Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/3/2007 DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 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 Pete Bistany Vice Chair Doug McKee Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Teree Bergman Commissioner Honey Pivirotto arrived at 6:15 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Clark Reddin 3. Call to the Audience (Non Agenda Items Only) Martin Blattberg, 13560 N. Wide View Drive, Oro Valley, congratulated the Commission on the number of people at the meeting and asked why this was not possible when the matter of the crematorian came about. There are a lot of angry people in the Town. Ms. More stated that the Creamatorium issue was property development going to DRB, not a plan amendment or rezoning, and had different notification requirements. 4. Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to continue approval of the minutes subject to more comprehensive discussion at the next Commission meeting. Vice Chair McKee seconded the Motion. Discussion: -The minutes as prepared do not reflect what Planning and Zoning Commission was saying. -Safety issues discussed were a central issue in a motion that failed. - Minutes technically only require record of motions and actions. Ms. More stated that: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Rules and Procedures do no specify that extensive discussion be included in the minutes. 2. There are significant impacts on staff time directly related to Boards and Commissions, of which, Planning and Zoning Department is responsible for five boards and commissions. 3. With the new Grancius system, all the Boards and Commissions, including the Town Council, are moving to much more abbreviated minutes. The entire audio of this meeting is streaming on-line at this time and is available for one year with easy search capabilities. Chair Bistany asked Ms. More to make a presentation at the next Commission meeting on the impact on staff relating to the workload, and the Commission can discuss the pros and cons of abbreviated minutes. Motion carried 4 yes, 1 no. Commissioner Bergman voting no. April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission 5. Public Hearing, OV9-06-01, Norris Design, representing The Johansen Group, LLC., request approval of rezoning request from R1-144 to C-N Neighborhood Commercial for the property located on the east side of Oracle Road and south of Calle Diamante. Applicant Stacy Weaks, representing Norris Design, 418 N. Tool, Tucson, gave a PowerPoint presentation on The Garden Gate. The Garden Gate is a landscape design, maintenance, installation company. Based on the 1.32 acre site and small professional business use, it is a fitting use and blends with the transition into the C-1 area where Shoppes at Oracle is currently being developed. Questions brought up at the HOA meeting held on 11/29/06 regarded: lighting considerations, location of building in relation to the existing residential access, and treatment of existing wall between the two properties. Hours proposed will be reasonable for a professional business; this will be a low traffic generator; and there will be minimal lighting impact with bollards and sconces on the building and no up-lighting. The site is designed with a 60 foot setback from existing residential. It is compatible with adjacent residential, with scenic corridor goals and objectives, and the 2005 General Plan. Response to questions: -Seven to nine people will be employed. -Trevor Johansen, a partner, 8500 E. Old Vail Rd, Tucson, will be a resident of Oro Valley and there may be other residents hired. -Volume of traffic will be approximately 50 trips per day. -The firm is seven years old, Tucson based, provides landscape construction, maintenance service, sale of large cactus. (70% construction, 30% maintenance.)This site will be for purpose of design and will have a showroom. -This is an expansion of business. Both sites will be kept. No maintenance vehicles will be on the property. -The project is fully funded to build. -There is no noise study, but an intense 15 foot buffer will be at the back of the property. - Business hours will be Monday-Saturday, 8:00-5:00, 8:00-6:00, or 7:00-5:00, by appointment only. - Business will serve the surrounding neighbors as well as all of Oro Valley. - Fencing around display plants will be a combination of masonry and metal. -Water harvesting via grading only, with no holding tanks. - No right turn is required per ADOT's review of the traffic analysis. Ms. Pelletier, Planner, gave the staff report. Discussion followed regarding: -General Plan designation encourages certain types of uses but allows for rezoning to both C-1 and CN. The Zoning Code allows this use. -Staff had looked at uniformity provisions in state law. In this case the site utilization, layout and design are severely constrained. A future office use going in this site would require going back to Town Council if there were changes in the configuration, etc. - If this project is not approved, another use could product more traffic, and ADOT may not require a turn lane in the future. -Section 23, Table of Uses Chart indicates that business and professional offices are permitted without any additional performance criteria in C-N designation. The intent of this zone indicates that it should be small offices and service centers within a short distance from adjacent neighbors. Staff is trying to balance a busy arterial state highway and a zoning designation for neighborhood commercial which is supposed to be fairly low scale, with a recommendation based on this proposal, the site design, the traffic impacts. The Code does not restrict uses to anything in that office category to only serve a small area. There is somewhat of a contradiction with the text and the matrix. -To protect against future problems such as traffic, a condition could be keyed to a performance standard such as the ADT, so if a future use is greater than that which is indicated in the applicant's submittal, it must come back to Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council for approval. 2 April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission -ADOT could look at the maximum traffic that could be generated for this site with other uses to see if a turn lane would be required. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 7:05 p.m. Dick Parcel, 211 E. Mountain Sunset Place, was concerned about the drainage ditch. Drainage is severely affecting his property and two others now. What will happen when Shoppes at Oracle are put in? Sue Wuestman, 212 E. Mountain Sunset Place wanted clarification on who to speak to regarding drainage. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:15 p.m. -The uses delinated in the Table of Uses are part of the Code and are permitted uses. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to approve OV9-06-01, Norris Design, representing The Johansen Group, LLC.,the rezoning request from R1-144 to C-N Neighborhood Commercial with the conditions in Exhibit A and an additional condition that the traffic be submitted to ADOT for re- evaluation based upon the average daily traffic for the most intensive use that would be permitted in this district. Commissioner Pivirotto seconded the motion. Motion carried with 5 yes, 1 no. Commissioner Adler voting no. Break from 7:15 to 7:25 p.m. 6. Public Hearing, OV9-07-002,The Planning Center, representing NCH Corporation, proposes a text amendment to the Permitted Uses and Development Standards for the CPI Land Use District within the Rancho Vistoso PAD to add Hotel and Motel to the permitted uses within the CPI zoning district and to allow for a maximum height for hotels/motels up to 75 feet to top of parapet or top of mechanical penthouse. Applicant Bob Conant, 110 S. Church Street, Tucson, gave a PowerPoint presentation. A trend is developing of putting hotels in industrial parks which allows sales people and others traveling for corporations to be close by. Applicant is asking for 75 feet in height for efficiency in the footprint of the building and in service to clients. Applicant has no objection to the other development standards staff is recommending. The finished floor elevation of the proposed hotel will be 7.5 feet lower than the Northwest Medical Center Oro Valley. The hotel design won't particularly impare views from west and southwest. Answers to Commissioner's questions: -The back of the hotel will face Tangerine Road. - Less than 6 stories would take up much more land area to get the number of rooms. -75 foot height will not go above the ridgeline to the east. - Residential components to west and southwest sit higher. - Ridgeline to east is unbuildable. -Setbacks are 4 to 1 as required from staff. - Parking will be hidden from view from Tangerine Road. -This request is for this specific site. -A General Plan amendment is not necessary. -Josh Westling, NCH Corporation, 2850 E. Skyline Dr., Tucson. There will only be back lite signage on the building. Signage is necessary to identify the building, ideally up high. Applicant is willing to conform to signage standards. -Signage is reviewed by staff and DRB, including location. -The water park will have a swimming pool, hot tub and maybe a waterfall. No multiple slides. - Mike Carlier, Consultant to NCH. Hotel is necessitated by the hospital and industrial site in the area. Ventana Medical alone buys 4,000 room nights per year, which would be in this facility. 3 April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission Matt Michels gave the staff report. -Text amendment to allow hotels in CPI is not limited to this specific site, but the increased height would only be allowed along Tangerine Road in this area. -The PAD amendment encompasses both use and height. -Conditions could be proposed on part of the package. -A hotel needs study has been done and will be provided to the Town Council. -Commercial land in the area will eventually be developed and will have a visual impact. The goal is that is won't be a negative impact. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:10 p.m. Elise Lomas, 2162 E. Tabular Place, Oro Valley, asked what other PAD's allowed buildings up to 75 feet. She was concerned that parking could be an eyesore, and will this set a precedent for future building? Wayne Krouse, 13763 N. Placita Meseta De Oro, Oro Valley. Staff indicated there is very little CPI zoning except for in that area. The CPI zoning is on both sides of Innovation Park Drive to Rancho Vistoso Blvd., to Oracle Road through Rancho Vistoso Blvd. into Innovation Park Blvd. and about 2 miles up Oracle Rd. A variance could be allowed for this application rather than changing all of CPI. He had concerns about the water park size, that the building would look massive, that CPI will be next to residential district, that lights be low impact. Plans should be presented to architects of Vistoso and Sun City. Rates should be low for hospital visitors. Mike Parr, 577 W. Quiet Springs, Oro Valley, agreed with Mr. Krouse on the use of a variance. He likes the project, but doesn't think 75 feet makes a lot of sense in other places. Robert Peck, 11932 N. Labyrinth Dr., Oro Valley, is opposed to the hotel and the 75 feet. His concerns are that a 75 foot building would be much more massive looking than shown; the area could become like a hotel or motel row of 75 foot buildings; and that there were not more people here. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 8:25 p.m. Discussion: Vice Chair McKee said this hotel will benefit the hospital. There are other hotel/motel developments being built. This is not a resort hotel, but mainly to support local industry. If all hotels discussed were built and annexed in, there would be 355% more hotel rooms than there is today. Scarce land originally laid out for high tech business is being converted for a hotel. This should have gone through the GP process with more study. He cannot support this at this time. Other details of concern: lighting, signage, ridgeline impacts, not being submitted to Sun City HOA and their architectural review committee. MOTION: Vice Chair McKee MOVED to deny this application primarily on the grounds that it should have gone through the General Plan amendment process rather than a PAD amendment process. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Bergman's said there is sufficient precedent for other projects in the area so it doesn't require a GP amendment. The synergy between hospitals, industrial parks and hotels is well documented. She is troubled by the 75 foot height. The hospital is a landmark signature building in the area. Other buildings of a similar height set a dangerous precedent for future development and how it might change the character of the area. She can't support the height in that location. Chair Bistany said the hotel is a good adjunct to the hospital. He will not support the designated area for the 75 foot height, but will support the hotel for 75 feet height on the instant lot only. Commissioner Paolino will support the motion to deny on the same basis as Vice Chair McKee's and Commissioner Bergman's reasons. He is opposed to the 75 foot height. Commissioner Adler will support a motion to allow hotels in the zone as long as they are designed within 4 April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission the existing height limitation. He will accept the need for a hotel in this location. The 75 foot height would be intrusive and disruptive of character. MOTION to deny failed on a 3 yes, 3 no vote. Commissioners McKee, Paolino and Adler voting yes. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to recommend approval of OV9-07-02, amending the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development, Section 1.3.A, Office Park Development Standards, by adding Hotels to the permitted uses at the height already permitted in the PAD. Commissioner Adler seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler said if the hotel were lowered, it would have to occupy more space. Is the site adequate or would additional parcels have to be purchased? What obstacles would arise from doing so? Ms. More said the proposal before you would not conform to the 4:1 setbacks proposed by staff for a 75 foot tall building. If they were to reduce the heights, the site area would have to double to get the same number of rooms. The design could be changed. MOTION carried 4 yes, 2 no,Vice Chair McKee and Chair Bistany voting no. 7. Public Hearing, OV7-07-01,The Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Department requests a text amendment to Section 24.1.D.5, Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District, Utility Easements, in the of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Matt Michels gave the staff report. -The CUP permit with conditions specifying a future date that the power lines would be undergrounded would be enforceable if a condition was set forth either specifying a specific time by a certain date, or that it be concurrent with an event such as the widening of Tangerine Rd. -The Town is exploring funding sources, specifically a franchise agreement with TEP. -The interpretation is that replacement poles would be treated as new and/or additional and would use the same criteria. - If this Code amendment is not adopted, the impact would be that any new facilities would need to be undergrounded at the time of request. There is a special provision within this section of Code specific to the Tangerine Corridor that does not apply to any other area of the Town. The Code as written does not leave the Council the option of overriding this provision as a discretionary item. -The basis of the finding regarding funding is there currently is not a funding mechanism in place either via TEP's rate structure or by the Town's budget structure. -Overhead utility lines are subject to CUP throughout the Code in different zones. They must be expressly permitted in the Code. This Code amendment will help to clarify that the overlay zone does not override the general provision. - Identifying a specific timeframe for the CUP condition to underground could be a specific trigger such as improvements to the road. PUBLIC HEARING opened and closed with no speakers. MOTION: Vice Chair McKee MOVED to recommend denial of the text amendment(to Section 24.1.D.5,Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District, Utility Easements)on that basis that it is not needed. Motion fail for lack of a second. 5 April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission MOTION: Chair Bistany MOVED to recommend approval of OV7-07-01,text amendment to Section 24.1.D.5,Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District, Utility Easements, in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Bergman said this is a reasonable amendment to put in place. It is not good public policy to have a provision that can't be followed, forcing the Council to make exceptions. Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no. Vice Chair McKee voting no. 8. Public Hearing, OV8-06-05,The Planning Center, representing,Tucson Electric Power(TEP), requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of existing power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive. Applicant Larry Lucero, Manager of Government Relations for TEP, 1 S. Church, Tucson, 85701. TEP and Oro Valley customers are facing an overload situation again. Two areas, Rancho Vistoso circuit 24 and circuit 45, have had extreme overload situations creating a need for a remedy. The solution is to construct on Tangerine Road a new feeder tie between La Cholla and La Canada. Without this solution, it limits TEP and the Town's ability to add new customers. Overloads shorten the life span of TEP's equipment resulting in an increase to overall customer cost. Outages will continue to become more severe and lengthy. TEP will accept the conditions and recommendations of staff. Tangerine Road widening will occur sometime in the 2nd quarter of the RTA's plan, 2011 to 2016, which will trigger the undergrounding of wires. By then a funding mechanism should be in place to address the financial aspect. -This will help relieve stress on the current equipment and will lengthen the life span and thus benefit the customers. -This feeder line needs to go on a separate set of taller poles and it would need twice the number of poles than there are. This is the least cost option at TEP's expense. -The easement on Tangerine is owned by TEP and to move the lines into public right-of-way, the requestor will participate in the cost of the relocation. Mr. Michels gave the staff report. -Visual impact of pole heights is subjective. -Cost differential of using taller poles to include carrying the 138 Kv line has not been determined. MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to recommend approval of OV8-06-05, Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of existing power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive,with the additional condition that these lines be moved underground when the road is widened. Vice Chair McKee seconded the motion. Mr. Michels clarified that the motion should have read in the staff report"for the addition of new power poles and electric utility wires" instead of replacement of existing. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to recommend approval of OV8-06-05, Conditional Use Permit for addition of new power poles and electric utility wires, located along the south side of Tangerine Road between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive,with the additional condition that these lines be moved underground when the road is widened. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler asked if the maker of the motion would amend the motion to include that an additional suggestion of higher poles for the new line be considered. 6 April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission Neither Commissioner Paolino nor Commissioner Bergman wished to amend the motion. Motion: 5 yes, 1 no, Commissioner Adler voting no. 9. Public Hearing, OV7-06-03, proposed Amendment to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised to insure compliance with Growing Smarter Plus statutes by revising portions of Section 22.2 General Plan Amendment Procedures and Section 22.3 Amendments and Rezonings. Jill Manion-Farrar, Planner, gave the staff report. Discussion following regarding: - Section 22.3.c lists application requirements for rezoning. Staff is working through all submittal requirements refining and adding to the checklist. -An applicant's application, proposing to amend the GP, needs to be consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the GP and support his conclusions. The burden of presentation is the applicants. -A checklist is needed at the point of initiation to give to the applicant so he is fully aware of what is needed. -The checklist should not be in the Zoning Code. -These amendments are not generally staff initiated. It is important to differentiate between submittal requirements and presentations. Submittal requirements were taken out of the Code and are being recreated by staff in a separate submittal document that could be handed out. The Planning and Zoning Director has the option of asking for additional information. The burden of proof must be upon the applicant or applicant must demonstrate. -State Statute and the Code states that any application for a GP amendment prior to coming to public hearing will be transmitted to every member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. - Section 22.2.6 "Any changes in land use must conform with GP land use", needs to be clarified. -Section 22.3.0 Modify title to include"rezoning". -Section 22.2 last page of attachment, not being able to submit another amendment within a year of original hearing should say, "from the denial of Town Council". -Growing Smarter legislation allows an applicant to ask for a reconsideration by the Town Council. A State Statute provides a provision that the applicant may reapply. -Since eliminating the initiation step, the language in the GP addressing critera for determining an initiation should be added to the criteria for the adoption of the amendment. See 3rd Paragraph in the GP Preamble. -An amendment to the GP is not going to be asked for unless something is changed that would warrant the request. The language in the GP is better than the idea of looking at market studies. Staff would be open to amending the language to include this and delete the market demand issue. - Section 22.2.D.1.a "Amendment to land use map initiated by the Town or by a land owner", needs to be clarified that it is the land owner of the property. -Section C.3.b Public schools are not subject to the process. -All entities higher than municipal government are exempt, i.e. counties, state, etc. 7 April 3, 2007 Draft Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission PUBLIC HEARING opened and closed with no speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to approve OV7-06-03, providing the comments of various Commission members are taken into account in amending. Chair Bistany seconded the motion. Commissioner Bergman asked if staff is comfortable with that motion. Ms. More and Ms. Manion-Farrar replied, yes, they are clarity items. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Discussion and Action, Planning and Zoning Commission elections. Chair Bistany is stepping down from Chair position as of June 1, 2007. He is not leaving the Commission. A new Chair needs to be elected. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to suspend the annual September election in favor of holding the current election. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried by acclamation. MOTION: Chair Bistany MOVED to nominate Vice Chair McKee as Chair. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried by acclamation. MOTION: Commissioner Pivirotto MOVED to nominated Commissioner Bergman as Vice Chair. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried by acclamation. 11. Future Agenda Items - Discussion of ways that the Town could deal with requests on a case by case basis. Understanding we cannot make rezonings that are conditioned upon a specific land use, if we could look at other Code mechanisms to accomplish the same thing. - Have a Study Session and consider an Open House on the proposed changes to Neighborhood 3 as it involves the entire community. Staff will distribute a list compiled from the past year of items that were to be agenda items. 12. Planning Update -Open house Naranja town site next Monday. - Moving forward on budget discussions finish earlier this year. -Will be presenting to TC a resolution from Sierra Club to consider opposition to Rosemont Mine. -Will be bringing the TEP and SWG franchise agreement within the next couple of months. -Will be continuing with Town Council on a resolution for Town facilities to conform to a LEED standard. -Should talk about sustainability and implementation measures in the community. 13. Adjourn Regular Session at 11:00 p.m. Prep d by: Diane Chapman, Office Speciali t 8