Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/2/2006 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION MAY 2, 2006 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE Regular Session at 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Pete Bistany Vice Chair Doug McKee Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Teree Bergman Commissioner Honey Pivirotto Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis K.C. Carter, Council Member Sarah S. More, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney 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 April 4, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Vice Chair McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 5. Public Hearing OV4-06-03, Lynn Damron, Requests approval of a Type II Home Occupation permit to conduct Massage Therapy within her residence. Proposed business location (Parcel #220-05-2020) at 1350 E. Equinox Place, Oro Valley, AZ 85737. Lynn Damron, Applicant, 1350 E. Equinox Place seeks a permit to do massage therapy out of her Mother's home. Ms. Damron currently is working as a therapist in Oro Valley and has been for 3 years. She hopes to have no more than 5 clients per day. She will be doing massage 5 days a week in one partial room of the home. She is pursuing this to better herself and to be self-employed. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 Commissioner Adler asked: (1) Is there a medicinal value or benefit from massage therapy? (2) Are any devices or machines used? (3) Do you have any certificates or credentials? (4) Do you already have clientele? Ms. Damron said massage is very therapeutic. It is good for circulation, helps with range of motion in muscles and has a calming effect. She does not use x-rays, devices or machines, only her hands. She is licensed in Arizona for Massage Therapy and Nationally Certified. She has to take continuing education every 4 years for her National Certification and 25 hours for her AZ State license. She has some clientele who will be following her. She will have to advertise to get her own clients. She won't exceed 5 clients per day. Commissioner McKee asked how many people live in her residence and are the vehicles parked in the garage. Ms. Damron replied there are 4 people and 2 vehicles. One vehicle is parked in the garage and the other is in the driveway. That will leave one vacant driveway spot for her client. There will never be more than one client there at the same time. Ms. Damron told Chair Bistany that she does live at the house. Ms. More gave the Staff Report. She noted that there is a Home Owners Association and they have not filed a protest, but attached in the packet is a petition signed by residents in the area. She also said that a Type 1 Home Occupation may not generate traffic in excess of 25% of that in the residential area. This is a Type 2, which that does not apply to. For the record, in the subdivision there are 471 lots. Generally speaking traffic for that number of lots would be 10 average trips per day, or 4,710 trips. 25% of that would be over 1,000 trips per day. From a block perspective instead of the entire subdivision, there are 10 houses in that one block which would equate to about 100 average daily trips. 25% would be 25 trips. This applicant is proposing to have no more that 5 clients, which that would be a maximum of 10 trips, so this is well under the 25%. Type 2 will allow more than that. Commissioner Bergman noted that in the Staffs report there was discussion on a limitation of no more than 5 clients per day with no overlap. That limitation is not in the materials the applicant submitted. Ms. More said the form is a generic form for all Home Occupations and does not clarify that. She suggested that if the Commission is so inclined they should make that a condition of the approval. Commissioner McKee asked if there were any parking problems with this. It is a narrow street with limited street parking. If there were not space for the clients to park in the driveway, what would the calculation be as to how much street parking would have to be available? May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 Ms. More said the plat shows a 25 foot right of way which is inadequate for on-street parking. She did not know if the street was signed for no parking. Therefore, based on the applicant's testimony, you would have to find parking on site for this to work. Ms. More said the Code is vague in regard to parking. Each Type 2 Home Occupation is different. It is up to the Commission to find out what the unique characteristics are of each application and craft conditions appropriate for each application. Commissioner Pivirotto asked if the narrative at the bottom of the schematic in the package representing no more than 5 clients per day was prepared by the applicant, and is it part of the application. Ms. More did not know and asked that the applicant come forward and identify this as to whether it was part of the application or not. Ms. Damron said there was a section that asked for the applicant to put on the map what her business would be doing through the business hours. It was her understanding that she was not allowed to have street parking and had to provide parking in her driveway. This was submitted with the application. Chair Bistany commented that if you missed the house you have to go to the end of the street to turn around easily. Two restricting physical characteristics of the street are it isn't a through street and it is very narrow. How does the 25% traffic problem work with the characteristics of the street? Ms. More noted that each circumstance is different. The 25% in the traffic is a separate point from the physical characteristics, which are unique to this particular application. 25 feet is a narrow right of way for on street parking. It does work if there are few vehicles and is not a through street. The hammerhead turnaround at the end of the block is supposed to be adequate for more than a passenger vehicle to turn around. The problem is not related to traffic. It is whether or not a home business fits into a neighborhood by being inconspicuous and not bothersome to the neighbors. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:29 p.m. Carol Bock, 1350 E. Equinox, is the homeowner of the address for the home occupation. She is trying to make life a bit easier for her daughter, who is a single mom. Five clients a day would be ideal; 3 would be fantastic. It is going to be a slow process and we are hoping it works. Ms. Bock had no objections and can't imagine it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. If it is, someone could come forward and say it isn't working and present it to the board. Her daughter is mature enough that she would respect the neighborhood and the neighbors. Commissioner Manross asked, regarding the possibility of parking problems, is Ms. Bock home during the day when her daughter would be having clients. Ms. Bock responded that she would be a work while her daughter is working. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Commissioner Adler asked if Ms. Bock had appeared before the Home Owners Association when they made some determination that they had no objection to this. Ms. Bock had not. Tina Wilhelm, 1320 E. Equinox, lives closer to the dead-end of the street. They received the letter on a Saturday. By Monday 10 of the 13 homeowners in the immediate area had signed a petition that they were opposed to this happening in the neighborhood. The opposition was based on the street being narrow, the parking and turn around situation. Of the 13 houses, the 3 that didn't sign are the next door neighbor, who we could not find at the time. One had more questions to the council. The 3rd is Lynn's address. Lynn has already stated that she has two cars and two teenagers. Part of the reason for not wanting this in the neighborhood is there are 7 teenagers, one driving, six more close behind. We have seen three cars at her house already. Neighbors have also seen cars parked outside of this address. We don't want the business in operation. Our concern is that the street is narrow. The HOA has sent out a letter advising people that businesses or other outside people should not turn around in driveways. The HOA is ready to post a no parking sign in the turn-around from 6:00 to 3:00 p.m. Lynn stated wants 5 clients. The neighbors don't want to have to police if her business increases. It is a quiet community. The hours of operation are also a concern. Commissioner Adler asked why the HOA isn't more interested in the narrow street, turn- around, etc. Ms. Wilhelm responded that the HOA just sent out a letter regarding that. Ms. Wilhelm responded to Chair Bistany's question, that she is the spokesperson for the people on the petition. A couple across the street from Lynn has caretakers who come and help them. Commissioner McKee asked what hours of the day Ms. Wilhelm saw the parking problem happening? Ms. Wilhelm said it is a timing thing. It is a growing neighborhood and there are teenagers. She is concerned that Lynn's teenagers will be driving and will be parking on the street. Dick Honn, 1744 E. Ganymede, is the president of the Catalina Shadows HOA. The HOA was notified as a board by Stratford Management, that this application was taking place. The application was discussed at a board meeting. The neighborhood's CC&R's have no restrictions, with one exception to any type of home business as they were written in 1994. The basic restriction is no raising of any live animal for commercial purposes. The HOA took the common sense approach that says as long as the individual has a valid Oro Valley business license, they have no reason or authority to try and prevent that from happening. That is the decision that was made on this particular case. He has been in contact with Dee Widero from enforcement. They were aware of the hearing situation and thinks that this process is better than neighbor going May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 after neighbor in the community. Regarding the individual street and parking issue, this community was platted under Pima County prior to 1994 and has some unique situations. Side streets ending in hammer heads are no longer allowed in Oro Valley Code. Waste Management trucks have to back out of the street because of cars parked in the hammer heads. The reference of the letter from the HOA was a newsletter advising the home owners of the situation and probability of posting no-parking signs. The parking problem only exists from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. as far as the hammer head and Waste Management truck are concerned. Most parking problems do not exist Monday through Friday because people are gone to work. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 6:45 p.m. Commissioner Bergman asked the applicant about the teenagers that may be owning and driving cars that would add to the number of cars permanently stored on the property. Ms. Damron said her daughter has lost her vehicle and rights to drive. Her son just turned 15 and she isn't sure when he will be getting a vehicle. She is hoping this generates enough money so she will be able to move out of her mother's house. She does not see the vehicles being a problem with her teenagers. Commissioner Bergman asked can Ms. Damron represent to the Commission that there will be no on street parking associated with the residence, including all people living on the premises and clients. Ms. Damron said yes. Commissioner McKee said he didn't recall seeing anything regarding hours of operation. Would Ms. Damron be willing to wait until 9:00 a.m. to start hours of operation? Ms. Damron said definitely. Chair Bistany asked if she would be willing to agree to hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Ms. Damron said she would hope more for 9:00 to 4:00, but she would be willing to do 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m... Chair Bistany pointed out that it is the Planning and Zoning Administrator's job to police any permit given and also has the authority to cancel the home occupation if in their opinion what has been agreed to is changed. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 MOTION: Commissioner Bergman MOVED to approve OV4-06-03, request for a home occupation for Massage Therapy with the following conditions: • Business will take place only Monday through Friday. • There will be no more than 5 clients on those days. • All parking will be in the driveway. • There will be no overlap of clients. • Business hours will be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on those weekdays. Vice Chair McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 6. Discussion and possible initiation regarding a Code Amendment for clarification of Table 23-2A and Table 23-2B regarding maximum building height, Section 23.4. Ms. More said recently there have been two inquiries regarding building heights and how they are calculated. There are two different ways of calculating heights in the Town: sloped site and regular site. Note that for some zones the building height is indicated, for example in R-120, it has 18 feet or two stories. Farther down in zone S and C, it says one story and 24 to 45 feet. Typically, in zoning code language, "ors" and "ands" mean very different things. Someone said well I'll just build a two story building and then I won't be limited to 25 feet. Ms. More made an interpretation that the "or" meant "and". Besides clarifying the "or" and "and", height limits should be reviewed for appropriateness. She suggests the Commission initiate this item and provide feedback on what should be done. The easy code fix would be to change the "or" to an "and". Commissioner Bergman said she would support taking a comprehensive look at this issue and include consideration of how building heights are measured. The code shouldn't discourage interesting rooflines. Commissioner Adler said there is a relationship between heights and setbacks, so setbacks should be considered for adjustment if the height is elevated. Is it possible to further distinguish between Class A and a standard design? If it is too complicated to make a distinction, are we willing to allow a higher elevation where the design warrants it, not only in the quality of design but in its location? The height is to some degree a function of its location, i.e. by a scenic vista. Could the quality of design and location be a factor to be put in the verbiage? Ms. More is not averse to considering a wide range of issues. In general the applicants that come forward in Oro Valley are aiming towards a high quality product. We can explore that. Commissioner McKee asked if we are talking about limiting this to office buildings, or applying it to all commercial buildings. Ms. More said she is open to suggestions, expansion of the concept, and limitation of the scope. At a minimum she would want to go to the residential zones and change the May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 "or" to an "and". If the Commission wants to consider the height limit as it relates to commercial, then we could do that and not look at amending any heights for residential. Commissioner Bergman said she thinks residential areas would have to be clarified, particularly the one saying 18 feet or two stories. Commissioner Adler preferred residential maximum height be kept at 25 feet. He agreed with Commissioner Bergman regarding the "and" and "or". He would not want to consider an increase in the height in residential. Commercial is what the Town is interested in attracting and flexibility in height is an incentive, as long as the location is appropriate for the increased mass. Chair Bistany asked when it says 25 feet or two stories; they are saying to not put 3 stories in 25 feet. What is the "and" going to do? Ms. More said one of the considerations might be eliminating the number of stories, because we already have provisions for basement or garden levels. The "and" would reinforce that both restrictions apply. Mr. Andrews added that part of it comes down to we can't have a code that has an absurd interpretation. If allowed 25 feet or two stories, the argument from the other parties is that if going two stories is that they can have two 25 foot stories; that is absurd. That is why we came up with the interpretation and Ms. More drafted it, that we have to call it an "and" or we have an absurd code. Commissioner McKee asked how this is applied to a lot that has a slope where you have a basement. Can they go to three stories? Ms. More said yes. There are provisions regarding what is a basement. Ms. More read the definition of a basement from the Code. Ms. More felt this would not be a significant effort. Through the mail, e-mail and perhaps a couple of meetings with people to provide some technical expertise, it could be drafted fairly quickly. She would like some flexibility for when she will bring this back to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate a Code Amendment for clarification of Table 23-2A and Table 23-2B regarding maximum building height, Section 23.4. Chair Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 yes, 0 no. 7. Discussion and possible initiation regarding a Code Amendment for extending the expiration time period for approval of Preliminary Plats from six (6) months to two (2) years, Section 22.9.D.8.b. Ms. More said the Oro Valley Zoning Code establishes a two year time period for expiration of a development plan. That means the applicant has that amount of time to submit plans for building permit review. It could take addition amount to have those May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 permits reviewed and issued. In the Oro Valley Zoning Code there is a six month time limit on the approval of a Preliminary Plat. The expiration of any approval is to provide the local government authority to apply new codes. If a plat or plan is in process, it is grandfathered with the rules that were in place when it was submitted. In Oro Valley, in order to submit a final plat for approval, the improvement plans must be reviewed, completed and approved. That can be an extensive process and entities like ADOT, Pima County Sewer, etc., may be reviewing. For large plat and commercial developments 6 months is not enough time. The development plan is approved for a commercial development in conjunction with a tentative plat. The development plan is good for two years. Building permits may be issued. Final plat may never have been approved. If an office complex is built and a prospective occupant needs to own the building, a plat is needed. So, a project can be built, the plat expired and they have to get a time extension and then do a plat to cover what has already been built. Ms. More suggested allowing a one year time limit plus ability to grant an additional one year extension for good cause by the P&Z Administrator with the Town Engineer's concurrence. Commissioner McKee asked when is a subdivision a subdivision. Attorney Andrews said a subdivision in a municipality like Oro Valley is when something is broken into five or more lots. Commissioner McKee asked why a developer has to file a plat. Attorney Andrews said so they could sell the lots if they split out four or more. They won't be recognized lots at the Pima County level unless they have a subdivision plat. Ms. More said the definition of a subdivision is in the Oro Valley Zoning Code and it mirrors that which is in the Arizona State Statutes. Ms. More read the definition for subdivisions from the Code. (Copy attached.) Commissioner McKee said that the Code also says that no building permit shall be issued for construction on any lot, piece or parcel of land that is not part of a recorded subdivision plat. How is this reconciled when the developer submits a preliminary plat saying he plans to subdivide? To Commissioner McKee that has become a subdivision at that point in time. Ms. More said a plat does not become a plat until it is recorded and that is based upon approval by the Town Council. Commissioner McKee asked why we have this clause in the Code if that is so. Attorney Andrews said what it comes down to, is if you have a registered lot in Pima County, for example a large commercial development owned by one developer. They are going to develop it and they don't have their plat approved, but that is part of a previously filed plat. That lot has been recorded and is legally a lot and they are going to develop it. We have to issue permits. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 9 Ms. More said Oro Valley is primarily a residential community. If someone had 10 acres and zoning allows for 1 house per acre, the provision means that 10 houses can't be built there until a subdivision is filed for makes sense, because generally speaking those lots will be sold. Office complexes and commercial shopping centers traditionally have been for leasing space in a building. State Law and local ordinances require subdivision plats to make sure there is adequate public infrastructure and services can be provided. Commissioner McKee said so we apply the Code differently for a small residential subdivision than we do for a large commercial subdivision. Ms. More said no, we have applied it in the same way, but it doesn't work. For example, a commercial developer does not have to come in with a plat because it is not required. It is their choice to do so. A home builder developer has to have a plat. Attorney Andrews added that a commercial developer doesn't have to sell lots. They can retain ownership and lease out office or retail space, but ownership still remained with the same developer/builder. With residential subdivisions, the essence is that it will be broken up and sold off to the number of parcels on the plat. It doesn't work with commercial because they don't have to sell property. Commissioner Adler said since the larger commercial development would present complications on its face, how difficult is it to do what we are presently doing, which is to operate on an exception basis rather than changing the Code. Ms. More said it is not a big problem. The Staff time, the amount of paper used, Council's time spent looking at the issue, and the way applicants are treated are all involved. In her view, if you are going to put an applicant through a process, you want to get something of value out of that process. Chair Bistany questioned whether one year would be acceptable? Ms. More said the first option would be to change the time frame to be the same as a plat. Another consideration might be that a one year time limit with an additional one year could be granted for cause, with the approval of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Town Engineer. Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on how much of the design has to be done before the final plat will be approved and how does that work on a phased development. Ms. More said it is her understanding that the Improvement Plans have to be completed and approved by the Town Engineer before we will accept a Final Plat for processing. Improvements Plans are for infrastructure and utilities, not the buildings. Grading comes after the plat is approved. Attorney Andrews said essentially you don't know what to grade until you know what you are building. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 10 Commissioner McKee felt there are a lot of inconsistencies in the Code and that it should have a lot of study. MOTION: Vice Chair McKee MOVED to initiate a Code Amendment for extending the expiration time period for approval of a Preliminary Plat from 6 months to two years. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 8. Discussion of Planning and Zoning Work Plan to receive input for additions to or modification thereof. Ms. More had sent memos to the Commissioners regarding the Strategic Implementation of General Plan policies, Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (ESLO) update and the Work Plan, which are all inter-related. The Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) takes each one of the General Plan policies and develops strategies to accomplish what the community said they wanted to do in the General Plan. The SIP is a document that identifies projects for the short, medium, and long term. There were suggestions for the Work Plan that was not included prior to being adopted in December. Some of the Work Plan item's time frames have not been met. Ms. More is hoping to implement a fairly aggressive Work Plan, but she does not want her Staff to be stretched too thin. Chair Bistany believed the September 6, 2005, Commission meeting called for the Design Guidelines to be included in the Work Plan. It was voted on by the Commission and when it went to the Council, the Design Guidelines weren't in the plan. He thinks the Work Plan is aggressive and ambitious for the size of staff we have to implement it. He would like to see the Design Guidelines included. Ms. More would like to focus on the ESLO as a major project. We have a new staff member, who will allow a greater capacity to work on other projects. There is nothing she would add. There are few items in the Commercial Code that might be errors. When the Commercial Code was redone a lot of the submittal documents were removed and put into a separate document. Some submittal requirements were left in the Code and some Code requirements were removed from the Code. She would like to get that fixed so it does not cause confusion amongst applicants and staff. Commission Adler said the reference to the Design Guidelines is in the SIP as a medium term assignment, but it is limited to review and amend Oro Valley Design Guidelines to more fully address campus style employment centers. When the Design Guidelines are put on the Work Plan, this particular reference which is under Economic Development Element can be a part of that assignment. One concern, in the General Plan SIP in Open Space Element, is reviewing existing PADs and trying to bring them current in terms of respect for environmental sensitivity. Also, breaking sustainability into its various components could be on the Work Plan. We need to begin to address and put into our Code items such a green building and other kinds of energy conservation areas. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11 Ms More agreed with adding sustainability discussion as an item for long term. Reviewing the existing PADs is troublesome primarily from a legal standpoint. That is equivalent to a rezoning and would involve noticing, advertising, posting, and going through public hearings with thousands of property owners to change the PAD. It is legal and proper for communities to consider down-zoning, but it not something that communities enter into lightly. If the Commission has an interest she asked that it be very narrowly focused and defined and she would take the idea back to the Town Council and let them decide the matter. Ms. More would like to have a discussion about what in particular (the Commission is interested in), such as specific geographic areas that we could limit this focus to, i.e., undeveloped, un-platted areas. This may be something the Commission needs to find out more about. Chair Bistany suggested that we have to prioritize our work effort. If we keep adding more to the Work Plan we will never get anything done. Concerning the ESLO, is staff planning on doing the work in-house or get outside help? Ms. More said for the coming fiscal year budget we have requested $15,000 primarily to hire a biologist expert to do the study of the land for us and staff in-house would write any policy and codes. Attorney Andrews said when we talk about regulating PADs and areas such a open space and parks, the legal issue that will have to be gone into is vested rights in the zoning, etc., and making sure we are not stepping on toes and buying lands we didn't intend to. Commissioner Pivirotto thought it would be helpful if Ms. More would give her interpretation of the SIP, the work list that comes out of it for her department, Mr. Adler's list of the guideline issues, and anything else she identified in order of priority and the level of resource requirement. This would allow the Commission to look at a prioritized matrix of work load, work effort, resources required, and then get to a point where staff could be comfortable in accomplishing something. Then the Commission would know what can and cannot be done right now. Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Pivirotto and added that we need to know how much of staffs resources are available for this kind of work. Ms. More agreed. What has been submitted is what was adopted. What the Commission would like her to do is rework the Work Plan, focusing in on the next year or two, and try to make a realistic list for the Commission. She would not take anything off the list. She will bring that back to the Commission next month. No action taken. Consensus of Commissioners was for the Planning and Zoning Administrator to list and prioritize the additions and modifications to the Work Plan, including Commissioner Adler's Design Guidelines, and bring back to the next Commission meeting. May 2, 2006 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12 9. Planning Update Ms. More gave the Planning Update: • Town Manager, Chuck Sweet, submitted his resignation effective September 1, 2006. • We are organizing a field trip to Phoenix with a focus to look at Verado, a new urbanist development, and other places of interest. The Commission will be notified of the date. • A video was ordered and received called "Making Sense of Place" that was produced by the Lincoln Institute. It is about growth and issues facing Arizona communities. Its focus is on Phoenix, but it has good lessons. It will be shown to Staff and we may have an evening forum inviting members of the community and board members. We may have a panel to analyze the video for the local jurisdiction and have audience participation. • The Town's new website is up and running. The Commissioners were encouraged to log on, test the site and send comments to either herself or Diane. • The Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) was adopted by the Town Council. • Planningand Zoning Division budget is up for discussion by the Town Council on t May 10 . • There has been discussion regarding having a Commission retreat. Barry Gillaspie will try to coordinate with Ms. More and Chair Bistany to organize that. • Matt Michels, Senior Planner, was hired and will start work on May 10th. 10. Adjourn Regular Session MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Prepared by: Diane Chapman Office Specialist