Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 11/19/2007 APPROVED MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION November 19, 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 Clark Reddin Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Honey Pivirotto EXCUSED: Ray Paolino 3. Call to the Audience (Non Agenda Items Only) Opened and closed at 6:02 p.m. with no speakers. 4. Minutes A. Approval of the July 12, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the July 12, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes with the following corrections: Page 4, paragraph starting "The applicant met"...the word "dedicated" in line 2 and line 3 should be "dedicate". Page 5 "riparian" areas should be "significant resource" areas. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion with the above corrections. Motion carried 6:0. B. Approval of the August 14, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission special session minutes. Commissioner Adler asked where his comments regarding the motion were after the discussion of the item? He had asked that they be made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Pivirotto said she would like to see the comments prior to approving the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to continue the approval of the August 14, 2007, minutes until after his comments were added. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. C. Approval of the September 18, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission regular and study session meeting minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Reddin MOVED to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes from September 18, 2007, with the following corrections: Per Commissioner Adler, on the first and second page the word "concise" should be changed to "precise". Commissioner Adler seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. D. Approval of the October 11, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission special session minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the October 11, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes with the following correction: On page 3, line 4, the words "undersized lots" should be changed to "smaller plats". Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried with corrections, 6:0. 5. Public Hearing: OV9-06-03, Tariq Khan, being represented by The Planning Center, requests approval of a rezoning from R1-144 to C-N and R1-20, located on the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard. Applicant Bob Conant, the Planning Center, 110 S. Church, Tucson, gave his presentation. Questions and Comments from Commissioners: - Why isn't a GP amendment required? - Is the applicant requesting CN or Cl zoning? -What standards are used as a guide for division of commercial and residential area? - Is commercial use big enough to be viable? - Is there sufficient demand to increase density of use? - What is applicant's position on connectivity to adjacent area? - Concern about traffic and safety with connectivity. - Would the applicant be agreeable to making the access one way out? - Road is difficult to follow with many turns. Is this a traffic problem? - Do lots intrude into the 15 foot protective apron in front of the riparian areas? - Would the applicant be willing to accept a CN designation? Mr. Conant stated that the applicant would be willing to accept CN. Questions/Comments continued: - Smaller lots adjacent to riparian area, are more likely to involve recreational areas in the riparian area. - Will there be connectivity between the rec areas? - A pedestrian bridge is preferred for connectivity so people don't walk through the preservation area. Matt Michals, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. 2 Questions & Comments from Commissioners: - What is the average lot size to the east. - Is La Cholla Blvd. a secondary or primary road? - Is the outflow from the riparian area to the detention basin and will it be collected and managed on site? - Will Street C be one way? - What suggestions are there to minimize cut rhgough traffic? -What are the Commissions responsibilities to details of this project as a rezoning request? Ms. More pointed out that is it important that the Commission realize code will be worked out at planning stage. If there are elements that the Code would not address, the Commission would be able to make a condition. - Does dedication of additional right of way offer the Town any opportunities of undergrounding of TEP utilities? - Are power poles required for this development? - Are all 16 standards in Exhibit A "standards conditions"? - Exhibit A #2 making commercial zoning conform to the General Plan land use map, how many feet would the boundaries be moving? - Did the boundaries on the General Plan conform to lot lines originally? - Is the applicant okay with loosing parking spaces? - Does the connectivity between the two subdivions fall under 404 jurisdiction? PUBLIC HEARING opened at 7:05 p.m. Alan Howard, Oro Valley resident, objects to the connectivity between the two subdivisions, which would cause security problems. John Robson, Oro Valley resident, is president of Copper Ridge Estates I HOA, with over 35 mmbers present. They asked that the planned extension of Mt. Laurel to be denied. The extension would subject the area to increased traffic and more homes. Their concerns are the safety of children, the potential for crime, increased high speed traffic, and noise. They urge denial of the extension of Mt. Laurel Drive into the proposed subdivision. B. Candeur, Oro Valley resident, lives on the corner of Glover and La Cholla, and represents the south part of Glover as a resident and President of Ironwood Ranch. If connectivity is blocked, traffic will increase on Glover. The balance of design is fair for the entire neighborhood. The same issue for children's safety can apply along Glover. It is a good design. Ted Drake, Oro Valley, Copper Ridge resident. The data Mr. Keesler presented goes against the general concensus of Copper Ridge residents. Data says there is more benefit to residents of Copper Ridge using the connectivity versus the new development using it. If the general consensus is we don't want it, you should listen to that. Public Hearing closed at 7:20 p.m. 3 Commissioner Reddin pointed out that the Commission is not here to talk about the physical design tonight. The next process is platting process. Commissioner's comments: Commissioner Adler was not in support of rezoning. If a majority of the Commission supports rezoning, he would favor connectivity between the two neighborhoods with a vehicular bridge over the riparian area approximately where the recreational areas are designated, so as to allow the neighborhood on the east access to Tangerine as opposed to either going through Mt. Laurel or down to Glover. The design element can be conditioned at this juncture. Commissioner Bistany said he was not in support because he was not satisfied with the connectivity issue as he feel it is not a healthy situation. Vice Chair Bergman believes connectivity between subdivisions is important. If required to connect to adjacent subdivisions, it should have internal connectivity as well. The existing neighborhood has built-in traffic calming with the street pattern. It is not a short cut. It would create worse traffic if not connected. Pedestrian connectivity would be better than none, but our's is a vehicular society. Additional questions: - If the access was blocked off, would the 600 foot requirement still apply? And would the 600 foot requirement apply if a bridge was there? Several alternatives were pointed out: - Entrance to commercial driveway shared with residential area. - Cul-de-sac make a left turn and connect to driveway. - Redesign to give access to Tangerine. -Vehicular bridge over the riparian area. - One way out into shopping area. Mr. Conant said that this could be redesigned to have a crossing (near the north end). Also, the south entrance of the commercial could have a street created across east/west. There could also be a crossing at the recreation area. Commissioner's Comments: - Still left with connecticity to Copper Ridge. - There are some subdivisions with and some without connectivity. - What are the Commission's limits? Ms. More said it is important to recognize adopted Town rules and policies. There is no rule that the Commission must stick to them, but must be guided by them. It is up to the Commission to determine what is in compliance. Chair McKee said he would support the rezoning as long as the commercial is changed from Cl to CN. Connectivity issue is difficult, with convenience, safety, traffic, and security as issues. He will support this only if there is interconnectivity between the two pieces of the development. More could be done on reducing cut through traffic. 4 MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to approve OV9-06-03, Tariq Khan, being represented by The Planning Center, request for approval of a rezone from R1-144 to C-N and R1-20, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A", and with the additional condition that there be internal connectivity for the proposed subdivision. Include that the development plan include the best ways to achieve the connectivity both internally and with adjacent subdivisions. Change the C1 designation in Exhibit A to CN. There should also be connectivity between the recreational areas. Commissioner Pivirotto seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler will not support the rezoning, but is concerned that there is no support for multi-use development or applications within our Code. When we rezone to multi or mixed use without any Code support, we are improvising and is opposed to that. The project does not comply with riparian lot reduction requirement for placement of smaller lots nor is it in compliance with the General Plan policy that requires sufficient documentation of demand for the commercial area to justify the increase in intensity. He is opposed because he wants to stick to the rules. Commissioner Bistany is opposed on the basis of connectivity. The street layout is not conducive to connectivity. Motion carried 4:2 with Commissioner's Adler and Bistany voting no for reasons stated above. Break for 10 minutes. 6. Public Hearing: OV9-03-03A, The WLB Group, representing Pepper Viner Homes, requests approval of a PAD amendment for Rooney Ranch Parcel Z, located on the northeast corner of First Avenue and Lambert Lane. Applicant John Hawley, gave his report. See Power Point presentation. Questions and Comments from Commissioners: - How much fill dirt will be needed? Response: Approximately 130,000 yards. -Will the fill come from an off site location, inside or outside of Oro Valley? Response: Some fill may be borrowed from th existing site, but they may need to go off site. They have not yet identified a location off site. - The need for fill is to get some lots out of the floodplain. - Grading area D is contributing little to volume of fill. - Grading is being done to allow lots in that area's slopes to fit better. - Will this handle erosion? Response: Yes. It will also be benched and siltsox will be used. The proper selection of seeds for reseeding will be used. - Does the PAD establish where fill can be pulled from? Response: The grading limits are established by the PAD. - If not able to get fill, what would be the impact on development? 5 Response: We would not loose any lots. We would get fill from somewhere else. - NW corner is not available for grading for fill. All hills should be protected and left alone. - How will excavation improve conveyance of stormwater through the site? Response: The west hill that will be removed currently goes into the flow line. Mr. Keesler stated that he didn't have the engineering data to back up that statement. It doesn't decrease hydrologic conveyance. Ms. More gave the staff report. Note that there have been several amendments in this area on the PAD, one of which was the change of land use within the development. There was also a PAD amendment that changed the preservation of slopes from a 15% to a 25% criteria. It is important to realize the concerns regarding hauling fill into the site is about potential damage to the newly constructed First Avenue. Questions & Comments from Commissioners: - The degree of encroachment of grading is not highly visible from 1st Ave. Future residents views of developed area should also be taken into consideration. - Provide insite on how and why grading limits were put in the original PAD. - What would be the cost savings for the applicant if approved? - The height of the ridges might be the same after grading, but the visual impact is considerably different. - Does Prop 207 provide for reciprocal government compensation if a cost saving is realized by the developer? Attorney Mack responded no. Also, she could not find any precedent that prohibited or allowed a government entity to enter into a contract to realize gain. The Town can contract just like any other corporation, but what would the contract be for? - What kind of a precedent might this rezoning set? - Allow grading in Area A and Area D is to make lots fit better. Leave Area B alone. - Have trade offs ever been considered? - Has the "carbon footprint" ever been used in mitigation? - How much traffic will the trucks hauling fill creat? - The applicant should be responsible for repairing First Avenue if their trucks damage the road. Public Hearing opened at 8:55. Katherine Mercer, Oro Valley resident, is concerned about having grading increase, with fill being needed. Revegation, etc. will never make it the same as the original. She would rather see fill brought in rather than additional grading. Public Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. Discussion: Commissioner Adler felt the Commission could go part way. He is troubled with provisions of the plan and PAD to protect, but to get many of the lots platted protection requirements have already been violated. Area A is the least impacted as an amenity for future residents. Area B is more critical and should be preserved. Area D is reasonable to allow the lots to fit better. 6 Chair McKee said this is an equity issue. Applicant is asking the Town to allow a variance in order to allow not importing as much fill. He would consider recommending approval if the applicant would share cost saving with the Town. Commissioner Adler stated that a condition could be added that consideration is to be applied by allowing encroachment in exchange for participation in repair of the roadway. If the applicant participates in roadway repair, he wants to continue precedent to allow encroachment, leaving Area B alone. Concerns were expressed regarding the following: - Vice Chair Bergman was concerned about setting a precedent into areas of steep slopes. - Commissioner Pivirotto said the incremental efforts to continue achieving greater compromises from the Town was a concern. - Commissioner Reddin said the carbon footprint needs to be a consideration in the future. Truck hauling impacts roads and discharges green house gases. This piece should be large lots and not such a mix. - Chair McKee said while there is some benefit to Town, in the long run precedent setting chips aware at codes. MOTION: Commissioner Pivirotto MOVED to deny approval of OV9-03-03A, The WLB Group, representing Pepper Viner Homes, request for approval of a Planned Area Development amendment for Rooney Ranch Parcel A, located on the northeast corner of First Avenue and Lambert Lane. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:1, with Commissioner Adler opposed. Commissioner Adler felt the Commission could go part way with this plan (see discussion above). 7. Public Hearing: OV12-05-13A, Martacella Holding Company LLC, represented by 911 Collision Centers, requests approval of a text amendment to revise Section 25.1 G.3b.i(c) of the Oro Valley Zoning Code to permit auto paint spraying and body work. Chair McKee asked the Commissioner's permission that items number 7 and 8 be combined for discussion with separate motions. Applicant Michael Quinn gave his report. Comments and Concerns of Commissioners: - Problems with auto related uses confining so noise, odors, etc. - Full body shop and painting facility? - Painting conducted inside. Ms. More gave the staff report. Regarding public comments, a phone call was received from John Naff, president of Desert Greens HOA, and they do not object to 911 but with regards to text amendment, it should be ancillary to auto sales. - Are there CC&R's that prevent disassembling cars in parking lot? - Is text amendment specific relevent to this property? 7 - Retail establishments can be impacted also. - If passed, the text amendment tables in Code should be updated. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:40 p.m. with no speakers. MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to approve OV12-05-13A, Applicant's request for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to revise Section 25.1 G.3b.i(c), with the additional requirement that any tables be appropriately updated to reflect the change in the text. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler asked if Tier II on the last page of the report applied to this amendment. Ms. More responded no. Motion carried 6:0. 8. Public Hearing: OV8-07-04, Martacella Holding Company LLC, represented by 911 Collision Centers, requests approval of a conditional use permit for an auto body shop, located off Pusch View Lane within Mercado Del Rio. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:21 p.m. with no speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to approve OV8-07-04, Applicant's request for a conditional use permit for an auto body and paint shop within lot 12 of Mercado Del Rio, with the conditions in Attachment A. Commissioner Adler seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Reddin interprets Exhibit A.1 that no vehicles are stored in the outdoor area, even during the day. He is concerned about outdoor storage of autos. Motion carried, 6:0. 9. Planning and Zoning Work Plan Recommendation to Town Council. Commissioner Pivirotto asked if this item would get sufficient attention because of the late hour. We need a meeting on this when we are functional and have it at the first of the agenda. Chair McKee recommended delaying this item until the 12/4/07 meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) information provided with the Work Plan information is background information and is one element of what the Work Plan involves. Ms. More stated that the HPC code has been approved by Town Council, but the work plan has not. Commissioner Adler will send an email to Ms. More and Bob Baughman, HPC Chair, with his concerns on the HPC rules. MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to continue this item to the 12/4/07 meeting. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0. 8 10. Discussion of maintaining a list or spreadsheet of future agenda items. Chair McKee would like a spreadsheet created to show agenda items and what their status is. Ms. More agreed that staff can create a chart. 11. Future Agenda Items - Discussion on order of presentations at meetings, ie. Applicant vs. staff. - Report on AZ Planning Conference re: States Guiding Principles. - Discussion on the letter regarding absences. 12. Planning Update Ms. More did not have a planning update. 13. Adjourn Regular Session Meeting adjourned by consensus. at 9:58 p.m. Prepared by: AA- affn,a--v\ Diane Chapman Senior Office Specialist 9