Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 6/3/2008 APPROVED MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR & STUDY SESSIONS June 3, 2008 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Doug McKee Vice Chair Teree Bergman Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin Absent: Commissioner Pete Bistany Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis Vice Mayor Al Kunisch Council Member K.C. Carter Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director Joe Andrews, Town Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager Matt Michels, Senior Planner David Ronquillo, Senior Planner 3. Call to the Audience opened and closed with no speakers. 4. Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the May 6, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes are written. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. 5. Appointment of a Planning & Zoning Commission Member to a Landscape Code Update Committee. Ms. More said that staff and consultant have started work on a landscape code amendment. If any commissioners are interested in volunteering to participate in that code amendment, it would be appreciated. Commissioner Adler and Vice Chair Bergman would like to participate. June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session 6. OV4-08-04, Mary Stafford, requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to conduct a counseling and training of mental health professional business. Located at 9941 N. Placita Papalote. Dee Widero, Zoning Program Supervisor, gave the staff report. Applicant Mary Stafford gave a brief report and answered questions. - Not acupuncture, but use of pressure with finger tips only. - Certified profession. - Occasional evening and weekend appointments. - There is lots of parking space. - Applicant has read conditions of approval and agrees with them. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:15 p.m. Richard Almer, resident of Oro Valley was opposed and thinks it is not wise to approve something like this without more evidence of the professionalism and effectiveness. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 6:17 p.m. The Applicant stated there has been a lot of research in this process, and there are multiple internet sites stating the usefulness of this technique. Commissioner Adler pointed out that the purpose of this hearing is not to put a stamp of approval on the profession, but to approve the activity in the home. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve OVO4-08-04, a request for a home occupation to conduct a counseling and training of mental health professionals business at 9941 N. Placita Papalote, subject to conditions in Exhibit A. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. 7. Future Agenda Items None. 8. Planning Update None. 9. Adjourn Regular Session MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission regular session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. 1. Call to Order Study Session at or after 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 2 June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session PRESENT: Chair Doug McKee Vice Chair Teree Bergman Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin Mayor Paul Loomis Vice Mayor Al Kunisch Council Member K.C. Carter Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director Joe Andrews, Town Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager Matt Michels, Senior Planner David Ronquillo, Senior Planner 3. Study Session: Capri Co., LLC represented by The WLB Group, requests a major General Plan amendment for approximately 271 acres south of Tangerine Road and east of Palisades Road. The request is to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community, and modify the Special Area policies to allow future development of a variety of residential housing types, community commercial uses, professional technological business park, continuum of care facilities and open space. The parcels are 220-06-001F and 220-06-001G, (OVII-08-03). Ms. More, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that this item has been withdrawn. A letter was received from Mr. Felker, representing Kai Capri General Plan (GP) amendment, asking that the Commission be informed that the request to amend the Oro Valley GP has been withdrawn as it relates to the property at the southeast corner of First Avenue and Tangerine, and to remove the matter from all hearings that may be scheduled regarding this matter. The Kais expressed their appreciation for the courtesies and professional treatment received from the Oro Valley staff and to all involved in this matter. 4. Study Session: Vistoso Partners, represented by The WLB Group, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, located within Rancho Vistoso on both sides of the Honey Bee Wash (OVI 1-08- 04). Applicant, Paul Oland, The WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners gave a PowerPoint presentation on a GP Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5. Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response: -What is the comparison in number of dwelling units between the existing plan and the proposal? Response: It is a range in the PAD. The MHDR designation in the areas proposed would be an increase of 64.3 acres. The increase in dwelling units would be 6-8 times that or 328 to 399 units. Neighborhood 5 is entitled to 3,555 units overall; right now we have under 1,000. 3 June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session - How is reducing the amount of park space justified? Response: The proposal is to reduce the amount of golf course and recreation area by 175 acres. 144 of those acres will be recouped as open space. Every development going in will still be subject to Oro Valley's recreation area requirements. Some commercial area will also be eliminated. The commercial area was intended to be used for the golf course clubhouse. -What are the areas along Rancho Vistoso Blvd., that are indicated as high density built at? Response: It is less than the 21 maximum, but didn't know what the densities of those plats are. He will find out. - Were the lots already built on in the vicinity marketed as golf course properties? Response: Did not know how they were marketed? All the lots that currently exist are up the hill and are 500 to 600 feet away from what is proposed. -What are you doing about trails through the area? Response: There are several trails on the Trails Master Plan and we will work with Parks Department to secure alignments as necessary. -Who has title to the trails in Rancho Vistoso? Response: When the trail is within the public dedicated right-of-way, the Town has title; in common areas trails are under control of the Master HOA. In some cases when a subdivision is completed, public trail easement is included. In those cases trail maintenance would be held by the Town. In areas where that doesn't happen then it would fall to the Rancho Vistoso Master HOA. - Is there a sewer line issue? Response: As the PAD developed there was a Master Plan for sewer. The proposal is to locate a sewer directly behind bank protection alignment to serve this area. There may be a problem with an ADOT right-of-way which they are working to remedy. The sewer line will replace a lift station. - Regarding hydrology and bank protection, will the lower sections be brought up to grade? Response: Significant fill is not anticipated in those areas. The PAD originally had a Master Hydrology Study that defined the flood plan limits and maximum encroachment boundaries that were sustainable for the wash. We don't propose "pinching" that down anymore. Either bank protection or erosion protection device will be there. - On page 23 of the packet, explain the conflict existing between the Rancho Vistoso PAD and SRA designation. Response: The PAD predates the GP and SRA designation. The SRA was placed on top of about 125 acres or otherwise developable property. The proposal idea is to pull disturbance areas out of the SRA zone so the PAD isn't in conflict. - Is the intent to dedicate the school site? Response: That dedication has not occurred yet and is tied to approval of the Stone Canyon 8 final plat. 4 June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session -Why can't dedication of the school site happen now? Why is the school site tied to something that is unrelated? Response: Ms. More stated establishing an acceptable school site for Amphi School District was tied to a rezoning case in Pima County that is connected to Stone Canyon 8 subdivision. Pima County required that the developer provide a school site that the school district would accept. Stone Canyon 8 cannot be approved by the Council until such time as we get the school site assured for Amphi. In March, Amphi accepted this location as an appropriate site. Schools, as entities of the State, are not subject to local zoning ordinances. - Could the site be dedicated now? , Response: Yes, there is nothing stopping that, except the fact that it was tied to an approval years ago and they intend to follow through with that. It will be years before the site is needed. - Discuss the condition in the proposed area regarding the riparian condition on the property and how it relates to the habitat protection policies in the GP. Response: A good deal of the property is designated as SRA, presumably for environmental reasons as opposed to archaeological or historical. It is tied to the environmental conditions along the wash. In future PAD amendment phases, a biologist would be hired to determine truly sensitive habitat. The SRA is overlaid on existing entitlement, but a development pattern is being proposed that the Town would find consistent with its goals. - Where building is planned has riparian conditions on it. Would like to see something that overlays more clearly where development will occur as it relates to the riparian designations. - How will Arrowsmith Loop be configured and managed? Response: Most comments regarding Arrowsmith Loop related to the school site chosen. Making the road one-way was not acceptable to the school district. - Will the proper amount of space be designated for parks and recreation space as described in the zoning code? Response: As subdivisions come in for platting they will have to show that they are providing the property amount of space. This proposal doesn't designate a location for a larger, centralized park. Oro Valley park requirements would have to be designated by individual subdivisions as they come in for approval. Chair McKee told the audience that no decisions will be made this evening. This is a session only to ask questions and gain information. The audience can submit questions in writing for discussion. Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. A map with overlays showing the encroachments into SRA will be brought back to the next meeting. Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response: - Regarding park space, why can't we take the total density proposed for this area and 5 June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session allocate recreational space based on that density, as opposed to the densities submitted with each plat that comes in? Response: This is being looked at. -When looking at residential construction adjacent to a sensitive area, is the area being cramped and damaged even though not being built on? Is there a reasonable setback that could be applied to do what is intended to preserve the sensitive area? Bring information on this to the public hearing. - Deborah Pemberton, Oro Valley Citizen, submitted: Has there been any traffic study completed on Arrowsmith Road going down to the school to determine how to make it safe for the children? Paul Keesler responded: At this point we have stipulated minimum requirements to the applicant, but it would be confirmed at the time of a PAD amendment. A traffic analysis is not typically done at this level as there are several unknowns, i.e. densities. Staff wants a multi-use path on one side of the road and a sidewalk on the other side at a minimum, separated from the road itself. Bob Becker, Oro Valley resident, submitted the same issue of traffic flow. - Detailed traffic studies are not generally part of a GP process, but will be considered at the PAD. Ms. More said regarding the loop road, Moore/Arrowsmith Loop, has always been in the approved Rancho Vistoso Master Plan. This will be addressed at the public hearing. - The school has preference over the Town on siting the school. Break: 7:25 to 7:35 p.m. 5. Study Session: Skyline Ridge LLC., represented by The WLB Group, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property located in proximity to the southwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, (OVI 1-08-02). Applicant Paul Oland, The WLB Group, representing Skyline Ridge LLC, gave a PowerPoint presentation. A boutique hotel is envisioned, with a low profile and highly landscaped. Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response: -With the property owner owning adjacent property, why is just this piece being changed? It appears to be piecemeal planning. Response: The intent is to avoid piecemeal planning. The rest of ownership already has Neighborhood Commercial (NCO) designation. He intends to apply for rezoning all of the pieces that don't have the NCO zoning with the intent to develop the Oracle Road frontage all at once. The piece of land further to the west would have trouble with access. - The water utility that serves this area is Tucson? Response: Correct. 6 June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session -Will Oro Valley be taking over water service? Response: There is an agreement between Tucson and Oro Valley Water, that if Tucson is unable to provide adequate water for fire flow, then Oro Valley will provide that. - Is hotel property a use in Neighborhood Commercial? Response: If looking at the GP as a whole you end up all along Oracle with Neighborhood Commercial. Service capacity and scale of development would be designed in harmony with the surrounding area. - Is the hotel a wish or definite? Response: It is not definite, but an interest has been expressed. - If not a hotel, would it be other retail? Response: That would be decided at the rezoning stage. - A hotel is not a permitted use in the zoning code. Why not ask for community commercial at this point as a GP designation, which would be consistent with the ultimate goals? Response: The applicant needs feedback whether the proposal he is making would be allowed. - Regarding the SRA overlay, increased density is in contradiction to policies in the GP. Response: If the SRA requires development at the lowest allowable density of the land use designation, and you are proposing to increase the designation, what then becomes the lowest allowable? Mr. Vella's answer at last night's meeting was there was no specific guidance. The proposal would need to demonstrate compliance with the preservation goals of the SRA policy. In the rezoning stage, the design would: a) be designed around a more detailed definition, b) beyond those defined constraints, are we in consistency with the intensity of development that would be appropriate next to those areas, not in them, but also within the SRA? Either way, we will need to adhere to that policy in rezoning stage. - What is a boutique hotel? Does it have a dining room? Response: A hotel large enough to draw people other that hotel patrons and it would probably have a dining room, but probably not accommodate business meetings. - Does this respond to market demand? Response: He has heard from several brokers that hotel developers are interested in this area. - Requested that at the Public Hearing, have information to help understand how market demand is being analyzed. - The Commission is not being asked to approve a hotel, just a designation. Of more concern is the surroundings, extra curb cuts, 100 year flood plain through the middle, etc. Response: The flood plain does run through the property and would not be filled in. Washes which exceed a certain cfs require preservation. It is unknown where the northern edge of the flood plain is. This is to be combined with the property to the north to develop together as a whole. 7 June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session - Is the change of conditions along Oracle Road justification for why the GP amendment makes sense? Response: The first finding of fact is difficult to answer for any application. Development continues to occur along Oracle and available sites are being reduced in number. More information will be brought back to the next meeting. - This application falls in general compliance with the goals and objectives with what we are trying to accomplish in the land use along Oracle Road. Having an SRA along Oracle is the wrong land use. - Criteria item 3 is not a convincing argument. Basing a request on the hotel designation is not a compelling reason for approval. It should be aimed at the range of uses in that designation rather than on a specific use. Response: Would addressing it from the stand point that there is greater market demand for this as a commercial piece rather than an SRA piece be better? - Yes. David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response: - There is larger lot residential to the rear of this property and adjoining property already designated NCO. There is an incompatibility with the existing neighborhoods against what has been proposed. How does staff approach this type of situation trying to use the GP to mitigate obvious incompatibility of the two adjoining uses? Response: There is still a lot that has not been evaluated yet. Buffer yards and/or additional setbacks could be used to mitigate. - A detailed study of section 7.1 policies should be provided for the next meeting. -A financial comparison of what this change may mean to the Town and what it means from the developer's point of view should be provided for the next meeting. 6. Study Session: Shannon Road Properties LLC., represented by the Planning Center, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property located in proximity to the southeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranja Drive, (OVI 1-08-08). Applicant Bob Conant, representing Shannon Road Properties LLC, gave a PowerPoint presentation. Water is currently being served by Tucson Water and doesn't have enough pressure. Oro Valley could service the area but would have to have a pipeline extended along Naranja to Shannon and down to the site. Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response: - Could the lots be pulled away from the high school ball park light towers? Response: There are two designs: one is to pull houses away with larger lots, and another doing a 300' buffer with a cluster development. Other options are being considered. - Regarding the urban service boundary change, what would be involved, what is the 8 June 3,2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session costs, and who would pay? Response: The applicant is responsible. They will need to install a water main near the high school, down Naranja to Shannon and down to the property. - School is served by Tucson Water. Does this proposal have the School changing over to Oro Valley Water? Response: No. The school may eventually want Oro Valley water, but it is not part of this request. Mr. Keesler said there is a 12" water main along north side of Naranja to serve Naranja Ranch. -What is the state of development of the property to the south? Response: Sporadic, there are 5 or 6 houses along the private street. Some are horse properties. - Are there any provisions or discussion of direct trail connectivity to the schools? Response: Not at the moment. The school doesn't want internal connection. There will be a multi-use path along Shannon. - #1 Finding of Fact: How does the proposed amendment provide greater control to protect home sitting and resources? Response: They are not changing anything, only adding a little density. - #2, how does putting higher density in a lower density development achieve neighborhood compatibility? Response: Doing a GP amendment and the rezoning process, the Town has control. Ms. More stated that with the exception of designated riparian areas, that is correct. - #4, won't the higher density development change the character of the area? Response: No, it will still have the same rural feeling that is there now. There will be some slight density, but with proper design it won't change in appearance. -As currently written the findings of fact are not compelling reasons to change the GP. Would like more thought to them prior to having to vote on this amendment. - The school is what changed the character of the area. Getting control over the riparian areas is more important that a little density. - Consider a special condition that limits the number of residential units to no more than the 40 to 45 mentioned. Response: The final design will probably only have 45, and they don't have a problem with that. The lot count will be determined prior to voting on this. - Under the current zoning, how many lots are allowed? Response: About 22. David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response: 9 June 3, 2008 Approved Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session - Is the parcel to the east owned by the church? Response: It is within the church property, but it is a separate parcel. Staff will verify this. Mr. Conant didn't believe it was owned by the church. -At the Public Hearing could staffs presentation focus on how clustering might service the property and the adjoining neighbors, and how GP policies 11.1.11 and 11.4 work? - What are the neighboring resident's comments on the size of the proposed homes? Response: Neighbors are concerned they are too large. - Has there been any thought to extending the Urban Service Boundary to include the area to the south that is developed? Response: Staff didn't know if Oro Valley Water would be willing to extend service further south. It is not part of this proposal. Ms. More said that generally the Town is not going to extend urban services to these large lot areas unless they come together to form an improvement district to fund services. - Do we have to go through a GP amendment to expand the Urban Service Boundary? Does it automatically require us to extend service to those that already have it from somewhere else? Response: All of this is negotiated at the rezoning stage. It is a working relationship between Tucson Water and Oro Valley Water utilities as to when a shift in service occurs. - Does it make sense to prepare for that now instead of having to go through another GP amendment to move that boundary a little farther south? Would like to have that answer at the Public Hearing. - Would like to have an economic analysis on doing versus not doing this amendment at the Public Hearing. Ms. More pointed out that staff is trying to do notification into subdivisions when touched by the 1000 foot mailing area. 7. Adjourn Study Session MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to adjourn the June 3, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Prepared by: Klitt,rvkJL ‘;L, Diane Chapman Senior Office Specialist 10