Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 9/5/2008 APPROVED MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION September 5, 2008 Casas Church - Ironwood Building 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd., Oro Valley 1. Call to Order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Chair Teree Bergman Vice Chair Clark Reddin Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Joe Homat Commissioner Scott Merry Commissioner Doug McKee James Loughney Also present: K.C. Carter, Council Member Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director Bayer Vella, Principal Planner Lexa Mack, Town Attorney 3. Call to the Audience (no speakers.) 4. Public Hearing: Vistoso Partners, represented by the WLB Group, requests approval of a Major General Plan Amendment for portions of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, OVI 1-08-04. Bayer Vella, Principal Planner, introduced Matt Michels, Senior Planner. Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. The proposal has not substantively changed since the last public hearing. Mr. Michels discussed citizen's concerns that were brought up at the last public hearing and the neighborhood meetings: golf course removal, school site and road access, residential density, encroachment into riparian areas, and water resources. Questions from Commissioners and staff's response: - One way to be consistent with open space (OS) policies, particularly the built environment enhancing the natural environment, could be through translational density increasing as development proceeds into the internal part of the project. The graduating in density should be from low to high. What is staff's view on that? Response: That is a sound approach. The biggest issue is the general nature of a general plan (GP). Without a tentative development plan, there is some difficulty in prescribing where the density should be and how dense. Will defer to the applicant to respond. September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes • Isn't it possible at this stage to designate areas within the project at two different GP densities? Response: Staff had no objection to that. - Has the title passed to the school? Response: Staff was not aware that it has, but the process is ongoing. - Is this GP amendment necessary to allow the school site to be relocated? Response: No. - If this amendment is not approved, what detrimental impacts might there be other than what has been shown? For instance can the loop road situation be handled without the amendment? Response: The PAD does show a loop road, so that should be okay. -What about the sewer line extension up to Sun City? Response: To staffs knowledge that is a special condition that would be associated with the GP amendment. - Isn't it also part of another plat approval condition? Response: Not to staffs knowledge. When and if the school goes in as laid out by the school district, will it be impossible to build a golf course? Response: Staff deferred the question to the applicant. -There is some concern for the Arrowsmith right of way (ROW) and width of the road. Was there ever an answer to this? Response by Paul Keesler, Public Works: There is enough room within that ROW to have 3 twelve-foot lanes. A left turn lane would require widening of pavement by about 8 feet. Traffic studies would be done and it would be determined at buildout. - Economic policies have not been covered: Golf courses and resorts go together. Taking out the golf course has a detrimental effect on getting a resort and reducing revenue. How is that going to be replaced? Response: Staffs charge is to look at everything with a balanced approach. Two primary issues: environmental protection and development of residential/commercial/resort. This application preserves OS. The limited information available is that the golf course is not economically feasible. The developer has no intention to put in a golf course at this point. -474 units will increase potable water consumption. Taking out the golf course will reduce reclaimed water usage. Response: All resources including sustainable water were there when the PAD was approved. Availability of water was previously demonstrated. • If the golf course is removed from the GP, would it ever come back? Response: That would be complete conjuncture. 2 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes Mr. Vella stated that the applicant met with Commissioner McKee to provide specific economic viability data. When the applicant presents, Mr. Vella requested that information be shared with the entire panel. Applicant Paul Oland, the WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners, gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the original Vistoso PAD, topo map and aerial photo, showing steep slopes and development. The GP and the PAD both have land use designations, some with identical names and different meanings. GP high density residential allows 5 or more homes per acre; medium density allows 2- 5 homes. The PAD high density allows 8-21 homes per acre, with most of the parcels along Rancho Vistoso Blvd. zoned HDR. Applicant is proposing medium high density in the subject of PAD amendment for most of the areas. To request medium high density in the PAD, we have to be in conformance with GP land uses. The proposal: -has a commercial parcel that will be removed -matches school district plans -eliminated a crossing of Honey Bee Wash -144 additional acres of OS over current zoning -follows riparian areas -Currently with the golf course and zoned parcels there would be about 145 acres of encroachment, which would be reduced to 2 acres. Mr. Oland pointed out areas of compliance with the GP goals and policies: -Land use avoids significant encroachment to Town's mapped areas -Adheres to the Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District -Consistent with the school district, centrally located it is convenient and buffered by slopes along side Big Wash. -Will adhere to the architectural design guidelines in the RV PAD. -Will adhere to Town lighting standards. -Low visibility from scenic corridors. -The golf course is unviable. Future residential development will be more viable. -Infrastructure in RV was installed by Vistoso Partners at no cost to the Town. -Moore and Arrowsmith Roads (loop) will have sidewalks. -Eliminated 2 major wash crossings. -Will not be increasing the traffic from what was originally planned. -Will require no additional commute time. The applicant is proposing to fill in areas between existing zoned parcels with identical zoning, not higher densities. An archaeological survey for entire Rancho Vistoso area was accepted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and State Museum. SHPO acknowledged there is an existing report but recommended a report be created. The existing report is accepted and Mr. Oland asked that the condition for a new report be struck from the list of conditions. All utilities will be underground. The development edge by Big Wash is being pulled back. Parcels 5d and i are proposed as OS. Corridors by Big Wash and Honey Bee will be widened. 3 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes Questions from Commissioners and applicant's response: -The current plan with restrictions would give 6-8 dwelling units (DU) per ac. If reduced to medium density, with 5 DU per acre, what would the number of homes be? Would it be lower than the current entitlement? Response: To clarify, if we down zoned in exchange for this GP amendment would it be lower than 1500? He would have to do the math. There comes a point where it is break even; anything below would not make sense. A small range above would not work either. -Would it be workable if the density of development in the portion proposed to be changed would not exceed the density of the already developed portions of this neighborhood? Response: Without exception over the last 20 years, RV development has come in with less density than allowed. This would probably not reach the requested numbers given the history. Capping at 5 to 6 would be the area subject to change only. The existing zoned parcels would not be subject to that cap. Would like to run the numbers to see if it would work. -Why are other areas building golf courses if it is not viable? Response: Tubac's 9 holes were developed for home sales. Saddlebrook was built around golf courses and golf is a daily activity. Marana has lots of things proposed which are expensive. Tucson does not maintain their courses to the level Vistoso does. Economics in OV showed that the attendance/number of rounds played on the Vistoso course has declined since 9/11. There are fewer tournaments and water and maintenance have become more expensive which has lead to an unprofitable situation. - Is it true that if the golf course is taken out of the GP it will probably never be built? Response: Agreed. - Expand on translational density. Response: 1. Given the existing zoned parcels, implementing transitional density would be limited to a few small pieces, with soft and not so soft edges. The proposal is accomplishing much less disturbance to significant areas than the current plan. Condition A, the 50 foot OS buffer along every point of adjacency to OS, doesn't work because it impacts on all sides and would take a huge bite out of what is to be developed. Where there is no amendment to PAD there would be a staggered buffer. That condition's wording needs to be stricken or reworded. At a GP level given existing entitlements, he is not comfortable implementing staggering. - Resisting making a commitment to meet the GP policy that the built environment be graduated so that it is sensitive to the natural environment. Response: The proposal, by reducing the amount of Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) from 145 to 2 acres is in line with the Town's adopted environmental policies. Town will work with owners of existing planned area developments to reconfigure to be more sensitive to the environment and the community while trying to meet existing entitlements. 4 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning &Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes - If the school goes where proposed, will the golf course be impossible? Response: Whether the school goes there or not, it would be difficult to build a golf course in that skinny alignment with homes so close. - Did you get a written report from golf course designer? Response: No. - Golf courses can be built in difficult places and could probably be built there. Response: The golf course is current showing 175 acres; typical courses now are 200 to 220 acres. Public Hearing opened at 7:24 p.m. Wayne Krause, OV resident. Had concerns regarding width of road, 2 wash crossings don't make sense, school site location, densities, preserving the golf course zoning. Maintain Big Wash area with golf course and medium size houses. Bob Becker, OV resident, business owner. Had concerns regarding effect on his business, traffic increase, safety issues with children, density, not enough room to widen lanes, the need for bike lanes and turn lanes. Access from Tangerine even if only for buses would be safer. Loop will create congestion on Rancho Vistoso from Moore Road south to Tangerine. Comfortable with the way it is now. Jerry Anderson, OV resident. The proposed school location is not good. Buses will cause noise and pollution, Traffic will be a problem. The Town should work with the School District to move the school elsewhere. Dan Dysingen, OV Resident. Had concerns regarding maintaining character of neighborhood, high density, crossing washes. Would like to see additional upgrades and protection of existing owners. Expand amenities for outdoor experience such as walking or running trails. Public Hearing closed at 7:42 p.m. Break for 10 minutes. Mr. Oland responded to questions from the public: - Moving densities around: RV PAD is structured into 12 neighborhoods (NH) and within each is a NH cap. Each parcel has a density range. We are allowed to move densities within specific NHs. -Vistoso Golf Course (GC) has backslide in the last two years because of development around it. The RV PAD has always included housing around that GC. It was constructed ahead of development so at first it was playable with fewer units around it. - Pavement width: Mr. Oland has not verified measurements, but feels there is sufficient right of way (ROW). A traffic study would be done during the PAD amendment. - School location: The school district answers to the State which takes precedent. We have to plan around that. - Running tracks and other amenities, and owners purchased expecting a GC and don't 5 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes want negative views: The PAD includes a number of trails that have been built throughout the development, in addition there are bike lanes and sidewalks along all major roads. All were built by the developer at their costs and were part of the original PAD approval. Areas in question are not visible except possibly NE of Moore Rd. and RV Blvd. - Issue of ADOT & school access directly to Tangerine Rd.: ADOT indicated limiting access to RV Blvd., First Avenue and Innovation Park Drive and would not allow a dedicated access road. - Outflow sewer: Is required by school, has always been planned and will happen regardless of this amendment. -Transfer of title of school: That is tied to pulling permits with Stone Canyon 8. Deeding of the site is imminent. Regarding Mr. Vella question about the financial information regarding the golf course, Mr. Oland shared information on a P&L Statement with Mr. McKee which the rest of Commissioners don't have. It did show the Vistoso golf course running at a loss. Commissioner's comments: James Loughney said his only concern was with the school. We can't make a decision on location of school. Commission Adler said it is hard for the Town to plan and maintain a vision for the community when dealing with entitlements. Overall the amendment represents an improvement. The view over OS with wildlife is better than GC equipment. GP policies on new development respect the integrity of natural OS. He would like a cap on density especially near conservation area. This approach is superior to the 50 foot buffer in Condition 4. Condition 4 may reduce overall density of project, but not at the edge of the project as it confronts the conservation area. Mr. Vella said it is correct that the GP emphasizes creating a transition between residential and OS. Staff chose the route of the 50 foot buffer to optimize the situation. In the mix of areas to increase density and areas with entitled density, to establish continuity for the transition area, a standard of 50 feet, which was used, is a common number promoted by institutions such as Sonoran Desert Institute. By not lotting into the buffer area, density would decrease as a result. Vice Chair Reddin said the Commission has tried to analyze this project for the best land use and how it applies to the GP. This area will be developed. The school will have traffic and force some kind of road connection. How do we handle density? Do we allow it close to school or lighten the density and allow more traffic away from the school area? Commissioner Hornat said there will be traffic regardless of what we do. Traffic will be a direct result of the school. We have no choice. Commissioner Merry said the density of the proposed housing area should be consistent with what is already there. Lowering density to 5 is fine, and keeping the density at the edges consistent with NH already developed. Vistoso area has been 6 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes successful because development is less than entitled which makes it attractive. Regarding the school, we have no say. When school is built we are left with a very narrow 7 hole golf course, which we may not need to save. Commissioner McKee said on the pro side, we have a major change which is the school site, but that does not require a GP amendment. The other pro is the increase of natural OS by conversion of the GC. However, removal of the GC is against the economic development policies. The applicant says elimination of the GC saves water, but it is reclaimed water that would be used and will recharge into the aquifer. Adding 474 homes requires more potable water which is pumped from the ground. Existing residents bought GC lots and paid premiums. Financially, the applicant benefits more than the Town, as they no longer have to build a bridge across the wash nor a GC. The Town looses tax revenue from GC and clubhouse. Traffic will result from the school unless bus access is off Tangerine. 474 houses increases traffic. He cannot support this amendment. Chair Bergman was concerned about the consistency of the density of development in the proposed area with pattern already established. Increased density is a concern. Would be happier with the proposal if density was kept the same. GC is not an issue other than people bought for the GC. MOTION: Commissioner McKee MOVED to recommend denial of OVII-08-04, request for approval of a General Plan amendment for portions of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5. Commissioner Homat seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Adler and Bergman voting no. 5. Hawk Holdings LLC., represented by The WLB Group, requests approval of a Major General Plan Amendment and change to the Town Urban Growth Boundary for a 127 acre area located west of Kingair Drive and south of West Tortolita Circle and Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 to potentially develop Phase 9 of the Stone Canyon Subdivision, OVI 1-07-02. Principal Planner, Bayer Vella introduced Senior Planner, Karen Berchtold and Ainsley Legner, Parks & Recreation Director. Karen Berchtold gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Ainsley Legner said the trailhead is a potential critical public recreation amenity. This is a very important linkage. Three things are needed to make the trailhead a reality: get to it, develop it and where to go once we get it. Currently to get to the trail you must cross private property. Legal access is needed, as well as motorized public access, 15 feet wide to allow for trucks pulling horse trails. A request was placed to Pima County last year for bond money to buy the trailhead, which was pushed to 2009, and the cost reevaluated to $525,000. Additional funding will be needed to purchase easements to the property. Legal access is needed from the trailhead to the Tortolita Trail alignment. This would be a non-motorized public recreation easement to walk, bike, horseback ride, etc. 25 foot is needed with the topography not too strenuous. 7 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes For the trailhead, they are recommending 22 regular parking spaces and 5 rig spaces, with turnaround areas. To augment the existing 2 acres with additional space, a minimum of 1 acre is needed. Or, there may be another better location. Wording for the conditions will be provided by Ms. Berchtold. Ms. Berchtold continued. Mr. Vella pointed out Exhibit A#1, refers to Attachment 2, to clarify that staff recommendation is to leave a portion of the land as is, and expand the SRA as indicated in Attachment 2, as well as a SRA currently exists on the very eastern portion of the property. He asked for specific verbiage to reflect that. Questions from Commissioners and staffs response: - Does anyone currently have legal access the trailhead or the trails? Response: After talking with the Legal Department, initial review showed there is no legal access from the roads to the south. A title search has been requested. - Is the trailhead in the SRA? Response: The trailhead is not part of the development. - Is the developer going to help develop the trailhead? Response: Staff has made a request and proposed a condition for the developer to provide a developable site for a trailhead. -We have identified an SRA to the west where we are allowing increasing density. Response: Correct. - Proposing that the rezoning stage is the appropriate time to have a comprehensive study of this eastern portion where density is increasing and enlarging the SRA. There seems to be a disconnect between those. Response: To clarify, staff would recommend study of riparian corridors for the whole site. - Is the new density suggested in the western portion within the SRA compatible? Response: We are not suggesting a new density in that area, but keeping the existing one. Mr. Vella expanded on why maintaining lower density in some SRA areas and increasing density in other SRA areas is proposed. The area to the far west has features that should be preserved; the middle section warrants an SRA, but clustering can be achieved and still preserve those resources. Regarding legitimizing the trespass issue, establishing the trail connections is part of the Town's Master Trails program. - Is the trailhead site within the Town limits? Response: Yes. -The recommended 1 acre site for developing a trailhead may not be large enough for 8 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes parking trucks and trailers and you should probably be looking at something bigger around 2 acres. - Urged finding another way of getting access to the trail site that is not within a bond issue. -What has happened to the possibility of using Stone Canyon access to the site? Response: We have been told that no access would be allowed. Paul Oland, WLB, representing Stone Canyon, had significant issues with 5 or 6 conditions. We have met with staff to discuss the SRA and La Cholla Airpark, and have taken some steps towards the design that would be a reasonable middle ground. Looking at the maps and conditions, it is clear there are some significant issues. He respectfully requested continuing this item. Commissioner McKee said before deciding to continue or not, we should hear the public input. Public Hearing opened at 9:10 p.m. Gil Alexander, Vice President of La Cholla Airpark, gave a PowerPoint presentation. The 3-4 acre lots are compatible with the Airpark. - Do you believe the conal areas, the conditional use overlay zones, are in compliance? Response from Mr. Alexander: Yes, on the north/south section of the L shape portion of the property. There would be an 18 foot height limit on anything physical on the property. Planes are descending over those lots to the runway. There is concern about noise and complaints from those lots. From a safety factor, it is not too bad. If rezoned, does that automatically get rid of underlying zoning?ABC lots are critical. He questioned the 30% OS condition. Conclusion is it is not compatible. Safety concerns need to be addressed. Existing zoning is most compatible and they would like to see it left as is. Mr. Vella said he does not have enough information to give an adequate interpretation whether the 30% OS requirement applies to each lot or over all the area. The intent is to provide for a wide enough area in case of a crash landing. -Which takes precedence, the PAD or special zoning for Airpark? Response by Mr. Vella: The overlay zone applies to Rancho Vistoso PAD, Neighborhood 10 to the east and Stone Canyon owners. -What about direction of take offs? Response from Mr. Alexander: Take off to the north is occasional and is lower and noisier than when landing. - The regulations are what most people consider minimum requirements. Is that true? Response: Higher requirements are better. These are standard FFA documents. 9 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning &Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes The following individuals were either undecided or spoke in opposition to the Stone Canyon 9 General Plan Amendment siting the following reasons: Safety; history of shutting down airparks; changing character of neighborhood; keep natural vegetation; development kept to 3.3 acres per house; no legal access to trails; larger trailhead site; change in density; should be left as is; increase in traffic; impact to views; and, diluting current property values. Ron Gollhfer, OV resident. Nancy Mielinis, OV resident. Sue Clark, Tucson resident, Pima Trails Rep. Barton Morse, Pima County resident. Madonna Hupp, OV resident (declined to speak). Penny Watts, OV resident. Sarah Ozols, OV resident. Larry Wolf, OV resident. Public Hearing closed at 9:47 pm. Commissioner McKee asked that before continuing the Commission should hear Mr. Oland's proposal on airpark safety. Mr. Oland said when meeting with Mr. Alexander earlier, he indicated he would prefer nothing except another fairway. What else would make sense? It is critical to have a clear zone directly off the runway, 100 feet wide and clear of all structures to make landing a plane in an emergency okay. Height would be 50 to 1 ratio in cone. Stone Canyon is self-limiting to 19 feet with 1/3 of the house up to 22 feet. AEZ reads that no structure or tree penetrates that surface. The proposal would not violate the AEZ. If the 100 foot width is not wide enough, it could probably go wider. The density has been reduced on that edge. All homes in that area would be outside of the clear zone. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED that OVI 1-07-02, Stone Canyon 9 General Plan Amendment be continued to September 11. Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler said that in addition to the issues Mr. Oland has with some of the conditions, clarification is needed on alternatives for the trailheads. Issue of safety is confusing. If overlay zone codes are adequate and his proposal applies, why is this being continued? Clustering should be addressed and illustrated. Commissioner McKee asked that someone from the Airpark be at the meeting, and that Ms. Berchtold work out alternative funding for the trailhead access that is not dependent upon County bonds, and covers improvement of paved roads, not just the old dirt roads. Ms. Berchtold mentioned there is not enough time to communicate with the applicant and prepare a staff report. 10 September 5, 2008 Approved Planning &Zoning Commission Special Session Minutes Chair Bergman said she would like to stick to this schedule and continue the item again if needed. Chair Bergman called for a vote. Motion carried 6:0. 6. Adjourn Special Session MOTION: Commissioner Merry MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0 Prepared by: etAA-L,.. .211 Diane Chapman Senior Office Specialist 11