Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/5/2005 APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION APRIL 5, 2005 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:01 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Don Cox Vice Chair John Anning Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Doug McKee Also Present: Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment Scott Nelson, Special Project Coordinator Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Call to the audience opened and closed at 6:03 p.m., there being no speakers. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the January 27, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission and General Plan Update Revision Committee Joint Study Session minutes as written. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. MOTION: Vice Chair Anning MOVED to approve of the March 1, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1. PUBLIC HEARING — PREANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LA CHOLLA AIRPARK, APPROXIMATELY 970 ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY LOCATED NORTH AND WEST OF THE CURRENT TOWN LIMITS. THE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AREA AS ATTACHED AND KNOWN AS ANNEXATION AREA J. Bryant Nodine introduced Scott Nelson, Special Project Coordinator. Mr. Nelson made a statement for the record that the La Cholla Airpark map was drawn as a result of a map given to the Town by the La Cholla Airpark, which was part of their CC&R's. After notice of APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 2 this public hearing, two property owners came forward. They are part of the Airpark with parcels on opposite sides of Como. They indicated that they wanted to be part of this annexation; however, the annexation process is too far along. Mr. Nelson met with the property owners and the board on last Friday. The board also met with the property owners over the weekend. The property owners are Mr. and Mrs. Dillinger, Parcel No. 219-25-007, and Mr. and Mrs. Stroud, Parcel No. 219-25-0090. Mr. Nelson recommended that upon completion of this annexation, the Town annex those two parcels at the first legal opportunity. Once the Town is contiguous to them, that is a State Law requirement. If the Commission decides to approve this pre-annexation agreement, the terms from this agreement apply to those two parcels as well as the new R1-300 district and airport overlay zone. Mr. Nelson gave the Staff Report. This has been a two year plus process. The current Mayor and Council have negotiated and reviewed all the issues in this document. Mr. Nelson replied to Commissioner Kinared regarding the term of commitment, that it is the intent of the residents of the Airpark to continue to exist as a private airpark. The residents wanted clarity well into the future. At the request of Mayor and Council, other cities and towns throughout the State of Arizona were petitioned and in the development agreements and statutes the term varies widely. The majority of Council, who met with the Airpark Board, felt the agreement should be in place as long as possible. The term is for 99 years with a 10 year renewal at the end of the 99 years. Chair Cox stated that the word successive seems to make it automatic renewals. Attorney Andrews said the agreement automatically renews unless somebody, either the Town or the Airpark, give notice to stop it. There is a 180 day cancellation clause. Attorney Andrews responded to Commissioner McKee's question of why aren't the residents a party to the agreement, that everybody in the Airpark are corporate shareholders. The corporation is represented by the board and the board is representing everybody within the Airpark. The corporation does represent everybody in the Airpark. Commissioner McKee said on the 99 year issue, the word "subsequent" should be added before Renewal Period in 2.0, 3rd line from the bottom of the paragraph. Howard Richmond, 1890 W. Hawkridge, La Cholla Airpark Long Range Planning Spokesperson. In response to Commissioner McKee's question regarding jet aircraft, he said the strip is 4,500 feet long and 40 feet wide. Every 18 months a small jet may arrive. It is not a good place for a jet because of density altitude and the length of the strip. There are currently 110 aircraft based at the Airpark, 64 in the common area and 56 in private hangers on people's property. The Airpark is privately owned and operated. Only residents and their guests are allowed to use the Airpark, with the exception of the Governor and business people who call and ask permission to land. The land on the western, northwestern and northern sides of the Airpark is unsuitable for aircraft. The Airpark is within 10% of maximum from an operational standpoint. Jets are not in the plan. Mr. Richmond told Commissioner McKee that there is room in the common area for 4 additional hangers. They would not add additional parking places, but would replace tie- APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 3 down areas. There is room for about 10 hangers on lots currently without a hanger. The County has been requested for a conditional use permit for a heliport for public safety purposes. The water system has been extended to put a fire hydrant in by the airstrip and a heliport in the middle of the strip with a parking facility for the Forest Service to park and get water in case of a fire problem in the northwest. Medivacs out of the Northwest Hospital also use the facilities. Mr. Richmond clarified for Chair Cox that under certain weather conditions the air strip has the capability of accepting small jet aircraft. It does not have that capability during the summer due to the density altitude, which is the altitude adjusted by heat. Jet aircraft is not encouraged. Mr. Richmond told Commissioner Bistany that the concept of remaining private is that the airstrip and facilities are used only by members of the La Cholla Airpark and their guests for routine flying, except for emergency conditions. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:25 p.m. Anita Kay, 1451 W. Sunkist Road, wondered if the Airpark zoning changes will impact her property. She did not know if she was within 5,000 feet. Mr. Nodine said that will be covered in Item 2 on the agenda. Alan Zimmerman, 13571 N. Como, said one of the reasons he lives here is he likes the rural homestead zoning. He perceives expansion of Oro Valley into La Cholla Airpark. He has seen a trend that Oro Valley seems to want to gobble up all unincorporated land up to Phoenix. He doesn't trust the motives or plans of Oro Valley with respect to the possibility of stopping with La Cholla Airpark. He pointed out that if the municipal boundaries of Oro Valley are extended out to include enough people who don't like being annexed, all of them will then be able to vote in Oro Valley municipal elections and we will have a tendency to vote out of office all of those people who are currently incumbent and who are in favor of annexing the surroundings. PUBLIC HEARING Closed at 6:35 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to forward this item to the Town Council recommending that the Town proceed with the annexation development agreement of the La Cholla Airpark. Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 2. PUBLIC HEARING, OV7-04-05, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO CREATE AN R1-300 SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AND AN AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE LA CHOLLA AIRPARK Mr. Nodine gave the Staff report. He pointed out that the last meeting with Mr. Richmond was before writing this ordinance and a few things are missing. He discussed the Single Family District and changes in the handout distributed. The changes or additions/deletions are listed below: APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 4 • Sec. 6-202.A.2.a, Minimum site: 25 acres. • Sec. 6-203.D, Setbacks for Main Residential Building • Sec. 6-203.E, Setbacks for Airport Facilities: 20 feet from all property lines. • Sec. 6-203.F, Aircraft Hanger • Sec. 6-203.G Other Detached Accessory Buildings • Sec. 6-203.G.4.b, 10 feet side and rear • Sec. 6-203.G.4.c, 40 feet rear • Sec. 6-203.H Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee there would be no further change to clarify setbacks and development standards for the hangers that would be built on the common area. The building height is a maximum of 34 feet and with a proposed setback of 20 feet for any airport facilities. Mr. Nodine said a hanger on a common area is covered in Sec. 6-203.E, setback of airport facilities. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Kinared's question, regarding why would we want to prohibit a public park, that the Town doesn't have public park as an allowed use within a Single Family District. Parks are in the Park and Open Space District. That is the only reason it is prohibited, not that there shouldn't be a park in that area. Recreational areas are allowed within the SFD, but not a public park which would have lights, ball fields, etc. That would require a zoning change. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that restriction and prohibition against manufactured mobile homes is in the current code. The manufactured mobile home district is the SDH6 District. He carried forward the typical prohibitions and allowances within the other R1 zones. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Bistany that there aren't any prohibited uses in the comparison chart that would create a hardship. This was discussed with the Airpark to make sure that there wouldn't be any issues with existing uses. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that repair type facilities, if associated with the Airport, are looked at as an accessory use to the airport and is allowed. Vice Chair Anning said the language doesn't actually say these uses are prohibited. They are simply not allowed because they are not included as uses permitted. There is room with respect to analogous uses that might be permitted because they are closely associated with general operations. Mr. Nodine said the way that works is if there is something that is similar to listed permitted ones, then someone can apply as an analogous use through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Richmond told Chair Cox that they don't have any ultralite activity, nor any hot air balloon, sailplane or glider activity. These were listed by the Town. The Town isn't interested in trying to manage the Airpark's operations, but prefers the Airpark manage their own. Currently, general aviation aircraft include fixed wing, rotary wing and some sport planes. Sport planes are a new approved FAA category. The sport plane people APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 5 have been asked to practice at San Miguel. Sport planes are a register aircraft that is heavier than ultralite. The licensing is different for the pilot. The Airpark's Aviation Safety Committee meets regularly to review flight patterns, flight paths, etc., to make sure the Airpark leaves as light an impact on the neighborhood as possible. Mr. Nodine pointed out that Staff is not trying to create a district that applies only to La Cholla Airpark, but a general R1-300 SF District that will meet the needs of the Airpark and possibly in other areas of the Town. Mr. Nodine responded to Chair Cox that sailplanes, hot air balloons and ultralite might be an analogous use? Commissioner McKee commented that 99 years is a long time. New residents of the park may want something different. Sailplanes and hot air balloons are an activity that arise and we may not want to put words in or leave words out that would restrict them. They have to abide by their own Safety and CC&R rules. Mr. Richmond told Commissioner Bistany there is no flight instruction school. There are several certified flight instructor residents, who occasionally provide flight instruction to students. They may take off from the airport but practice is discouraged at the Airpark. No one could come in and ask to learn how to fly. Mr. Richmond mentioned in Sec. 6-203.E, Setback of Airport Facilities: rather than 20 feet from all property lines, they would prefer 10 feet. The full-time manager's apartment is next to the clubhouse and road and would not make 20 feet if it needed to be replaced. Mr. Nodine said if necessary it could be handled with a variance or a code change. Mr. Nodine gave the rest of the Staff report regarding the Overlay District. He discussed Article 10.6, the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) and the Compatible Use Zones (CUZ) and CUZ Map. (See attachments to staff report.) Staff is not trying to create zoning districts for areas outside the Town. Even though everyone within the CUZ D area was notified, the only area the Town exercises jurisdiction over is within the Town boundary designated by the green line on the CUZ map. Commissioner McKee asked Mr. Nodine to explain how the proposed Overlay fits in with the regulations of the FAA. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner McKee request to explain how the proposed Overlay fits in with the regulation of the FAA, that in researching other districts around airport environ districts, that virtually all of those are based of FAA regulations, Part 77. A depiction of that was found in the 1990 PAG Regional Air Transportation Plan. This is a visual approach zone. The provisions for visual was used that create the conical surface and all the compatible use zones. Mr. Nodine pointed out that notice was sent out to everybody in the circular area on the map. He received 5-6 phone calls. Two or three asked how it applied to them regarding the sound proofing provision. He did get a call representing Vistoso Partners, who said APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 6 they felt there should be restrictions on the length of the runway and on the number of aircraft in terms of the impact on their property. He distributed a letter from Mr. Carlier protesting the R1-300 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING Opened at 7:10 p.m. Jim Seaney, 1851 W. Moore Road, is in unincorporated Pima County just south of Moore Road. When he bought the property the Airpark was in use. There were planes flying over, so there was no mistake what they were getting into. He voiced concerns regarding start and finish time frames, i.e. 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., dawn to dusk. They are a private airpark and at times there are 5:00 a.m. flights taking off and night flights coming up to 10:00 p.m. The landings are not as noisy. At least once a month there is a breakfast club meeting, with planes flying from airpark to airpark. Those particular days, usually a Saturday or Sunday, have a lot of activity and it is not just the private residents of La Cholla Airpark. He believes there are flyovers done without landing, which is probably a training thing. Some come in very fast. In the zoning there was talk about ultralite activity. Mr. Richmond said there is no ultralite activity. In the month of March, he witnessed ultralite activity. He doesn't know if they were residents, but they were touching down on the runway and taking off. Chair Cox asked Ms. Kay if she still wished to speak, and she declined. PUBLIC HEARING Closed at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Richmond said safety is the most important thing the Airpark deals with. The Aviation Safety Committee meets regularly. Twice a year the Experimental Aviation Association of Tucson has a pancake breakfast fly-in with about 20 planes. Neighbors are invited to join us. At those times there is more activity. Guidelines are given to the pilots to fly with as low noise impact as possible. Night activity is limited. Touch and go landings are not allowed in the park. The ultralites Mr. Seaney was talking about in March were the Sport Aircraft. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that if the Town wanted to address hours of operation and types of use, it would need to be part of the zoning or agreement before the Commission this evening. Attorney Andrews would prefer it be in the agreement as part of a contract. Commissioner Kinared asked if it would be appropriate to either continue this until there is more specificity in the agreement regarding the subject of hours of operation and types of uses, or pass it on the Council with a recommendation that they deal with it. He is uncomfortable not having an opportunity to be more specific about the types of uses and regulations that we are going to be able to impose in the future. There is going to be continued development in Oro Valley in close proximity to the Airpark and he would like to see the Town have some regulatory authority that is not present in the documentation before us this evening. APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 7 Mr. Richmond told Chair Cox that it is impractical to limit hours. If a person is delayed by weather, what do they do when they get back in this area? The Town specifically told us that they did not want to get into the business of managing the La Cholla Airpark. The Town and Airpark should be able to work together in good faith. Mr. Nodine told Chair Cox that concerns about future uses in the Airpark could be easily handled in the zoning code, i.e. length of runway. However, we are trying to make a fairly generic code which could be applied to other areas where there might be a need for a longer runway. If the Commission would like to look at these items as part of the agreement, it would take either a reconsideration or a recommendation as a part of the development agreement. Commissioner McKee said regarding the 4,500 feet restriction, there is no available land to extend the runway, so it is a moot point as far as this airport is concerned. He said that with this size airport and the limited number of planes, there is no need for a time limit restriction. Commissioner Bistany agreed with Commissioner McKee. Chair Cox thinks the Airpark has been a good neighbor. He doesn't think there is any reason for the Town to start micromanaging the airport and its operations. MOTION: Commissioner McKee MOVED to forward OV7-04-05, proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Article 6-2, R1-300 Single Family Residential District, and Article 10.6, Airport Environs Zone, to the Town Council recommending approval with the following change: Section 6-203.F.3, (of the revised handout) change Setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no. Commissioner Kinared voting no. 3. OV7-04-06, AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 1 TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. He also pointed out that Attorney Andrews said in paragraph one, Sec. 1-401, it should say A.R.S. Title 9, not Title 11. Attorney Andrews responded to Commissioner Bistany that the intent of the word "validity" in Sec. 1-403D was whatever the Commissioners wanted it to mean. The board listens to testimony and if they feel it is valid, they give it credence. If it is invalid, they don't give it credence. It is a subjective word. Attorney Andrews answer to Commissioner McKee regarding the word "exclusively" was the same as above. Chair Cox stated that in November the Town Council called a Town Council/Planning Commission Study Session. During that Study Session, a comment was made and supported by several members of the Council, that this Commission should make its APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 8 decisions considering how they (the Council) votes. Chair Cox took exception to that and believes decisions should be made exclusive of the political atmosphere the Town Council may be under. That is the reason for the word "exclusively." Commissioner Kinared said the Commission makes recommendations, not decisions. The wording should probably say "recommendations" of Planning and Zoning decisions. He also suggested deleting the words "of the application validity" and just say "based on the merits of the testimony." Chair Cox responded that the testimony that is brought before the Commission at any particular hearing may not cover every aspect of that application. Therefore, that is why it should be worded as presented. He agreed that is could said "Decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners." Commissioner Manross felt that there was redundancy in the wording in Sec. 1-403. Also, 1-402.F.3 seems to conflict with what is being stated in 1-403.D. He did not think Sec-1- 403.D was needed. Chair Cox said those things are the merits of the application, whether they do meet everything that is contained in the Town Code and the General Plan. A decision can be made whether you think it belongs to the Town Code or not. The Commission is here to represent the people of Oro Valley, not the wishes of any other group. The citizens are best served if the Commission base decisions strictly on the merits of the application. Commissioner Bistany agreed that no decision should be made based on what the Town Council wants. The Council will look at the Commission's recommendation and make their own decisions. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that a Sector Plan is a specific area plan. Two sector plans in the Town are the Tangerine Road Overlay District and the Oracle Road Overlay District. It is needed in case any more overlay districts are needed. If the State land is every annexed, it would probably need one. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Anning that there are two levels of plans: Zoning Special Area Plans and the General Plan. The General Plan may be specific enough that a special area plans is not needed. It has been provided as an option because it allows us to do plans that aren't based on the General Plan but are geared towards specific areas and can create special districts. Based on those districts, zoning code may or may not be created. It is an augmentation to the General Plan. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to forward OV7-04-06, proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Article 1-4, Planning and Zoning Commission, to the Town Council recommending approval with the following changes: change "Decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission" to "Decisions and/or recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission". Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 9 4. OV7-05-01, REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED ARTICLE 4-9, ASSURANCES, TO ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCES Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that the 120% in the first paragraph of the Staff Report would not be changed, but it says that everything related to the development of a site, i.e., parking areas, drainage improvements, etc., will be included. Commissioner McKee suggested that when this is brought back before the Commission, if approved, that Staff include the financial impact to the Town. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate an amendment to address the requirements for construction assurances. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 5. OV7-05-02, REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED ARTICLE 1-8 NONCONFORMING USES, AND CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS, TO DEFINE ABANDONMENT OF A USE OR BUILDING Mr. Nodine said he was there to answer questions, if any, on the remainder of the Staff Reports. MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to initiate an amendment to define abandonment of a use or building. Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 6. OV7-05-03, REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 3, PROCEDURES, AND CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS, TO ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO INIATING AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REZONINGS, CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to initiate an amendment to address requirements related to initiating and setting public hearings for rezonings, code text amendments, and general plan amendments. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 7. OV7-05-04, REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED ARTICLES 4-1, SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS; ARTICLE 4-2, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE; AND CHAPTER 2, DEFINITIONS, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to initiate an amendment to address the general development process and the role of the Development Review Committee. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. APRIL 5, 2005 Approved Minutes- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 10 PLANNING UPDATE • Thursday, April 7, 2005, Citizen's Planning Institute — Continuing Education presents the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). This is an excellent presentation and the Commissioners were invited to attend. CPTED will also be brought before the Commission in May. • The Comprehensive Code which was going to go before the Council, had an error found in it and as a result is being reviewed. It is on hold at the time until all the corrections are complete. • The Commercial Code was put on hold until the Comprehensive Code is done. This should come back to the Commission in May in the new code format. • Steampump Ranch had a request for a demolition permit. There is an Executive Session on April 6th with the Town Council on this item. • Steampump Village project, Phase I Development Plan has been accepted by the Town. It was approved by the Town Council but resubmitted to meet all the Council conditions. Staff is working on details of the plan and building permits are coming in. • Vestar project has had several Neighborhood Leadership Group meetings. There are a total of 8 meetings planned. They need to submit a Development Plan by May 15th. They are planning on submitting by May 1st . • The General Plan Update Revision Committee will meet on Thursday, April 7th and is open to the public. • The Planning and Zoning Commission General Plan Revision Public Hearings will be April 26th at 6:30 in the Sun City Social Hall and on May 9th at 6:30 at the Church of the Nazarene on Calle Concordia. ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary