Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 11/8/2010 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING November 8, 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 Swope, Commissioner John Buette, Commissioner Mark Napier, Commissioner EXCUSED: Robert La Master, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairmen Reddin led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE (Non Agenda Items Only) Opened and closed without comment. 1. Approval of the August 19, 2010 and October 5, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Swope and seconded by Commissioner Buette to approve the August 19, 2010 and October 5, 2010, P&Z Commission meeting minutes. MOTION carried, 5-0. 2. Public Hearing: Amendment to the Zoning Code to implement the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) ordinance. The proposed amendments involve a comprehensive effort to adopt new and/or updated requirements regarding open space, design incentives, hillsides, cultural resources, scenic resources, and landscape standards. Amendments include the following chapters of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Chapter 21, Review and Decision-Making Bodies, Chapter 23 (Sections 23.6, 23.7. and 23.8), Zoning Districts, Chapter 24, Supplementary District Regulations (Sections 24.1, 24.2, 24.5, and 24.7), Chapter 27, General Development Standards (Section 27.2, 27.6, and adding new ESL Section 27.10), Chapter 31, Definitions, and adding ESL related appendixes. Case number: 0V7-10-03 Page 1 of 7 Bayer Vella, Conservation and Sustainability Manager, presented the following: - ESL Project Purpose - Refinement of Existing Zoning Regulations - ESL Project Purpose continued - ESL Process - Systems Approach & Applicability - ESL Open Space Categories: - Resource Science Evaluation - ESL Conservation Standards - Resource Science & Future Growth - ESL Planning Map - ESL & Vacant Land - Potential Annexation Areas - Flexible Design Standards - Conservation Subdivision Design - Hillside Resources - Cultural Resources - Scenic Resources Category - General Plan Compliance and Fiscal Balance - Economic Development - ESL Review Process with all the different teams and committees Commissioner Caine asked if open space requirements apply only to rezoning. Mr. Vella answered yes. Commissioner Caine stated cultural resources are already in the code. He asked if anything had been added pertaining to cultural resources to the code. Mr. Vella said the Cultural Resources section does have new items. Commissioner Caine asked if there was some way to identify these changes. Mr. Vella responded the ESL represents a paradigm shift that we expect a year or so to get comfortable. Commissioner Caine asked Mr. Vella if he could summarize what the impact might be on the scenic corridor Tier 2. Mr. Vella replied that if you have vegetation of substantial size and quality in the first fifty feet keep it in place. If you don't have it then there is no requirement. The second significant requirement is reduction of building heights against the road. The further you are from the road the higher you can build. Commissioner Buette asked if the standards being imposed are lesser than those currently imposed by Pima County and if so, is that largely because of the Tier proposal. Mr. Vella answered yes. Commission Buette went on to ask Mr. Vella where the described Tiers come from. Mr. Vella said the Tiers are defined by the General Plan designation. The General Plan drives the ESL Map not the other way around. Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Buette asked if landscaping, walk ways, and parking lots are apart of the twenty five percent or in addition to Tier 2 for commercial. Mr. Vella said there is a mix, within the twenty five percent as well as the sixty six percent in allowances for landscape buffers, sidewalks, and recreation areas if it results in connectivity and sufficient width. Any zoning element that requires open space that results in connectivity can be counted toward that percentage, but parking lots do not count. Commissioner Buette asked how the code amendment affects current projects. Mr. Vella said an existing platted area will not be impacted. An area that is a PAD, open space requirements apply only when a PAD amendment results in a change to use or the intensity. Commissioner Buette asked what was staff's opinion on economic impacts. Mr. Vella said staff's opinion is subjective with an argument either way. We are trying to marry 2 different objectives which are conservation and the economic vitality of the Town. Mr. Williams, OV Planning Division Manager, explained what the ESL allows opportunity for land owners to increase property values by reducing lot size and maximizing a hundred percent yield from their property. Chairman Reddin asked Mr. Williams to define slightly decrease in lot size. Mr. Williams clarified that open space can be a reduced up to forty percent. It is not a slight decrease but substantial. Mr. Andrews, OV Attorney, said the proportion of how much open space determines how much you can reduce your lot size. Chairman Reddin asked if this applies to all zoning categories. Mr. Williams responded yes. Mr. Vella said it represents all residential zoning categories. Commissioner Swope asked where the new Tier 3 guidelines came from. Mr. Vella said the Tier 1 design guidelines that exist today were applied to Tier 3. Commissioner Swope asked what has happened since July that has led to some of the changes that we are seeing in the current draft. Mr. Vella said what you are seeing is the result of a focused public outreach efforts. An example is a change to the flexible design standards, we changed some of the flexibility opportunities to incorporate Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SABHA) and Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) input. Commissioner Swope asked how things were left between the Town, staff and SABHA. Mr. Vella said there were some philosophic differences, but we came together on key technical issues. In no way did we want to impart that everyone was entirely happy, but everybody's focus was to optimize. Chairman Reddin asked Mr. Vella about the inclusion of so many diverse elements under "ESL" and if he could provide feedback from the groups involved on cultural resources, scenic resources and hillside areas. Page 3 of 7 Mr. Vella said the directive from the very beginning of ESL was to take a holistic approach, look for those areas that overlap to make sure these things are working together, folding into one document with defined chapters, that all work together. Commissioner Buette asked what was the working group's impression on this matter. Mr. Vella said it is fair to say that some had questions but the credit system is working together to work through the categories. Commissioner Caine commented that what attracts people to OV is the environment. David Godlewski, OV resident and government liaison for the SAHBA, said he would like to be a part of that radical middle. From a broad conceptual perspective it sounds good, but we need to look at the words on paper and the way they are interpreted. We have to focus on the economic conditions we are facing as a town and those that we are likely to face in the future. SABHA still has a number of significant philosophical big picture issues as well as additional technical issues. SABHA's recommendation would be to take the appropriate amount of time to vet all these issues and evaluate some of these big picture issues. Bill Adler, OV resident, said he was speaking as a member of the group that worked on this ordinance. The General Plan indicates the Town encourages economic growth, as well as preserving the fragile Sonoran Desert. Matching property rights with preservation of desert land is like a clash of civilization. You create zoning codes in response to community values, we can't consider a market based zoning code which fluctuates and vacillates with regards to whether the market is up or down. We have crafted an ordinance which creates a balanced frame work, but is delicate because it depends on the judgment of our planning administrator who has more authority in this code than in any other code. He believes we have been successful in reaching to incorporate the incentives and the flexibility that are necessary. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Caine and seconded by Commissioner Buette recommend approval of the proposed Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Zoning Code Amendments as presented. MOTION carried, 5-0. Commissioner Buette recognized we had some blue card elegance today and said he was really impressed by both sides. He agreed with Mr. Adler regarding mixed use. Commissioner Swope said he was struck by the comment that no one was particularly happy which tells him that this is a good compromise and therefore something that the community should have in place. It provides flexibility, incentives to the business community as well as providing the environmental community the kind of protection they have been looking for with our valuable resources here in the Town. Chairman Reddin called for a recess at 7:22 p.m. The regular session was resumed at 7:28 p.m. 3. Public Hearing: Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District Development Standards and Table of Permitted Uses, Section Page 4 of 7 23.8.A and Table 23-1, Table of Permitted Uses, in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR). Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner, presented the following: - Oro Valley Zoning Districts - Scope of Work/Focus Areas - Overview of Code Update - Technical Advisory Committee - Commercial Site Design - Residential - Architecture - Existing C-N Zoning - Vacant NCO Property per General Plan - Project Timeline - Findings/Recommendation Commissioner Swope asked Mr. Michels if he could elaborate on input that was received. Mr. Michels said as far as written statements the Town has exchanged some emails back and forth with Mr. Adler. We went methodically through our draft and identified areas to integrate the input Mr. Adler provided. Mr. Adler provided the only formal input. Our Technical Advisory Committee staff members did provide redlines for guidance. Commissioner Caine asked why the existing code and the draft copy excluded Oracle Rd. Mr. Michels said Oracle Rd. is a state highway. Commissioner Caine asked if it was a good idea to exclude Oracle Rd. from the wording of the code. Mr. Michels responded the Town is not advocating additional commercial corridor neighborhoods along Oracle Rd. Mr. Williams added the discussion is very much open in terms of the proper locations for commercial neighborhood sites. The reason we have recommended Oracel Rd. not be included is because it is a regional facility and the opportunity for properties along Oracle Rd. is much greater than just neighborhood serving. Commissioner Caine asked if the Town is trying to discourage using this particular zoning code for more appropriate codes that would apply to those developments. Mr. Williams agreed, but added the Town would be open minded to possible sights on Oracle Rd. that C-N would apply. Commissioner Caine asked what the new changes would be. Mr. Williams said we will strike the first sentence in paragraph b. Commissioner Buette asked if there has been any discussion about the R-6 zone into this C-N designation. Mr. Michels said the focus has been on neighborhood commercial for this particular code update. Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Buette asked if it would be appropriate to have that discussion. Mr. Williams said the Town's intent is to exam all of our commercial districts. Some dialog has taken place with interested citizens with suggestions on how to approach this. The idea is to modernize the Town's approach to commercial developments to enable mixed use developments. Bill Adler, OV resident, said one of the problems with this proposed code, which is a problem with our current code, is there is no proportionality between the permitted uses. We need a commercial code that is form based and not function based. He request staff return with a solution to the proportionality issue or form issue and revise the purpose statement. Rick Kleiner, non-resident, a member of the Technical Advisory Committee that provide input on neighborhood commercial zoning stated he is in support of the proposed modifications, mixed use and removing the barriers presently in place. Commissioner Swope asked if staff could respond to Mr. Adler's comment about proportionality and if it has been addressed. Mr. Michels said if the intent is mixed use we need something to lead to that proportionality. Mr. Michels referenced page 1 of the draft, section 23.8.a, number 1 d, proposing multi-family residential units comprise no more than fifty percent of the total gross floor area of the development. This is the only explicit provision. Commissioner Caine asked how it would be accomplished and still have flexibility. Mr. Michels proposed flexibility and the ability to sit down early in the process with developers to negotiate with enough guidance. Mr. Williams added that the intent to not allow these commercial sites to become completely residential. The Town periodically is under pressure to convert industrial and commercial property to roof tops because the market absorbs those quicker and easily. Chairman Reddin asked if this is only adopted through rezoning. Mr. Michels said correct, as we proposed two paths one with rezoning and the other for existing properties. Commissioner Swope commented that he would like to continue this item for more deliberation on the part of staff regarding the proportionality issue. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Swope and seconded by Mark Napier Napier continue the amendment to Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District Development Standards and Table of Permitted Uses, Section 23.8.A and Table 23-1, Table of Permitted Uses, in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR). Commissioner Buette commented that it would be very useful to have input from the developers. Commissioner Napier commented that Town staff has done an outstanding job putting forth their concept, but like the idea of moving it forward for a month to allow staff to place final touches on it. Page 6 of 7 Chairman Reddin requested that multi-use needs to be defined differently than multi- family. He is struggling with proportionality and how to implement it effectively. He likes the concept of blending C-N's and buffer commercial areas to create more of a community verses developers with different agendas. MOTION carried, 5-0. 4. Planning Division Manager Update Mr. Williams presented the following Manager's Update: - Planning Commission meeting is December 7, 2010, regular date and time. - Agenda items for the next meeting: C-N District Public Hearing and Discussion Recreation Area Code General Plan Process Report - Medical Marijuana was adopted by council - 5 Year Deposition Plan from the Arizona State Land Department - Neighborhood meeting for St. Mark's - APA conference in Phoenix 5. Future Agenda Items Commissioner Buette said he would like to propose a discussion pertaining to possible rezoning of R-6 and R-S properties to the C-N designation and identify and discuss those parcels. Chairman Reddin said he would like to add nominations of a Vice Chair to the December agenda. MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Swope and seconded by Commissioner Caine adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 8:26 p.m. MOTION carried, 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Prepared by, GDUCIP11 Roseanne Flores Recording Secretary Page 7 of 7