Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 8/7/2007 MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION August 7, 2007 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Doug McKee Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin ABSENT: Vice Chair Teree Bergman Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Honey Pivirotto 3. Study Session: OV11-06-02, General Plan 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. The applicants propose to modify the configuration of approximately 144 acres of property with General Plan land use designations of Commerce/Office Park (COP), Neighborhood Commercial and Office (NCO), Open Space (OS), and Parks (PARK). The amendment proposes on an approximately "one-to-one" exchange of open space/roadways and developable lands. Chair McKee stated that the first public meeting for the General Plan Amendment was held on July 12, 2007. This Study Session is being held as a fact finding session and will be broken up into three sections: Land Use, Environmental concerns, and then other areas. After each session, the public will be allowed to speak. Senior Planner Matt Michels gave a brief report and stated that the primary purpose of this study session is for question and answer. The second public hearing will be held at Sun City Recreation Center on Tuesday, August 14, 2007. Mr. Michels introduced applicants Paul Oland and Bill Walker, WLB; Neil Simon, Century West; Dick Maes, Vistoso Partners; and Gregg Forszt, Ventana Medical. August 7, 2007 Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Mr. Oland, representing the applicant, gave Power Point presentations covering the basics and overview, and responsed to specific questions from the last hearing regarding General Plan policies level of compliance. A map of the existing Rancho Vistoso PAD was shown with land uses, existing businesses, and the Town's MOC. Proposed configuration: Remove about 45 acres from Big Wash and other small areas from development. The remainder of the trade acreage would go to widening the corridor on the east side of property. The focus is to create larger parcels that will attract high caliber businesses. RECON Environmental Services' study show some sentitive habitats in the Big Wash area. The proposed reconfigured parcels would be about 30 acres north of the hospital, 20 acres against Vistoso Blvd., 17 acres for Ventana to expand south, and 40 acres to the east. The small piece of commercial proposed at Tangerine and Innovation Parkway would be easily accessible to employees. The commercial moved near Oracle Road would be a mix of retail and commercial, maintained by Vistoso PAD, and there will be a 100 ft. setback along the right of way line. ADOT has approved a traffic signal half way between Rancho Vistoso and Tangerine. The proposal is not to increase intensity or land use mix, but to reconfigure parcels, which would be beneficial from both an economic marketing and an ecological standpoint. Traffic generated would not change. The overall land use balance proposed will have about 4 more acres of open space than currently exists. Recreation area: The linear park would be a continuous north/south pedestrian trail system, with trail linkages east and west to Big Wash and beyond. Mr. Oland showed a map of the proposed trade. (See PP) The map also displayed the 25% slopes and possible encroachment areas. Commissioner Paolino asked if because of the shortage of developable land, would it make more sense to keep it available for Commerce Office Park development rather than tie it to Neighborhood Commercial? Mr. Oland said that because the Cl, Community Commercial, designation provides flexibility to do retail service or professional office, the ultimate development will be more market driven and will likely be a mixture of retail / commercial as needed and appropriate. Cl does not give the potential for a "Ventana" type use. Mr. Michels said there is some interchangeability between the General Plan use, which is NCO, and equivalent PAD zoning, Cl. Commissioner Adler asked how the kind of companies Oro Valley desires is determined. He would like to avoid broad characterizations such as "Ventana like." What will be gained in exchange for desirable land destroyed? 2 August 7, 2007 Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Mr. Simon said this is a vision opportunity; a chance to do a primarily corporate, high wage employment center. We don't know who will show up. Commissioner Adler said the original vision for Oracle was not retail but scenic corridor. Chair Mckee said the original presentation talked about existing COP acreage. Does it include the hospital and other areas where development plans have been submitted? Mr. Oland said he couldn't clarify that, but he is relying on the existing Rancho Vistoso PAD which the General Plan was drawn to match. Excluding the area currently being developed by Venture West, this proposal would leave approximately 180 acres of COP to be developed. Mr. Michels said our source material is a 1987 hand drawn map. GIS and Mr. Oland put together maps that showed some discrepancy. For the sake of this proposal what the applicant presented is what the Town and the applicant have accepted as the corrected numbers. Exhibit G is our reference point. Mr. Oland said there is no inventory listing of existing vs proposed developable parcels. The largest proposed is 40 acres. Mr. Oland said regarding employment money generated, acreage entitlement is not increasing. Employment would be more qualitative vs quantitative. It would not create more jobs, but higher caliber jobs. Mr. Simon stated it is speculative to guess at wage levels. Larger parcels could attract higher scale corporations. He can't promise a company would take the whole 40 acre parcel. Mr. Welsh, Economic Development Administrator, said there is an argument for quantity. Companies are being turned down that want 15 to 20 acres. If the acreage is broken up you would only get the option of smaller companies. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Wayne Krouse, 13763 N. Placita Meseta De Oro, Oro Valley. It appears that on the Cl properties that much of the property that is going to be under development has not been called Cl. In the balancing of properties it appears that we have taken property that is already committed to something else and said we lost all of our Cl property and so now we are going to put it over next to Oracle. This seems to create a necessity for a road onto Oracle, which may require a light. There can only be one major access road onto Tangerine per mile. Traffic backs up on Oracle. Another access will cause traffic jambs. You would be creating nothing but Cl property from the First Avenue shopping center on up. I think this exchange of properties is misleading. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Mr. Oland stated that the proposed traffic light isn't driven by the proposal, but would 3 August 7, 2007 Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes provide better access to Innovation Park. RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES Environmental Concerns: Mr. Michels stated that the Town procured the services of RECON Environmental Services to survey the area where change would occur. He explained the difference in the riparian area maps. He is not proposing the RECON maps be adopted. The key element of the linear park will be keeping it open and natural, allowing for a trail with seating amenities but no development. Commissioner Adler said we are obligated to match the application to policies in the General Plan, not the Zoning Code. Where are the policies that indicate that only Town adopted riparian areas are to be preserved. Mr. Michels said there is a list of General Plan goals and policies we have prepared that we can discuss. Attorney Andrews said the Town has not adopted RECON's riparian area. You cannot enforce something that we have not adopted. If we propose new riparian habitat, he would advise you in an executive session as to how that would be handled, because that would create other deep issues that would have to be considered. Commissioner Adler said there are two issues: A General Plan Amendment and a development plan. We are trying to see if there is a connection between what is proposed and what the General Plan states. Chair McKee said until this is adopted it won't be implemented. Does the current GP land use show that they have been adopted? Mr. Michels responded no. RECON was hired to clarify. This is a step that would typically take place concurrent with a development plan. He pointed out that the level of analysis is a different scale than the Town typically uses. The Development Plan process is rigorious. Mr. Michels said there was an effort at coordination between RECON and the Town in advance of RECON's study. The July 12 staff report, page 9, gives an outline of work and assessment RECON was to consider. Mr. Michels said if new studies were done we could expect the areas outlined to be considered by Development Review as if they were adopted. This is the type of results we would expect in terms of mitigation. Mr. Oland showed the map areas where they would salvage native plant material. Grading would be dictated by size of users. The Rancho Vistoso PAD requires careful grading of sloped areas to follow the general topography of the area. Vegetation would be cleared, salvaged and transplanted on site. Slopes above 15% are regulated by the 4 August 7, 2007 Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes OVZCR; Rancho Vistoso PAD regulates slopes above 25%. This proposal would disturb some 25% slopes. We are bound by the Rancho Vistoso PAD guidelines. Commissioner Adler said in the staff report one of the reasons for supporting the amendment is that the areas of development affecting the slopes will not be highly visible from Tangerine Road, but more visible from Oracle. You are justifying approving because visibility is being mitigated. The General Plan talks about protecting fragile areas. Mr. Michels said we are looking at a certain number of acres characterized by heavy vegetation, ridgelines, and slopes. We need to look at the best compromise to allow for the mutual goals of maximizing the usability and economic value of this property with the need for environmental protection. Commissioner Adler agreed that a compromise is necessary. He has recommended future tenants underground their parking, or alternately have a central above ground parking facility. Paul Kessler, Public Works Development Review Manager, didn't have numbers on costs, but underground parking cost is higher than an above ground parking garage. Commissioner Reddin said it is important to look at slopes and significant resource areas, etc., but we are looking at a trade in balancing. We need to look at the big picture and compare it all together. Commissioner Adler disagreed, stating that the General Plan says the determination of this amendment must be based upon consistency with it's goals and policies. Mr. Michels said the General Plan is intended to be general compared to zoning code. We have gone through policies and goals and have that study prepared. We believe the proposal offers a fair trade that would meet the 4 findings of fact and the General Plan goals and policies with reasonable consistency. Mr. Oland had a PowerPoint presentation highlighting all the General Plan goals and policies. Because of the size of the presentation it was decided he would get a copy to everyone before the final hearing next week. Mr. Oland would bring back examples of what will happen to the ridgelines. Mr. Oland said regarding development potential of the entitlement area adjacent to Big Wash, the bank protection west of the hospital would have to be extended. The area would be desirable to potential developers, but not as desirable as with the reconfiguration. Chair McKee asked if the significant resource area is the same on the map as in the General Plan. Mr. Oland replied that the "finger" piece is a minor tributary and would jut into one of the proposed parcels fairly significantly. The applicant's proposal is to encroach into that 5 August 7, 2007 Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes finger, in exchange for not disturbing near Big Wash. Mr. Michels said the General Plan designation for the significant resource area is already adopted. RECON's map is based on someone walking the area and is not adopted. Commissioner Adler said, for the record, he thought future tenants should design and build to LEED standards, considering the Gold criteria. This would help move the environmental component closer to General Plan requirements. Mr. Oland stated that Venture West's architect includes a number of features found in LEED standards and are otherwise energy efficient. LEED certification is a lengthy and cumbersome process. There may be instances where LEED certification would not be compatible with certain industrial users. Venture West offers a guarantee that their level of quality is of high sensitivity. Additional LEED certification would be an undue burden. Mr. Simon told Commissioner Reddin they will build on as many lots as we can. We may sell buildings and build at the same time. We will be studying LEED standards further. Chair McKee requested a history of the levee and an inventory of parcels which are available for employment centers for both the proposed amendment and existing plan. Chair McKee said the General Plan currently limits FAR in the COP area to Tech Park which is 0.5. Does the current PAD allow something different? Mr. Oland said he doesn't believe the PAD places restrictions on it, however Venture West would net about 100,000 sq. ft. per 10 acres. Most of the uses they would be honoring would fall within that range. 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Reddin MOVED to adjourn. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Meeting closed at 8:30 p.m. Prepared by: Afra Cig iane Chapman, Office S•J-cialist NOTE: Audio of the study session is available at the Planning and Zoning office. 6