Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 7/1/2008 July 1,2008 Approved Planning&Zoning Commission minutes APPROVED MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION July 1, 2008 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 4:00 PM 1. Call to Order at 4:05 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present: Chair Doug McKee Vice Chair Teree Bergman Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin (arrived at 6:30 p.m.) Commissioner Joe Hornat Commissioner Scott Merry Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis Vice Mayor Al Kunisch Council Member Salette Latas Council Member K.C. Carter Council Member James Gardner Council Member Barry Gillaspie Town Manager David Andrews Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More Town Attorney Joe Andrews Water Utility Director Philip Saletta Town Engineer Craig Civalier Chair McKee welcomed new Commission members Scott Merry and Joe Hornat. 3. Call to the Audience opened and closed with no speakers. 4. Minutes MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to approve the June 2, 2008, Study Session minutes as written. Commissioner Adler seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. (Commissioner Reddin was not present at this time.) MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the June 3, 2008, Regular and Study Session minutes. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. (Commissioner Reddin was not present at this time.) 5. Public Hearing, OV11-08-05, Arroyo Grande General Plan Amendment. Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More stated that the next public hearing on this General Plan (GP) amendment will be September 4 at 2:00 p.m. at the Casas Church on La Cholla. State law requires the two public hearings in different locations. The next public meeting/open house on this subject is August 25 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Staff members, Craig Civalier, Paul Keesler, Mary Davis, Scott Nelson, Philip Saletta, were present to answer questions is necessary. Scott Nelson, Special Projects Coordinator, briefly addressed what is entailed in an annexation analysis. Each department will give a detailed assessment of projected revenue and expenses based on anticipated dwelling units, population, etc. Those results are given to the Finance Department, who will compile a spreadsheet which ultimately becomes the economic feasibility study for the annexation. Annexation of State Land is slightly different from regular annexation. A pre-annexation agreement will be required. Besides requiring approval of Town Council, it will require approve of the State Land Commissioner and Selection Board. Ms. More gave the staff report. Commissioner's questions, comments and staff response: - How is development in the Arroyo Grande area to occur without disrupting the current General Plan map Significant Resource Area (SRA) overlay? Response: Any area, except for the 100% open space, is SRA. The Town has long recognized there are different values of resources in those areas, i.e., washes, hillsides, sloped areas, ironwood stands, wildlife linkage, etc. This is an area to be studied and preserved as appropriate through the zoning process. The General Plan amendment proposal is open spaces, washes, and riparian areas that are being identified, will be preserved as SRA. Other areas would be subject to conditions of development as they go through the rezoning and development process. - Is SRA being removed from certain areas to allow higher intensity development than the SRA defines? Response: Yes. The Town's GP also indicates an Urban Services Boundary (USB) which will also have to be amended to include the development areas. - Does this mean the Town will provide water? Response: Yes, and other services. - Is the State Land Initiative the same one that failed a couple of years ago? Response: The map is the same, but the text is different. - If the Initiative passes, what is staff's perception for a State Land backup plan? Response: In draft form from the wildlife study, the plan would be following natural systems. The amount of open space in the Initiative and Conceptual Plan is about the same, just a different configuration and would have to be modified. -Would the total number of dwelling units diminish accordingly? Response: Yes. 2 - Does staff believe that State Land would accept that all other hurdles will be passed so they would comply with it even though there are more hurdles Congress will have to pass in legislation in the future? Response: Presumably, yes. - On the southern area on the current map that is to be resort, there is to be trail in the middle of that area. How would a resort be compatible with preservation of that trail? Response: There may be trails. We need to find more appropriate locations for resorts that can help fund improvements and trails. -Will the jobs/housing balance mentioned in the GP be part of the discussion? Have the State Land people been asked to consider reallocating some of proposed acreage designation? Response: This will be discussed. With a target population of about 16,000 dwelling units, it is about 1 job per 3 households. In Oro Valley (OV) this would be a significant improvement. - Will this be clarified? Response: There is a demand for Commerce Office Park (COP) now. 400 acres is a decent amount of COP. - Oracle Road can't handle the traffic and will have to have traffic solutions. The Commission needs clarification on what authority they have or assurances that this issue will be adequately addressed. Response: There are planning efforts going on. OV will be getting a transit center, a park and ride lot, and circulator buses. Master planned communities have a reduced amount of trips per day and aim for jobs, houses and services within the planned area to reduce external trips. There is no condition that could put on this development to say here is how the situation will be fixed. Craig Civalier, Town Engineer, spoke regarding traffic. He has prepared a report on this issue for the Town Council meeting on July 16. Most of the planning is outside Town and County boundaries. There have been 5 regional studies, most from ADOT, that offer some recommendations to this issue. The debate needs to begin. To handle the 137,000 population, you would need a 10 lane freeway. An 8 lane divided arterial with signals every two miles will only handle 66,000. AG needs to be a sustainable community where services, jobs and housing are already there. We need to change the way we think about development. - Is there anything that has been suggested that may work? Response: Transportation studies and input from everyone is needed. It will impact many things, open space, riparian areas, etc. We need to determine acceptable levels of transportation service, but stay in harmony with the environment. We still need quality of life. - Years ago roadways came in before people. This looks like people will come before roads. 3 Response: These problems exist today. This issue has not been addressed in the past. Ms. More stated for the record that the widening of Oracle Road to Tangerine Road is scheduled for construction in RTA in 2012/2013. Mr. Civalier said ADOT will not widen Oracle Road to more than 6 lanes. - Clarification is needed that the GP work needs to be concluded by year end. Does that mean that TC has to have a hearing, but does not have to take action by year end? Response: That is correct. State law requires getting the amendment to TC before the end of the calendar year. TC can continue the item up to 90 days. - On the chart of jobs with open space, the figure should be 0. Public Hearing opened at 5:20 p.m. David Welch, Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (TREO), stated there is an opportunity with this potential annexation to plan for employment needs. TREO's belief is that growth is going to happen, and it is better we embrace it with a plan rather than just let it happen. There is a need for more employment centers in the region and TREO has been tracking the Arroyo Grande development. The vacancy rates, for type of land use (COP), is about 2 and 5%. It means people are being turned away who could be providing jobs in areas where jobs are needed. Oro Valley is in high demand from employers and for upper end housing. TREO is supportive of maximizing the potential as a community to attract people to work and live in the area. There are a number of firms looking to relocate here. He is confident that TREO will be able to show and fill anything that comes to this desirable area. With housing already in place it might help the transportation problem. Minimum 10 to 12 acre blocks of land are needed to attract companies that provide the type of jobs we are looking for. Questions from Commissioners. None. Break: 5:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing reopened at 5:45 p.m. Caroline Campbell, representing the Coalition for Sonora Desert Preservation, gave a presentation going over the letter that was sent to the Commissioners (Please see letter distributed at meeting). Ms. Campbell also distributed a disc of the wildlife linkage, which will be put on the Town's website. The Coalition's recommendation is that this property shouldn't be developed. See the above referenced letter for all recommendations if this project is approved for development. State Trust Land Initiative's top issue is that the Arizona Preserve Initiative, which was stopped in 1993, if it is passed, all the lands in the Arroyo Grande area could be preserved. About 6300 acres of the land would be conserved in perpetuity 4 immediately. Questions, comments from Commissioners and responses from Ms. Campbell: Ms. More pointed out that Pima County has been working closely with staff on policy recommendations and mapping issues. - If the Initiative passes does the County has a proposal to buy those 4 sections in the northeast corner? Ms. Campbell responded yes. She pointed out on the map that the land, including the 4 sections, was all an Arizona Preserve Initiative application. Basically, all the State Trust Land in the urban area would be available for any local jurisdiction to acquire as conservation at the conservation appraised value. If Pima County or Oro Valley wanted to purchase now, it would have to go to open auction. The 4 sections, if reclassified by the Land Commissioner for conservation, could not be developed. If Oro Valley objected, the land would probably not be reclassified. If everybody agreed, and Pima County wanted to go forward with their application, it wouldn't go to auction. - In the mid-90's when trying to write ESLO, Bill Shaw's position was a flexibile approach that animals are adaptive and would survive if corridors were wide enough (1/4 mile). Is there some flexibility in the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Preservation position regarding the width of the wildlife corridor? Response: Wildlife connectivity through and between developed neighborhoods is one issue. This is a regional critical wildlife linkage between two mountain ranges and we are looking for a mile-wide corridor. Kathy Schroeder, non-Oro Valley residence, lives within the wildlife corridor and is representing her neighbors. They are concerned with preserving the corridor and there being no traffic problem solution. She didn't agree with Ms. More's statement that this plan would give better management to this land rather than leaving it as open space, undisturbed. Supports the Coalition's recommendations. Art Segal, Oro Valley resident. Arroyo Grande is the most pressing issue facing the community for now and decades beyond. The issues are traffic, water, buffer zone, wildlife corridor and the schools. He felt staff did not answer questions by the Commissioners. There is not a mandate that we have to do anything. Do not develop the land because of the issues. There is a toxic dump north of the potential Arroyo Grande development. Flow from the dump is from north to south and is leaching into the groundwater. Hector Conde, Oro Valley resident. Addressed the issue of the sale of state lands benefiting schools. With or without sales of state lands, schools would get the same amount of money, which is about 2% of the state's school budget. The sale of land for conservation would provide open space, protection for wildlife and unique plant species, and would not require infrastructure. (Copy of Mr. Conde's speech attached.) Phil Gibbs, Oro Valley resident. An adequate water supply is a big issue. OVWU is doing a good job promoting conservation and using reclaimed water, but cannot help with the doubling of population. CAP, reclaimed water and rainfall will not provide 5 enough to supply the project developed. With weather changes and continued water use at the present rate there is a 50% chance Lake Mead (CAP source) will go dry in coming years. Population growth will cause over consumption. We must address the threat to our water supply. Patricia Murchek declined to speak. Jan Johnson, non-Oro Valley resident. Questioned what funds are going to be obtained to take care of infrastructure? Oro Valley is already being taxed for existing services. The water table in Oro Valley is going down significantly. She can't see how annexation can be afforded. We also need to be concerned about the wildlife corridor and connectivity. Jeff Latas, Oro Valley resident. The impact of 16,000 new residents would require 9 elementary, 3 middle, and 2 high schools for about 9,000 students. Residents need to know how much State Trust money goes toward new schools. Most schools are paid for from bond money which comes primarily from property taxes. Sean Sullivan, Associate Director for the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection. The residents of Oro Valley and area heavily support preserving this area. 1/3 of volunteer signatures gathered in the entire State are from Oro Valley area. Ron Wiener, Oro Valley resident, spoke on an unrelated topic. Public Hearing closed at 6:40 p.m. Questions and comments from Commissioners, and responses: - There was a reference in the public hearing to cost benefit analysis, which will be done. The cost of managing this process is going to be significant. Regarding transportation, there are answers, but they are environmentally sensitive. Avenues for relief for traffic for the area go through environmentally sensitive land. Ms. More has been asked to provide what the environmental impact will be if there were roads in the area. There are solutions; we need to know if they can be mitigated and to what degree. -At the next meeting address: 1. Is the specter of a continue drought that CAP allocations will be reduced? What happens in that event? 2. Toxic waste issue. There is a waste site indicated just outside the border of AG on maps. What is the status? - The current GP allows 6,500 dwelling units. What is the other 3,000 Ms. More spoke about? Response: Per State law, in the open space designation in the GP we have to provide an alternative of 1 house per acre, unless we have the permission of the Land Commissioner. The 3,000 dwelling units is a rough estimate that is a required alternate land use (1 house per acre) to open space, unless the Land Commissioner agrees. - 9,000 to 10,000 is what was originally being considered, then it jumped to 15000. 6 Why? Response: We have discussed that there is a range in the plan as it is now. The number of dwelling units is based on being in that range. There is also a low end of the range. - In the Coalition's recommendation, it is recommended the acreage be acquired and preserved in perpetuity. Long term goals are that we want sustainability. If we went with the Coalition's recommendations, what cost is the town looking at? If set aside, it is an outgoing cost and we will never get it back. Response: If the land were purchased by Pima County, they would probably develop a management plan for the open space area and manage the resource. There have been 2 bond elections that have been passed by voters of Pima County already. There are millions of dollars set aside for land purchase. There is a proposal for 2009 for another bond election. We are paying for that through Pima County property taxes. 6. Future Agenda Items: None. 7. Planning Update - Planning and Zoning has contracted with a consultant who is working on three codes amendments: Landscaping with an emphasis on water harvesting, Subdivision Assurances, and Public Art requirements. - We should have a meeting to talk about the General Plan amendment process and how to facilitate more upfront public and neighborhood meetings as opposed to the current process, which requires a submittal and then public meetings. - Public hearings are scheduled for July 10 and July 15 on the other GP amendments. There will be a second public/neighborhood meeting before the second set of public hearings in September. 8. Adjourn Regular Session MOTION: Commissioner Reddin MOVED to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paolino. Motion carried 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prepared by: eta iane Chapman rti/(414 Senior Office Specialist 7