Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 12/4/2007 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION December 4, 2007 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 Pete Bistany Commissioner Honey Pivirotto ABSENT: Commissioner Clark Reddin 3. Call to the Audience: Opened and closed at 6:03 with no speakers. 4. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Adler asked that on page 2 near the bottom of the page, the word "areas" be changed to "use". Chair McKee asked that the answers to comments on page 5 be added, especially the first 2 items. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the November 19, 2007, minutes with corrections as indicated. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. 5. Public Hearing: OV8-07-07, Martacella Holding Company LLC., represented by Grossman Automotive Group LTD, requests approval of a conditional use permit for a auto collision repair facility, located within Mercado Del Rio. The parcel number is 224-28-2640. The existing building is located on lot 12 formerly known as the Arizona Car Care Center. The zoning is C-2, Commercial. Applicant Eric Grossman, Grossman Automotive Group, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. CARSTAR is an international franchise for collision repair. He presented statistics on the number of repairs, approximately 300 locations, largest, oldest, collision repair network in North America. CARSTAR is not the "standard Collision Repair" shop. December 4, 2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 No work is done outside. Cars will only come in as scheduled. They use "green" friendly products. Applicant's comments in response to Commissioner's questions: - Cars dropped off at this location, that are not drivable and have extensive repairs needed, will be towed to the other locations for repair. Minor damaged, drivable vehicles are what would be repaired in this facility. - CARSTAR acts as a "middleman", being able to have local service, but send vehicles other places as needed. CARSTAR doesn't have tow trucks. - Painting booths are heavily filtered through two sets of micron filters. They use low VOC paint of which 80% goes on the car and 20% in the air in the booth, which is vented to outside, but is not noticeable because of the filtering. - A heater heats to 120 degrees to dry the paint. - No water will be used except to water plants. Dust is contained in a vacuum. - Cars referred to other locations will be at this facility for pickup. - There is no intent to expand the facilities. The only exterior change would be signage. - CARSTAR is on the list approved by AAA. David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. Staff's response to questions from Commissioners: - The Zoning Code does not restrict accepting more than one application for the same lot at the same time. Staffs ability is to accept, process and evaluate. We can't deny. The lesser is waiting for approval from Town Council and will then decide on a tenant. - The owner did sign both CUP applications. The owner can allow anyone to apply. - Legal is looking into whether the Code is written correctly defining who makes the application. When this goes to Council, we may place an additional condition precedent that the CUP does not take effect until the lease is signed. - The projects are subject to Pima County Environmental Control for air quality. - Staff was not aware if the applicants have received Pima County approval. It will be handled when submitted for the building permit process. - Legal advised that the Commission tread lightly on the previous case, every though it does impact this one. Look at this application alone. The Town has no regulatory authority regarding air quality and environmental impact; that is all Pima County and a Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted if the property does not pass all the regulatory approvals. This does not have to be a condition on Exhibit because it is already a condition through the process. PUBLIC HEARING opened and closed at 6:40 p.m. with no speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend approval of OV8-07-07, Applicant's request for a conditional use permit for CARSTAR, an auto body and paint shop, located within lot 12 of Mercado Del Rio, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler stated that we have an empty building that is in the Town's interest 2 December 4,2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 to get it occupied. Commissioner Paolino will support the motion, but feels uncomfortable having two applications for same CUP. Chair McKee said he thought the Commissioners all agreed with Commissioner Paolino and it appears Legal will take care of that in the future. Motion carried 6 0. 6. Public Hearing: OV9-07-07, Planned Area Development (PAD) Amendment for portions of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, generally bounded on the north by Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, on the east by Oracle Road, on the south by Tangerine Road, and on the west by the Big Wash. Applicant Neil Simon, part owner of Venture West, stated that they plan to create a high quality development that fits well in its natural setting and is esthetically pleasing. They have focused on the "green" aspects, and the retail use and configuration along Oracle. They have added solar power onto their list of conditions for approval, and if there is a large enough surface area to place panels, and the Town would allow that, they would consider this possible incorporation into the plan. Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing Venture West, Vistoso Partners and Ventana Medical Group, gave a PowerPoint presentation showing project location, current General Plan Map, the existing Rancho Vistoso PAD, the existing zoning and the proposed rezoning. Mr. Oland talked about the vision for the property and facilities that would be ancillary to the medical field, research and development and incubator space. They hope to attract large corporate users in research and biotech. The commercial use near Oracle will be a high quality, destination experience; not a strip mall. Other items addressed were: - OV trails map, the linear park - Existing and proposed acres of disturbance - RECON's environmental report - 25% slopes - Views and buffer space Additional conditions of approval offered by Venture West for consideration were presented in an additional handout. Concerns of Commissioners: - Is the significant, signalized intersection change at Tangerine and Oracle an ADOT project? Response: This is not proposed in the project, as it is already in the original PAD. - Can the signalized intersection be a right in, right out? Response: The projected number of employees and overall traffic warrants signalization. There is an existing curb cut that would be closed and a new one opened. - Are the 5 pages of exceptions and conditions in Exhibit A acceptable to the applicant? 3 December 4, 2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Response: A lot are review issues and concern hydrology and traffic. By the time this goes to Council there will be less. Some conditions aren't applicable now because they have been addressed already. - Strip development is difficult to define. Better language is needed to define what uses will be in the commercial area. "Strip" is not adequate. - Reference to solar is confusing. Would like to see a stronger commitment to build and encourage solar and LEED. - Ventana expansion space needs (page 17 in proposal). No pads that would accommodate anything like Ventana. Market will determine. -Assisted living proximity to hospitals is not a requirement, but may be desirable. - Concerned about 25% slopes. The PAD says no development on slopes of 25% or greater. What language will be added to cover this? Response: PAD does allow trading for the ability to develop those slopes. Trade of riparian for slope satifies that. Commissioner Adler said the trade was to take encroachment into the wash, and reparcel it so larger parcels were available. PAD initially had 15% slopes which were later amended to 25%. - The amount of parking required to accommodate potential uses is considerable. The need to create structures for parking, either underground or going up, should to be considered. - The Zoning Code and PAD appear to have different lists of allowed uses. If allowed in the PAD, the list should be shown. - Item #3 parking ratio shows an increase from 5.5 to 5.75. Which is the real request? Response: 5.75. Exhibit M in the site analysis (page 23) is what is being proposed. - #6 The only place it make sense to locate the care facilities is north of the hospital. Response: Other areas are possible by the loop road, but not at the north end of the property. The hospital land is not part of the proposal. - #9 Additional conditions: Will sufficient energy be developed to satisfy needs on one development or only the lights in parking area and rec areas? Response: We don't know at this point. Mr. Simon said the commitment is in #5, the linear park area. - Does the PAD currently have a maximum limitation on cuts in 25% slopes? Response: The PAD does not. The Developer is bound by the PAD unless it is silent on an issue, in which case it goes back to the Zoning Code. -Would it make sense to have a maximum cut limitation? Response: The applicant would not feel comfortable doing that. 4 December 4, 2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 - The list of conditions needs clarification before a motion is made. - Has the applicant seen the traffic study that justifies the new traffic light proposed on Oracle and is it overwhelmingly needed or not? Response: Two findings from that addendum, 1. Developable property and commercial are being reduced, so overall traffic does drop slightly. 2. When aggregate acreage of half the area is developed, than it meets several signal warrants. Traffic requirements at build out are well above minimum. Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Commissioner's comments and questions, and staff's response: - Does the connectivity principle extend to connecting the 2 recreation areas? Response: River Walk Paseo is more internally oriented. Hadn't considered more. - Has alternative traffic management been considered, such as right turns in and out? Response: Applicants had expressed desire for full access. ADOT will regulate the applicant. - Is ADOT likely to approve this access? Response: Yes, from initial conversations, ADOT will probably support. - The language pertaining to architecture is vague. Diversity of styles, etc. needs to be tied to design guidelines and specifically refer to maintaining a southwest character. - Landscaping should not be just drought resistant, but more specific to use of cactus that doesn't require irrigation. - Add energy conservation measures using best management practices should be incorporated. - #2 Trails: Desirable features or required features? Response: Desirable features are specific enough that a reviewer would look for them in review. - #12 Is the overlapping tree canopy more than one row? Response: Yes, it is two or more rows. - #17 What is meant by "appropriately abandon"? Response: This is a legal act of a vacation of an easement. Applicant Oland stated that#14,15,16 & 17 verbiage come from the Oro Valley Water Department. Appropriately abandoning will be replacing without tearing up existing ROW. Pipe is either removed or filled so it will never function again. This is a physical and legal abandonment. - CLOMR needs to be spelled out. 5 December 4, 2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 Response: CLOMR is a conditional letter of map revision, which is a FEMA document and changes the FEMA flood base maps. - On Exhibit A Conditions #7, page 1, Energy Conservation "measures" should be changed to "features". PUBLIC HEARING opened and closed at 8:25 p.m. with no speakers. Discussion: - Vice Chair Bergman said because of the proposal's complexity and importance to the Town of Oro Valley, this should be continued to the next meeting. We need a more accurate list of conditions and to give specific guidance to the applicant regarding what issues need to be clarified and enhanced. - Commissioner Adler agreed with Vice Chair Bergman and stated there are specific areas where the language should be strengthened. He would vote no now. - Chair McKee asked for clarification that there is no text amendment to the PAD. Response: The intention is that the proposed conditions be incorporated as additional policies. The existing text is not changing. - Commissioner Bistany asked if continuation would have an impact on the applicant. Response: Yes. We have been working on this for a long time. Looking through the conditions, #1 is the only one that is no longer relevant. All others are acceptable. The number of conditions that go to Town Council will be fewer. Specifics are not presented because they can't be at this point. - Chair McKee said a lot of the conditions are not conditions, but are guidelines or goals to those who will be approving the submitted plans. He supports this but staff can streamline it when it goes to Council, including applicant's proposed conditions, and clarifying #7. - Commissioner Bistany agreed with the Chair. - Commissioner Paolino agreed with the Chair. The only area that is contention is #7. He would not feel competent addressing other sections, i.e. engineering, hydrology, etc. - Vice Chair Bergman gave examples of unresolved issues: huge amount of parking, consider parking structures, strip center definition, evidence that the traffic signal is best way to deal with increased traffic. - Chair McKee said the Tentative Development Plan is not the last word on the traffic signal. The applicant will have to justify to ADOT and DRB. Is there some other way to avoid the signal? - Commissioner Pivirotto said these conditions should be rewritten and brought back in January. Applicant needs to address: strip definition, parking issue, several 6 December 4, 2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 exclusions on #1 were raised, #7 be careful how specific, wording maximum extent feasible out, #1 eliminated, architectural use of southwest design, and cactus used. She can't vote for this until it is written down. MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to continue OV9-07-07 to the next meeting so the Commission can vote on a revised set of conditions that everyone understands. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:2, with Chair McKee and Commission Bistany voting no. Recess: 8:45 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. 7. (Continued) Planning and Zoning Work Plan Recommendation to Town Council. Senior Planner Matt Michels reported that Planning and Zoning Director, Sarah More, was unable to attend this evening's meeting. MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to continue the Planning and Zoning Work Plan Recommendation to Town Council until the next meeting. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. 8. Discussion and possible action on order of presentations at meetings. MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to continue the discussion and possible action on the order of presentations at meeting to the next meeting. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. 9. Discussion of 2008 calendar for scheduling meetings. The 2008 calendar of Commission meetings was presented. January 1, 2008, meeting has been rescheduled to January 3, 2008. 10. Discussion regarding Planning Director's letter to Commissioners requesting explanation of absences. At the request of one of the Commissioners, Ms. More sent a letter out to Commissioners asking for an explanation of their absences. The Planning and Zoning Commission Rules state if a member misses 3 meetings in any 12 month period that a letter should be sent out by the secretary requesting an explanation. - The question was asked if study sessions apply. AttorneyMack said when posed to the Town attorney about 3 months ago, because the rules differentiate between the types of meetings and because study sessions were not addressed in this rule, it was Legal's opinion that they did not apply. Comments from Commissioners: - Regular meetings to approve minutes only is not right. 7 December 4,2007 MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 - Study sessions are not regular or special meetings so it should be discretionary. - Rescheduled meetings create problems with Commissioner's personal schedule. - Special meetings have been to close out a specific item. - Issue is if a person is absent or excused. Language can be revised to clarify. Excused is if they called in. Absent is no show. - Keep records of Commissioner's calls to be excused. - Offended by the letter. - This issue should be clarified for future commissions. - What do other boards do? Response: Attorney Mack said most recent DRB and HPC rules are largely based on P&Z existing rules. Nothing defines excused vs absent, or the types of meetings. 11. Report on Arizona Planning Association Conference regarding State's Guiding Principles. Commissioner Adler gave a brief report on Growing Smarter principles and guiding principles. 13. Future Agenda Items - Mixed use and multi-use should be defined in Zoning Code. Discussion of distinction and should it be added to complementary use. - Discussion of who is a proper applicant before the Commission and what documentation is necessary to show an application is properly filed. Are there ways to limit the number of active applications for the same piece of property? - Complete spreadsheet showing agenda items and status. 14. Planning Update - The new Senior Planner, Karen Berchtold, will be starting work Monday, 12/10/07. 15. Adjourn Regular Session MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. Meeting closed at 9:20 p.m. Prepared by: KOA-14-/ASL‘ 0—a•aern(A4k Diane Chapman Senior Office Specialist 8