Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 12/7/2010 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 7, 2010 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M. Chairman Reddin called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Clark Reddin, Chairman Alan Caine, Commissioner Robert La Master, Commissioner Robert Swope, Commissioner John Buette, Commissioner Mark Napier, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Reddin led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE (Non Agenda Items Only) Bill Adler, OV Resident, wishes to speak regarding rules and operating procedures that are not followed, which creates an ethical issue for the public. He wishes to draw the commission's attention to the rules and regulations and sections that are out of date and not consistent with the current procedures, as well as drawing the commissioner's attention to the order of business. Commissioner Caine commented that the commission needs more specific allegations and are not ignorant to the by-laws and wishes to dispute the argument. Legal council is present who would pick up any or such infractions during the meeting and takes exception to the complaint. 1. Appointment of Vice Chair. Joe Andrews, OV Attorney, said someone can be nominated and if no one is nominated it will likely fall to the next meeting. David Williams, OV Planning Division Manager, said that we should have seven member commission at the next meeting. Chairman Reddin said with no nominations the item will be postponed and asked that it be brought back at the next meeting. 1 2. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendment relating to provision of recreation area in residential subdivisions Section 26.5 and Chapter 31, definitions, 0V710-001. Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner, presented the following: - Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Action - Oro Valley's Park System - In-Lieu Fee Requirements I- n-Lieu Fee Option Refinement- One Acre Park Example - Findings - Project Timeline - Recommendation Commissioner Caine asked if there was any more discussion or intent to possible changes. Mr. Michels said because of the amenity requirements, staff tried to build in some flexibility to respond to the demographics of the subdivision. Currently the focus within the code in terms of descriptive standards is limited to playground equipment and tot lot facilities for younger children. Once you get beyond the playground sets, the realm of potential recreational opportunities goes from basketball hoops to skate parks. Mr. Michels stated that all recreation plans are based on the anticipated demographic profile of the subdivision. Commissioner Swope commented that he didn't understand the calculations in regards to in-lieu fees. Commissioner Swope asked if the approximate calculation of the cost to build a one acre park is $400,000, is the cost to build a one-half acre recreational facility $200,000, and would the in-lieu fee calculation be based on the cost of the $200,000? Mr. Williams, OV Planning Division Manager, explained that it wouldn't be exactly half because some of the cost is fixed whether it is one acre or a one-half acre site. We are looking at maybe sixty or seventy percent of the one acre cost not based on the square footage of the park but on the market value of the land. Commissioner Swope asked if a developer of a 43 lot development would pay $280,000. Mr. Williams responded that the developer would pay the equivalent cost of installing the required park. If the developer had a 43 acre lot subdivision they are required to provide a one-half acre recreation area. Under that they are required to install one passive and one active amenity. Commissioner Swope observed that it seems inconsistent with the numbers provided in Exhibit B, "Town of Oro Valley Recreation In-Lieu from inception through December 23, 2009 table". There are no developers, including Vestar, paying anything close to these fees. Mr. Williams responded that was correct and that is why the Town is proposing 2 an amendment. The in-lieu fees have been based on the value of the land and there is no precise definition of how the fair market value is determined. Commissioner Swope asked how the Town plans to deter unauthorized users and activities at these recreational facilities. Conceptually it sounds like a good idea, but how do you accomplish that other than fencing, security codes and what have you. Mr. Michels said this code is meant to be as flexible as possible in finding design and technical means of supporting CPTED and staff is trying not to prescribe fencing. Commissioner Swope referred to page 9 of 10, item 8, "in-lieu funds shall be designated for development of improvement project(s) for a Town park(s) or recreational facilitie(s)". In the previous draft of this ordinance there was a reference that these facilities need to be located no more than one mile from the original subdivision, why was that changed? Mr. Williams said that the in-lieu fee option is not perfect and has been criticized before this board and elsewhere. If a developer is going to build a park nearby, the time frame to find a site, acquire the site and building the site takes years, and families are moving in right away. The Town feels that we are missing the demographics that would benefit from the use of this park when facility is not built for many years. We believe that the practical limitations are a problem with the in-lieu fee option. We would rather have the money available immediately to be applied to improvements that benefit the community. Commissioner Caine commented on a typo on page 2, section D.1.b, should read "linear parks," as defined by this code and described in section D.2.H., not section D.2.E. Mr. Michels noted this as indicted in the draft. Commissioner Caine has observed that the larger neighborhood parks are well used, but the small tot lots don't seem to get much use. Commissioner Caine is not suggesting that we don't need neighborhood parks. It helps the aesthetics of the neighborhood to have an open space. Commissioner Caine went on to ask whether staff or the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has ever gone back to the public regarding the uses of these parks to see if there is any way to make them more useful to the public. Mr. Michels said the Town met with developers and HOAs to receive input, and our finds is that even very small parks or tot lots can provide an important recreational amenity in a neighborhood. They shared examples of what works and does not. Commissioner Napier inquired about a previous letter from SABHA indicating some concerns they had and asked Mr. Michels if he was able to share what was in the letter. Mr. Michels pointed out David Godlewski from SABHA was present and would share SABHA's concerns later on in the meeting. Commissioner Napier asked if a developer of 43 lots would be required to set aside one-half acre for a park facility or would in-lieu fees be assessed to the developer. Mr. Williams responded that yes, the developer can build a park or use the in-lieu 3 fee option. Commissioner Napier commented that a formula should be provided in the Zoning Ordinance that identifies how in-lieu fees are accessed. Mr. Williams responded that the code provides for a calculation based on the land area required, which varies by subdivision depending on their recreation area requirement determined by the number of lots. Once the land area is calculated a cost estimate for what facilities are required for each project. can be generated. Commissioner Napier asked if there was any other consideration with respect to larger lots for the greater good rather than an equity issue. Mr. Williams said the property owner who has an acre or two can put in play structure equipment on their own property, so the demand for community recreational facilities is less. Staff would recommend exempting large lots for this reason. Commissioner Napier asked if the in-lieu fee threshold of 43 lots or less applies to the larger lot exemption. Mr. Michels said it would apply the same way. Commissioner Napier asked if there was a conflict in the requirements of the ordinance and what are we trying to accomplish with CPTED in regards to barriers. Mr. Michels said that barriers can be physical or visual and that we are not requiring fences, walls, or other physical barriers around parks. Commissioner Buette asked if staff has received comments from developers as to how they perceive this. Mr. Williams responded that there is not an increased cost and the Town has been careful not to increase cost in a down market, but have increased the in-lieu fee option requirements. David Godlewski, government liaison for SAHBA, addressed some the previous issues that were raised. - Cost implications associated with compliance of this requirement - The in-lieu fee and the cost associated with that option. There are likely some additional cost associated with the in-lieu requirements. - The increase recreational area size requirement, which has been addressed. - The issue with parking requirements that SAHBA believed were excessive and that has been addressed. - Ambiguity around the type of signage has been clearly addressed and SAHBA is comfortable with the recommendations. - Although the play equipment standards that were addressed by SAHBA and covered areas have not been addressed, he believes these are not reasons to oppose the new draft. - Some general questions such as timing is very relevant and he does understand considering the current market condition it is often helpful to take a look at the code requirements and look at past developments. With the significance, severity and the potential for increased cost, SAHBA has some 4 questions regarding the in-lieu fee option requirements. SABHA agrees with staff's assessment that larger lot subdivisions should be exempt from the recreational requirements. In the new Environmentally Sensitive Land (ESL) document there is the ability to use a recreation area requirement to coincide with your Environmentally Sensitive Open Space (ESOS) requirements. There is some language in terms of the site location and it being centrally located. The preference of a recreation area being centrally located, given some of the site specific lay out issues may not be feasible. Picnic tables, shaded structures and ramadas as outlined in the cost estimate are the most expensive requirements. Some of the same issues arise with the CPTED requirements, but those have been addressed. The in-lieu fee might be the biggest remaining issue. Mr. Godlewsi recommends keeping it at the 85 lots instead of reducing to 43 lots. He noted as a final point that there is a clear appeals process for applicants. Bill Adler, OV Resident, opposes in-lieu fees since the inception in the early 90's. He opposes taking money and taking space out of a neighborhood to improve a new park elsewhere. Community parks are the community's responsibility and not the neighborhood's responsibility. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner La Master and seconded by Commissioner Swope recommend approval of the amendment relating to provision of recreation area in residential subdivisions Section 26.5 and Chapter 31, definition, OV710-001. Discussion: Commissioner Napier commented that the exemption for large lots seemed to be a constant topic, and very close to addressing SAHBA's concerns. There might be some opportunity to refine this a little more, remove the exemptions for large lots and move forward with a more polished code revision in a future meeting. Commissioner Caine commented that he was a little confused where the commission stood with the large lot exemption. Staff took the recommendation from the PRAB to take away the exemption, so there is no exemption for large lots in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Williams replied that in the recommended draft from the PRAB there is no exemption for large lots, see the draft before Exhibit "A". Commissioner Caine requested Mr. William's opinion regarding whether he would like the exemption to go back in. Mr. Williams said that is correct, for the record. Staff felt it was appropriate to exempt large lots. Commissioner Buette commented that more work is needed and that both sides brought up good points. An appeals process is needed and he agrees with staff that a large lot exemption is needed. Joe Andrews, OV Town Attorney, said under the Arizona State Law, the decisions the planning manager, which serves as our Planning and Zoning Administrator, is appealable to our Board of Adjustments. 5 Mr. Williams said he would like to add that if the commission is more comfortable in seeing a language that would change the location requirements, we could meet with SAHBA. Commissioner La Master said that he is a proponent of recreational space and park lands but no conflicts with the comments that some fine tuning needs to be done, as well as ensuring there are ESL ordinance. Commissioner Napier commented it was clear that Town staff did a good job in answering SAHBA's concerns as well as citizen's concerns. Commissioner Napier asked Mr. Williams to consider devising a formula that would be predictable for developers to determine cost of recreational areas. Mr. Williams recommended drafting a policy or administrative directive regarding in-lieu fee calculations other than adding it into the code. Commissioner Swope commented he would like to continue discussion but requested the commission give direction to staff. Mr. Williams responded by reading down his list - Regarding the SAHBA comments: - Additional cost - Parking - The type of equipment standards - Credit from ESL protection - Central location - Shade cover - Appeal process - Large lot exemption - Openspace credit for Environmentally Sensitive Chairman Reddin commented it was a good list of items to address and is in favor of the in-lieu fee option. Commissioner Caine commented he would discourage the in-lieu fees. Commissioner Buette asked if it was possible for the motion to be changed by the person who made the motion. Mr. Andrews responded with yes. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner La Master and seconded by Commissioner Buette withdraw the previous motion. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Napier and seconded by Commissioner Buette continue the item to a future meeting, the recreation area in a residential subdivisions Section 26.5 and Chapter 31, definition, OV710-001 MOTION carried, 6-0. 3. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendment to C-N Neighborhood Commercial District, Section 23.8.A, C-N portion of Tables 23-1, Permitted Uses, and Table 23.4, Dimensional Requirements, in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), OV710-005. 6 Matt Michels, senior planner presented the following: - P&Z Input & Response - Findings/Recommendation - Project Timeline Commissioner Caine commented that Section 23.8.A.5.b had been struck out and 28.A.5.b was added and went on to ask where the change came from. Mr. Michels replied that they were added to address the issue of regulating nuisance generation. Commissioner Swope addressed the ordinance language, on Page 5 item b. It states, "parking placed in the front of the building shall be accessed from a single access lane or may be provided on-street in front of the building". Commissioner Swope asked if the Town is encouraging on street parking in this situation. Paul Keesler, OV Permitting Manager, replied "no," there is no parking on major collectors. On street parking would be subject to engineering approval and flexibility will be given where flexibility is reasonable. Chairman Reddin asked could if the same consideration would be applied to interior roads. Mr. Keesler answered yes. Commissioner Swope referred to page 6 and noted that the previous draft mentioned residential units should be placed to the rear of property adjacent to other residentially zoned properties to provide a transition. This is not in the current draft and asked why. Mr. Michels said that often neighbors, especially single family residents, feel that multi-family residents would be a worse neighbor than an office building or small scale retail. Commissioner Swope asked if the current amendment is more flexible. Mr. Michels said yes Mr. Williams added that any nuisances or incompatibilities be addressed in the site design review process. Commissioner Swope asked if office and multi-family residential have been designated as secondary and that by focusing on multi-family residential and ignoring the others, could we end up with a development that we necessarily don't want. Mr. Michels said staff didn't make restrictions on office percentages because staff is not comfortable with making a proportionality judgment of what may or may not provide the services intended. Commissioner Swope asked then why do we have the fifty percent limitation on residential. Mr. Williams responded that we do not want to lose our commercial properties to residential uses. The restriction on residential was reasonable and appropriate for Oro Valley. Commissioner Caine asked why C-N properties can't be rezoned. Mr. Williams said that would be an option. Chair Reddin asked how staff came up with the fifty percent limit for multi-family residential. Chair Reddin stated that fifty percent is not the wrong number and a way to look at this is a community within a community. Proportionality is important, but it is more important to get mixed use in there. 7 Mr. Williams said given that it is CN and the intent is neighborhood. Maybe the addition to the draft should include it not solely office rather than a particular threshold or number. Walter Hoge, non-OV resident, commented he supports the CN zoning district modifications. Bill Adler, OV resident, said the draft ordinance suggests the Town will consider mixed use and market demand, but is not defined. If you don't define the intent of the Town on mixed use and market demand, you forfeit the ability to manage this process. An amendment to the code to define what the community intent in regards to mixed use is needed. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Caine and seconded by Commissioner La Master to Recommend Approval to the Town Council to adopt an amendment to Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District provisions in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, 0V710-005, as shown in Exhibit "A". Discussion: Commissioner Swope requested that staff try to address the issue of proportionality and add terminology in the ordinance that solely office would not be permitted. Chair Reddin would like to add, "Or no use can be more than seventy percent". Mr. Andrews asked Commissioner Swope if he would like to have the previous motion amended such that you would not be allowing the entire site to be considered office without a percentage or was he saying he would like to discuss it further to define a proportion. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Swope amend the motion on the table to include the issue of proportionality with a broader term of simply not allowing one use only. Mr. Williams commented that staff would not support limiting retail. Retail could be one hundred percent of the site, but the concern he is hearing is about office taking over the whole site. Chair Reddin asked how mixed use is monitored after it is built. Mr. Keesler said later on as businesses come and businesses go there will be tenant improvements. Tenant improvements review will be done and the nature of the business will be known. Commissioner LaMaster commented that he understands the restrictions on residential. Residential can be more of a nuisance to an existing neighborhood than commercial or office. The Town runs the risk of prescribing too much proportionality. The Town could be faced with empty space in a building that can not be leased because there is an arbitrarily restriction. Commissioner Swope commented we are not encouraging single use development, but rather mixed use development without prescriptive 8 percentages. Mr. Williams added staff can add text to the intent for the purpose of this district to clarify; the words mixed use are not in the language. Staff can address this in the intent section and on page one of seven, add a statement that this district is intended to contain a mixture of uses. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Caine and seconded by Commissioner La Master recommend that the Town Council adopt an amendment to Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District provisions in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, OV710-005, as shown in Exhibit "A" and subject to the addition of language to the purpose the intent statement regarding the mixture of uses and prohibiting sole uses other than retail and addition to Section 23.8.A that there be a mixture of uses and the project may not be solely comprised of office use. MOTION carried, 6-0. 4. Discussion regarding potential to rezone R-S (Residential Services District) and R-6 (Multi-Family Residential District) properties. Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner presented the following: - R-S/R-6 Zoning Allowed Uses - Purpose of Districts Chairman Reddin commented on the presentation showing the southern half of the town is predominantly where R-6 is located and asked if this area were annexed and brought in by the current county zoning. Mr. Michels said that was correct. Chairman Reddin asked how does the Town break the cycle and become a more dynamic community. Mr. Andrews said if you make the R-S and R-6 zones more attractive you might end up with some property rezoned to those districts. Commissioner Buette commented that many commercial properties have been built out and what you are left with are more of the undesirable ones that have grading exceptions and so forth. Many of those lots are along Oracle Road fall into that category, and he is wondering if staff opens up the zoning and still have all the processes they have to go through, might it be more attractive for a developer to take those parcels and make them more economic with some other commercial use. Mr. Michels said one way would be to amend the code and another would be the possibility of rebuilding properties to something that would be more workable. Mr. Williams added the work plan has as a couple to things to look at which includes mixed use, changes in our code as it effects all commercial districts and has been suggested to include RS and R6. Chairman Reddin asked if the Town ever approached landowners and asked if they would be interested in rezoning. 9 Mr. Williams said it has occurred in other communities, but in Oro Valley it has only happened once. Commissioner Swope asked what role the commission can play in moving this idea forward. Chairman Reddin commented that in this discussion the commission can give direction. We need to re-evaluate these comments to see if mixed use works. One of the problems with mixed use is density and one of the problems with retail is having density geographically. When commercial developers go into a space, normally a study is done to look at density and what is going to feed that geographical area. Unfortunately Oro Valley has most of the commercial use on Oracle Rd. 5. Planning Division Manager Update Mr. Williams presented the following Planning Division Managers Update: - Chairman Reddin's last meeting - Bruker optics moving to Oro Valley - Steam Pump PAD December 9, 2010 neighborhood meeting - Town Council approved changes to DRB and ARC - Vacancies in Planning Commission - Regular meeting change from January 4, 2011 to January 13, 2011 - Code amendment to public art in terms of the in-lieu fee 6. Future Agenda Items Commission Caine asked if staff could add other business as an agenda item. Mr. Andrews commented that would be future agenda items. Chairman Reddin would like to add election and appointment to chair and vice- chair discussion to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Buette and seconded by Commissioner La Master to Adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission at 8:07 p.m. MOTION carried, 6-0. Prepared by, DcvvirQ Roseanne Flores Recording Secretary 10