditions Commissioner Caine asked if the applicant wanted to raise the building height from the current 30 feet to 39 feet which is separate from the general requirements to allow 49 feet in certain areas. Ms. Silvyn responded yes. Commissioner Caine asked if the vacant pad was the only vacant site adjacent to the historic area. Ms. Silvyn said yes. Vice Chair Cox read a sentence from the staff report which stated "the applicant's main reason for the amendments is to allow greater flexibility in designing future phases of the Steam Pump Village development", and went on to ask if that was a fair assessment. Ms. Silvyn replied yes. Vice Chair Cox read from the staff report stating "the applicant states that the PAD standards must allow more flexibility to attract potential businesses", would that also be a fair statement. Ms. Silvyn said yes. Vice Chair Cox asked since the economic down turn, have you been approached by potential tenants that you had to turn away because of the restrictions on the PAD currently. Ms. Silvyn replied yes. Vice Chair Cox asked the applicant for the specific fast food uses proposed for the site. Ms. Silvyn said no specific tenants at the current time. Vice Chair Cox asked if the only building height request is the small pad that is immediately adjacent to what is commonly referred to as Steam Pump Ranch. Ms. Silvyn said there are actually two building height changes. One is the additional 5 feet for architecture on that site. The other is overall different height nomenclature which is similar to what currently exists. Vice Chair Cox asked if the applicant would be able to live with single story language taken out. Ms. Silvyn said yes. Vice Chair Cox asked if staff can live with single story language taken out. Mr. Williams replied that the biggest concern was the additional five feet obstructing mountain views, staff prefers single story appearance and is fine with single story language taken out. Commissioner Buette asked if there are any clustering of convenience uses planned with space in between. Ms. Silvyn said yes. Commissioner Buette commented that he wanted some assurance that it will not be a line of convenience uses similar to other locations. Mr. Williams commented that there is no preclusion from that happening. • Commissioner Buette asked Mr. Silvyn if she would address the issue of convenience use spacing. Chair Swope commented that these are items the commission could talk about as part of conditions. Commissioner Napier wanted confirmation that eliminating the single story prevision would be sufficient and no additional height is requested above the 30 feet for the site. Ms. Silvyn said it is not preferred but would be comfortable with regard to the building pad in the corner of Phase one amending the wording to be a 30 foot height limitation and strike out single story as separate from rest of the height requirements. Chair Swope asked if staff is okay with these height changes. Mr. Williams said staff was okay with these height changes. Commissioner Napier commented that he would rather see it in writing clearly stating the 50 foot setbacks. Chair Swope commented that could be one of the conditions attached to our motion. Chair Swope asked if staff has the ability to make sure that this kind of development meets architecture and design. Mr. Williams said yes we do. Chair Swope asked, if the applicant considered dedicated parking for trail users for the three pedestrian access point to river park trail. Ms. Silvyn replied yes. Chair Swope asked if we have comparable densities in the town similar to 25 units per acre. Mr. Williams said the Town does not. Bill Adler, OV Resident, stated that there is incompatibility with this proposal. Chair Swope commented that staff is in agreement with the PAD as provided to the commission and the only area in conflict is building height and that small yellow pad. Todd Otis, OV resident, stated what is best for the Town is the proposed convenience and gas station uses. The applicant is asking for 20 percent site coverage open space and wants the benefits of the park, which is ten percent of the site. Discussion: Commissioner Caine commented that clarification is needed in a lot of areas and the height issue needs to be cleaned up along with what staff would like to see in the amendment spelled out more clearly. Commissioner Napier asked whether anything in this amendment would compromise the architectural character of the this development. Commissioner Napier wanted assurance that future developments would have the architectural character that the Town desires for that parcel. Mr. Williams replied correct. Commissioner Buette commented that he would like further discussion about the convenience spacing. Vice Chair Cox asked if staff wanted a condition that there will be no single family residences. Mr. Williams said staff was comfortable as written. • • Vice Chair Cox asked if staff is clear on the 50 foot setback. Mr. Williams replied yes. Vice Chair Cox commented that he is in support of the motion on the table. Commissioner Large asked Ms. Silvyn if 30 feet was adequate for the proposed building heights. Ms. Silvyn said the applicant desired the additional 5 feet, but would make it work with 30 feet and meet all of the standards of the Town. Commissioner Large asked if the 50 foot setback would be okay with the applicant as there are residents that have concerns with the current proposal. Ms. Silvyn said there were no adjacent property owner's concerns. Commissioner Large commented that she is comfortable with motion on the table. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Napier and seconded by Vice Chair Cox approve with a modification to include a 50 foot setback on the west property line and removal of the single story limitation from the yellow pad. Building heights on the yellow pad must remain at 30 feet (PAD number 1 Phase 1). MOTION carried, 6-0. Break 7:52 Resume meeting 8:04 4. Public Hearing: Proposed amendments to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 27.3, Public Artwork Provisions by updating standards for in-lieu fees, use of in-lieu fees for maintenance of publicly owned artwork, and provision of in-lieu fees for art in remote locations, 0V710-006. David Williams, Planning Division Manager, presented the following: Amendments to Public Artwork Provisions Fee-in-lieu of Artwork Provisions Artwork in Remote Locations Maintenance of Public Artwork Project Timeline Recommendation Commissioner Caine asked how permit valuations are calculated. Mr. Williams said it is calculated from the building permit valuation and the expense of the improvements for the site. Commissioner Napier asked if this valuation method is being proposed to prevent the developer from deflating their construction budget. Mr. Williams responded that no, this is not the purpose of tonight's amendment. Commissioner Caine asked if the wording in section D might be missing. Mr. Williams offered that staff would be comfortable striking the wording "ten thousand dollars $10,000"from the draft. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Napier and seconded by Vice Chair Cox to recommend that the Town Council approve proposed amendments to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 27.3, Public Artwork Provisions, OV710-006, by amending the Town Zoning Code as specified in Exhibit A. Commissioner Caine requested staffs input about possibly applying two different standards to private and public art. Mr. Williams said that currently the Town has no funding system in place to maintain public art. Should someone choose the in-lieu fee and Council authorizes funds for public art, these funds could be used for maintenance. MOTION carried, 6-0. 5. Public Hearing: Amendment to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 26.5 and Chapter 31, definitions, Recreational area requirements in residential subdivisions, 0V710-001. Matt Michels, Planning Division Senior Planner presented the following: - Project Timeline - SAHBA Concerns Addressed - SAHBA Outstanding Issues - Metropolitan Pima Alliance Policy Committee Ideas - Findings - Recommendation Commissioner Caine asked Mr. Michels if he had a position regarding the letter from the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA). Mr. Michels responded with yes, with the following comments: 1 - Sixty-six percent is a reasonable threshold 2 -A recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to decrease the number of lots to 43 from the 85 lots proposed. 3 - Originally there was a stipulation of constructed or available bicycle/pedestrian access. It was staffs intent to just say access, striking out the word bicycle. Mr. Williams added the Town is not recommending any changes based on these comments from SAHBA. Commissioner Cox asked if large lot developments are exempted from in-lieu fees. Mr. Williams indicated that under the proposed code, large lot development would be exempt from having to provide a recreation area or in-lieu fee. Commissioner Cox asked if large lot developments are currently exempt for in-lieu fees. Mr. Michels responded no. Commissioner Cox asked to explain the 43 lot or less thershold for using the in-lieu fee option. Mr. Michels said the in-lieu fee is intended to be an option for smaller subdivisions within this recreation code. Commissioner Cox asked if the developers are currently required to pay any in-lieu fees. Mr. Williams responded that currently nobody is required to pay in-lieu fees, but it is an option to provide on-site recreation. b Chair Swope asked if shallow retention basins (flood prone areas) would be accepted as recreational land and if so are there liability issues associated with this. Mr. Andrews said from a liability stand point no. This allows the developer a dual use, it cannot be a detention are which holds water, but rather a retention area that slows it down and let's water out. Paul Keesler, Permitting Manager, commented that there are specific safety requirements with respect to side slopes and the depth of the ponding water in the basin that is acceptable for entrance areas without requiring safety barricade as around the basin. It is not uncommon for parks to actually be built in the bottom of such basins that have adequate safety egress. Bill Adler, OV resident, commented he has always opposed in-lieu fees. Chair Swope asked staff if they could elaborate on in-lieu fees and generating adequate revenue. Mr. Williams responded the Town has generated between $140,000 - $150,000 since in-lieu fees have been in effect. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Caine and seconded by Commissioner Buette to recommend that the Town Council approve an amendment to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 26.5, relating to provision of recreational area in residential subdivisions, and Chapter 31, Definitions, as depicted in Exhibit "A", OV710-001 MOTION carried, 6-0. 6. Planning Division Manager Update David Williams, Oro Valley Planning Division Manager, presented the manager's update: - ESL to Town Council public hearing on January 19. - Big Horn Commerce Center has applied for a change of rezoning conditions with the intent to broaden the uses permitted. -AT&T Wireless application in Highlands Mobile Home Park. - Conceptual Design Review Process. - Sign Code is scheduled for public hearing with the Town Council on February 16. 7. Future Agenda Items Vice Chair Cox stated he would like to see Planning and Zoning Rules and Procedures review. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Cox and seconded by Commissioner Caine to Adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:48 p.m. repared by, ( c1oxr '.Roseanne lo Recording Secretary