Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/26/2005 APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION APRIL 26, 2005 ** SUN CITY RECREATION CENTER—AUDITORIUM ** 1495 E. Rancho Vistoso Blvd. SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Don Cox Vice Chair John Anning Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Doug McKee Also Present: K.C. Carter, Council Member Conny Culver, Council Member Helen Dankwerth, Council Member Paula Abbott, Council Member Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director Robert Delaney, G.P. Update Revision Committee Member Bob Kovitz, Governmental & Community Relations Administrator Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning & Zoning Administrator Chair Cox announced Ken Kinared's resignation from the Commission and thanked him for his efforts. Chair Cox welcomed Bill Adler as a new member of the Commission. 1. PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-01-04, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Mr. Nodine gave a presentation on the General Plan. (Copy attached.) The General Plan guides development and the regulation of development and is an umbrella for all of the planning and zoning actions within the Town. The General Plan has policies that tell us that we need to change the Zoning Code to meet the General Plan. At a finer level, the General Plan affects plats, architecture, signage, landscaping, etc. With every project received by the Town, Staff checks to see if the project meets the Code. The project is also reviewed to see if it conforms to the policies within the General Plan and at that point negotiations with the applicant are undertaken to try to get the project to conform. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report pointing out the revised General Plan and Strategic Implementation Plan pages with changes marked in blue. (See April 26, 2005 Staff Report) Changes to the plan that were addressed were: April 26, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 • How plan amendments get done. There is no longer a differentiation in terms of amendments between growth areas and the rest of the areas of the Town. • The 4 findings for amendments were addressed to make sure they met the goals and policies of the plan. • Wording, "The Town shall" was used to tighten up the goals and policies. • Mixed use development and property tax references were removed. Land Use Map changes were • Remove one growth area that was premature at this point. • Redefine what a Significant Resource Area is, in terms of how key open space areas need to be protected. • Remove back up designations Steampump Ranch area is still unresolved. The Update Revision Committee did not want to look at an individual parcel on the Land Use Map, but recommended to the Commission and the Council that they look at this area and come up with a designation that meets the best interests of the Town. Staff recommends the historic area be designated as open space and the areas around the historic area be designated as Community and Regional Commercial, with a Significant Resource Area over the top of all for a lower intensity. Commissioner Adler said regarding the Introduction, there are paragraphs and sections within that portion of the plan that need to be updated. For example, the description on page 7 entitled Document Preparation and Adoption stops with the 2003 Plan going to the voters. This should be brought current. There are areas in that section that refer to special properties, for example, the property immediately north of the Naranja Town. Site is no longer being pursued by the Town, so that paragraph is obsolete. He can send Mr. Nodine a detailed list separately with corrections so it reads more current. Commissioner Adler also asked what influence could or should the Town have with regard to any ultimate development of the State Land immediately to the north. What leverage does the Town have in terms of how that land might ultimately be developed and is there anything further that should be considered. Mr. Sinclair told Commissioner Adler that a new introduction is being worked on which will bring everything up to date from the past plan to the present, including anything that needs to be modified or changed. That will include new commission and council members and anyone that has had a part in the revision process. Mr. Nodine explained that there are two scenarios regarding the State Land: (1) the State Land stays within the County. The General Plan would become what we send to the County in terms of our recommendations for development of that land. (2) The State Land annexed into the Town of Oro Valley. Then the General Plan would become the policy guides for any rezoning of that property within the Town. This is an opportunity to influence rezoning and how that area is developed. Commissioner Adler said the Land Use Map shows an area of Master Planned Community. How would we use that to influence the County for rezoning? April 26, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 Mr. Nodine replied (1) not all of the area is Master Planned Community, only the area in the far north east. The bulk of the area is either low density or very low density. All is proposed to have a Significant Resource Area designation over the top so anything coming in should be at the lower end of the density range. It would have very large lots with clustered development to preserve open space. (2) In terms of the Master Planned Community, the density ranges will be determined at the time of rezoning by examining the development plan's development impact analysis. Commissioner Bistany said the State Land was not a part of the current bond issue. The land north from Desert Glen and east to Oracle was excluded from the bond issue. This land could be up for purchase. The State mandates it can't be zoned so restrictively that it can't be marketed. The Town Council should start pursuing annexation of that land or the Town may be subservient to Pima County for what goes on there. Mr. Nodine stated that we are well aware of that and have been working with the State Land. The wildlife corridor and buffer to the north of Sun City are not dead issues in spite of the State pulling back from their preserve initiative and the bond money not being there. The State Land people were very open to creating a corridor at the south end of the State Land adjacent to Sun City. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that it is possible for the Town of Oro Valley to annex land at any point the State is willing to do so. He thinks the General Plan helps towards the State agreeing to do that. The General Plan is not everything the State wanted. Their mandate is basically the highest and best value for the schools. Commissioner Bistany said on paragraph 3.1.9, page 38, regarding annexations that are economically beneficial to the Town, it could be misleading because of the emphasis on views. When land is annexed into the Town, how do you treat views on residential property that is directly adjacent to already designated commercial property that is not developed? Mr. Nodine said it is related to pre-annexation agreements, which the Committee felt should have tighter controls. When a property is annexed from the County, it has zoning and existing entitlements. It has to be translated to something similar in the Town. The wording should handle those issues. Commissioner Adler pointed out that the Land Use Map provided shows a growth area at La Cholla and Tangerine that was removed. Chair Cox said on page 37, last paragraph regarding Revenue Generation, in the General Plan that failed it read, "Sales tax revenues are not the only source of income for the Town. Development fees, use fees, property taxes, and annexations are other methods to pay for services." When the '96 plan went to the voters there was a strong movement that said property tax and MUN's were an issue. People he talked to also said it was an issue. The new paragraph as shown in the handout has the words property taxes removed. He proposes that a positive statement be made that says the Town shall not consider property taxes as a source of revenue. April 26, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 Commissioner Adler responded that he would oppose a statement like that because looking ahead, in order to have a community of excellence and the services that we desire, it could be that a property tax and other taxes may be necessary. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:55 p.m. Chris Duncan, 14640 N. Desert Rock Drive, said the State Land in question goes from Desert Glen east to Desert Rock, south to about where northern Lobelia and Chrysanthemum meet and then it becomes Oro Valley land. When you were here in the last forum on open land, he remembers that the State Land adjoining Sun City, north and east would be designated open space. Back up designation was to be Master Planned Community, 1 dwelling per acre pursuant to State Law. The rational for Master Planned Community was to prevent spurious developers from "cherry picking" the land. There was going to be a study group put together to sketch out what the Master Planned Community was going to look like in theory. Apparently there was some bureaucratic drag at 11000 La Canada and that commitment was disposed of. We have State Land to the east and north of us and our neighbors at Honeybee Canyon and Estates and Stone Mountain have the same problem as Sun City. The issue needs to be addressed in the Town plan, clearly, eloquently and without doubt of what we mean. We want protection and that was the thrust several years ago. Now, what are the plans? John Antliff, 13540 Pima Spring, wanted to know why there were no handouts of the General Plan. Bill McCarthy, 2216 E. Sausalito Trail, had the following questions: 1. Where is Steampump Ranch? 2. Regarding the Strategic Implementation Plan, which is for the next 20 years with goals and objectives, short, medium and long term, who will monitor the plan? 3. Regarding the land to the north of Sun City, can Catalina also annex the property? If they can, is it in their best interest to purchase the land for what they want? If they did, does that mean we don't have the option to annex? 4. On that annexation, if there are specific guidelines the State has to sell this property with the intent the purchaser has for residential housing, if Oro Valley annexed, isn't the Town still obligated to give the same general land use? 5. How can the General Plan, which is a 20 year plan, exclude property taxes? Catherine Balzano, Planner with AZ State Land Department. The State Land Department is opening an office in Tucson and she was transferred to Tucson from Phoenix. For the public and communities that are dealing with State trust issues, this is a monumental improvement in potential working relationships. Southern Arizona has not been the focal point for the State Land Department because of the huge development pressures in Maricopa County. With what is happening in Pima County, it is very important that we have a stronger presence. The main reason she came to this meeting is that she knows how important what happens on the State Trust Land is to this community. The same statute that directs towns, counties, and cities to prepare general plans and comprehensive plans also directs the State Land Department to do conceptual planning on the Urban Trust Land. By statute Urban Trust Land is land within one mile of communities April 26, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 250,000 in population or less and within 3 miles of communities a quarter million or more. In the particular case we are dealing with some Urban Lands. It can also be land that the Commissioner designates as being suitable for planning. She explained that the Trust Land north of Oro Valley is not on the radar screen for disposition. We do conceptual planning, a five year disposition plan and are focused on infill parcels in Tucson and some properties in Marana and Saharita as some of the higher priorities being prepared for disposition. The Southern Arizona office is going to be working with Cochise County, Pima County, Santa Cruz County and Southern Pinal County. The Land Department has not prepared written comments on the General Plan Update yet. The purpose of the State Trust Land is to provide orderly development of lands near growing communities. Is there a beautiful marriage at some point in the future of what the community wants and what the State sees as appropriate and suitable on that State Trust Land? She believes the answer is yes. By statute the plans that we do with our land, we are required to integrate into the community plans. That is done typically with a general plan amendment and through a public process. There are lots of opportunities for the State to work with the Town and first and foremost is they are here to work with Oro Valley. They do have a fiduciary mandate to generate revenue from the Trust Land. Carl Kuehn, 9250 N. Calle Loma Linda, was involved in the General Plan's defeat and the General Plan Update Revision Committee. As the time line proceeds through its required steps according to State Law and goes into the hands of Planning and Zoning, he encouraged consideration of what the citizen's Steering Committee and the Revision Committee tried to do to accommodate the changes as directed by Town Council. At this point in time, little changes probably aren't worth making, because last time the plan's defeat was largely a result of how much the plan changed after it left the citizen's Steering Committee and before it got placed before the citizens to vote. The tax issue keeps being mentioned. The Town paid for a statistically valid survey to find out the parameters of why the plan was defeated. The tax issue came in at about 3 or 4%. Other issues were mistrust of the Town's government. The plan was defeated by a 5 to 3 margin, so in a statistically valid sampling, the tax issue is not very important. He respectfully suggested that Chairman Cox's sampling is not statistically valid. We don't know what our needs will be in the 10 year plan and does not think it is wise to cut off any potential revenue. It is the political process that determines whether or not a property tax would ever be a reality in Oro Valley. Chet Oldakowski, 11706 N. Via De La Verbenita, was involved in two major interests that involve Oro Valley and government. One is a group that is opposed to the financial incentives granted to letting developments in Town. He is also a member of Council Member Helen Dankwerth's economic development think tank. The group is made up of a broad cross-section of people within the Town, i.e. bankers, real estate, developers, industry and ordinary citizens. We have studied trying to look at ways we can develop economic security for the Town. We have looked at incentives, health programs, development services, etc. We have asked for and will be receiving from the Finance Director an outlook of what the Town needs to survive over the next five to ten years. That is key because you can't have economic security if you don't know what you need down the road. We have seen some preliminary information that shows where the Town has received tax revenues and what is the outlook for the future tax revenues. If you look at the "wants" versus the needs of the Town, we may have some difficulty in meeting all of April 26, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 the wants. There may be some recommendations coming out of this task force that will then go to Council to apply stop gap measures to help bridge that gap in revenues. Property taxes are one of the items we looked at. There is a property tax and there is a secondary tax. The secondary tax is almost like a bond issue. You take out a tax and allocate it for a specific application. You have to think about how to run the Town like a business. It would be tying the hands of the Town government if a statement was put in saying no property taxes. Keep in mind the Council cannot put a tax in place. They can recommend a tax. The voters make the decision. Commissioner Adler told Mr. Oldakowski that our current 1996 plan says that growth should pay for itself. The proposed plan indicates that growth should pay its fair share. Do you have any recommendation as to how those statements should be qualified or supported? Mr. Oldakowski did not have a response. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:20 p.m. Chair Cox responded to the question of no handouts to the General Plan that there are copies available at Town Hall for$20 or it is available on-line or on CD for$8.00. There is also a copy available at the Library. Mr. Nodine responded regarding comments for State Land, that Catherine Balzano answered it well. As she said it is not on their radar at this point. They need to be involved in the planning process when it is ripe for development. When it gets closer there will be communication with them and plans put together for it. There is no sense in the Town doing a detailed plan for an area until we have the State plan engaged in that process. There has been discussion about creating an open space area adjacent to Sun City. The current General Plan designates it as open space. When the State law changed, it said that if an area is designated as open space, it ends up becoming one unit per acre because you cannot totally take away developability of the area. The plan is to designate that area as 3 acre lots with an overlay on top that says this is an important area to preserve. Ideally it should be lower than 3 acre lots and/or clustered away from Sun City to create a corridor between the Tortolitas and the Catalinas. Mr. Nodine pointed out where Steampump Ranch is located. Strategic Implementation Plan monitoring: there is a program within the Administration section to report on a regular basis to the Town Council on the implementation of the plan. Every 2-3 years an involved presentation is given to the public. The General Plan calls for the Town and Council to monitor the implementation. Can Catalina annex? With the State law requiring a new jurisdiction to be 6 miles away from an incorporated jurisdiction, Catalina cannot annex. If Oro Valley gets the land from the State, the zoning would be the current zoning on the property and translated into the Town at the lowest density. April 26, 2005 Approved Minutes, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 How can the General Plan exclude property taxes? The General Plan doesn't establish property taxes, it only established the policy. It ultimately becomes the voters who approve or don't approve taxes. Commissioner McKee commented regarding property taxes that he has been sitting in on the economic development meetings. The strategic plan of annexation was not discussed. If the annexation plan to bring in as much commercial area as possible is done and done quickly, it will alleviate most of the financial problems for the community for a long time. That won't be known until the plan is developed and the 5-10 year projection is complete. Chair Cox thanked those who provided comments. The next public hearing will be May 9, 2005 at the Church of the Nazarene. ADJOURN SPECIAL SESSION MOTION: Vice Chair Anning moved to adjourn the April 26th Special Session of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recording Secretary