Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 7/6/2006 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION JULY 6, 2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:01 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CHAIR PETE BISTANY VICE CHAIR DOUG MCKEE COMMISSIONER BILL ADLER COMMISSIONER RAY PAOLINO COMMISSIONER CLARK REDDIN COMMISSIONER TEREE BERGMAN COMMISSIONER HONEY PIVIROTTO Also Present: K.C. Carter, Council Member Barry Gillaspie, Council Member Al Kunisch, Council Member Sarah S. More, FAICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Stacey Lemos, Finance Director Paul Keesler, P.E., Development Review Manager David Ronquillo, Senior Planner 3. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE (Non Agenda Items Only) Opened and closed at 6:03 p.m. There were no speakers. 4. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to approve the June 6, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Pivirotto seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7 yes, 0 no. 5. Public Hearing: OV8-06-02, The WLB Group, representing, Southwest Development LLC., requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow multi-family residential in a commercial district, located in Rancho Vistoso northwest of the Safeway Vistoso Plaza, Parcels 219-54-003A, 223-02-027B and 219-20-052D The site consists of 8 acres and the zoning is Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development C-1, Commercial. Paul Oland, The WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway Blvd., 85711, represents Southwest Development. Ken Samson and Joe Pacino with Southwest Development and Steven July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 Torkelson with Windermere Realty were also present. The subject property is located north of the existing Safeway Shopping Center, westerly is the intersection of Woodshade and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. To the north is an existing residential subdivision; to the east is Rancho Vistoso PAD open space; across the street to the west is another subdivision, and commercial zoning is on the southwest corner of the intersection. The property is currently zoned C1 in the Rancho Vistoso PAD. Among a long list of land uses allowed in the C1 designation of Rancho Vistoso, are the C1 uses of the Oro Valley Zoning Code. The Oro Valley Zoning Code prior to December of last year allowed R4 Townhomes built as a conditional use within this zone. In December the zoning code was revised and R4 Townhome was removed from the list of conditionally allowed uses. Because the process for this development was started well before that, staff determined the application would be processed under those rules. The property is approximately 8 acres on which 48 townhomes, a clubhouse and associated common areas were proposed. The 2 story townhomes are in groups of four, ranging from 1700 to 2000 square feet each. The clubhouse is single story, 8,100 square feet and 18 feet high. The property will be a gated community, upscale, age restricted to 45 and older with townhome units centered around a clubhouse area, with a pitch and putt area, common area including some fire pits and walking trails. Dense, thick landscaping is planned on the north and south to buffer future residents from the commercial to the south and the existing residents to the north. In the original concept good access off of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. was presented in the first pre-app last year. In subsequent meetings and in correspondence with the Town, it became clear that an additional access off Rancho Vistoso Blvd. was not something that the Town Engineer would support. The plan was revised. Per the revised plan, to the north there are three townhome units, which have been rotated 90 degrees so the short edge of the building faces the adjacent residents creating larger view corridors. There are no balconies looking directly into the neighbor's yards. The low profile clubhouse and the pitch and putt were moved to the north. The buildings are no less than 40 feet from the existing property line. Farther south, the loop road system has been eliminated to free up space and give greater flexibility grading the site and allows the buildings to step down faster. Along the southern edge of the property, the existing northern Safeway access road is technically a parking access lane. There is no signal there. Safeway's development plan includes a requirement to construct a traffic light when warranted by the city engineer. It has been determined that it is warranted with or without this project. The applicant proposes working with the Town and Safeway to install a traffic signal, reconfiguring the entry so the entry experience is maintained with a key card type gate. Safeway's northern access would T into the road with enough stacking distance. There is a sight visibility triangle problem at the corner of the northern building. The access drive could encroach into the subject property in order to construct a proper separate loading zone and a full width two way PAL. The southern edge will have a 4-foot wall and heavy landscaping between the future development and the commercial area. The landscaped buffer yard behind each of the existing homes could be customized in cooperation with staff and neighbors. The height of the northern townhomes shall not exceed the height of a single story neighboring building. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 Steven Torkelson, Windermere Real Estate, 10355 N. La Canada. Over the past couple of years there has been an unmet need in Oro Valley for townhomes. In Oro Valley there is limited availability of newer townhomes of adequate size. Our client base is asking for townhomes that are newer and larger. Mr. Oland replied to Commissioner Adler's concerns about adequate turnaround space for cars on the dead end roadways that they have taken into consideration cars and fire trucks. The driveways in front of the units will be a minimum of 20 feet. From a fire standpoint, there are back-in turnarounds for fire trucks to make their turn movements to avoid backing up long distances. Ken Samson, Southwest Development, P. O. Box 6995, Oro Valley, in response to Commissioner Adler noted that features outside the clubhouse include a swimming pool, spa and barbeque facility. On the interior there are 3 different buildings connected by exterior lattice. The 480 square foot building will house maintenance equipment. The 790 square foot building will be a gym available to residents, and the larger building will have an office, a small kitchenette area and a lounge area with a fireplace. Mr. Oland responded to Commissioner Bergman's question whether sufficient traffic studies have been done to ensure that the gate won't cause traffic congestion at the shared driveway, that the stacking length is over 200 feet. The traffic impact study indicates that traffic generated from the units is expected to be very low. With regard to commercial traffic interfacing with the project traffic, there will be three lanes, a right in, a right out and a left out. The low townhome traffic volume won't necessarily line up with typical delivery hours to the commercial area. Mr. Torkelson told Commissioner Paolino he would estimate the percentage of worker vs. retired residents would be about 50-50. As employment grows there would be more full-time people, and some of the traffic flow would be related to normal working times. Mr. Oland replied to Commissioner McKee's question that they would prefer the original proposal with traffic entering and exiting directly off of Rancho Vistoso. It would work better because although the traffic light, the northern access road, the loading area all need to be repaired, and a very similar entry experience into the project could be created, it is still not the same as turning into the project off the major road. Mr. Oland said the original Rancho Vistoso PAD showed a traffic signal at the intersection at Woodburne. The subdivision to the north of the proposed development was platted without dedicating a half right of way, thus making the alignment for an entry to the north impossible. Mr. Keesler said it would be an extreme expense to the city to realign Woodburne, because it would require the acquisition of the property to the south. A light there would help the u-turn situation, but there would still be a congestion problem on the Safeway exit. Mr. Keesler said 1300 feet is the preferred traffic light spacing distance. The purpose of a light is for traffic calming and safety, so although the limit is set per driver July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 expectations, dangerous situations with service at an intersection needs to be considered. Multi-jurisdictional roads can create problems with synchronization of traffic lights. ADOT uses a different manufacturer of traffic control box than Oro Valley and they don't "speak" to one another. Ms. More said the issue of Woodburne being extended was probably compromised when the subdivision was developed. Mr. Keesler said regardless of whether this development is built or not, the situation exists that the intersection requires a light according to the traffic impact analysis. Elected officials and staff will determine whether we have to install the light right now. Chair Bistany said that he had researched grandfathering of "intent". The current code does not require this. The applicant showed intent to do something under one code which subsequently changed and the use the applicant wants is no longer permitted in the commercial code. The applicant is now being allowed to proceed on the basis that they showed intent to develop at some time prior to the code change. Can intent be grandfathered? Chair Bistany was also concerned when a piece of commercial property is made residential what the impact is on the ratio or commercial versus residential. Mr. Keesler replied to Commissioner Adler that yes there is a traffic study, but it was generated in respect to the first layout. Although it does have the generation of the trips anticipated which won't change because of the layout, the actual impact to Vistoso will change with the configuration. Ms. More told Commissioner Adler the information had not been included in the packets because she anticipated that the traffic analysis at a more detailed level would be provided to the DRB when we are finalizing a plat should the conditional use be approved. If the Commissioners have questions about traffic impact analysis and trips the applicant and Mr. Keesler are well prepared to answer those. Commissioner Adler said one of the determinations here is not a design issue, but a compatibility issue. How much traffic and how it is going to work is relevant. We need that information in the future. Ms. More said in general when looking at town homes, eight trips per day is a reasonable assumption. Compared to an 8 acre commercial site, this would be much less than what commercial would generate. Mr. Keesler pointed out that for town homes it is usually about four trips per day. David Ronquillo gave the staff report. Based on the site tour on June 29th, he received a couple more comments from neighbors requesting additional setbacks and buffers. Commissioner Bergman said the Town has had some interest in promoting commercial development, particularly retail development because of the tax benefits to the Town. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 Has staff made any analysis of the economic impact on the community of changing this property from commercial to residential use? Ms. More replied that Oro Valley has 2,500,000 square feet of commercial development planned or currently in development, which is adequate capacity to serve more than Oro Valley residents. We have not done a detailed economic analysis of what the impact of converting 6 acre site from commercial to residential use would be. Our Economic Development Administrator is fully aware of and has no problem with this development. Mr. Ronquillo replied to Commissioner Reddin's question that under C-1 Rancho Vistoso PAD, 34 feet maximum height is allowed. The applicant is developing under R- 4 multi-family residential which allows 25 feet. Ms. More told Commissioner Reddin no, we don't have information on tax per square foot for the community. Ms. More told Commissioner Paolino that he was correct that a C-1 commercial area could include many businesses that would pay no tax at all. Commissioner McKee was confused with the comment that it complies with the applicable General Plan. On page five of the memo it says that it does not meet the land use designation. Mr. Ronquillo said both are correct. With regards to the land use, it doesn't. With regards to preserving views and other items identified in the General Plan as policies, it does comply. So, yes to some, and no specifically to the land use part. Commissioner Adler said only during a rezoning does the rezoned property have to conform to the General Plan, otherwise the General Plan has to be amended. In this case the land has existing zoning and so that exempts it from having to comply with the General Plan. This is not a discussion of which use is best, but whether the proposed use is suitable and compatible. Mr. Keesler told Commissioner Adler that the applicant will need to meet the required subdivision street standards during the development stage. If the length of the street is greater than 150 feet, there has to be a turnaround. Mr. Keesler said there would not need for an additional condition to Exhibit A. Mr. Ronquillo replied to Commissioner McKee that the requirement of the percentage of frontage dwelling units that can have living space above one story comes from the R-4 town house residential district. It is subject to DRB review and approval. It was not put as a condition because it is related to a plat design issue and is handled later in the process. Ms. More told Commissioner McKee that if put on as a condition tonight, the DRB could not waive it. Mr. Ronquillo said the intent is to preserve views from Rancho Vistoso Blvd. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 Mr. Ronquillo replied no to Commissioner Pivirotto, that being an adult community was not relevant to the Commission's decision. The focus is on the use tonight. Attorney Andrews added that the Town of Oro Valley can't put an age restriction on this. That is a decision the developer makes. It is on the record tonight and will be in the minutes that it was put forward by these individuals. They would have to comply with Arizona State Law on age restriction. Commissioner Pivirotto said she understands that the parking area access lane redesign is to accommodate a loading zone, 2 lanes of traffic and perhaps a pedestrian walkway. She asked for clarification on what exactly is going to be accommodated to meet a standard that was acceptable to staff. Mr. Ronquillo said the current conditions that exist have safety concerns because of restricted site visibility. Staff would have to approve the traffic circulation redesign which must be compatible with the adjacent property. The loading area would have to allow adequate two way traffic circulation. Applicant has agreed that to improve the intersection the entire area would be allowed to encroach into their property. Mr. Keesler said the overall concept is that this is now part of the original Safeway development. There is an extreme safety problem at the T intersection. When the new development goes in, the problems need to be fixed. The applicant put forward a design that addresses the issues along the back of the businesses. We are looking at how the whole area works together. Chair Bistany read from the staff report: "The current zoning does not permit dwelling units in a commercially zoned parcel; however, because the applicant showed intent to develop the site prior to the adoption of the new code, the Town staff determined the applicant was subject to the previous commercial standards." How did this intent manifest itself? Ms. More said in October of last year, the applicant did a pre-app and submitted a concept plan for pre-app comments and review by staff. Staff provided advice in writing to proceed with the conditional use permit and that townhomes were allowed in the R-4 zoning regulations. The code amendment adopted in December, with a 30 day effective clause, went into effect in January. Shortly thereafter the applicant submitted per instructions from staff for this case consideration. Based on lack of notice to the applicant and on staff's advice in writing to them, she determined that the most appropriate thing to do was to allow them to go through this conditional use process. She felt this was considerably more than intent. Chair Bistany said he did not want to set a precedent by using the word intent with people coming in saying they want to do something and there isn't a formal application and the code changes. Ms. More did not feel this would set a precedent as there is nothing with similar circumstances out there. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 Ms. More said Commissioner McKee was right, there is no statutory authority for doing what she did and there is no case law precedent. The Commission and Town Council can disagree with her and make their own decision. Attorney Andrews said this is one of those instances where the Zoning Administrator has exercised her discretion in making an interpretation and he does not see any fault with her interpretation. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 7:15 p.m. John Knight, 590 E. Bridal Veil, was representing 11 neighbors who were in attendance. There have been 5 meetings, one with Ken Samson and the neighbors and 4 with David Ronquillo and staff. The 11 neighbors all bought their property about 10 1/2 years ago and believed the adjoining property was to be commercial. The same people worked with Safeway and the Town Council 10 years ago in this same process. We thought that the Safeway property was an extension of the Safeway pads. We started out with 20 issues, traffic, noise, dust, safety, security, vegetation, separation, elevation, etc. The issues have not all been satisfied. Elevation is still a prime concern. Ken has done all the lowering of elevation that he can. We are asking one last time to move the three units 20 more feet away and we will all be happy. We neighbors would like a little more time to work with Ken. Steven Odenkirk, 674 E. Bridal Veil Falls Road, handed out photos that were taken on the property. A lot of effort and accommodation has been made by the developer and we want to continue to operate in a spirit of good will. The 3 buildings furthest north on the site look and feel as if they are imposing on our property. They may meet the letter of the city code, but not the spirit of the code, in trying to buffer neighbors from each other. Our request tonight is to allow more time to work with the builder and to find a way to move those buildings 20 feet further south and create a greater space. We don't want to give up our views. We would love to leave it vacant forever, but we are ready as a group to say we can live with this project if the one final request of the additional 20 feet distance from our backyards to the wall of the buildings is given. Don Cox, Realtor, 1065 W. Squawbush, Oro Valley, said there is a critical shortage of housing in Oro Valley of this price nature. There is a need for a development like this. His concern is the exit onto Rancho Vistoso. He is in that shopping center about 5 times a week. There is a safety issue. One of the greatest things he heard this evening is that they are going to take the east/west road and bend it a bit to the north. This exit road should have two right lanes out and room for queuing back which would solve the potential back up of cars in that area and relieve some of the exiting traffic at the southern access. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Oland said the units that front on Vistoso Blvd. are too close. An additional 12 feet is needed. The primary views from the area near Mr. Knight's property are not to the south. Shifting the buildings a couple of feet won't make much difference. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application, a conceptual site plan is being submitted to show the use. Because of the dynamics with the neighborhood and the complications July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 of the light, we have gotten into more design issues than typical with a CUP. There is a condition on staff's report that says when the plat is submitted, it is to be in substantial conformance with the site plan as long as it adheres to the applicable Town codes. This design would work. Regarding the U-turn movements generated by the right turn exits from the main Safeway entrance, having spoken with Mr. Keesler, he believes there is enough width in the existing lanes and the median that the light will also accommodate a U-turn there. Commissioner Adler said the only way to satisfy the neighbor's interest in further separation at the northern boundary would be to eliminate one unit of the four at either extreme end. What would the impact of that be in terms of economic feasibility? Mr. Oland said the economic impact of that would be mostly from an architectural standpoint and obviously to sales because there would be less units. Mr. Samson said taking away one unit from both of those buildings may not work well. Sixty four or 68 units could be allowed in the 8 acre property. We are trying to make this a special community in Oro Valley by holding back the number of units and buildings. We could fit in more by eliminating the clubhouse, the putting and chipping greens, and the grounds that we have set up. Ms. More said that this is a very conceptual plan and there may be possibilities of shifting buildings around to gain more space. She would hesitate to say we could come up with 20 feet, but moving the turnaround, etc., might allow for some building shifting on the site. That is vague, necessarily so. If you are inclined to condition this, we could work with them, but she is not comfortable saying 20 feet. Mr. Samson said we tried with the site plan changes to accommodate the neighborhood and existing neighbors. He agreed with Ms. More that 20 feet may not be feasible. Mr. Oland and WLB will look at the site to see if any more adjustments can be made. Ms More responded to Commissioner Bergman that she is correct, that we are getting into a lot of design detail at this point, which is not what is on the table. If the applicant were to eliminate one unit or move the units around to increase the setback, those things would not affect whether or not this is in substantial compliance with the decision the Commission is being asked to make tonight. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the OV8-06-02 application with the conditions listed in Exhibit A for the conditional use permit to allow multi-family units in a commercial district. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner McKee stated he will vote for this with reservations about the traffic aspects and putting a light at this location. Commissioner Adler felt it was important to underscore for the residents that this use permit is related to the use, not the design. We are not giving approval to the detail of July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 9 the locations of the building, the relationships, the landscaping, the access/ ingress, and all the things alluded to. We are giving approval to the residential use. Commissioner Bergman said in regard to Mr. McKee's remark, the traffic issue will be there whether it is commercial or town houses. In fact the traffic problems will be exacerbated if it is commercial as opposed to residential. She is trusting that the DRB and engineers will sort those issues out before anything is built on this site. Chair Bistany said he could not get over the issue of intent. He is not sure the applicant has a right to develop this in accordance with the current zoning based on the fact that it was a judgmental call that an intent was expressed. He feels the residents will be better off with residential versus commercial, but is not sure the Town will be better off. He does not have enough information to support this project. Commissioner Paolino shared Chair Bistany's reservations, but will vote for it despite those reservations. Motion carried 6 yes, 1 no. Chair Bistany voting no. Break taken: 7:45 to 7:55 p.m. 6. Public Hearing: 0V8-06-03, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects LLC., representing Oracle Linda Vista Investors LLC., requests approval of a conditional use permit for Starbucks coffee drive through area, located on the northeast corner of Oracle Road and Linda Vista Boulevard, Parcel 244-31-0100 The site is zoned C-1, Commercial District. Edward Vergara, Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, 1001 N. Alvernon Way, #105, is the representative for Oracle Linda Vista Investors. The site is located at the north east corner of Oracle and Linda Vista. This project is an approved site plan of 19.7 acres. The subject parcel is 1.9 acres. The building will be 8,400 square feet. The drive- through enters from the south along the east side of the building, turns at the north east corner and engages the building at the north side where Starbuck' s 1,900 square feet is located. The area across Oracle Road is undeveloped; to the south are Pusch Ridge Christian Academy's play fields; to the east is residential; and to the north is commercial. We worked with staff regarding the zoning code's 5 foot vegetated screening requirements for drive-throughs. This screen is along the eastern and northern boundaries of the drive-through. There is a loading zone located directly to the east of the entrance into the drive-through that will also provide additional screening. Mr. Vergara replied yes when Commissioner Adler asked if the drive-through area began at the rear of the building and ends around the corner facing westerly towards Oracle Road. There is a 36 inch high masonry screen wall that will be shielding along the western edge and southern edge of the parking. Commissioner Adler said he couldn't find the reference in the zoning code that stipulates that a drive-through is not to be prominently displayed or visible from a major thoroughfare. With the lengthy drive-through this appears to not comply. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 10 Mr. Vergara said there is a 36 inch masonry screen wall along the western edge of the property that will screen from Oracle Road, plus there is vegetation along the western edge between Oracle Road and the masonry wall that will offer additional screening. Mr. Vergara told Commissioner Reddin yes, Starbucks was only going to be about 2,000 square feet of the total building space. Commissioner Reddin asked with the drive-through on the whole east side of the building, will there be access to other tenants across that drive-through? Mr. Vergara answered yes at times they will have to maneuver through traffic. It is not expected to have 11 cars stacked there continually. Maintenance and service will come in from the east. All public will come in from the west, south and north. A sidewalk directly to the north connects with a sidewalk that will head to the west and connect to the building. A sidewalk along the eastern side of the building is for service only. Mr. Vergara told Commissioner Paolino that pedestrian entrances are all on the west side of the building with the possibility of one on the south. There is a small plaza area on the southeast corner of the building. Starbucks does not have outdoor seating. Mr. Vergara told Commissioner McKee tenants in the southern part of building may be Spa 1 and a Sparkles satellite. Commissioner Adler wanted to know how the traffic pattern will fit in with the rest of the development. People entering from Linda Vista will be meeting people exiting the same aisle who have completed their drive-through and choose to exit via Linda Vista making a complete loop around the building. There will be two-way traffic. Mr. Vergara replied there is an existing curb cut on Oracle Road serving a small building development to the north. We are proposing connecting a driveway from Linda Vista to the existing entry/ exit on Oracle Road. Anyone exiting the drive-through could use it. Mr. Vergara told Commissioner Adler that a traffic study has not been done at this time for this particular project. There is a traffic study for the overall site from the previously approved development plan. He worked with staff to get the drive-through on the particular property and off the drive. We elected to turn the drive-through and get an 11 car stack as close to the building as possible. The idea is to minimize the look to the adjacent property owners to the north and east. Mr. Ronquillo gave the staff report. Commissioner Bergman asked what precisely we would be approving. The staff report and applicant's letter both refer specifically to Starbucks Coffee Shop. If this is approved, is Starbucks the only thing that could go there or could it be some other coffee house or food business with a drive-through. Mr. Ronquillo said the Zoning Code under the conditions for specific uses breaks it up into Tier 1 or Tier 2 depending on the use. This particular drive-through use is July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11 categorized as a Tier 1, which provides a moderate level of traffic generation. Tier 2 is a use more like fast food which creates more traffic If another use came in, it would have to be evaluated it at that time. The Commission would be approving a Tier 1 use for a coffee shop. Ms. More said it would not have to be a Starbucks, but would have to be a coffee shop type use. Ms. More replied to Commissioner Reddin that the CUP is specific to the use. It does not go with the land. Mr. Ronquillo told Commissioner Paolino the concept has been approved, but we have not seen a revised development plan. Based on the concept staff feels it will work. Based on the design the Planning and Zoning Administrator has the authority to approve it in-house. Commissioner Paolino said so currently this is consistent with the development plan, but if the development plan were to change, it might not be. So if we approve the CUP and there is a change that is not compatible, what happens to the CUP? Mr. Ronquillo said the design would have to be in substantial conformance with the CUP design or it goes away. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:25 p.m. Keith Alrick, 9703 N. Horizon Vista Place, does not have any problems with this in principle. His concerns are with traffic patterns on Linda Vista. At the time conceptual approval was written for that corner, the school did not have an exit onto Linda Vista. Traffic on Linda Vista has increased significantly. He understands the conceptual plan for that corner shows 2 exits onto Linda Vista, one just west of the trailhead parking and the proposed entrance. What impact will widening Oracle have? El Conquistador has a horse trail easement that crosses just west of Pusch Ridge Estates you should be aware of. If people miss the entrance into this project, where do they turn around? PUBLIC HEARING closed at 8:27 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to approve OV8-06-03, conditional use permit for Starbuck's drive through with the conditions listed in Exhibit A. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Adler said he could not support this project because he disagrees with the way the queuing and exiting drive-through is configured. It empties into a traffic lane which requires people to go against traffic and parking, and out onto Linda Vista. He has a problem with the internal traffic. It is in the wrong location. Motion carried 5 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Adler and Pivirotto voting no. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12 7. Presentation and discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan tentative budget. Stacey Lemos, Finance Director, gave a presentation on the Town's tentative Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) five year spending plan. She gave a brief summary of some of the definitions in the document and highlights of the process, and went over some of the elements that have been included in the plan. (See attached PowerPoint presentation.) The final budget and 5 year CIP are set for final Council adoption on July 19, 2006. Ms. Lemos told Chair Bistany she would have to research the status of instituting a study to see whether administrative vehicles would be more economically acquired by lease rather than purchase. Ms. Lemos replied to Commissioner McKee that in reviewing the notes from last year there was nothing referring to the recommendation of changing the name from "Capital". Ms. Lemos said that in the Roadway Development Fund there are no RTA funds budgeted for next year. The Town Council has included a separate fund in the Town budget with a placeholder for$600,000 that includes the potential to collect RTA funds. Ms. Lemos responded to Commissioner Pivirotto's question that this year the cash reserves being used to fund CIP is $942,000. Discontinuing use of cash reserves has been communicated to Town Council through the budget process. There is a Town adopted budgetary policy that calls for limiting using cash reserves for ongoing expenditures as well as one time expenditures. We are very aware of keeping within that policy. There are no recurring or operating expenses being taken out of cash reserves this year. It is against policy to fund operating costs out of one time cash reserves. Ms. Lemos told Commissioner Paolino that the 5 year total funding is $60 million. For the majority the funding sources are identified because the majority is in the Townwide Development Impact Fees Fund. Those projects are programmed through the PAG Transportation Improvement Program so there are identified sources for the bulk of those road expansion projects, which make up about 80% of the $60 million. Commissioner Adler asked why we stopped funding projects at $1.1 million considering there are several million dollars in contingency reserves beyond the 20 per 10 minimum. Ms. Lemos said that was a Town Council and Town Manager decision. They wanted to remain conservative and felt the amount they went into the cash reserves was generous compared to prior years. Many projects needed from years past were funded. Ms. Lemos told Commissioner McKee no, there were no land purchases in this budget. There are no costs included associated with building the new Public Works facility. There is a project going on to look at the facilities' space needs. There are remaining bond funds kept in a separate capital project fund specifically for that project totaling over$1 million that were not included in this process. The water system is also not included. Mayor and Council have gone through budget study sessions on every single fund of the budget in detail. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 13 Commissioner Adler said, as the Commission's representative on the CIP TAC this year, he wanted to report that he voted against most of the assumption projects and what he was just talking to Ms. Lemos about. He stated that this should become a much more transparent process. He feels the process of deliberation and arriving at conclusions is chaotic, arbitrary, and based on how people personally feel rather than financial facts. No action was taken. 8. Discussion and Action on the Planning and Zoning Work Plan. Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Administrator, gave the staff report and distributed a bullet point summary on the '05-'06 Work Plan changes. Ms. More pointed out that on June 21, 2006, the Town Council agreed to initiate staffs participation, as well as a Council representative, in a multi-jurisdictional State Land Planning process. The Arizona State Land Department asked the Town to participate in a conceptual planning process for approximately 45 square miles north of the Town limits, in conjunction with Pima County and Pinal County. This is a conceptual planning process required by State law. At this time the area is not being looked at for annexation. No matter what happens or what jurisdiction that land is in, it is going to affect Oro Valley. That is why we need to participate in the process. There will be a staff time commitment that was not anticipated when staff prepared the work plan last fiscal year. The State Land Department will be hiring a consultant to facilitate the process. We will be participating on a data gathering, research, resources, and policy perspective. This was projected to take 18 to 24 months. The State Land Department recently indicated that they would like it completed in 12 months. Commissioner Adler brought up the fact that portions of the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP)for the General Plan are not included in the presented work plan and should be included to make sure the list is comprehensive. Ms. More said yes. The SIP outlines 20 years of work. She has not put the work plan in the context of 20 years. The work plan is related to one (or two) fiscal years. Commissioner Adler said the SIP is five years of work and we are obligated to update the General Plan every five years. As an example, there is a policy that will create a complementary use district which is a substitute term for mixed use neighborhood. That is important because in the State Land planning we may want to incorporate that and provide some definition so as the planning begins to take form it can be incorporating some of the things in the articles handed out. Ms. More agreed that it is a good idea to start looking at that. She does not believe it is necessary to accomplish that before the State Land planning process takes place. Primarily because their conceptual plan is even more conceptual than anything you will see here. It is important to have policy considerations of that and is an important task for us to take on. She is open to the list being revised. But even if we don't get to it before the conceptual plan is done, there are many steps the Town would have to go July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 14 through. For example, with the State Land, we would have to subsequently amend our General Plan, then annex, and then go through a rezoning or a PAD process. Ms. More told Commissioner McKee the time the Planning and Zoning Commission will officially get involved in this would be when the General Plan is amended. The State Land Department is like a developer. What they are doing is figuring out how to get the highest and best use. They are required to "consult" with local jurisdictions on that process. There is technically no public process involved. If the Town annexes, the developer that comes to us, based on the conceptual plan will still have to go through the planning and zoning process of the Town. Commissioner Adler wanted to register a profound concern about the vision with which the makeup of the Oro Valley planning team approaches the conceptual design of any kind of development. There are strong feelings in this Town about how this ought to be done. He understands how it could delay things if the public is involved every step of the way, but if there isn't a process by which the public is alerted and has an opportunity for input, he thinks we are making an enormous mistake. Ms More agreed with Commissioner Adler. We have been talking to the State Land Department about the reality of the planning process in Oro Valley and we are going to have to work out a public input process. Council Member Barry Gillaspie said we are trying to establish the beginning point for a scope of work with the State. The State of Arizona Land Department's position is that they don't have public input process, even though they led us to believe they were going to try to change this process. We are partners with Pima County although we will be the lead because we are the jurisdiction that has the proximity to have control. Everyone needs to remember that in the end if the property will be controlled by Oro Valley, if we choose to amend the General Plan and annex it, it would be subject to Oro Valley development standards. Oro Valley development standards are better than Pima and Pinal Counties'. It is our intent to do what we told the public, which is Oro Valley wants to represent the interest first of its citizens, secondly of our neighbors and friends, and third, the region. It is important to create economic stability and good development. We are building on the whole notion that the State has set, that good planning means good open space. They are developers, but they have a public trust responsibility. Ms. More said we may be able to have an information forum to explain the two initiatives to the public. In one of the initiatives, quite a bit of the area is set aside as provisional open space. Other issues of concern from the Commissioners were: • Requirements for recreation areas are out of date. • In-lieu fees vs. dedicated space. • Prioritize on a yearly basis. • Direction to staff. • Use of contingency fund to retain consultants. • Environmentally Sensitive Land • Facilities planning. July 6, 2006 Approved Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 15 Chair Bistany suggested taking the presented list, review and prioritize it, and add to it before the next meeting. Ms. More said that items #9 through #13 will not be started until after 7/1/07. If the Commissioners felt items below#9 should be done sooner, something from the list above would have to be moved down in priority. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to continue this item (allowing the Commissioners the opportunity to review Ms. More's work plan list and bring back any changes in priority and any additions). Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried 7 yes, 0 no. ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Prepared by: Diane Chapman Office Specialist