Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 11/9/2006 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION November 9, 2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Pete Bistany Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin Commissioner Teree Bergman Commissioner Honey Pivirotto EXCUSED: Vice Chair Doug McKee Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis K.C. Carter, Council Member Sarah More, FAICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Lexa Mack, Town Civil Attorney Joe Andrews, Town Civil Attorney 3. Call to the Audience (Non Agenda Items Only) opened and closed at 6:02 p.m. There were no speakers. 4. Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the October 3, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 5. OV11-06-02, The WLB Group, representing Ventana Medical Systems, Venture West Construction, and Vistoso Partners requests initiation of a General Plan Amendment for approximately 810 acres within 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, Parcel #219- 20-815d, 8170, 818a, 8230, 815j, 824b, 811h, 8200, 8210, 824a, 815g, 811e, 811g, 052p, 811b, and 815h; 219-02-0200 and 021b. November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 The proposed General Plan amendment entails a realignment of eastern bank protection for Big Wash, a change in configuration of entitled land uses, and realignment of the open/recreational space for approximately 810 acres within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3. Paul Oland, The WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway, Tucson, representing Ventana Medical Systems, Venture West Construction and Vistoso Partners introduced Neil Simon of Venture West and Gregg Forszt of Ventana Medical Systems. Mr. Oland said they are working with Neighborhood 3 located in Rancho Vistoso PAD. What the applicant is trying to do is a result of changes that have happened in the last few years. The current plan was based on the Rancho Vistoso PAD as it was approved in 1987. The land use categories were transferred into the General Plan and have stayed that way. We are proposing taking approximately 36 acres currently zoned in the PAD and designated appropriately on the General Plan as Campus Park development, removing it from the development and converting it to a PAD open space. The reason for this is largely because Big Wash has relocated. We are taking a large area, expanding the Big Wash corridor and taking those acres and putting them together in a lot of the fragmented parcels that exist today. It ends up with several larger development parcels and less fragmented parcels and open space. Mr. Oland showed several maps that indicate the existing land use and the proposed land use. Community changes since the last General Plan Amendment in November 2005, is the metropolitan area throughout Tucson, the quality of life and business climate in Oro p Valley, and the high Rancho Vistoso development standards which brought Venture West to the area. The land uses have not been considered by any significant planning efforts since 1987. Oro population's is growing by about a factor of 8. There is major commercial development along Oracle Road and development in Innovation Park including the medical center. Oro Valley is approaching residential build out and primary focus has shifted to economic development, enhancement of the open space system, and northward annexation. The General Plan has 3 basic findings of fact that help analyze the merits of an application to amend the General Plan: Regarding sustainable betterment to the Community the proposed change: • Maintains the existing balance between developed areas and open space areas. • The recreational area currently is centrally located and will end up with hiking and walking trails and places where people can go to have lunch, and it will extend to touch a lot more of the properties, enhancing pedestrian access. • 36 acres will be removed from Big Wash from future development. • RECON Environmental is identifying the riparian habitat on site and the applicant will work to stay out of the valuable habitat. 2 November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 Regarding market demand: • By improving the land use configuration, it will more accurately reflect the market demand and allow development of appropriately located uses, which in turn will result in more interest by high quality professional and commercial development. • By consolidating fragmented parcels it will attract other major corporate headquarters facilities similar to Ventana Medical. Regarding not adversely impacting the community as a whole: • Development will not be intensified. • Traffic generated will not increase. • Recreational opportunities will be more important. • Biological preservation will increase. • Committed to provide high quality development. The applicant is not requesting entitlement intensity, an increase in developable acreage, nor encroachment into biological sensitive areas. We are not proposing an amendment which will adversely effect the community, nor a change in the overall General Plan land use mix. The applicant is proposing a minor modification to the entitlement locations, an increase in market viability in the property, preservation of large parcels in Big Wash and an amendment that will have a positive impact on the community. Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. In response to Chair Bistany's question regarding no findings against the amendment, Mr. Michels said that if this amendment is initiated, it is possible staff may find against, but at this time there is nothing against the initiation. The initiation allows staff to review and evaluate to see it there are needs to modify the amendment. Mr. Michels explained that the conditions listed in Exhibit A are what are needed from the applicant to begin the analysis. Staff may find there are other things needed as the review progresses. Commissioner Adler stated that the staff report proposes 3 criteria to be met for initiation and the applicant didn't address any of those. The Zoning Code is silent of what is required for initiation, but the General Plan is not. There is only one condition that has changed in the community that would bear on this matter, and that is the alleged change in flow of Big Wash which has triggered what is represented as encroachment into entitled area. That triggers movement of acreage around. How can it be determined that that criteria is met unless we are fully satisfied through documented evidence that the flow and channel of Big Wash has moved to the degree represented and in fact can't be restored. Mr. Michels said staff believes in order to answer that question to everyone satisfaction, we would recommend initiating this item to find that out. That is an item on the scope of work staff would address. 3 November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Commission Adler said he felt that information should be provided in order to initiate. Where in Exhibit A is that addressed? Mr. Michels said the conditions in Exhibit A are not the conditions of approval of this item. In the staff report under section III on page 3 staff has discussed what information is required in order for staff to comprehensively evaluate the request for the General Plan Amendment. At this time, we do not have the information you are requesting. Ms. More pointed out that pending initiation, staff will be using an independent environmental consultant to assist staff in review of this matter. Staff will be doing a thorough job of looking at both the biological and wash characteristics in that area. Chair Bistany stated that he thinks staff and the applicant have a right under the General Plan to initiate a land amendment. If this is initiated, staff would be the "watch dog" for the Town in getting the data necessary. On page 11 of the General Plan it says: "Amendments to the Oro Valley General Plan may be initiated by the Town or by a landowner." The applicant has the right to initiate an amendment to the General Plan, whether the amendment will be approved or not will be determined in the future. Commissioner Bergman asked if the reason the applicant is before the commission is that the zoning ordinance says that we have to decide whether the request to initiate has merit? Ms. More responded yes. Commissioner Bergman continued that there is a disagreement amongst the Commissioners as to what the applicant has to show to prove that the request has merit. Mr. Adler took a sentence out of the preamble to the plan and interprets that to be the minimum requirement to initiate an amendment. She interprets it differently. Chair Bistany read a definition from the General Plan preamble. "Generally a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for the passage of the statute, and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held, however, that a preamble is not an essential part of an act, and it neither enlarges nor confers powers." He did not feel the preamble could be used to stop an initiation. Commissioner Adler said the Zoning Code is silent so there is not a question of contradiction; it is a question of absence of information. The Zoning Code doesn't set forth any criteria for determining whether or not an amendment is to be approved or not; it simple says on its merits. So, we look to the General Plan for clarification. The language Chair Bistany read indicates that the Town may initiate, and he put forward that the Planning Commission is part of the Town. This matter is on the agenda and we are here to decide whether it should be initiated or not. If the initiation is automatic, it should not be agendized and discussed. 4 November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 Commissioner Paolino partly agreed with Commissioner Adler that the criteria for initiating a General Plan amendment is that there has been changes in conditions since the General Plan was adopted. These conditions don't have to be physical conditions, but can be economic conditions. However, at the time of the General Plan update, all of the things the applicant pointed out were apparent, so why wasn't a proposal such as this introduced at the time of the General Plan update? Mr. Oland responded that two years ago there was nobody looking at this property. Now we have a company that has decided to make a commitment to develop the remainder of the property as a high quality development. Commissioner Bergman said that during the course of the 2005 update, there were no specific land use changes that were contemplated. The reason is that we were trying to correct the things that caused the plan to fail with voters. Two years ago there was no detailed discussion of any particular properties. It was a discussion of overall policy and direction for the Town. She recalls that anyone who wants to make specific changes to the plan for their own property needs to go through the whole process. Commissioner Reddin said that the original project was very well thought out and defined. Why isn't the proposed plan not as defined? Mr. Oland said that today we have better data, i.e. aerial photos, topos, riparian opinions, etc. For the purpose of this initiation we are trying to say what we want and if this goes through we will also be submitting a PAD amendment. At that point we will get into much more definition. Mr. Michels said as staff looked at projects in this vicinity, we noticed that in the baseline analysis was conducted 20 years ago, show some "on the ground" problems" where things are not as they appear. There has been some deviation to the drainage. Assumptions were made as to drainage channels and riparian areas and the overall quality of those areas. Data will need to be verified and the quality of the data will be far superior now. Commissioner Paolino asked if we initiate this amendment and research and analysis is done, is it possible you may come back to the Commission with something different than what is here? Mr. Michels said absolutely. There will be expert analysis to consider, and economic development and community involvement. The end product will be an accurate reflection of what the applicant wants, what is real on the ground, and what is in the best interest of the community for future development of this area. Mr. Oland added that one of the things he sees as being a benefit regardless of what is being proposed is that you have one of the last remaining areas within the PAD and you have a company that is coming in trying to do a master plan for all of their holdings. The whole things will be developed very nicely and comprehensively, taking into account all the data we can get. 5 November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to approve the request to initiate OV11-06-02, the proposed General Plan Amendment for the property located within Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, and set public hearing dates upon satisfaction of the conditions specified in Exhibit A. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Commissioner Adler asked to make a friendly amendment to the Motion by adding the following conditions: 1. When the amendment comes forward, it should provide thorough validation of the degree of change in the Big Wash flow and the disruption resulting from that, as well as addressing the feasibility of restoration rather than engaging in a land trade. 2. The economic development part should have information that the uses proposed address in particular the work force quality and caliber of jobs to be created for Oro Valley. 3. In the retail area, any businesses to be considered should fill an unmet need in the community or provide higher level services, goods or products than are presently available. Commissioner Bergman, maker of the motion, was unwilling to accept Commissioner Adler's amendments. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to add the following conditions to the motion. 1. To provide thorough documentation of the degree of change in the Big Wash flow and the disruption resulting from that, as well as address the feasibility of restoration rather than engaging in a land trade. 2. The economic development aspect, which is being proposed to be enlarged, have information that the uses proposed address in particular the work force quality and the caliber of jobs to be created for Oro Valley. By quality it should refer specifically to education and income levels and things that can be measured. 3. In the retail area, which is also proposed to be enlarged, any businesses to be considered should fill an unmet need in the community or provide higher level services, goods or products than are presently available. Commissioner Paolino seconded the amendment to the motion for the purpose of discussion. Discussion: Commissioner Paolino asked the applicant if any of the conditions listed by Commissioner Adler would be a problem. Mr. Oland said only the one requiring that the uses that go in on this site meet an unmet need in Oro Valley. Oro Valley has developed a lot in the last 20 years and the number of unmet needs is not a long list. Additionally as the plan stands right now, we have a certain number of acres of entitled zoned property on which we could do this same sort 6 November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 of use. We are not proposing to change that number or increase it. This condition would constrain the applicant's ability to market their project. Commissioner Bergman stated that even though the applicant has expressed willingness to include those things, it is not appropriate to put that as a condition on this motion because there are many other things the applicant needs to provide that are not on this list. She doesn't think it is correct to single out two things and say make sure they are in there. Amendment to the Motion failed, 1 yes, 5 no, Commissioner Adler voting yes. Discussion on the original motion: Commissioner Paolino commented that normally he would not vote to initiate a General Plan amendment that is solely for the purpose of enhancing the income of the applicant. In this case, however, he thinks that is balanced off by the overall benefit to the community. He will vote for it for that reason. ORIGINAL MOTION carried 6 yes, 0 no. Planning Update • October 25, Town Council held a Study Session with Tucson Electric Power to discuss electric service needs and issues in the Town. It was beneficial for the future of the Town relating to both needs and service for existing residents and what we need going into the future growth and development of the community. This issue will be coming to the Planning Commission in the future. • Town Council recently discussed annexation policy and its economic development strategy. Both items will go back to the Council soon. • November 1, Council approved the Pulte office headquarters development plan and they continued consideration for a plat for 39 condominiums. The Council also approved Steve Solomon's plat for the development surrounding Honey Bee Village. • The HoneyBee Archaeological Preserve talks will continue on December 7th g at 6:00 p.m. • The Archaeological Preserve working group is finalizing a concept plan for that preserve next week and hope to be before the Town Council soon. Copies will be shared with the Commission. It is an exciting opportunity for the Town to have an archaeological preserve within the Town. • Neighborhood 5 of Rancho Vistoso General Plan amendment has come in. They still need to do further work with the Amphi School District before proceeding. • Regarding the items discussed in September coming forward for discussion: o We have had discussion for initiation of a general plan amendment and decided to delay that until the code amendment related to the General Plan. 7 November 9, 2006 Approved MINUTES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 o We discussed evaluation of board members seeking reappointment. o We discussed the Zoning Commission's rules regarding voting. o Pending is determining the necessity of the conditional use permit for sexually oriented businesses. If the Commission wants a study session first, let Ms. More know. o Defining "clustering" in the Zoning Code could be added to the work plan when discussed in January. Adjourn Regular Session Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Prepared by: Diane Chapman, Office Spec -list 8