Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 6/6/2006 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION June 6, 2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE Regular Session at 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Acting Chair, Don Manross Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Teree Bergman Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Honey Pivirotto EXCUSED: Chair Pete Bistany Vice Chair Doug McKee Also Present: Paul Loomis, Mayor K.C. Carter, Council Member Barry Gillaspie, Council Member Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Administrator Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney David Ronquillo, Senior Planner 3. Call to the Audience (Non Agenda Items Only) opened and closed at 6:01 p.m. There were no speakers. 4. Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the May 2, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as presented. Commissioner Pivirotto seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. 5. Public Hearing: OV8-06-01, Brinker Restaurant Corporation, representing Evergreen - Steam Pump LLC., requests approval of a conditional use permit for Chili's Restaurant to allow the sale of liquor, located within Phase II of the Steam Pump Village Development at the intersection of Oracle Road and Hanley Boulevard, Parcel 220-08- 001V. A Development Plan has been previously approved for Phase I and II. The zoning is Steam Pump Village Planned Area Development. June 6, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 Ms. More said the applicant is from a corporation out of Texas and was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Ronquillo gave the staff report. Mr. Ronquillo responded to Commissioner Adler's question that Chili's Restaurant did not have an outdoor patio area. The only thing towards the front part of the restaurant is a waiting area with benches. Commissioner Adler asked what Chili's proximity is to the Steinway Performance Amphitheater. Mr. Ronquillo said it is not immediately adjacent, but probably about 100 to 150 feet away. Commissioner Paolino asked what the relationship is between our approval or disapproval of the conditional use application and the applicant's application for a license with the State Liquor Board. Ms. More said the Commission's decision on the CUP would be part of the recommendation to the Town Council. The Council then makes a recommendation to the State Liquor Board. PUBLIC HEARING opened and closed at 6:10 p.m. there were no speakers: MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve OV8-06-01, conditional use. permit for Chili's restaurant to allow the sale of liquor. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. 6. OV11-06-01, The Planning Center, representing the Estes Company, requests to initiate a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential (0-0.3) DU/acre to Low Density Residential (1.3-2.0) DU/acre, located on the north side of Rancho Felix Drive between Overton Road and La Canada Drive, Parcels 225-06-0020 and 224-39-0240 The subject property consists of approximately 66 acres and the existing zoning is R1-144, Rural Low Density Residential (one residence for every 144,000 square feet). Applicant Mike Grassinger, The Planning Center, 110 S. Church, introduced himself and stated that the owner, William Estes, was present to assist in answering questions. Commissioner Adler called for a Point of Order. What the Commission is discussing is the initiation. We are not actually discussing the merits of the amendment. Mr. Grassinger said the property is located just west of La Canada Drive on the south side of the Canada Del Oro Wash. It is currently vacant. Rancho Feliz Drive runs along the southeastern boundary of the property. There has been off road vehicles and wildcat dumping on the property. It has been fairly heavily disturbed over the years. It is subject to flood plain and is a property that has problems is terms of safety and enforcement. Development of the property is in the interests of the community. June 6, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 The current comprehensive plan splits the property into two parcels. The southern portion is currently designated for low density residential, 2.0 units per acre, and the northern portion for low density residential, 0.3 units per acre. The applicant doesn't understand why that division was made nor why it was made where it is. There seems to be no physical characteristics which support that particular division. Unfortunately our client was unable to address site specific properties during the recent General Plan update. That is one of the reasons applicant is asking for the initiation of an amendment, so we will be able to plan for the property as recommended in the General Plan under a planned development as something that is consistent and does not have artificial boundary lines. The request itself is about 85.5 acres, but only 66 acres are actually up for the request for the initiation of the amendment. The intent is to develop the property as single family residential. Bank protection would be included along the Canada p Y Del Oro, mirroring the bank protection that is across the wash to the north. The property would then be able to be taken out of the flood plan and developed in an economically suitable manner, and in a manner that would benefit the Town by providing a stable population base and good opportunities for management of the property as well as development. Legal access would be provided across the property to the CDO Wash for adjacent residents so they could get to the wash. River Park would be extended along the boundary and at least 30% of the property would remain in an open space configuration. The vegetation on the property is not extremely high quality and would be enhanced in terms of the open space corridors through the property. 8 The applicant had a neighborhood meeting last Thursday. About 30 people attendedfrom the surrounding property owners. There was- a good exchange of information and ideas ranging from thinking the Town should purchase this property and turn it into a park, to they don't have a problem with this particular development as long as the developer lives up to their commitments. A preliminary concept plan was presented at that meeting. Ms. More stated that Mr. Paul Keesler from Public Works engineering was present if the Commissioners had questions for him. Mr. Ronquillo gave the staff report. Commissioner Pivirotto asked why this information was not introduced during the General Plan process and what the background was for that. Commissioner Bergman answered Commissioner Pivirotto's question stating that both she and Mr. Adler were part of that process. During the General Plan meetings a decision was made that no changes to the land use plan would be made by that committee. Any amendments to the land use plan that had been laid out would be done through the process being proposed here, so there would be a public hearing and all of the due process steps would be followed, rather than having a committee doing that outside of the public hearing process. Commissioner Adler added that this property was exhaustively reviewed during the initial General Plan review process with the Steering Committee that was formed in the 2002- 2003 process, as distinct from the Revision Committee that Commissioner Bergman is June 6, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 referring to. This property and all information regarding the hydrology and concerns regarding development and density was provided and discussed during that initial General Plan process and that contributed decisively to the Revision Committee's determination to not make any further changes. Commissioner Pivirotto said it seemed as though a hydrology report and some of the specialized review that need to occur for this particular piece of property would have occurred before now. Would the hydrology report being requested be an updated report? Mr. Ronquillo said to his understanding a hydrology report was never submitted, so it would be a brand new report. Commissioner Paolino asked, since we are not to consider the merits of this project, what factors are we to consider in determining whether or not to approve initiation? Commissioner Adler suggested that be part of our discussion after the Public Hearing. Ms. More pointed out that this is not a Public Hearing, but the Chair may choose to hear from the public. Acting Chair Manross said he would open the meeting up to a Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:23 p.m. John Maisch, 1471 W. Rancho Feliz Place, was concerned that this is round number two. The same points were submitted in 2003, and from what he understood was withdrawn because the General Plan was taking precedent, and they withdrew their request. His asked how many times do homeowners in the area need make this argument that this does not fit in with the homes in the area. The aerial photo show that all the homes south of the wash are on one acre lots and were built by the Estes Co. in the 70's and early 80's. He is trying to visualize 10 years down the road. They have proposed 3 exits to allow the homeowners to exit their community into the general traffic pattern. One exit was at Overton, which has the most dangerous curve in the County because of the blind corner there. They will probably withdraw that when the plan is submitted, and they will be asking for two exits onto Rancho Feliz Drive. There could be 350 cars leaving that community onto Rancho Feliz Drive between 6:30 and 7:30 every Monday through Friday. There are T intersections at Overton and La Canada, and they are unlikely to ever receive a traffic signal. He doesn't know how this could possibly work. This completely ignores the "green zone" that was designated at the time the existing homes were built in the 1980's. He does not see how 172 homes will fit in the small area. Patricia Maisch, 1471 W. Rancho Feliz Place, was very active and came to every meeting in the 2003 process that Estes had started. We asked Bryant Nodine at the first meeting to look into the Green Zone agreement. Nothing ever came from that. Until we investigate what that agreement is, are we wasting the Commission's time? She was concerned that the project is not the same integrity as our neighbors. When she bought her house in 1990, the County had slated the property as a linear park. She questioned the legal ramifications of funneling water through two high channels, and who would be legally responsible for what happens to the people downstream on the south side of Overton. June 6, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 What happens to their property with the velocity of the water coming out of that channel? pp p p Y She would like to see the hydrology of the property. She was also concerned about the wildlife access. Jeff Ronstadt, 1450 W. Rancho Felix Place, said that as a resident living close to the subject property he has serious concerns about the request for change of zoning. The p p Y proposed plan for developing the property includes redirecting of the normal water flow in the Canada Del Oro Wash. This is a major wash in the area and the idea of redirecting it seems absurdly radical. Such a change would dramatically affect the wildlife, large trees and other natural elements of this riparian area and could create problems downstream. The request to increase the allowable density by more than six times the current zoning is too extreme. It would create a high density neighborhood in the middle of an area which consists of houses on acre or larger lots. Regarding the flood plan, the development plan calls for bank protection in the wash for most of the distance between La Canada and Overton. This would seem to be ill advisable as this is the last stretch of wash where extremely high water flow is allowed to spill over the banks and spread across open desert. It can do so without destroying homes and it also recharges our ground water. If we bank protect the entire CDO Wash it could eventually spill over the bank protection at some point undoubtedly flooding homes in the process. By leaving at least one place where flood waters can recharge the aquifer and spread without causing damage, we are planning ahead for the future floods at the magnitude such as was experienced in 1983. If the property is developed at the density currently allowed, current roads could probably absorb the incremental traffic with some changes. However, a high density neighborhood would require Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley to rethink the existing traffic capacity of several nearby roads. Directing all traffic onto.Rancho Feliz Drive=pis not the solution. In summary, he respects the Estes Co.'s right to develop the property within the current zoning; however, he takes exception to redirecting the CDO Wash, to increasing the allowable housing density and to bank protecting this stretch of wash. It is his hope that the Commission will reject this request of rezoning. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Bergman said this seems like an awkward process whereby someone has to ask permission before they can have a hearing. Is there any explanation for why this process is set up the way it is? Ms. More responded that as the new Planning and Zoning Administrator, she was also struck by the lack of due process built in to the system and the lack of any criteria for making the decision to initiate or not. It says that the Commission is supposed to be deciding whether or not to initiate based on the merits of the request, but you are not really in the full analysis mode until such time as the case is actually initiated. This is a unique situation the Planning Commission is being asked to initiate. General Plan Amendments are limited to the time of year applicants may apply. The same rezoning may not be submitted more that once a year, but the applicant could keep on coming back year after year. In this case, it has been several years since this item was discussed on its on own and on its merits. For that reason staff encourages the Commission to go ahead and initiate the process without discussing the merits of the matter itself. June 6, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 Commissioner Adler felt this is due process. The Commission is hearing the applicant and members of the community. That is due process. The General Plan provides some guidance and criteria for consideration. He read from page i of the General Plan: 'We intend that the Plan be followed and consistently applied unless and until conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification." Conditions in the community need to have changed. That is the criteria. He does not think conditions in the community have changed. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to deny OV11-06-01, applicants request for initiation of the proposed General Plan Amendment for the property located on the north side of Rancho Feliz Drive between La Canada Drive and Overton Road. Commissioner Paolino seconded the motion. Discussion: Acting Chair Manross said that the submission back in 2002 was unanimously denied by the Commission. From what he has seen from the applicant today, it doesn't look like anything has changed since then. The Commission heard a lot at that time regarding the floods, waters, and hydrology and he doesn't see anything today different g g than in 2002. Motion to deny carried 3 yes, 2 no. Commissioner's Bergman and Pivirotto voting no. 7. Discussion of the benefits of American Planning Association (APA) membership. Ms. More.advised the Commission that Planning and Zoning is goingto purchase APA National memberships for each of the Planning Commission members. She encouraged the Commissioners to take full advantage of that membership. Commissioner Adler attends many of the conferences put on by the state association and finds them educational. The Planning Departments of Arizona State University and University of Arizona are small departments and need financial support. He encouraged members to actively participate. Ms. More mentioned a presentation Commissioners may want to attend June, 12, 2006, regarding sustainability with Sarah James as the speaker. 8. Planning Update • The Town is contracting with a service to publish the Zoning Code and correct problems we have had with pagination. We will be reprinting the entire Code. Future updates will be done by Code Publishers and distributed to holders of the new book by Diane Chapman. • The Capital Improvement Plan Technical Advisory Committee will be meeting June 7, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers to review the projects that the Town Manager has recommended for approval in this budget. At the beginning of the process the Committee thought there would be $500,000 available for general fund capital improvement projects. It appears that there is $1.14 million. June 6, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 • Since the last Commission meeting, the Town Council has approved the Ventana Medical Complex development plans. They are planning approximately 184,000 square foot addition, which is projected to double their existing employment, as well as a large parking area. • Town Council approved Oro Valley Marketplace's time extension. • We will have a very specific discussion at the end of the next meeting, when Chair Bistany and Vice Chair McKee will be able to attend, regarding our work program. The Town Manager's recommended budget for our department has increased. The vast majority of the P&Z budget is staff. As of May 10t we are fully staffed and there are high hopes that over the next fiscal year a lot will be accomplished. We had put a request for$50,000 in outside professional services in the budget. The Town Manager reduced that to approximately $20,000, because a project we were going to fund will be funded out of Community Development's budget. The budget is lean on O&M items with the exception of printing and postage which are mandated by the activities that we process. Neighborhood cleanups have been budgeted under miscellaneous and other operating. We have included travel and training, which hopefully will include two staff members and a Planning and Zoning Commissioner attending the Arizona Planning Association Conference. We are trying to reduce our vehicle expenditures. What you will see next year is staff working with planning projects, zonings case review, development review, and code amendments. Because we are going to be involved in many projects some work program items will have to be reprioritized. • This was Don Manross' last meeting and appreciation was expressed for all his service. 9. Adjourn Regular Session Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Prepared by: Diane Chapman, Office Specialist