Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV110402lanningres-ources. P laa nninn landscape architecture urban desinn development consultants Carl Winters Rnne Warner, RLR Cynthia Donald, RLR September 21, 2004 SEP 2 12004 Ms Susana Montana Senior Planner - Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Subject: OV 11-04-02, General Plan Amendment on the NW Corner of Tangerine & La Canada Dear. Susana: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 2004.. My clients desire to proceed requesting the entirety of their property be approved for CP, Commerce Park. The wash is a key central amenity to the success and quality of this project and should not become a place to divide the project. The residents to the west of the wash will be fully protected from this development, even more than they would by residential. For example, we have agreed to return to the lot size west of the wash and north of Limewood to 72,000 square feet, which was acceptable to these residents. We have agreed to single story offices throughout the complex. These office users will, principally; be 8 a.m.-to 6 P.m. users and even more quiet than residential users who might have horses, all terrain vehicles (as do the residents to the west), and otherwise have more impact than offices. As staff correctly has pointed out, during the zoning process we will reach agreement for details to govern the project including things such as. lighting, screenmg,.parking and driveway locations: We will also work with them on items from architectural styles to HVAC system locations. We concur with the Oro Valley Economic Development Director that this is a prime location for such employment office types of uses. The Commission concerns that there might not be sufficient market for these types.of'offices were not based on anything other than their instinctive feelings. This is a key major cross-roads within the Town and is not only well located, in terms of being accessible to two major arterials, but also has adequate infrastructure installed or being installed through my client's property -as a result.of both the widening of Tangerine as well as the extension of La Canada north to Moore Road: V0 North Church Ruenue. Tucson Rrizona 85791 ■ 15201628-1118 fax: 628-7537 planres@mindspring.com 2111 East Broadway Road, Suite 14, Tempe Rrizona 85202 ■ 1692) 791-5157 fax: (480) 921-9561 Consequently, we wish to continue to work with the Town on this important location for an employment campus for the residents of the community and nearby areas. ;Sinc rely, r Carl Winters Principal CC: Ms Susie Montgomery Mr. Jeff Weir, Economic Development Director Enclosure: Site Plans 0202.1 pla leg f eSoUf CeS lap nninq landscape architecture urban design deueloament consultants 270 North Church Ruenue, Tucson Rrizona 85701 ■ (520) 628-1110 fdX: 626-7631 2111 East Broadway Road, Suite 14, Tempe Rrizona 85202 ■ (6021791-5157 fans: (480) 921-9561 p[anningresource's... alannino landscape architecture urban desiun deuelooment consultants Carl Winters Rnne Warner. RLR Cynthia Donald, RLR August 9, 2004 Ms Susana Montana Senior Planner Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Subject: OV11-04-02, General Plan Amendment Dear Susana: After the Planning and Zoning Commission continuation of this request on June 2, 2004, my clients and I met with you and Mr. Jeff Weir, Economic Development Director for the Town. At that meeting we .all agreed that what would be the desired use by the Town is for small, individually owned; corporate offices and ancillary uses generally typical of the Commerce Park designation. According to Mr. Weir, the Town has considerable requests from owners of various sized companies for small, high amenity offices. While the Town has sites.for large industry, it has no place for. these small "think tank" and other small-scale offices in an office park setting. Thus, employers seeking . these types of facilities are forced to look to Marana, Tucson, and other communities for these high end users. in your follow-up meeting between. Planning staff and Economic Development staff, you further concluded in your August 6, 2004 letter; "Town planning and economic development staff . representati'ves... could support a General Plan amendment that would allow small scale office space; in an office park setting, for technology businesses and similar office users. Therefore, a General Plan designation of `Commerce Park', to support a (subsequent) rezoning of the property to . Technological Park (T.P) District would be appropriate for the entire site." Based on this information and my client's meeting. with Town staff, we request the entirety of the property be considered for Commerce Park and. our plan amendment application be modified accordingly. We will work with staff, the neighbors, and others to generate appropriate restrictions for the subsequent rezoning to ensure "residential scale" offices, in terms of height, setbacks; -buffering and landscaping, and other impacts. 270 North Church Ruenue. Tucson nrizona 05701 ■ 15201628-1118 fax: 628-7637 planres@mindspring.com 2111 East Broadway Road, Suite 14, Tempe Hrizona 85202 ■ (602) 791-5157 .fax: (4001921-9561 Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter and we look forward to being a catalyst for the Town of Oro Valley meet this defined need in the community. Sincerely, Carl Winters Principal Enc: Revised Plan Amendment Concept Maps Cc: Susie Montgomery 02020.1 p n © planning resources lanin9 landscape architecture urban design deuelooment consultants 270 North Church Ruenue, Tucson Rrizona 05701 o (5201628-1118 fax: 628-7637 2111 East Broadway Road, Suite 14, Tempe Rrizona 05262 o (6021791-5157 fax: (4801921-9561 �O�PLLEY A/�jZo2 �AR3�20� O ,9 s k a ►- JN ED19�ho TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PLANNING AND ZONING 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 PHONE: (520) 229-4800 FAX: (520) 742-1022 www.townoforovalley.com APPLICATION FORM OV Case # (Office Use Only): 0 V //- 0 q- Q Q- Application A. Project Man ger/DeveI R r r Name: VJt 1-S (-v o Firm: ""' t S Address: City: I State• Telephone: 2 — It I q, Fax: Z B. Property Owner (s), if ore than one owner, attach list Name: 4f_'P_ ore S-t Zip` Email: /I ul ceceS Firm: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: Fax: Email: C. Subject Property Parcel/Tax Code: 2 l�- Legal Description/Pr pert Area of property: Existing Zoning: Is Proposed Zoning in General Plan Designal Existing Land Use:_l D. Previous Applications OV8- OV11- CH -O a E. Reason For Request M Proposed Zoning: General Plan designation? [ ] ng To This Prope OV9- OV12- posed Land [ ] Yes RQ No OV10- OV13- This application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am the owner of the above.described property or have been authorized by the owner to make this application. bL) Date Signature March 31, 2004 Bryant Nodine Zoning Administrator Planning and Zoning Community Development Department Town of Oro Valley RE: OVII-04-02 General Plan Amendment for 38.8 acres at Northwest corner of' .Tangerine and La Canada Dear. Mr. Nodine: The property owner is seeking a General Plan Amendment Consistant with the 2003 plan update to change 7 parcels (two in Oro Valley and five currently in Pima County) . from `Rural Low Density Residential" (R-LDR) to "Low Density Residential" (LDR) west of the wash and "Neighborhood Commercial" (NC) east of the wash. These uses will be needed in order to rezone to "R1-72" west of the wash and "C-N" east of the wash. The R1 -72 zoning will allow the development of several residential lots along the west side of the existing wash to help buffer the C-N zone. The C-N zoning designation will allow development of a multi -use office and commercial complex with such things as a grocery store, restaurants, other retail and corporate offices: This development will bring jobs, shopping and entertainment closer to the community as more families move into the area and fulfill a need identified by the Town Economic Development staff for small corporate .offices: The proposed project is located in sector 5 or the Tortolita Foothills sector of the General Plan. This sector lies within the Town's Planning area, but much of it is outside the Town's incorporated boundaries. The area is comprised of primarily single-family residences on large parcels. Revenue Enhancement and Balanced Uses are important aspects of the proposed NC land use. The Office and Commercial uses on site will help to diversify the economic base and allocate additional land for income -generating uses. The NC use will also create a balance of various land uses in the area in order to ensure provision. of public services and maximize infrastructure efficiency while ensuring. the protection of the community's unique environment as recommended .in section 4.1.3 of the General -Plan. The NC land use designation is ideal for this property as is will provide a commercial area located at the intersection of two arterial roadways with proximity to existing and 2?0 North Church Ruenue, Tucson Rrizona 85?91 ■ (520) 628-1118 fax: 628-?637 2111 East BroadWag Road, Suite 14 Tempe R'Wo.na 85282 ■ (6021 PI -0208 fax: 921.9561 planned residential areas. Urnmercial uses would serve the sU1118unding neighborhood and be integrated with the neighborhood. While the NC land use designation will allow development that will provide balanced uses and revenue enhancement, the LDR land use designation allows for more homes to be built while. maintaining the Low Density character of the area. The LDR land use designation will allow for single-family residential development that permits retention of the rural, open character of the area as recommended in section 4.14 of the General Plan. This request is also consistent with the staff and Commission recommended 2003 Plan Update that was adopted by the Mayor and Council. This designation for these properties was never the subject of any opposition, even though this plan did not receive popular vote. Finally, this plan amendment is consistent with the State "Growing Smarter" legislation as the widening of Tangerine and the extension of La Canada along the entire east boundary of the property, together with major water, sewer, and utility extension, make this land cost effective and capable of the proposed uses. Thank you, Irene Volenick planning resources lap !n U landscape architecture urban design deuelooment consultants 270 North Church Auenue, Tucson Arizona 85701 0 (520) 620-1110 fax: 62B-7637 planres@mindspring.com 2111 East Broadway Road. Suite 14, Tempe Arizona 05282 0 (602)791-5157 fax: (4B01921-9561 MAR 3 1 20n NOTICE In addition to the Town of Oro Valley (the "Town"), there may be other jurisdictions affecting development of this property. If a property developer waits until late in the development process to contact other pertinent governmental agencies or bodies, additional expense and time in coordination, redesign and development may be a result. Examples of other governmental agencies and/or bodies that may have overlapping jurisdiction over this property include but are not limited to the following: Federal: ♦ The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for Endangered Species Act compliance, etc. Please note, habitat has been designated within the Town. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Field Division 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Phone (602) 640-2720 Fax (602) 620-2730 ♦ The United States Corps of Engineers: This agency is responsible for management of jurisdictional waters, etc. Section 404 consultations may be required on properties that contain washes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5205 E. Comanche Davis Monthan AFB Tucson, AZ 85707 Phone (520) 584-4486 Fax (520) 584-4497 State: ♦ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: This agency has multiple responsibilities. Please contact directly for_further information. ADEQ 1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602)771-2300 County: ♦ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality: This agency has multiple responsibilities. Please contact directly for further information. PDEQ 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2"d Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 740-6520 Please be advised, issuance of a permit DOES NOT, nor should it be construed, to imply compliance with Federal, State or County regulations. If you have any questions concerning your responsibilities under federal law, please contact the applicable agency. APPLICANT NAME: CONTACT PHONE/ SITE. LOCATION: Applicant Signature 'a rI w i lt ADDRESS: Date Case/File Number TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning and Zoning • Building Safety 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 • (520) 229-4800 • Fax (520) 742-1022 Oro Valley Public Library 1305 W. Naranja Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 • (520) 229-5300 • Fax (520) 229-5319 Parks and Recreation 680 W. Calle Concordia, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 • (520) 229-5050 • Fax (520) 797-2202 March 17, 2004 Ms. Irene Volenick Planning Resources 270 N. Church Avenue Tucson, AZ Fax: (520) 628-7637 RE: OV 11-04-02, Pre -Application Comments from the March 12, 2004 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment from R-LDR (Rural -Low Density Residential) land use designation to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) designation for seven parcels located at the northwest corner of Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive extension and south of Sunkist Road; Parcel Nos. 219-47-0170, 0180, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004B and 004C. Dear Ms. Volenick: Community Development staff has reviewed the above -referenced pre -application submittal, using the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), and we offer the following pre -application comments. Please note that these comments are preliminary in nature due to the preliminary nature of your pre -application submittal. Planning and Zoning Division Comments OVZCR Requirements 1. The OVl 1-04-02 General Plan Amendment Application is for 7 parcels totaling 38.8 acres, however, only two parcels lie within the Town of Oro Valley (TOV) jurisdiction. Those two parcels (219-47-0170 and 0180) are designated in the General Plan for Rural -Low -Density Residential (R-LDR) use which is reflected in the parcels' R1-144 (Single -Family Residential) zoning designation. A General Plan amendment would be required to change the land use for these two parcels from the current R-LDR designation to a land use designation that would allow a C-N, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and an R1-72 Single -Family Residential zoning district, as are shown on your Pre -Application Site Plan dated 2/26/04. www.townoforovalley.com March 17, 2004 Ms. Irene Volenick OV11-04-02, Tangerine and La Canada General Plan amendment Page 2 of 4 A "C-N" zoning district designation would need a "Neighborhood Commercial, NC" General Plan land use designation. A NC General Plan land use designation would permit uses allowed in the Town's C-N zoning district which includes office, some retail, and residential uses (see Section 8-103 of the OVZCR). Please note that per Section 8-104, "any zoning for which C-N is requested shall contain a minimum of 5 acres." That subsection also outlines residential density standards; a R1-72 residential use and density would be permitted in the C-N zoning district. The R1-72 zoning district designation would require a General Plan land use designation of LDR (0.3 to 2.0 DU/AC) or "higher". Per Section 6-303 of OVZCR, the minimum lot area of the R1-72 district is 72,000 square feet (sf) per dwelling unit. 2. The remaining five parcels, 219-47-0050, 0060, 004A, 004B and 004C, lie within Pima County jurisdiction and are designated on the Town of Oro Valley (TOV) General Plan (GP) for R-LDR use. Those parcels would need a General Plan land use designation amendment to the NC or LDR designation as described above. An application for a General Plan amendment request for those parcels could be submitted this year for Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and Town Council consideration between February 2, 2004 and March 31, 2004 or between August 2, 2004 and September 30, 2004. 3. Those five parcels cannot be rezoned to a TOV district unless and until they lie within the Town's jurisdiction. Once the properties are annexed into the Town, a rezoning to match a General Plan amendment pursued by your client would have to be done in two steps: First, a "translational zoning" action to change the County SR zoning to an equivalent TOV zoning category; and then, a rezoning action changing the zoning from the TOV "translational zoning" R1-144 designation to the C-N or R1-72 designation. In accordance with State Statutes, the Town is required to change, or "translate" the zoning on annexed properties from its original County zoning designation to the closest comparable Oro Valley zoning designation. Section 9-471(L) of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) states: "A city or town annexing an area shall adopt zoning classifications which permit densities and uses no greater than those permitted by the county immediately before annexation. Subsequent changes in zoning of the annexed territory shall be made according to existing procedures established by the city or town for the rezoning of land." The closest comparable TOV zoning district to the Pima County SR (Suburban Ranch) zoning designation is the R1-144 (Single Family Residential) District. March 17, 2004 Ms. Irene Volenick OV11-04-02, Tangerine and La Canada General Plan amendment Page 3 of 4 It would be possible to coordinate the annexation action by the Town Council with a closely -followed translational zoning recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to Town Council and a closely -followed rezoning request by the Applicant for a C-N and/or R1-72 designation. 4. The subject property lies within the Tangerine Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) which is described in Article 10-0 of OVZCR. Please see Section 10-005 to be certain that the uses and building pad and roadway placements you desire will work within the parameters of TRCOD. Recommended Actions 5. Section 3-002 of OVZCR describes the procedures for amending the GP. As mentioned earlier, the current period to apply for a GP map amendment ends March 31, 2004. Section 3-005 requires that the application include "substantiation" for a General Plan amendment. Although not required by Sec. 3-005, it would be helpful if your client would, in letter form, "substantiate" his/her request by addressing the four "findings of fact" that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council must make to grant the requested amendment. Those four findings of fact are found on page 1-3 of the July 1996 "Focus 2020 Town of Oro Valle General Plan" and are as follows: • "That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time." • "That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the general plan." • "That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment." • "That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes." The Applicant's letter describing how the proposed amendment would address these findings of fact would be included as an attachment to the staff case report to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. 6. The subject parcels contain a drainage "wash" listed in the Town's "ESL Riparian Update" GIS data base. This wash has not been adopted as part of the OVZCR Riparian Habitat Protection Overlay District and, as such, is not subject to the OVZCR Chapter 10 Riparian Habitat Protection standards. However, staff feel that this wash is an important element of the habitat corridor within the area and should be a featured, protected asset within the setting of the future development March 17, 2004 Ms. Irene Volenick OV11-04-02, Tangerine and La Canada General Plan amendment Page 4 of 4 of the site. The rezoning Site Analysis will analyze the ecological contribution of the wash and we hope that as you design the site plan for future uses you will consider the wash as an important amenity for both residential and commercial users of the site. The wash could serve as the required buffer yard separating the residential and commercial uses on the site (see Sec. 14-207 of OVZCR). Depending upon the findings of the Site Analysis required as part of a rezoning request, staff may ask the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council to place a condition on a rezoning approval that would require the wash to be treated in accordance with the standards of Article 10-7 of OVZCR. Please see those standards as well as the policies of the Open Space and Natural Resources Conservation Element of the General Plan for guidance on the treatment of the wash. TOV staff would like the Applicant to avoid, or minimize to the greatest extent possible, vehicular crossing of the wash and would like the Project to be designed in such a way as to place the lowest density uses to the west of the wash (as you have indicated on the site plan). 7. With a rezoning Tentative Development Plan, please incorporate plans for circulation that will avoid or minimize a wash crossing while providing compatible vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connection with future development to the north and west of the site. TOV Public Works Division, No comment at this time. Other Agency Comments No comment at this time. We look forward to working with you on this Project. If you have any questions regarding these comments please feel free to call me at (520) 229-4814 or email me at smontana(a),orovalleynet. For your convenience, I am enclosing a list of DRC members and their contact information. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Planner II Attachments: 1. DRC Agency Contact Sheet 2. General Plan Amendment Review Flow Chart C: Shirley Gay, Bryant Nodine, Bayer Vella, Jeff Weir 04/01/2003 10:22 520742 PAGE 02/02 g,�.IEY q 4 y, AS & I. C FUNDED �91 F E-o" 2 I Planning and Zoning; Division 11000 N. La Canada Drive, pro Valley A7,85737 phone: (520) 2294800 Fna: (520) 742-1022 Web Site Addrew www.townoforonlity.ram REQUEST FOR PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE AMENDMENTS AND REZONINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION. LOCATION: PARCEL NUMBER: % 101 ` 44 7 TYPE OF REQUEST: APPLICANT NAME/FIRM: ADDRESS: 7i� . ram. A Dotle- TELEPHONE NO.: (;Zt9- g FAX NO.: 7-7 (03 EMAIL: I VO IG�C t ✓1h PROPERTY OWNER: 1 S, P lvl A.A -- /a n.A- e t-_ . resO 1 r S • t/L�+ �j' PREAPPLICATION FERENCE D UE E/TIME REQSTED: V 1 SIGNATURE: DATE: Z Ztfl Za 0- SUBMITTALS MUST 131: RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TEN 10 WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE. ` , VSUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS "ALL PLANS MUST BE FOLDED PER PIMA COUNTY FOLD." "o o TWENTY EIGHT �COPIES (24Xet " OF THE TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WITH LOCATION MAP, F:IAdmin PZWORMS1Amendmenls&Rezonings HandoutlPREAPP.FRM.doc Iamm"41,IMaa_�aI GENERAL NOTES: GROSS AREA OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: 38.8 ACRES ZONING REQUEST FROM RI-144 TO RI-72 (12.75 ACRES) AND C-N (26.05 ACRES) GROSS FLOOR AREA 25 % FLOOR AREA RATIO: 25 % NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 5 BUILDING HEIGHTS: 1-2 STORIES - < 25' CONSERVATION EASEMENT: 5.00 ACRES FLOODPLAINS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED OR FILLED UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN ENGINEER. WATER SERVICE PROVIDER: ORO VALLEY WATER SCALE: 1 "=200'-0" 0 200' ADDITIONAL NOTES: I. STREET LAYOUT SHALL BE PER TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STANDARDS WITH 45' ROW. 2. ALL SAGUAROS SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE, OR IF NECESSARY FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, HOUSE PLACEMENT (ONLY WHEN NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTS) ON LOTS, SALVAGED AND RE -PLANTED ONSITE. 3. ONLY NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SITE RE -VEGETATION. 4. WROUGHT IRON OR SOME (OTHER) APPROPRIATE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE FIFTEEN FOOT RIPARIAN APRON, EXCEPT WHERE WASH ACCESS IS PROVIDED. 5. DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO DRAIN DRY AND TO BE USED AS RECREATION AREAS. 6. CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK SYMBOL SHALL BE LIMITED TO SINGLE STORY AND 18 FEET. IF HOUSES ARE SITED ON THEIR SIDE, THE SET BACK SHALL BE 20-FEET. 7. 50% OF THE LOTS ALONG LA CA RADA ROAD SHALL BE S INGLE STORY AND 18 FEET. 8. THERE WILL BE NO ENCROACHMENT IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN ENGINEER. 9. A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE FORMED FOR THE. SUBDIVISION, WHICH SHALL BE CHARGED WITH PRESERVATION OF THE PROTECTED RIPARIAN HABITAT IN AN UNDISTURBED STATE. FIMA COUNTY a PROPOSED ZONING: RI-72 A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT (PER ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 14-101). THE TANGERINE OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 10-0) APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE REQUIRED 50' NO ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE. THE RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 10-7) APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. A FIFTEEN FOOT SETBACK SHALL BE PRESERVED ALONG THE HABITAT CORRIDOR AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. WITHIN THIS AREA ALL EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PRESERVED. ■ planning resources p(8pplpp landscaae architacture urban design development consultant: 270 North Church Avenue, Tucson Arizona $5701 a (520)626-1118 fax,620-7637 2111 East Broadway, Ste. 14, Tampa Arizona SS202 a (602) 921-0208 fax:921-9S61 2/26/2004 ..- 2 13 E; PUA OOUNIY� A4iI�NA LOCATION MAP FEB 2 6 goo PARCELS 219-47-0170, 0180, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004B, 004c ON TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CARADA ROAD REZONING FROM RI-144 TO RI-72 AND C-N SCALE: 1'=200'-O" CONTOUR INTERVAL: I FOOT IV 02_ AUG 1 8 2004 resources lanni.ng laa MA Larndscaoe architecture urban design deuelooment consultants Carl Winters Rnne Warner, RLR Cynthia Donald; RLR V Z August 18, 2004 Ms Susana Montana Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Blvd. Oro Valley, Arizona 8737 Subject: Miller Plan Amendment: Findings Dear Susana: In reviewing the currently adopted 1996 General Plan for the Town of Oro Valley, the proposed Commerce Park Designation for this property meets the criteria for.plan amendments and rezonings asfollows: 1. The Town of.Oro Valley Economic Development Department has gone on record as supporting this site for the desired small corporate office park due to a number of things that implement policies of the current plan including: a. `Providing employment within walking distance to "white collar" housing. b. Providing for a quality office park at a.major arterial intersection with easy access to all major areas of the community including, but. not limited to" i. Private and public airport facilities ii. Sufficient water, sewer and other infrastructure iii. 'Proximity to government offices iv. Excellent.physical environment for highly paid employees that are current residents of the greater Oro Valley and "Tortolita".area. Consequently, while this site will benefit the owner, this site was not selected to benefit the owner, but rather, to benefit the entire community. 2. The amendment is consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the general plan. . Specifically, this site meets the criteria set. forth. in Policy .3.1J which includes provision of work places that are consistent. with the scale of the surrounding area and will emphasize a unified architectural theme, pedestrian orientation, natural landscaping and inward - transportation patterns. 270 North Church Ruende, Tucson Arizona 05791. ■ (520) 620.1118 fax: 628-7637 planes@mindspring.com 2111 East Broadway Road,. Suite 14, Tempe Arizona 85282 .■ 1602) 791-5157 fax- (400192-1-9561 3. The general land use plan does not provide any alternate location for this particular type corporate office park. 4. And, finally, this amendment will be of benefit to the community to the whole and suitable mitigation means can and will be developed for the subsequent zoning and development processes. I trust these findings are acceptable to the Town and will work with the Town, my clients and affected neighbors to assure these commitments are finalized. Cc: Susie Montgomery 02020.1 planning fOSOUfC2s mg landscape architecture urban design deue[opment consultants 270 North Church Ruenue, Tucson Rrizona 85701 ■ [5201628-1118 fag: 628-7637 2111 East Broadway Road. Suite 14. Tempe Rrizona 05282 ■ [602) 791-5157 fag: [4801921-9561 [anningresomps lap ft [andscaoe architecture urban design deuelooment consultants . .Carl Winters Anne Warner; RLR Cynthia Donald, RLR Jul 2 July 26, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley % Ms Susana Montana, Planner II i 1000 N. La Canada Drive Oro -Valley, Arizona 85737 Subject: OV 11-04-02, Plan Amendment: NW Corner of La Canada and Tangerine Dear Commission Members: As a result of your continuance, the owners'of this property have met with the Town Economic Development Director and key Town staff and determined it. is in the best interest of the community to take a slightly different approach to this plan amendment. In order to take that different approach, the amendment will require re -advertisement and we need to re -meet with certain of the neighbors to explore this possible new direction. Essentially, what we now want to explore is the concept of a high quality, small lot administrative office type hi -tech park. By small lot, we mean in the range of.acre parcels. The Town has great sites for large-scale employment generators. But, there is a defmite need for those employers who want a very small, but very high amenity office type environment. This major arterial.intersection provides that opportunity since it is well located near the homes where these users live or will live and excellent proximity to the many other resort and similar amenities that are important to these users. In order to further assess this type project with abutting property owners, to re -do plans, and to re - advertise, we request this matter be continued to your September meeting for a new public hearing. S fi3ogrely, Carl Winters Principal Cc: Susie Montgomery 02020.01 270 North Church Ruenue, Tucson Arizona B5701 • 1520) 620-111B fak: 628-7637 planres@mindspring.com 2111 East Broadway Road, Suite 14, Tempe Arizona 85202 ■ (6021701-5157 fas: [48➢1921-9561 July, 9, 2004 JUL 14 2004 Town of Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Commission 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: OV 11-04-02, Miller, Montgomery, Kay Plan Amendment To Whom It May Concern: We are writing regarding the commercial zoning and land development changes adjacent to our property located at (219-47-0160) (just NW of Tangerine and La Canada). We have met with the area neighbors, and would support the commercial re -zoning of our property, the adjacent properties, and the Miller Ranch project. This commercial zoning change makes sense, considering the recent and planned traffic flow changes, and the business service needs of the new higher density residential developments just south of Tangerine Rd and nearby. Sincerely, Brian & Jana Davies 535 West Golf View Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-297-4225 OV MEMORANDUM t DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION '�=zoi'' DATE: April 19, 2004 TO: Town of Oro Valley Shirley Gay, Project Coordinator FROM: Darbi Lynne Davis, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Case No. OV11-04-02 Planning and Zoning Review Location: T1 1 S, R13E, Section 34 Evaluation: Planning Resources has submitted a General Plan Amendment to the Town of Oro Valley for approximately 38.8 acres in Northwest, Tucson. The rezoning will impact Section 34 of Township 11 S and Range 13E. Section 34 was evaluated based on the Conservation Lands System, the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County Comprehensive Plan, and Pima County Zoning Code in order to gain a broader context for development. Findings: Staff has reviewed the above referenced plan amendment on La Cholla and Tangerine. The following items should assist in your continuing review and decision -making process: 1. The site is partially affected by the Pima County Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding Comprehensive Plan designations are as follows: LIR 0.3 (Low Intensity Rural 0.3/RAC) and L.I.U. 0.3 (Low Intensity Urban 0.3/RAC). For Review within Pima County a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required. 2. The current zoning is partially under the jurisdiction of The Town of Oro Valley and partially under Pima County. Surrounding land located in Pima County is zoned CR-1 (Single Residence), RH, (Rural Homestead), and SR (Suburban Ranch). 3. Section 34 including the subject site is within the Pygmy Owl Survey Zone 1 and USFW should be notified and given plans to review. 4. The subject site is outside of the Conservation Lands System. APR 2UCI Apr 15 04 11:07a p.1 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Director 'ar P R�tZO�� PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 April 15, 2004 MEMO TO: Shirley Gay, Project Coordinator Town of Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Division FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: NW Corner of La Canada and Tangerine APNs 219-47-004A, 00413, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170, 0180 General PIan Amendment jQA7 n-� � 1 ov 1 1 - Oq -0 Z. Phone: (520) 740-6586 FAX: (520) 740-6380 These parcels are not currently served by Pima County's public sewer system, and this office knows of no proposed sewer lines that will service these parcels. To connect to Puna County's public sewer system, the owner/developer of this property may need to construct approximately 650' of off -site sewer line to the existing sewers south of Tangerine Road. The owner/developer will also need to provide public flow -through sewer lines at the locations designated by Wastewater Management at the time of review of the tentative plat, development plan or request for building permit for the upstream tributary area to the north. These parcels are located in an area that is tributary to the Canyon Del Oro Interceptor and the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility. There is currently adequate treatment and conveyance capacity in these facilities to accommodate this general plan amendment, but this letter is not a commitment of treatment or conveyance capacity allocation. The Pima County Wastewater Management Department has no objections to this general plan amendment, subject to the following conditions: * * * Pima County Wastewater Management Department Conditions * * * Treatment and conveyance capacity in Pima County's public sewer system will not be allocated for this rezoning until the execution of a formal Sewer Service Agreement which normally occurs during Apr 15 04 11:07a p•2 Letter to Shirley Gay., Town of Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Division April 15, 2004 Re: NW Corner of La Canada and Tangerine Page 2 OV9-04-01 the development plan or final plat review process. If conditions change between the effective date of this rezoning and the time a development plan or final plat is submitted, the property owner may be required to augment the existing public sewerage system in order to provide adequate treatment and conveyance capacity for this rezoning. The property owner shall connect to the public sewer system at the location and in the manner specified by Wastewater Management at the time of review of the tentative plat, development plan or request for building permit. The property owner may be required to build an off -site public sewer. The property owner shall provide public flow -through sewers at all locations designated by Wastewater Management at the time of review of the tentative plat or development plan to all adjacent upstream tributary areas that require public sewer service. If You wish to discuss the above continents, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pinta County Development Review Division '1R/tr Copy: Proj. bile oQ0 �P41 EY gq0ZT A A, �0 10)EO �91A TOWN OF ORO VALLEY BUILDING PERMIT Office of Community Development 11000 N. La Canada Dr. 520-2294800 Office 520-742-1022 Fax March 24, 2004 OV11-04-02 General Plan Amendment — NW Corner La Canada & Tangerine Check lists are available for your use in preparing construction documents for application for building permits on your projects at the customer service counter in the Town of Oro Valley Community Development Services building at 11000 N. La Canada, Oro Valley, Arizona or on line at: http://www.ci.oro-vaIley.az.uS/commdev/bldg forms.htm . The following comments are provided to further assist you in preparation submittal of documents: 1. The codes currently enforced by the Town of Oro Valley Building Safety Division are the 2000 editions of the International Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fuel Gas, Energy Conservation Codes, the Arizonan's With Disabilities Act and the 1999 National Electrical Code. 2. Plans submitted for review of this project will be required to be designed to demonstrate compliance with the codes adopted and enforced by the Town of Oro Valley at the time of Building Permit application. We are currently scheduled to adopt the 2003 International Codes and the 2002 National Electrical Code on July 1, 2004. Please contact us prior to beginning the design of your structures to verify the adopted codes. 3. Minimum plumbing facilities as required by Section 403 and Table 403.1 of the International Plumbing Code are required. The number of restrooms and service sinks can be significantly reduced in multi -tenant buildings when public restrooms and service sinks are centrally located, within the ravel distances required by Sections 403.4 through 403.6.1 and are accessible to all tenant spaces while occupied. 4. Minimum outdoor air as required by Section 403 of the International Mechanical Code (occupancy and volume per Table 403.3). 5. Per Section 1003.3.1.8 of the 2000 International Building Code, all egress doors (required and non -required) must have locking hardware that is readily operable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort and shall comply with the Arizonan's With Disabilities Act. 6. Please ensure that the exterior wall fire rating complies with tables 601 and 602 and chapter 7 of the 2000 International Building Code. 7. Please ensure that the use separations comply with section 302.3 of the 2000 International Building Code. s. When permits are issued to construct shell buildings, tenant improvement permits cannot be issued in that structure or portion thereof until a Certificate of Substantial Completion is issued. s. Construction of private sewers are required to have plumbing permits from the Town of Oro Valley & shall comply with the edition of the International Plumbing Code adopted by the Town of Oro Valley in effect at the time of permit application. lo. Fire flow on site must be approved by the Town Fire Marshal. 11. Fire hydrants supplied with the required fire flow per the Fire Code adopted by the Town of Oro Valley must be installed, tested, inspected, and approved by the Town Fire Marshal prior issuance of building permits or placing any combustibles on site. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT COMMUNITY RISK PREVENTION 2000 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE TO: Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Division FROM: Steven Schoon, Fire Marshal DATE: April 14, 2004 PROJECT: OV11-04-02, General Plan Amendment, NW Corner of La Canada and Tangerine PLAN REVIEW: Fire Code Review for the Preliminary Plat or Development Plan Second Review Please include the following Fire Code review comments to the applicant for the above referenced project. 1. No Fire Code deficiencies noted at this time. Please review the general comments provided below. The following comments are for documentation purposes and are not provided as a change or modification to the plans. 1. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible materials arriving on the site. 2. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage of vehicles. All structures under construction shall be clearly identified with an approved address and building number. Signs shall be of an approved size, weather resistant, and be maintained until replaced by permanent signs. 3. The minimum fire flow and flow duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire area which does not exceed 3,600 square feet (344.5 m2) shall be 1,000 gallons per minute (3785.4 LJmin.). Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet (344.5 m2) shall not be less than that specified in Table B105.1. EXCEPTION: A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent, as approved, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Fire Code. 4. All out of service hydrants shall be clearly marked or tagged as out of service. While the water lines are undergoing bacteriological cleansing and testing, the hydrants shall be marked as out of service. Out of service marking and tags shall remain until the hydrant has been inspected by the developer, approved by the Water Utility, and is in service. The Water Utility will notify the Fire Marshal when the hydrants are in service and available for fire flow testing. 5. The Developer is responsible for blue reflective street markers at each hydrant location. 6. Structures under construction, alteration, or demolition shall be provided with not less than one approved portable fire extinguisher. Fire extinguishers shall be conspicuously located where they will be readily accessible and immediately available in the event of fire. Portable fire extinguishers shall be maintained in a fully charged and operable condition. The code official is authorized to require additional approved portable fire extinguishers where special hazards exist, such as flammable or combustible liquid storage hazards. Fire extinguishers shall comply with IFC Section 906. 7. Fire extinguishers for roofing operations shall be readily available. There shall be at least one multipurpose portable fire extinguisher with a rating of 2-A:20-B:C on the roof being covered or repaired. 8. Deferred fire protection system plans shall be submitted and approved prior to installation of the system. Failure to gain approved plans prior to installation will be subject to citation. Please call me at 818-1017 if I can be of assistance, Steven Schoon, Fire Marshal Golder Ranch Fire District - Community Risk Prevention 3535 E. Hawser St.; Tucson, Arizona 85739 www.colderranchfirc.org prevention(a).golderranchfire. org 520-818-1017 520-825-9001 Fax 520-825-8043 ,�r A TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GOLDER RANCH FIRE DISTRICT COMMUNITY RISK PREVENTION 2000 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE TO: Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Division FROM: Steven Schoon, Fire Marshal DATE: March 12, 2004 PROJECT: OV11-04-02, General Plan Amendment, NW Corner of La Canada and Tangerine PLAN REVIEW: Fire Code Review for the Preliminary Plat or Development Plan Please include the following Fire Code review comments to the applicant for the above referenced project 1. No Fire Code deficiencies noted at this time. Please review the general comments provided below. The following comments are for documentation purposes and are not provided as a change or modification to the plans. 1. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible materials arriving on the site. 2. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage of vehicles. All structures under construction shall be clearly identified with an approved address and building number. Signs shall be of an approved size, weather resistant, and be maintained until replaced by permanent signs. 3. The minimum fire flow and flow duration requirements for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire area which does not exceed 3,600 square feet (344.5 m2) shall be 1,000 gallons per minute (3785.4 Umin.). Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet (344.5 m2) shall not be less than that specified in Table 13105.1. EXCEPTION: A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent, as approved, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Fire Code. 4. All out of service hydrants shall be clearly marked or tagged as out of service. While the water lines are undergoing bacteriological cleansing and testing, the hydrants shall be marked as out of service. Out of service marking and tags shall remain until the hydrant has been inspected by the developer, approved by the Water Utility, and is in service. The Water Utility will notify the Fire Marshal when the hydrants are in service and available for fire flow testing. 5. The Developer is responsible for blue reflective street markers at each hydrant location. 6. Structures under construction, alteration, or demolition shall be provided with not less than one approved portable fire extinguisher. Fire extinguishers shall be conspicuously located where they will be readily accessible and immediately available in the event of fire. Portable fire extinguishers shall be maintained in a fully charged and operable condition. The code official is authorized to require additional approved portable fire extinguishers where special hazards exist, such as flammable or combustible liquid storage hazards. Fire extinguishers shall comply with IFC Section 906. 7. Fire extinguishers for roofing operations shall be readily available. There shall be at least one multipurpose portable fire extinguisher with a rating of 2-A:20-B:C on the roof being covered or repaired. 8. Deferred fire protection system plans shall be submitted and approved prior to installation of the system. Failure to gain approved plans prior to installation will be subject to citation. Please call me at 818-1017 if I can be of assistance, Steven Schoon, Fire Marshal Golder Ranch Fire District - Community Risk Prevention 3535 E. Hawser St.; Tucson, Arizona 85739 wwwx,olderranchfire.orc prevention;a`.�,yolderranchfire.org 520-818-1017 520-825-9001 Fax 520-825-8043 PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Avenue, Ist Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS JR. Director PHONE (520) 740-6520 FAX (520) 798-1836 MEMO TO: Shirley Gay, Project Coordinator Town of Oro Valley FROM: Robert E. Flynt, Senior Civil Engineering Assistant �R Development Services, Technical Support SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment OV 11-04-02 DATE: April 07, 2004 On behalf of PDEQ, the above referenced General Plan Amendment request has been reviewed for conformance with Department of Environmental Quality requirements. Please note the following comments: In accordance with Pima County Code 7.21.027, if on -site sewage disposal is proposed, each new lot shall be at least 43,560 square feet, including easements and designated Rights -of -Way. 2. In accordance with Pima County Code 17.16.090.E, no new roads, other than a private driveway, shall be constructed unless paving specifications are those defined by, or equivalent to those of, the planning department and/or highway department of the jurisdictional agency. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6502. The Department's Air Quality Control District requires that air quality activity permits be secured by the developer or prime contractor before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. REF/rf Moran, Debbie From: Kenneth Scoville [kscovill@amphi.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:23 PM To: Moran, Debbie Subject: OV11-04-02 General Plan Amendment April 7, 2004 Amphitheater Public Schools would oppose this plan amendment without a voluntary donation agreement for the residential portion of this amendment This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield and is delivered to you virus free. Infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Technology Division APR - g 2004 5� 1 0 Moran, Debbie From: Kenneth Scoville [kscovill@amphi.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 11:10 AM To: Moran, Debbie Subject: OV11-04-02 General Plan Amendment March 2, 2004 Amphitheater Public Schools requests a donation agreement on the residential portion of this future project and would oppose this development without an agreement. The schools impacted are Wilson K-8 where the middle school is almost at capacity and Ironwood Ridge High School which has capacity at this time. This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield and is delivered to you virus free. Infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Technology Division 1 h AFFIDAVIT ` PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tuc- son, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made on the day of 20 and the last publication thereof was made on the day of �fl r f, Ti+�1SiA.f't 20 that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: Request of Daily Territorial By (` Subscri�g.�.d'and sworo before me this day of 20 r . tarylPu�blic in and for the County of Pima, State of AnzonAL My Commission Expires: f r; ✓� 111 4, 2008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9462, Arizona State Statutes, and Section 3-111 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code, Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIV- EN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, October 20, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING. RESOLUTION (RI-04- . OV11-04-02. CARL WINDERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONT- GOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN f1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNA- TION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL f0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK (CP) AND TO EXTEND THE UR- BAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LO- CATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION. PARCEL NUMBERS 219.47-004A. 004B. 004C. 0050. 0060, 0170 AND 0180, The application consists of a request to change the land use designation on the General Plan map for the seven subject parcels from Rural Low -Density Resi- dential (R-LDR) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boun- dary westward to include the subject parcels. The change in the land use desig- nation, if approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to Technological Park Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an op- portunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Senior Planner at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.net. /s/ Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Pub: The Daily Territorial September 17, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovl1.04-02 )w PAGE 14 The Daily Territorial SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 Creditor' above -named child to be dependent 740-2900. NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING OCTOBER 5. 2004 at or after 9:00 a.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES s within the meaning of A.R.S. §8-201, t1 PATRICIA A. NOLAND, Clerk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT in the Board of Supervisors' Hearing PLANNING DIVISION 740.6800 M., as amended. Deputy Clerk OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA Room, First Floor, Administration PUBLISH: The Daily Territorial Notice YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA Building, 130 West Congress Street, September 17, 2004 publication hearing on the Petition is set for November 17, 2004, at 8:30 A.M.; in this day of September, 2004. Pub: The Dally Territorial JUVENILE DIVISION In the Matter of. Richardson, Jaycee Tucson, Arizona, at which time and place all interested persons will have an hrco9-92-26 jw NOTICE TO CREDITORS NOTICE IS GIVEN that the undersigned the courtroom of this Court located at September 17, 24, 2004 (DOB: 3119/02) Case No.: 17036900 opportunity to appear and be heard on PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF has been appointed Personal 2225 East Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona. October 1, 8, 2004 NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING ON this matter. Representative of testate. All You may appear at the hearing and be Req: The Attorney General DEPENDENCY PETITION Please note that property owners within ADJUSTMENT DISTRICT 1 persons having Gaims against the estate represented by counsel. The Court will hrprice Jw Hon. Patricia Escher 300 feet of a proposed rezoning, NOTICE OF HEARING appoint counsel upon a showing of lack TO: John Doe Address unknown substantial change or specific plan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that are required to present their claims of financial ability to retain your own TO: Leslee Losey 507 Cedar Street request may file written approvals or Pima County Board of Adjustm within four months after the date of the, 'counsel. _ Sweetwater, TX 79556-3222 protests of the change at any time prior District 1, will hold a hearing NOTICE OF HEARING first publication of this notice or the You are hereby advised that your failure 1. The Paternal Grandparents, Thomas to the close of the Board of Supervisors' Monday, October 04, 2004, at claims will be forever barred. 'Claims to personally appear in court without IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE Edwin ,Johnson and Barbara Faye public hearing. If twenty percent (20%), p.m. in the County -City Public Wt must be presented by delivering or good cause shown may result in a STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR Johnson, have tiled a verified by number and area, of the owners of Center, Basement Level, Room C, mailing a written statement of the claim finding that you have waived your legal E THCOUNTY OF PIMA Dependency Petition pursuant to A.R.S. property within 300 feet of the rezoning, North Stone Avenue, Tucson, Ariz to the Pima County Public Fiduciary at rights, including our right to a trial b 9 9 Y 9 Y In re the Matter of: 8-841, 91 See., alleging the above- $ 9 9 substantial thane or specific Ian file 9 P P 85701 on the following appeals: 9 PP the address listed below. jury in a termination of Parental Rights Dase Karl Wheatlev Minor . (s) named child to be dependent within the written protests, an affirmative vole of NEW HEARINGS: DATED this 7h day of September, 2004. Proceedings and have admitted the Case No. S170571 meaning of A.R.S. § 8.201, 912N.• three -fourth (314) of all members of the Co10(1)04-24 LAYTIN - EAST RI\ /s/ GWEN GORBETTE, Attorney for the allegations in the petition. In addition, if NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION 2, The Court has set a Published Initial Board of Supervisors will be required to ROAD. Eric Laytin, represented Pubic Fiduciary 10, E. Pennington you fail to personally appear in court FOR TERMINATION OF PARENT - Hearing as to the father, John Doe, and approve the rezoning, substantial Joseph Shemtov, on property locate Tucson, Arizona 85701 without good cause shown, the hearings CHILD RELATIONSHIP the mother, Leslee Losey, for the 3rd of change or specific plan. Written 3745 E. River Road, in the SR zc PUBLISH: The Dally Territorial may go forward in your' absence and Petitioner, Sateen Dea Wamhoff having November, 2004. at 1:30 p.m., before approvals or protests may be filed with ' requests a variance to reduce September 10, 17, 24, 2004 may result in an adjudication of Court "a tion filed with this CPetition for the Honorable Patricia Esther of the the Pima County Development Services area for a proposed parochial act crbailey jw dependency, termination of your Termination of Parent -Child Relationship Pima County Superior Court, 2225 E. Department, Planning Division, 201 N. to 2.8 acres. Section 18.09.020A1g parental rights or the establishment of a between Eddie Westmoreland and .Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona, 85713, Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor, Tucson, AZ the Pima County Zoning Code requin permanent guardianship based upon the record and the evidence presented to. Michelle Wheatley (natural parent) and the following child(ren): Dase Kart telephone (520) 740-2000. 3. You are hereby advised that your 85701, or with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. minimum site area of five acres parochial, private, and charter school • NOTICE TO CREDITORS (For publication) the court. Proceedings to terminate Wheatley fallure to personally appear in court This is not a complete agenda and does the SR zone. ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, parental rights can also occur based NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said Petition for Termination of Parent -Child without good cause shown may result in not reflect the order in which cases will Co10(1)04-25 ANASTOPOUL PIMA COUNTY upon the grounds set forth in A.R.S. § 8- a finding that you have waived your legal be heard. Please call 740-6800 one TRUST, ET AL - EAST SKYL In the Matter of the Estate of 533. If the Courtdetermines that efforts Relationship is set for hearing on the rights and.have admitted the allegations week prior to the Hearing for the correct DRIVE. George and Ka .Jean C. Brewer, Deceased to reunify a parent or guardian with a 29b day of October • M at 9,40 a.m. in the petition. In addition, if you fail to agenda order. Publicly noticed items Anastopoulos Trust, at at, represei NO. P820041106 NOTICE TO child would not be reasonable, the Court fore the Honorable Peasle-Fimbres bey personally appear in court without good may be continued during the Board's by Starbrtdge Communications, CREDITORS (For publication) Is not required to order reunification of the pj= County Superior Court, . ty cause shown, the hearings may go meetings. If an item is moved from the property located at 1889 E. Sky NOTICE IS GIVEN that Stephen Pace services pursuant to A.R.S. § 8.846. located at 2225 E. Aio Way Tucson. Az forward in your absence and may result Public Hearing date noted above to a Drive, in the CR-1 zone, reques Brewer has been appointed Personal You are hereby notified that upon a 85713 telephone 740-2000 for the in an adjudication of dependency, future date, the new date will be variance allow the color of Representative of this estate. All request or motion of a parent, guardian Purposes of determining whether any termination of your parental rights or the announced at the above noticed proposed communication tower tc persons having claims against the estate or Indian custodian of a child who is parent named herein is contesting the establishment of a permanent meeting. brown. Section 18.07.030H4f of are required to present their claims subject of these proceedings, made prior allegations in the Petition for guardianship based upon the record and The Board Hearing Room is wheelchair Pima County Zoning Code requ within four months after the date of the to an y proceeding in this matter; the Termination. the evidence presented to the Court. accessible, Assistive Listening Devices wireless communication monop. first publication of this Notice or the Court shall order that the proceeding is You have a right to appear as a party in 4. You are entitled to have legal counsel are available, and closed captioning is located within 200 feel of a scenic n 'claims will be forever bared. Claims open to the public, unless the court finds this proceeding. The failure of a parent represent you in this matter. You may available on cable television. The to be painted a shade of light blut must be presented by delivering or good cause for all or part • of the to appear at the initial hearing, the hire your own, attorney, or if you cannot following services are available upon light grey, . so long as this does mailinga written statement of the claim proceedings to remained closed. Before pretrial conference, the status afford and.want to be represented b an p y ,prior request (ten working days) at the conflict with Federal Avis to the Personal Representative or opening a roceedin . to the public, the P 9 P g P conference or the termination attorney, one may be appointed .b the y y Pp Y Clerk of the Board: Agenda materials 9 Administration standards. Skyline D y attorney at the address listed below. Court shall consider. (1) whether doing adjudication hearing may result in an Court. printed in braille or large print; a signer is a major scenic route on the P DATED: September 1, 2004 so is In the child's best interest; (2) adjudication terminating the parent -child 5. If you are receiving this notice by for the hearing impaired. County Major Streets and Scenic Rot /s/ Stephen Page Brewer whether doing so would endanger the relationship of that parent. This means publication, you may obtain a copy of the REZONING TIME EXTENSION: Plan. Co9-92-26 - COLLINS - COLOSSAL Personal Representative/Attomey' child's physical or emotional well-being that the parental rights to the above- Dependency Petition and Temporary Co10(1)04-27 RIW, LLC = NOf CAVE ROAD #2 REZONING Box 3716 La Feria, Texas 78559 or the safety of any other person; (3) the named child will be terminated and the Orders by submitting a written request ORACLE ROAD. RIW, L Pub: The Daily Territorial privacy rights of the child, the child's child may be placed for adoption. to: Leslie S. Tumer, 3125 E, 2nd Street, Request of TNS LLC. for a five year represented by Addisigns, Inc., September 3,10,17, 2004 siblings, parents, guardians and' In the event a named parent appears Tucson, Arizona 85716. time extension for the above property located at 7477 N. On Req: Stephen Page Brewer caregivers and any other person whose and enters a contest to ti ll he allegations, a 6. A request for reasonable .referenced rezoning from RH (Rural Road, in the TR zone, requ( crbrewer Jw privacy rights the Court determines need trial will be scheduled for a later date. If accommodation for persons with Homestead) to CB-1 (Local Business). variances to increase the area c protection;. (4) whether all parties have a named parent does not contest the disabilities must be made to the court by The 'subject site was conditionally proposed freestanding Identiflcat Hearing agreed to allow the proceeding to be allegations, then his/her rights shall be parties at least three (3) working days in rezoned in 1993.• The rezoning expired sign to 90 square feet and to incre open. id the dtd time. terminated on e above date and advance of a scheduled court on March 19, 2003. The Board of the height of the sign to 20 } Notice The above -named individual(s) may At the initial hearing, an attorney will be proceeding and can be made by calling Supervisors Voted against closure of the Sections 18.79.110E8bl ' , obtain a copy of the Dependency Petition, Notice of Dependency Hearing, and Temporary Order by submitting a appointed to represent any parent named herein if they want a lawyer and if they cannot afford to hire their own. (520) 740-2000. DATED this day of Qyg, 2004. PATRICIA A. NOLAND, Clerk rezoning case on April 15, 2003. The . site is located on the west side of Colossal Cave Road, one quarter mile 18.79.110EBb2 of the Pima Cot Zoning Code respectively allow maximum area of 40 square feet ar CITATION NOTICE OF HEARING .IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE written request to: DAVID N. That parent will be required to sign a (SUPERIOR COURT SEAL) south of Old Vail Connection Road. maximum height of 8 feet for STATE OF ARIZONA HOWARTH, Office of the Attorney financial affidavit and may be required to By /s/ L.C. Lopez, Deputy Clerk (District 4) freestanding identification sign in the 1N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA General, 3939 South Park Avenue, Suite Pay a portion of the cost of the attorney. COPY AUG 30 2004 PATRICIA A. Cog-98-33 - TAYLOR - VALLEY PARK zone. AVENUE REZONING JUVENILE COURT 180, Tucson, Arizona 85714. The A request for reasonable NOLAND CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT The petitioner or the petitioner's at In the Matter of assigned rasa manager is EMMANUEL accommodation for persons with Pub: The Daily Territorial Request of Paul and Kathy Polito, must be present at the public hear PRICE, MARIAH dob 07/28/91 VERGARA and may be reached by disabilities must be made to the court by September 3, 10,17, 24, 2004 represented by Planning Resources, for otherwise the case may be dismiss No. J168764 SUPP CITATION NOTICE OF REARING (Publication) .telephone at (520)721-3097. parties at least three (3) working days in advance of a scheduled court Req: Gilmore & Turner, P.L.L.C. a three year time extension for the Interested persons may appear A request for. reasonable hrrichardson at above referenced rezoning from CR-4 • person, or by agent, or may adds Judge Hartman accommodation • for .persons with proceeding. (Multiple ple Residence) to CI-1 (Light letters to the attention of the Boart TO: DANIEL PRICE disabilities must be made to the Court by DATED THIS = DAY OF August, Industrial). The subject site was Adjustment, County -City Public Wt Address Unknown parties at least three (3) working days in M. PATRICIA A. NOLAND CLERK conditionally rezoned in 1999. The Center, Second Floor, 201 North SI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, The Arizona Department of Economic advance of a .' scheduled court OF SUPERIOR COURT BY: /;/ PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY rezoning expired on -January 19, 2004. Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701. If you h Security has filed a Dependency. Petition proceeding and can be made by calling DEPUTY CLERK (SUPERIOR COURT THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF The site is located on the northeast` questions about these cases, please in the above -entitled cause alleging the SEAL) SUPERVISORS on TUESDAY, " comer of Verbena Avenue and Valley the Asst. Executive Secretary of Pub: The Dally Territorial Park Avenue. (District 3) Board of Adjustment at 740-6800. - - -- - - September 3, 10, 17, 24, 2004 Req: Sareen Doe Wamhoff DONE BY ORDER OF - THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS your letter please refer to the c number. NOTICE OF P BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BLHEARING TOWN COUNCIL hrpwheatley sl THIS 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, Individuals with disabilities who req In accordance with ARS 9.462, Arizona State Statutes, and Section 3-111 of the Oro 2004. TELEPHONE: PUBLIC WORKS - accommodations, including auxiliary. Valley Zoning Code, Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOTICE OF PU LIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: CANCELLATION BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL NOTICE OF PU LIC HEARING TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, October 20, 2004 In accordance with ARS 9-462 of the Oro Valley Zoning 'Code Revised, BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers CANCELLATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING' FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT In accordance with ARS 9-462, Arizona State Statutes, and Section 3-202 of the 11000 North La Canada Drive BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: Valley Zoning' Code Revised, (OVZCR), NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOI Oro Valley, Arizona CANCELED REVIEW TOWN COUNCIL PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TC SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING. RESOLUTION (RI-04- OV11-04-02. CARL CANCELED TIME: at or after 7:00 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, October 6, 2004 COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers TIME: at or after 7:00 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, October 20; 2004 AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY. REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE.11,000 North La Canada Drive - PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers GENERAL PLAN (1996)_TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM Oro Valley, Arizona 11000 North La Canada Drive -RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO SUBJECT: CANCELLATION: PUBLIC HEARING. ORDINANCE (0)-04- . OV9-04-07. Olo Valley, Arizona COMMERCE PARK 1CP1 AND TO EXTEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO REQUEST TO AMEND THE RIPARIAN MAP ASSOCIATED WITH CHAPTER 10-7 OF SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE (01-04- . OVS-04-04. MR. GEOF INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO EXPAND THE TOWN'S RIPARIAN - VIGNYVICH. REPRESENTING M & I BANK, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47- HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT BY INCLUDING A PORTION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BANK, LOCATED IN THE ROONEY RAF 004A.004B.004C.0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180, The application consists of a request to change the land use designation on the General SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE LA RESERVE PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT'AT SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST AVENUE / THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PUSCH WILDERNESS DRIVE AND NORTH BUCK ORACLE ROAD - WITHIN THE ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPME RIDGE DRIVE, PARCEL 220-080-08K - PARCEL 220-09-0240- Plan map for the seven subject parcels from Rural Low -Density Residential (R-LDR) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boundary westward to include the subject parcels. The change in the land use designation, if approved, would The subject property consists of 11.73 acres and the zoning is La Reserve Planned Area Development. The area under consideration is in close proximity to the existing As proposed, the 5,010 square feet bank building would provide traditional ban services, with two drive -through ATM islands located on the south side of the built facilitate a rezoning of the property to Technological Park "closed" bridge. and a regional administrative office for the bank. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana In the future,.members of the public will be invited to a meeting in the future and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this mater, Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportt to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to met time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Sus Montana, Senior Planner at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.neL /s/ Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner please contact David Ronquillo, Planner, at 229-4817 or dronouillo®orovalley.net /s/ Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Montana, Planner II at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. /s/ Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Pub: The Daily Territorial Pub: The Dally Territorial Pub: The Dally Teritorlal September 17. 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley September 17, 2004 - Req: Town of Oro Valley September 17, 2004 '- Req: Town of Oro Valley hrov11-04-02 Jw hrov9-04-07(2) Jw hrov8-04-04 Jw L------------------- - -- ' AFFIDAVIT r'?17 PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA) being first r-: �. ,..'".;n `;�Ji.. _.._ +.ire, • duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tuc- son, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached f4Cp'r I CE C.7F PUB I C: O?U 1 1- 04-02 was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made on the day of 20 and the last publication thereof was made on the day of 20 that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit - Request of Daily Territorial By Subscribed and sworn to bef'dre me this day of 9r, �._,..._ ,�L �..tl.i � i 20 Notary Public in and for the County of Pima. State of Arzona ( } My Commission Expires: 4, " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING �—SION In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Section 3-005 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on TUESDAY, September 7, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS. REPRESENT- ING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY. REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COM- MERCE PARK (CC) ON APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION. PARCEL NUMBERS 219.47-004A. 004B. 004C. 0050.0060, 0170 AND 0180, The application, K approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to Tech- nological Park Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an op- portunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Senior Planner at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.net. /s/ Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Pub: The Daily Territorial August 16, 2004 Req: The Town of Oro Valley hrovl1-04-02 jm --1 of the first publication of this notice or . the claims will be forever barred. Claims_ must be presented by- delivering -or mailing a written statement of the claim to the undersigned. attorney at the address listed below. DATED this 28 day of July, 2004. FREEMAN 8 ST- CLAIR, PLLC /at Robert J. St. Clair Attorney for Personal Representatives Pub: The Daily Territorial Aug 2, 9, 16; 2004' _ - Req: Norman R. Freeman II; P.C. crcourtney jw Hearing Notice to reunify a parent or guardian with a child would not be reasonable, the Court is, not requiredto order reunification services pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-846. You, are hereby notified 'that upon a request or motion of a parent, guardian or Indian custodian of a child who is subject of these proceedings, made prior to any -proceeding in this matter, the Court shall order that the -proceeding is open to the public, unless the courtfinds good cause for all or: part of the _ proceedings to remained closed. Before opening a proceeding to the public, the Court shall consider: (1) whether doing so is. in the child's best interest; (2) whether doing so would endanger the - - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - -- BEFORETHE - - - ORO. VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1 da nce with ARS 9-462 Arizona State Statutes and Section 3-202 of the Oro TO: THARIN _ JAME9 ABLE DOMINGUEZ,11 " PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that. Petitioner Michelle R. Condon has petitioned this . Court pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-601.and 12-602 for a Change of Name of the above -named child to.Tobias--James Condon. Objections to the requested Change of Name must be made with the above - named Court on or before the hearing scheduled for 1-30 p.m._ talon- the 27�h day of September. 2004 before the following Judge or Court Commissioner_'. ` Default Commissioner. You may appear in person or by, your attorney at the scheduled hearing. A copy, of the Petition for Change of Name is attached hereto for your reference. - - - is/ Vernon E. Peitz, attorney for Petitioner Pub: The Daily Territorial August 16, 23;.30, 2004-` . September 7, 2004 - - Req: Vernon E. Peitz,-Atty. - hrdominguez. jw n actor Valley. Zoning bode, Revised, - - - - - - - NOTICE OF TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY NOTICE OF HEARING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A - . IN THE SUPERIOR CSOURT . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FORA BANK USE ON BUILDING PAD NUMBER 8 OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND AND A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN . AUTOMOBILE FOR THE COUNTY OFPIMA ' F THE ORACLE CROSSING SHOPPING You are hereoy notineo that upon a request or motion of a parent; guardian or Indian custodian of a child who is subject of these proceedings, made prior to any proceeding in this matter, the Court shall order that the proceeding is open to the public, unless -the court finds- _ good cause for all or part of the proceedings to remained closed. Before opening a proceeding to the public, the Court shall consider: (1) whether doing soisin the child's best interest; (2) whether doing so would endanger the child's. physical or emotional well-being or the safety of any other person; (3) the privacy rights of the child, the child's siblings, parents, guardians and _caregivers and any other person whose privacy rights the Court determines need protection; (4) whether all parties have agreed to allow the proceeding to be open. The above -named individual(s) may obtain a copy `of the Dependency Petition, Noticeof Dependency Hearing, 'and Temporary --Order by submitting a written request to: JO ANN ZIRKLE, Office of the Attorney General, 3939 South Park Avenue, Suite 180,.Tucson, Arizona 85714. The assigned case - manager is Elizabeth King and may be reached by telephone at (520) 884-4755.. A - request for - reasonable SERVICE USE ON BUILDING PAD 10 O CENTER, IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at of after 600 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, 2004- - - - - - -NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona -. BEFORE THE ORO.VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING• OV8-04-02 DENNIS ST JOHN REPRESENTING BP In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Section 3-005-- of the Oro Valley -Zoning Code NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN - MAGEE LLC REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BANK USE Revised, BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN A G2 (COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT ON A 53730 SQUARE FEET PARCEL IN AMENDMENT - - BLOCK H. AND ON BUILDING PAD 8 OF THE ORACLE CROSSING SHOPPING IS HEREBY GIVEN: - CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE AND MAGEE - TIME: at or after 6:00 p.m: on TUESDAY, September 7, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000-..North La Canada Drive Oro - ROADS A PORTION OF PARCEL NUMBER 225-51-390. - The Applicant seeks to build a bank with a drive-thfough facility on Building Pad 8 in a - Valley, Arizona SUBJECT:. PUBLIC HEARING OV11404-02 CARL WINTERS: REPRESENTING - G2 (Commercial) District. -. SUBJECT_: PUBLIC HEARING• OVS-04-03-DENNIS ST JOHN. REPRESENTING -BP _ SARAH MILLER SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND KAY REQUEST AN AMENDMENTTOTHE GENERAL PLAN (19961 TO - - - MAGEE LLC - REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE USE IN A G2 (COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT ON A 49,033 PATRICIA CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW- DENSITY SQUARE FEET PARCEL IN BLOCK J. AND ON BUILDING PAD -10. OF THE RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK ORACLE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST - JCPJ ON APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD - - CORNER OF ORACLE AND MAGEE ROADS A PORTION OF PARCEL NUMBER AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47- - - 225-51-389. The Applicant seeks to build a brake sales and installation retail store on Building Pad 004A- 004B 004C 0050 0060 0170 AND 0180. The application, if approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to Technological 10 in a C-2.(Commercial) DistricL Members of the are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity Park Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity, public to speak.- An agenda for the meeting will be,made available 24 hours prior to meeting to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana - time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana - Montana, Planner ll at 229-4814 or smoritana@orovalley.net - - Montana, Senior Planner at.229.4814,or at smontana@orovalley.net. lslBayer Vella AICP /s/ Bayer Vella, AICP. Senior Planner Senior Planner- - - - Pub: The Daily Territorial - - - - _ -. Pub: The Daily Territorial - August - - - - August 16, 21104 Req: Thee Town n of Oro Valley . - . Req: Town of Oro Valley - ._ - - - hrovl1-04-02 jm- hrov844-02 jm .,.q: ,...y hrallen jw, NOTICE OF HEARING - - (Appointment of Guardian) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, PIMA COUNTY in the Matter of theGuardianshipof: _ -LANDON ELLIS HALL Birth Date- May 15 1997 Minor(s) Case No. GC 20040614 - NOTICE OF HEARING (Appointment of Guardian) Ward/Commissioner NOTICE IS GIVEN that the court will consider the Petition for Appointment of BH Leslie and -Sandra L. - Leslie Guardian(s) of-Minor(s)-on-September 20 2004 at the hour of 1030 am at the court designated above, the address of which is 110 W. Congress Date 8-9-04_ /sl Petitioner's Signature Date B 9� Is/ Petitioner's Signature THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE._ YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED. ESTE ES UN AVISO LEGAL. SUS DERECHAS PODRIAN .SER AFECTADAS. FILED PATRICIA A. NOLAND CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT 04 AUG - 9 PM 1:14 BY: C. LINNERTZ, DEPUTY Pub: The Daily Territorial - August 12, 13, 16, 2004 - Req: Sandra-L. Leslie hrhall iw upon the grounds set forth in A.R-S. §•8- 533. If the. Court determines that efforts to reunify a parentorguardian with a child would not be reasonable, the Court is not required to order reunification services pursuant to &R.S. § 8-846. You are hereby notified that upon a request or motion of a parent, guardian or Indian custodian of a child who is subject of these proceedings, made prior to any proceeding in. this matter, the Court shall order, that the proceeding is open to the public, unless the court finds good cause for all or part- of the proceedings to remained closed. Before opening a proceeding to the public, the Court shall consider:. (1) whether doing so js in the child's best interest;' (2) whether doing so would, endanger the -child's- physical or emotional: well-being or the safety of any other person; (3) the _ privacy rights of the child, the child's siblings, parents, guardians and caregivers and any other person whose privacy rights the Court determines need protection; (4) whether all parties have - agreed to allow the proceeding to be open. The above -named iridividual(s) may obtain a copy of the, Dependency NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In -accordance with ARS 9-462, Arizona State Statutes -and Section 3-202 of the Oro . Valley Zoning Code Revised, (OVZCR), NOTICE OF A PUBLIG.HEARING FOR A PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING . AND ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: - 71ME: at or after 6:00 P. m.'on TUESDAY, September 7; 2004 - - PLACE: OroValleyTown Hall,, Council -Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive. Oro Valley, Arizona ' - - SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING: OV8-04 04 MR GEORGE VIGNYVICN. ROONEY RANCH PLANNtU AHtA UtytLVrMtN r CAM— ccu-urvcyu- As proposed, the 5,010 square feet bank building would provide traditional banking. services, with two drive -through ATM islands located on the south side of the building, and a-regiorial administrative office for the bank. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time- Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Planner if at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. /s/Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner - Pub: The Daily Territorial August 1% 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrov8r04.04 jm AFFIDAVIT ` PUBLICATION c STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (he) (she) is the Legal Advertising Manager of THE DAILY TERRITORIAL, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of Pima, State of Arizona, and of general circulation in the City of Tuc- son, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached ,; 0 1)L- P was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for issues; that was first made on the day of 20 and the last publication thereof was made on the day of 20 that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: Request of Daily Territorial B y Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 2"....:"z JAMIE C. MA IAa �—• Not, F-ubl* -Ariz n Ty Notary Public i .' h'UHY rizona L_ t �a My Commission Expires: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONII, kNMISSION In accordance with AIRS 9-462 and Section 3-005 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Re- vised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS- SION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on TUESDAY, July 6, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRI- CIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDEW TIAL (0.3 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON 11.75 ACRES AND AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON 24.9 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TAN- GERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. The application, if approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to develop of- fice and commercial uses adjacent to the La Canada Road extension and low -density residential lots on the remaining land located west of the onsite wash. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportu- nity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Planner II at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial May 28, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley pnplanamendment ap NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Section 3-005 of the -Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on TUESDAY, July 6, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY .RESIDENTIAL (0.3 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON 11.75 ACRES AND AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON 24.9 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. The application, if approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to develop office and commercial uses adjacent to the La Canada Road extension and low -density residential lots on the remaining land located west of the onsite wash. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Planner II at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.net. Bayer Vella, iA10P Senior Planner FAMOV 11\2004\11-04-02\Notice\PZ.Notice.doc FAWOV 11\2004\11-04-02\Notice\PZ.Notice.doc Posted: 5-28-04 Time: 9:00 a.m. By: sJ �= NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-462, Arizona State Statutes, and Section 3-111 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code, Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, October 20, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING, RESOLUTION (R)-04- , OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK (CP) AND TO EXTEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. The application consists of a request to change the land use designation on the General Plan map for the seven subject parcels from Rural Low -Density Residential (R-LDR) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boundary westward to include the subject parcels. The change in the land use designation, if approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to Technological Park Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Senior Planner at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.net. I3ayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Posted: 9-16-04 Time: 9:30 a.m. By: sg NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Section 3-005 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on TUESDAY, September 7, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK (CP) ON APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A 004B 004C 0050 0060, 0170 AND 0180. The application, if approved, would facilitate a rezoning of the property to Technological Park Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting and will be given an opportunity to speak. An agenda for the meeting will be made available 24 hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susana Montana, Senior Planner at 229-4814 or at smontana@orovalley.net. zz-a- � Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner Posted: 8-12-04 Time: 2:30 p.m. By: sg A.F. STERLING'S VISTOSO GATEWAY MEMORANDUM DATE :8/3/04 TO: Susana Montana FROM: Lisette Wells, Sales Representative Phone # (520) 575-4700 Fax # (520) 575-4701 RE: NW corner Tangerine/La Canada am the Sales Representative for A.F. Sterling Homes at Vistoso Gateway. We met at the meeting on July 21'. As per my discussion with Mr. Winters, I have attached a list of the buyers/owners of the homes in Vistoso Gateway. Please add all to your mailing list for updates/meeting notices regarding the property to the west of our sub -division. As you can tell from the attendance at the meeting, this is of interest to many in the neighborhood. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Thank you. CC: Carl Winters TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION II UV-C f TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL fE ��/ y FROM: Susana Montana, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R)-04-1o90V11-04-02, CARL INTE S, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK (CP) AND TO EXTEND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA MEETING DATE: October 20, 2004 0170 AND 0180. y�4 k *4_41a C-1 BACKGROUND: d; �' Previous Proposal for This Property. Tn July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a General Plan amendment request for this .roperty by the Applicant to designate approximately 11 acres located west of the on -site Wash to Low -Density Residential use, and about 24 acres located east of the Wash to Neighborhood Commercial use. Th Commission voted to continue that item with the following motion: L , ?y MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to continue this item until the regularly scheduled meeting in August to give the applicant time to add definition to the proposal and for applicant and Staff to be able to give more information. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Manross and Krenkowitz voting no. At the July 6th hearing, the Applicant was asked by the Commission to describe the market demand for neighborhood commercial space, particularly retail space, at this location. Subsequent to that Commission hearing, the Applicant met with Mr. Jeff Weir, the Town's Economic Development Administrator, regarding the demand for retail space versus small office space at this location. The Applicant asked Mr. Weir to comment on the potential demand for commercial space at this location. In a July 13, 2004 meeting with staff and Mr. Carl Winters, the Applicants' representative, Mr. Weir stated that he believes there is a demand for small corporate office space, technology research and development office space, and similar small-scale office park uses in Town, and that this site would be suitable for this type of use. Mr. Weir has submitted a July 19, 2004 Memorandum to that effect which is attached as Attachment 3. On July 21, 2004, the Applicants' representative held a neighborhood meeting on the proposed General Plan amendment in which neighboring residents discussed their concerns with the potential for commercial use on the site. They expressed concerns with traffic, noise, view blockage and nighttime glare associated with otential commercial use of the site, particularly retail use. The Applicant has decided to change the proposed Project from a mix of residential, retail and office space to small-scale office space for small high-tech firms and similar small businesses (see Attachment 2). TOWN OF ORO VALLEY OUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OV11-04-02 PAGE 2 Property Annexation Five of the seven parcels were annexed into the Town on May 19, 2004 (Ordinance No. (0) 04-22). The translational zoning action (OV9-04-04) changing the zoning of those five parcels from Pima County rural residential use (Suburban Ranch District) to Oro Valley rural residential use (R1-144 District) was approved by Town Council on July 21, 2004. The translational zoning allowed for the keeping of livestock on the five annexed parcels, per the Pima County October 2002 Zoning Code rules. SITE DESCRIPTION: Subiect Parcels The seven subject parcels are 38.8 acres in size. Approximately 2.15 acres would be devoted to Tangerine Road right-of-way, and another approximately 2 acres may be devoted to a Limewood Drive right-of-way, leaving a development area of about 34 acres. The Site contains five single-family homes and a horse raising/breeding operation. There is a degraded riparian habitat ("Wash") listed in the Town's "ESL Riparian Update" data base; however, this update has not yet been adopted as part of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) riparian habitat protection overlay district regulations. Portions of the Wash have been graded and denuded by farm activities - nd a driveway to provide vehicular access to homes. Environs The site is surrounded by the following uses: North: Single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels zoned rural low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County; South: Tangerine Road and single-family homes in platted subdivisions zoned Town of Oro Valley (TOV) Single Family Residential (R1-7) District; East: La Canada Drive Extension and a single-family subdivision, zoned TOV Single Family Residential (R1-36) District; and West: A mixture of vacant land zoned TOV Single -Family Residential (R1-144) District, and single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels, zoned low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County. The character of the site is rural residential, as are the properties to the north and west. However, the extension of La Canada Drive north to Moore Road as a four -lane divided arterial roadway, the development of residential subdivisions to the east and northeast, the ongoing development of Tangerine Road as a four -lane divided arterial roadway, and the continued development of medium -density suburban residential subdivisions to the south have changed the character of the site and environs. The site lies at the edge of a growing residential suburban community. '-ANDOWNER'S REQUEST: The landowners' request is to change the General Plan designation of the entire 39 acre property from Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR) to Commerce Park. Their application letter is shown as Attachment 2. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 'OUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OV11-04-02 PAGE 3 GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT: As stated in Focus 2020, "the granting of a general plan amendment will be based on the following findings of fact". A previous interpretation clarifying the intent of this statement indicates that "all four findings should be met", and recommendations for approval should be based on amendments that create the "greatest good to the community". 1. "That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time. " Applicant's response: "The Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Department has gone on record as supporting this site for the desired small corporate office park due to a number of things that implement policies of the current plan, including: a. Providing employment within walking distance to 'white collar' housing. b. Providing for a quality office park at a major arterial intersection which easy access to all major areas of the community, including, but not limited to i. Private and public airport facilities ii. Sufficient water, sewer and other infrastructure iii. Proximity to government offices iv. Excellent physical environment for highly paid employees that are current residents of the greater Oro Valley and 'Tortolita' area." Staff anal: The 1996 General Plan Land Use Map designates the Site as Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR). The Site environs are designated as shown on the following table: Current (1996) General Plan Designation Location Land Use Designation Density Allowed Site Rural Low Density ResidentialR LDR 0 to 0.3 residential units per acre- 0.3 RAC North Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 residential units per acre- 0.3 RAC East Northeastern part: Low Density Residential, LDR 1.2 LDR 1.2 = 0.6 to 1.2 RAC Southeastern part (Vistoso Gateway): LDR 2.0 LDR 2.0 = 1.3 to 2.0 RAC South Southwest of site (Verde Ranch subdivision): Medium MDR = 2.1 to 5 RAC Density Residential (MDR) C = Neighborhood Commercial Southeast of site (Post Office): Commercial (C) West Rural Low Density ResidentialR LDR 0 to 0.3 RAC TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Q :�OUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OV11-04-02 PAGE 4 The highest intensity General Plan designated land use in the area is the Commercial zone located at the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive, cattycomer to the Site; this property was intended by the Town to be a neighborhood -serving commercial use but, instead, it is a Town -serving quasi -government or institutional use. The proposed General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential to Commerce Park would allow the Applicant to seek a zoning map amendment for the property to a Technological Park (TP) District which would allow small-scale office buildings for high-tech businesses or medical offices and, with a conditional use permit, a restaurant. Depending upon the scale, siting and design of the buildings, this type of office use in a TP District could be complementary to the low density residential areas to the west and north. A campus office park for small lots, with stand-alone office buildings of a similar scale and height as the ranch homes to the west, and with sufficient landscape screening of parking, would fit into the context of the suburban neighborhoods to the east and south. This use would provide an appropriate use for a site that abuts two major roadways. The proposed use could provide a development that could serve as a gateway into the Town to the south and to the Rancho Vistoso community to the north. The use could serve as a buffer between the arterial roadways and the residential uses to the north and west. This would be an improvement to the General Plan. 2. "That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan. " Applicant's response: `The amendment is consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the general plan. Specifically, this site i-neets the criteria set forth in Policy 3.lJ which includes provision of work places that are consistent with the scale of the surrounding area and will emphasize a unified architectural theme, pedestrian orientation, natural landscaping and inward -transportation patterns." Staff analysis: Key policies germane to this application are presented below: Land Use Policies: • Policy 1.1 B: "Promote clustering (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. " • Policy 1.2F: "Locate higher density land uses and transportation -dependent uses near major transportation corridors. " The Applicant proposes to develop a "campus park -like" office complex which would provide small office buildings for technology businesses seeking to own their own property. This complex would feature: • The 34 acre Site would be subdivided into separate lots. The lots east of the Wash would be about one acre in size, the lots west of the Wash and north of the Limewood Drive alignment would be about 1 '/z acres each, and the lots west of the Wash and south of the Limewood Drive alignment would be about 1 acre in size. • The lots located west of the Wash would be limited to one-story. he western lots would provide a 50 foot wide setback from the western property line to serve as a b ffer from the residential land to the west. • The lots located east of the Wash could be two-story and 25 feet in height. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OVII-04-02 PAGE 5 • There would be a 35 foot wide setback from La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road. • The main entry road into the Site would be a roadway suitable for a public right-of-way for a Limewood Drive extension to La Canada Drive. • The office buildings are expected to be a series of owner -occupant, free-standing buildings located within a heavily landscaped "campus park -like" setting. • The buildings would face La Canada Drive and the distant eastern mountain views of the Catalina Mountains. • The buildings west of the Wash would be designed to be "residential" in scale and character. • There may be a restaurant use to serve the office users. This type of development on the property would be compatible with Policy 3.1J of the General Plan. Natural Resource Conservation Policies: • Policy 8.1A: `Aggressively ensure that damage caused by blading is repaired and returned to its natural state. " • Policy 8.1C: "Wash encroachment may be permitted where floodplains are broad and shallow in order to permit a reasonable utilization of property, unless such encroachment impeded natural groundwater recharge of the aquifer. " • Policy 8.1 G: "Indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats should be maintained and enhanced where possible. " The Site contains a Wash that has been altered. The General Plan amendment would facilitate an intensification of land uses which, as part of the rezoning Tentative Development Plan (TDP) and conditions of approval of the rezoning, would very much likely include a restoration of this Wash. The Wash could be restored with the exception of where the access roadway to the western portion of the Project would cross it. It is expected that this roadway would be aligned with the Limewood Drive right-of-way. The Wash can be incorporated into the design of the Project as a landscape and open space feature for Project users. Restoration of the wash and minimization of wash crossing should be an integral part of the Project rezoning site planning and design efforts should this General Plan amendment be approved. 3. "That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. " Applicant's response: "The general land use plan does not provide any alternate location for this particular type corporate office park." Staff analysis: The General Plan designates 700 plus acres within the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhoods 2 and 3 as Commerce Park use. Of this, approximately 200 acres is developable, the remainder being developed or open space. This is all in one ownership and the plans for this are for a large, large -lot corporate center unlike the one being proposed. Another 400 acres is designated as Commerce Park north of the Town boundaries along Oracle Road. This area is virtually all State land and is part of the County's preservation initiative request. Thus, though there are other similarly designated areas, they may not be appropriate for the proposed use. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OVI1-04-02 PAGE 6 4. "That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process. Applicant's response: "And, finally, this amendment will be of benefit to the community to the whole and suitable mitigation means can and will be developed for the subsequent zoning and development processes." Staff anal: As described above, there may be impacts associated with the General Plan amendment related to the following: • land use, height and size limits; • intensification of land use relative to the lower -density rural home sites to the west; • potential massing and scale impacts associated with office buildings within the context of surrounding developments of single -story single-family homes; • potential light and glare associated with new commercial development -related indoor and outdoor lighting and vehicle headlights to surrounding residential developments and to motorists traveling La Canada Drive and/or Tangerine Road; and • consideration of the restoration of the on -site Wash. Any rezoning of the Site will include a Tentative Development Plan that should incorporate the following features: • careful placement of building pad locations and building orientation; • buildings of a residential scale and character; • landscape buffers and screening of buildings and parking areas, particularly to the west; • careful siting of parking areas, screen walls and vegetative screening; and • restoration of the Wash to enhance the riparian habitat and aesthetic value of the Wash. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: As required by State statue, public notification regarding the proposed amendment was given to adjacent property owners. On May 13, 2004, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the proposed General Plan amendment and the Project. Comments by neighbors and owners of adjacent, vacant home sites, related to commercial office development include: There was concern that new development, especially 2nd story development, would adversely impact the "dark sky" ambient. There was some support for limiting the commercial portion to one-story buildings to preserve views and as well as to eliminate the potential for dusk (sunset) glare from 2nd story windows and to eliminate night time light seen from the 2„ d story windows affecting residents to the west. There were comments that the Post Office outdoor lighting did not do an adequate job of protecting the "dark sky" of the rural environs and that the Project should do a better job. • There was concern about access to the Project and to La Canada Drive from Sunkist Drive (pros and cons). TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OV11-04-02 PAGE 7 • There were comments that this Site serves as an important visual and functional "gateway" to the Town and to Ranch Vistoso, especially important if the Ritz Carlton is built. There was support for a high quality and attractive design for the roadway improvements and landscaping and for the Project design and landscaping. It was suggested that the Project be built by one developer or somehow the Project should be assured that each phase or piece should contribute to a coherent design for the whole. Overall, many of the aforementioned issues may be addressed as part of a rezoning effort. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION On September 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request for designation of the 38.8 acre site to Commerce Park (CP). The Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend conditional approval of the General Plan map amendment to the Town Council. The one condition of approval recommended by the Commission is to retain the Rural -Low Density Residential (R-LDR) designation on the 11 acre portion of the property which lies west of the on -site Wash. This condition would mean that the land use designation change to CP would affect only the 27.8 acres located east of the Wash. The Urban Growth Boundary would, in this case, only extend to the land located east of the Wash. SUMMARY OF FACTORS: Factors For The Amendment: 1. The proposal meets General Plan Findings of Fact with the possible exception of Finding Number 3. 2. The proposal recognizes the encroachment of suburban residential uses on rural residential "horse property" and the inherent use conflicts of suburban housing next to horse operations. 3. The proposal would provide office space for low -intensity high-technology businesses served by arterial roadways and located at a convenient "gateway" to the Town and to Rancho Vistoso. 4. The neighbors and adjacent property owners support the land use change with certain caveats about limiting building height and scale, providing vegetative screening and insuring "dark sky" outdoor lighting throughout the Project. The issues may be addressed as part of the rezoning application. 5. The proposal meets all applicable General Plan policies. Factors A ag inst: 1. There are other CP designated lands within the Town. These may be able to accommodate the proposed technology office uses, depending on their ultimate development. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve Resolution No. (R) 04- , for OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential, R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boundary to include the subject properties. OR TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, OVII-04-02 PAGE 8 I move to approve Resolution No. (R) 04109f'or OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential, R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boundary to include the subject properties, with ' the following condition(g) �L D z V/V 5 l 1� /5 It OR I move to approve Resolution No. (R) 04- l%r OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation only on the approximately 27.8 acre portion of the site located east of the on -site Wash from Rural Low Density Residential, R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boundary to include that area. OR I move to deny Resolution No. (R) 0410?or OV11-04-02, finding that: Attachments: 1. Location Map with General Plan Designations 2. September 21, 2004 Application Confirmation Letter and Site Plan 3. Letter from Jeff Weir, Town Economic Development Administrator 4. News article on demand for industrial space Copy: TOV, Susana Montana, Jeff Weir Applicant, Carl Winters, Planning Resources, Fax: 520. 628-7637 Neighbors, Hayley Running, 1420 E. First St. Tucson, AZ 85719 Tania Winter, 12300 N. Sunkist Springs Place, OV 85737 F:\OV\OV11\2004\11-04-02\Reports\TC Report.doc PI Town F RESOLUTION NO. (R) 04-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND TANGERINE ROAD FROM RURAL LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-LDR) DESIGNATION TO COMMERCE PARK (CP), AND BY EXTENDING THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE THE SEVEN SUBJECT PARCELS CONSISTING OF PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180 (OV11-04-02). WHEREAS, the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, and pursuant to Article 13, Section 7 of the Arizona constitution, is vested with all rights, privileges, benefits and is entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, adopted the General Plan, Focus 2020 on July 10, 1996 by Resolution (R) 96-54 and Ordinance (0) 96-27; and WHEREAS, Mr. Carl Winters, representing Sarah Miller, Susan and Billy Montgomery and Karter and Patricia Kay (the "Applicants"), has requested the redesignation of 38.8 acres from Rural Low -Density Residential (R-LDR, allowing 0 to 0.3 dwelling units per acre) to Commerce Park (CP); and WHEREAS, the redesignation of those parcels to CP would require an extension of the General Plan Urban Growth Boundary to include the seven subject parcels, and the Applicants have requested this amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary in the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Oro Valley held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 7, 2004 and recommended approval of said amendment: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 201h day of October, 2004. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Town Attorney OV11-04-02 Tangerine / La Canada General Plan Amendment Location Map 46, N mark et lea s emand , f6f. -ore space., .in ustrl ld a stiuction costs; those which have become func •. by BOb SVe Cara" tionally obsolete because of awkward floor plans bsvejcara@exploremews.com _ or amount of space being offered isn't what's -Occupancy rates for industrial rental space in in demand in today market and buildings "of . _= the Northwest climbed. by 7.6 percent through more than 50,000 square feet,'Glaser said. the first, half: of this year, far outstripping the 1.4' These -.types of buildings alone, if rented, percent increase for the. bverall Tucson rnarket, .' would probably . boost occupancy rates in the:. according,. tar. the _ latest" "-study . from'. Picor . .Northwest by .another 6 percent and that; said - Commercial Real Estate Services: Glaser, would represent "a pretty strong bump Of the nearly 2.7 million square feet of indus= for industrial real estate in the Northwest trialrental space in the Northwest market, 91.6 "Other than that, the • majority of. "the percent was reported occupied as of June 30, up Northwest market is pretty well occupied .and from 84 percent the previous year, leaving about just a bit stronger than the rest of the industrial ; 225,000 square feet vacant markets in. Tucson," he said: "The Northwest sector (running from :the. The -kind of space most in demand .ranges Grant Road and Interstate 10 area north to Oro from about 1,000 to 5;000 square feet renting.. Valley) has been the strongest industrial market for less than 50 cents a square foot on a gross forat least the past 6ve.years and Isee that con- basis, he said.. tinuing for at .least the - next' two. years," said' 'They say real estate cycles last about 10 years ,Robert, Glaser, Picor lndu_ strial Properties pnnd-. and six of those belong to the tenant and about pal and broker. three belong to the landlord." Glaser said. *1 see ' For the total market;. 87.4 percent" of 14:6 a better balance of.that in the future because we million square feet of industrial space was'occu-... are literally still absorbing space, occ upancles are. pied by the end of the first half this year, corn- getting pretty high and if the economy continues pared wifh 86 percent, or'14.3 million: •square to improve, there will be reason to build build - feet, last year:. ings again." The market absorbed: a total of nearly The first half of 2004 also saw a reversal in 392,000 square feet -in the first half, more than the leasing of buildings with more than 20,000 double the .141,500 square feet absorbed in the square feet with positive activity for the first time first half of 2003. The only area which didn't . in two years, according to the Picor study: show positive absorption was the eastside, which Last year; only one lease was for more than had negative absorption of nearly 23,200 square• 20,000 square feet Through the first half of this feet, compared . to ' the 23,193 •. square feet .Year there have been three such leases. Including absorbed in the. Northwest for the same period. leased and purchase properties, five properties Over the'past four years, land prices in -the .exceeded 20,000 square. feet Northwest and .especially along the freeway. CAP rates, the net operating income divided have gone from the $2.75 a square foot range.to. by the purchase price of a property, also contin- $5 'a square foot and higher while prices .in other ued to. decline from their record lows of 9.25 to areas have remained. relatively flat Glaser said. 9.5'percent in 2003, tumbling to the 8 percent In the past year alone, land. values in the ' to 8.5 percent range, Glaser said. Northwest have probably risen from 10 to 12. The Picor. forecast for the remainder of the percent, compared to about 5 percent in the year calls foi- continued strong leasing activity.. remainder of the. Tucson market, he said. in all sire ranges,, strong demand for improved Major industrial buildings that account for the properties properly .priced for sales and "a greatest rate of vacancies are either those built slowdown in the sale of unimproved industri- . on ,speculation in the last two. years which al' land due to rising construction costs and demand higher rents because of increased con impact fees. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - COMMERCE PARK T-P ZONE OPEN SPACE: 24% GFA <15,000 SQ. FT. (NO MORE THAN 50 %) MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 25' (ALL BUILDINGS WILL BE ONE STORY) SETBACKS: ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL: 50' ALL OTHERS: 35' 28 27 PRO,ECT N1S - 3 fANkaXM I<uw 3 2 ®LOCATION MAP sEcnan AtoMnsatr 11 4 RANGE 13 1- PW COUNTY. MgAl I I old ol� RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL �Icl RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RE50ENTIAL RI.144 RI-144 RI-144I{ SR 5R SR SIR Z 50 BUILDING SETBACK ------ i 50 BUILDING SETBACK I --------------------:-------------------f----------t -a —� 25 ONE STORYm WASH/ I I I �7T't COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE O 24 I t 23 c F O ( I ONE STORY BUILDINGS — RESIDENTIAL PAC\�_ �/ (COMMUNITY OPEN SE SIR ------ N O 1 1 SIN 1 0 ' Ili l 0 HAL IIIII II I7- QTF 0 1 WASW1 i 15 15 O 1 j 1G1 �.�. _`• ��`\\ �`�\ & I 6 IO I 10 I J t3 I O I I5 ; 16 ; T7 I i la I _ s I I s I-+----------+-----� --- a ` -- ---- K ------ ---- c -- 50' BUILDING 5 BACK 9i'Bl�l NG��iBAC -- —J-- —r -- /1 CAN \ I� LA CANADA HILLS I > _ -- — 150'ROW ` IKE PAT ....-.-... _._ \ .. I I \\ - R1-36 0 GATEWAY \ ,� ` S W, -� PARCELS 219-47-0170, 0180, 0050, 0060, 004A, 0048, 004C 34 ACRES ON TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CANADA ROAD • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM R-LDR TO CP S°"' �•-^-�� : planning resources SCALE: 1'=300'-0• ■ . � Ird .Ardllfff.f�� y�p,fugp Mwlfear.l ,anf.fllnlf � �, Itl14 M•fdrq, ita U, Tfayf Mx.. �f313 aIN71W1-INI fao/tl.tfil EP 2 12004 9/01/2004 IV 02020.01 MINUTES Page 15 of 24 This requirement shall be added as a General Note to the Oracle Crossing Development Plan (OV 12-03-14). 6. Within 30 days of Town Council approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant shall submit a revised Oracle Crossing Development Plan (OV12-03-14) and Landscape Plan which reflects all Chapter 9 code requirements and these conditions of approval. Council Member Culver SECONDED the motion. AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION: Council Member Culver asked that the Condition 4 be amended to read "The applicant shall add a General Note to the Oracle Crossing Development Plan to state that the 2-inch MBI fiberglass insulation recommended by the acoustical consultant be installed on the entire interior ceiling of the building in accordance with Section 4, Page 23 of the Oracle Crossings Noise Impact Forecast Study as provided." Council Member Gillaspie accepted the amendment. Mayor Loomis asked to add a condition that "The applicant shall review and add additional safety warnings to the sound wall fins as necessary and approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator to prevent possible accidents caused by any lack of visibility." Council Members Gillaspie and Culver agreed to the amendment. DISCUSSION: Vice Mayor Abbott thanked Mr. St. Johns for working with the neighbors and incorporating many of their recommendations into the project. MOTION CARRIED, 6 -0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:55 p.m._ 11. PUBLIC HEARING, RESOLUTION (R)-04-109 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND TANGERINE ROAD FROM RURAL LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLDR) DESIGNATION TO COMMERCE PARK (CP), AND BY EXTENDING THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE -THE SEVEN SUBJECT PARCEL S C ONSISTING OF PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180 (OV11-04-02). Carl Winters, representing the applicants, reviewed the concept plan and stated that the applicants are seeking a General Plan amendment to change the Land Use designation from Rural Low Density Residential to Commerce Park and to extend the Urban Grown Boundary to include approximately 39 acres north of Tangerine Road and West of the La Canada Drive Extension. He explained that due to the extension of La Canada Drive and the widening of Tangerine, this area would now lend itself well to small corporate office and retail spaces as suggested by the Town's Economic Development Administrator . He explained that there would be little impact to surrounding neighbors as the office hours would be day -time hours and would be quieter than if there were residential uses placed on the property. Mr. Winters further requested that the Rural Low Density residential designation be applied to the entire 38.8 acres and not just the 27.8 acres located on the east side of the wash as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that if they could not work out the details and convince the neighbors that it would be a good project, then during the rezoning process, they would withdraw that portion and continue on with rezoning the remaining portion of the property. httD://www.townoforovallev.com/TownHall/Meetings/Counci]/Minutes/] 02004 council ... 12/03/2004 MINUTES Page 16 of 24 Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine reviewed a location map and aerial photo of the property. He then reviewed the Council Communication and explained that the proposal is for a Commerce Park designation on the entire 38+ acres. Mr. Nodine then reviewed the four Findings of Fact for consideration of a General Plan Amendment. He also reported that on September 7, 2004 , the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment with the condition that the 11 acre portion of the property which lies to the west of the on -site wash adjacent to established homes should remain as Rural Low Density Residential. He further explained that if the Council approved the entire area as Commerce Park, then the Urban Growth Boundary should follow that approval. But if the Council only approved the 27.8 acres as Commerce Park, the Urban Growth Boundary should follow the wash. Mr. Nodine reviewed the factors for the General Plan Amendment: FACTORS FOR include: ➢ The proposal meets General Plan Findings of Fact with the possible exception of Finding Number 3. ➢ The proposal recognizes the encroachment of suburban residential uses on rural residential "horse property" and the inherent use conflicts of suburban housing next to horse operations. ➢ The proposal would provide office space for low -intensity high-technology businesses served by arterial roadways and located at a convenient "gateway" to the Town and to Rancho Vistoso. ➢ The neighbors and adjacent property owners support the land use change with certain caveats about limiting building height and scale, providing vegetative screening and insuring "dark sky" outdoor lighting throughout the Project. The issues may be addressed as part of the rezoning application. ➢ The proposal meets all applicable General Plan policies. FACTORS AGAINST include: ➢ There are other CP designated lands within the Town. These may be able accommodate the proposed technology office uses, depending on their ultimate development. Further discussion followed regarding: ➢ Urban Growth Boundary. ➢ Transition between the proposed CP designation and what exists to the west of the property. ➢ Minimum lot size. ➢ No plans for Limewood Drive improvement as it is in Pima County 's jurisdiction. May propose a dedication for Limewood Drive as part of the rezoning process to provide access to properties on Limewood. ➢ If property is rezoned, a restaurant use would require a CUP. httn•//www tnwnnfnrnvnllPv r.nmITnwnHall/Meeting�/C:nnncil/MinuteS/1 n2004 council ... 12/03/2004 MINUTES Page 17 of 24 Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Hank Winter, 12300 N. Sunkist Springs Place, stated that in reviewing the General Plan policies, the Town is committed to preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods. He specifically addressed property values, lighting, obstruction of views, and the demand for proposed office uses. Scott Christy, 12351 N. Sunkist Springs Place , stated that they all live on Suburban Ranch property in Pima County and he was concerned about what would be placed next door to them and what would happen to their current lifestyle. He asked that the Council protect the integrity of their neighborhood and protect the west -side of the wash as the Planning Commission recommended. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place , stated that the General Plan stipulates that the Town should be reasonably satisfied that there is demand beyond what current zoning permits. He commented that the Planning Commission has asked that evidence of demand be provided. He stated that the Council should be sure that if they are going to place commercial development adjacent to residential neighborhoods, that it needs to be the right move and that the people are adequately protected and their quality of life is preserved. He also stated that-3 out of the 4 Findings for a General Plan amendment are not being met. Susie Montgomery, 1410 W. Tangerine Road , one of the property owners, stated that the La Canada Drive Extension has changed the complexity of this property. She reviewed the shape of the property and stated that to divide it in half was not feasible. She also stated that she felt people were confused about the Plan amendment and a rezoning. She stated that they have not come forward with the rezoning plan for approval and 2 out of 30 neighbors should not change what everyone has been working on for two years. She stated that they have tried to work with the Town and the neighbors to come up with something that would be feasible. She also stated that it needs to be recognized that the property is fronted by a four -lane highway. She asked for some consideration of what was going to be done with the property and stated that the people to the west could be buffered and most of the homes face the west so they would realize very little impact from the General Plan amendment. Joel Abrams, 7521 N. Calle Cordebesa, stated that he lives in the area of Oracle and Magee and his lifestyle has not been impacted by the office uses in the area. He also stated that he has a parcel of property near the Miller property. He agreed with Ms. Montgomery in that the impact is to her property and many neighboring property owners feel that the proposed office uses would not be detrimental to their properties. He stated that any possible impacts can be addressed during the rezoning process and he supports the General Plan amendment as being requested. MOTION: Vice Mayor Abbott MOVED to DENY Resolution (R)04-109 for OV11-04-02. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Culver stated that the homeowners that live to west of the property would be negatively impacted. She believed that the Planning and Zoning Commission had a reasonable solution and asked to hear more about the need for Commerce Park in the Town. Economic Development Administrator Jeff Weir stated that the Town does not have property for these types of offices in its current inventory. He explained that the Town has places for businesses such as Ventana Medical, etc. He stated that this General Plan amendment would offer a place for professional offices such as attorneys, medical staff, etc. He stated that he was not aware of any office space htfn-1 xxnxnxr tnxxvnnfnrnvnlle.v rnm/TnwnHnll/Me.etinus/(`.rnmcil/Mimrtes/102004 council ... 12/03/2004 MINUTES Page 18 of 24 available of any magnitude for small parcels. He further stated that he has two meetings set up to discuss the demand for these types of office spaces. Mr. Weir stated that he would do what ever the Council desired and if this item is approved and before the rezoning, he could get clear definitions. He further commented that in addition to the demand factor, this type of intersection calls out for anything but residential uses. He commented that the Town needs something this size for office space. In response to a question from Mayor Loomis regarding the office spaces at Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Arrowsmith Road , Mr. Weir explained that the rental spaces are almost filled. In the new buildings being built across the road from this property, the Hanson Foundation has stated that they are almost fully leased. Mr. Weir also reported that in the new Northwest Hospital Medical Office facility, 70% of the 70,000 square feet of office space is pre -leased. He questioned with the further demand for more doctors, where are they going to go? He commented that this site was a great opportunity for the Town. MOTION: Council Member Culver MOVED to APPROVE Resolution (R)04-109, OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation only on the approximately 27.8 acre portion of the site located east of the on -site wash from Rural Low Density Residential, R-LDR (0. — 0.3 CU/ac) to Commerce Park (CP) and to extend the Urban Growth Boundary to include that area to the east side of the wash area. Mayor Loomis SECONDED the motion. FURTHER DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING: ➢ There is a need for the office and tech -park ability. (Mayor Loomis) ➢ There is an opportunity to take advantage of the wash as a transition between the offices and residential placing the Urban Growth Boundary on the east side of the wash. (Mayor Loomis) ➢ Frontage along Tangerine and La Canada Roads would impact a rural lifestyle. (Mayor Loomis) ➢ The Town will face more challenges on future development north of Tangerine Road as we approach the Tortolita Mountains. (Council Member Gillaspie) ➢ If we want to keep lower density "green belt" areas, we will need to make sure it is addressed in the new General Plan. (Council Member Gillaspie) ➢ Higher density residential could be placed in the area west of the office area which may be more objectionable that offices. (Council Member Dankwerth) ➢ Urban Growth Boundary would be moved to the east side of the wash. On the other side of this Boundary, you would be trying to retain the rural character so that there would be SR (Suburban Ranch) or its equivalent. (Lots on east side of wash are being proposed at 72,000 square feet in size (approximately 1.75 acres.) (Mayor Loomis) ➢ Amendment does not meet all Four Findings of Fact so should not be granted. (Vice Mayor Abbott) CALL FOR THE QUESTION: MOTION CARRIED, 4 — 2 with Vice Mayor Abbott and Council Member Carter opposed. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 10:45 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:52 p.m. htti)://www.townoforovallev.com/TownHall/Meetings/Cniincil/MinntPc/1O?OOA rnnnril tWO1000a [-� v I I - 0 Ll -o�,- APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING — HOPI ROOM 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Acting Chair Don Cox Commission Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Doug McKee Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis Council Member KC Carter Council Member Conny Culver Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator CALL TO THE AUDIENCE OPENED AT 6:02 PM Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, expected to see the P&Z Rules on the agenda tonight, but as it is not, he assumes they will be redrafted and brought forward sometime in the future. He is going to submit some ideas he has on some of the sections in the Rules. He pointed out that according to Town policy, the reappointment process includes an evaluation of the incumbent seeking reappointment. The Rules don't have any procedure or process by which an evaluation is begun, by who and how. That is an omission that needs to be filled. Primarily his concerns were in the sections that have to do with the Commission's responsibilities, the conduct of the public meetings, limitations that the Chair may place on speakers, etc. An organization like this that serves the public needs to be more public friendly. The Rules need to be more conducive to receiving, welcoming and being understanding of the public's interest to speak and be heard. A reading of these rules gave him the opposite impression. Does any Chair intend to strictly follow the Rules or not, and will there be discretion in doing that. He assumed Rules are written and adopted to be followed. He believes that anything the Town adopts should be adhered to. These Rules are pretty strict as to what the public may comment on, if they may comment at all. He would like to see the reverse. His thoughts will be provided on that and hopefully they will find their way into the next P&Z meeting if he is unable to attend. September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES CALL TO THE AUDIENCE CLOSED AT 6:05 P.M. Acting Chair Cox asked Mr. Nodine to please make a note and direct Staff to give the Commission some input on the evaluation process of the incumbent. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the July 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session meeting minutes with the following corrections: • Page 3, Paragraph 1, 9tn line, the word restaurant should be changed to road, so the sentence reads "in the area east of the road." • Page 4, Paragraph 1, 15t line, "building" should be changed to "restaurant". Commissioner Manross seconded the motion with the above corrections. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to approve the July 28, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the August 3, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 1. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to nominate Acting Chair Don Cox as Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission., Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. There being no other nominations, the Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 2. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MOTION: Chair Cox MOVED to nominate Commissioner John Anning as Vice Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. There being no other nominations, the Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 3. PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK (CP) ON APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. Carl Winters, 270 N. Church, is the applicant representing the Millers, Montgomery's and Kay's families. He said it is very confusing for people to understand the difference between a Plan Amendment and a zoning case. Inevitably questions are asked about how the zoning will work when you are in the planning phase. We have tried to adjust this plan addressing dealing with the "fluffy" issues. We met with the Town's Economic Development Director, Jeff Weir, and he also met with some of the neighbors. This plan represents a defined need according to the Town Economic Development Director for a small corporate office park. Occupants could range from engineering to attorney firms, but most specifically for smaller high tech. The corporate park, as the Staff Report points out, is by and large at Vistoso on Vistoso property and is meant for the really large companies. With La Canada and Tangerine being major arterials, this would be a residential scale, single story corporate office on an acre or larger. We have not changed the lot configuration from what was presented earlier on the residential side, except the offices would be open 8 to 5 or 9 to 6. The subsequent zoning case would be for Tech Park. Any kind of commercial it would have would serve the community. The applicant would come back with CC&R's which will deal with architectural styles, landscaping, night lighting, etc. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report and showed a map giving the location of the property in relation to La Canada Blvd. and Tangerine Road and the surrounding environs. There are approximately 27 lots being proposed. Mr. Winters mentioned the lots would be about one acre, with larger lots indicated in the new plan to the west of the wash which would serve as a buffer to the homes further west. Mr. Winters also mentioned that the whole development would be one story homes. Currently there are other Technological Park areas within the Town, however, they are very large ones in single ownership and have been geared primarily to larger corporate users. The areas are also only in one part of the Town and we would like to create some distribution there. It will be an improvement to the General Plan and it would provide an. employment base for persons within the Town. For clarification purposes, Chair Cox pointed out that the Commission is dealing only with the General Plan Amendment, not rezoning. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that the Town proposes that the properties that it has acquired would be left as open space. He also said that what you get from employment type uses of property is "spin off" type revenues, where the people who are employed and work there support business inside the Town rather than outside businesses. It would be fairly revenue neutral. Mr. Nodine said that in regards to Mr. Weir, Economic Development Administrator, he cannot speak for him, but only present his letter. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Krenkowitz that although the Town's approach may be to use intersections of major arterials for commercial development, the project area September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 is being looked at primarily as a retail commercial use rather than an employment use. There is no reason why this type of development could not be built at La Cholla and Tangerine. The properties are very similar and there are other alternative sites. There is the potential of more development at the La Cholla/Tangerine intersection because there is more land. The primary constraint is that La Cholla has been looked at as retail and the General Plan designation would required an amendment to change it and then a rezoning. This project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for uses such as a bank or a restaurant. The property owner would not have an entitlement for a restaurant use if the designation was changed to Technology Park. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Manross that he did not know what amount of class A office space is currently available. He would estimate from observing centers that there is probably less than 20% vacant. This is a different product than a standard office space; this is more of a corporate tech park. There are no buildings for tech space available at this time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:33 P.M. Hank Winter, 12300 N. Sunkist Springs Place, Tucson, lives directly west of the proposed Technological Park. He believes at the last hearing, when it was proposed for an amendment to change the zoning at that time, the Commission had voted for a continuance to review this in further detail. Since then it has been re -proposed for a total other concept. He asked that the Commission reconsider this, since Mr. Winters had proposed this about 2 Y2 weeks ago at the last Town Hall meeting. With all the drastic changes going on, he doesn't feel that it follows the scope of the General Plan and architecture of suburban ranch dwellings to the west, moving further to the east with a Technological Park being planted right in the center of this. We have had discussion during the Town Hall meetings, and at one point it was proposed that the six lots bordering the homes up there were originally to be residential. Now it is proposed to be all Technological Park. He asked for a vote to continue this, topic for further discussion and re -look at it and get it back to residential bordering their properties. When they moved in five years ago it was no where in the scope of this plan. He had concerns about property values. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting he read from the General Plan where it indicated that the Town wants to be reasonably satisfied as to demand before authorizing a more intense zoning use than presently exists. He believed that the Commissioner Kinared's motion asked to receive justification for need. He doesn't see it. Mr. Winter's letter indicates that according to Mr. Weir the Town has considerable requests from owners of various companies for small, high amenity offices. Mr. Weir's letter says nothing about that. It says what Mr. Nodine has said, that it is logical that something like this could be placed here because it is next to major arterials. You asked that the General Plan's request and adopted policy be respected; that there be a justification for demand, for need. The request for information, justification demand and market need was not met. He doesn't believe it meets the policies in the General Plan in terms of finding #2. It doesn't respect the integrity of existing neighborhoods. This would be a very intense park. As Mr. Winters indicated, the lots are the same size. It would be shoulder to shoulder buildings, instead September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 of homes. He didn't see this as being complimentary, nor compatible. Logically a Technical Park could fit there, but what is proposed is not justified. It is not substantiated and it doesn't respect the integrity of the existing neighborhood. He knows the Commission is against continuances. Unless the Commission can come up with some justification that isn't in the material, if this amendment were approved he would certainly add a condition that the use be high tech, corporate use as Mr. Winters and Mr. Nodine indicated. He wouldn't want this to be interpreted as offering a variety of other types of uses, because that is not what is specified in the Staff Report. Make that a condition if you are going to change the General Plan designation. Scott Christy, 12351 N. Sunkist Springs Place, lives directly west of the property. This proposal was presented at their last neighborhood meeting. Carl Winters greatly reduced the number of lots on one side of the wash, but this is the first time we have seen this plan. We have had no time to even talk about this among ourselves and the neighbors. He would like a postponement of this so we can talk about what has been presented. He appreciated Carl reducing the number of lots from what was previously seen. Carl worked with them on the setbacks, etc., and that was appreciated. There is no way a decision can be made quickly on what we want with our homes on the other side and how this would affect our lifestyle. Anita Kay, 1451 W. Sunkist Road. She gave a brief history lesson on her property. About 4-5 years ago, Carl Winters tried to get some other things through Planning and Zoning and the Town. The urban growth boundary needed to be moved to do so. At the time there was a lot of discussion as to whether the urban growth boundary was going to moved to include her parcel also. But at that time, admittedly, they were a little bit "Oro Valley phobic" and were hoping that the road was going to be taken a little bit further to the east and the development of Oro Valley was not going to impact them as much as it obviously is. To move the urban growth boundary to what we were talking about at that time, the people sitting where the Commissioners are now were saying it only made sense to include approximately a quarter mile zone around all major roadway and arterials in Oro Valley just to provide the increased usage and densities. I just want to let you know that that is what the people sitting here before you had in mind. Commissioner Kinared asked how Ms. Kay would feel about a continuance. Ms. Kay responded that it would be just that much longer before this was all done and they have been enduring this for a really long time. It is feeling stagnated to her and she understands that her neighbors have concerns about the speed that things are going. When you look through her eyes, it feels like it is going through molasses. Her entire family has had to move away. They have taken away the horse breeding operation. She and her husband are the only ones left. Everyone else has had to move away because the horses have been completely spooked by all the construction. It is like living in a ghost town and she wants it done. Commissioner McKee asked how comfortable Ms. Kay was with Mr. Weir's evaluation. Ms. Kay said she had attended a meeting with him. He had a lot of fresh ideas for the corner. If you are going to bring civilization her way, bring her something she can use. September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 Her doctor's office close by would be nice. If she was going to rent an office she would like it close by. She sees uses there. The development is coming. She tried to stem it years ago. This is a good plan and it would work there. They are going to be selling because she cannot keep her horses there. It is growth. Susan Montgomery, 1410 W. Tangerine, has lived on her property for 32 years. The neighbors were asked for to support in the battle to get the road moved further east, but that never happened. She asked that the Commission make a decision. All they are asking for is a Plan amendment, nothing else. Anything asked for in the zoning would be brought before the Commission and the neighbors. We have tried to keep the neighbors in the loop and whatever it takes to make them understand we are willing to do so. The intention is to keep them informed. She has been going through this for two years now and it has been terribly stressful on her family. She would ask that the Commission make a decision so this can move forward. She only asked for a plan amendment, nothing specific. She would like the Commission to make a decision tonight and not drag them through anything more. They have been terribly impacted by the road and if anyone had any doubts, they only need to go to the intersection and look what it has done to her property. She has nothing to gain by this. Chair Cox asked both Mr. Winter and Mr. Christy if their concerns were General Plan Amendment process or regarding lights, heights of buildings, etc. Mr. Christy said his greatest concern was the number of buildings west of the wash. It will affect their lifestyle. The problem is they presented the plan to us 1 %2 weeks ago. There are now 10 lots against our property. There is no way we are going to have 10 lots next to our land He asked Carl to fax him a copy of this new plan last week hoping that he could see it before this meeting. Tonight was the first time he got to see this layout. He has been out of the loop on this new plan since the last meeting. Mr. Nodine said the number and size of buildings are taken.care of in the zoning process. Mr. Hank Winters said he agreed with what Scott said in many respects. He liked the idea of preserving the quality of life. He never totally agreed how this fits into the scope of the General Plan. However, he was willing to try to work with the people. He would be much more suited to agree with residential properties on the west of the riparian setback, which was proposed at the last hearing. Now it is all Technological Park. He has one of the bordering homes. Whether or not he can substantiate a loss of value to his property due to this, he did not know, but he was concerned about that. He sympathized with the Montgomerys and Kays, but said with the changes that continue to be made it is a make or break situation. Voting would be basically on the zoning potentialities tonight. The proposal seemed to allow more buildings. That was why he asked for a continuance. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:52 P.M. Mr. Carl Winters responded to issues from the Public Hearing comments. First, why not on La Cholla Blvd. instead of La Canada? La Cholla goes up to La Cholla Airpark, and September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 there will always be a relatively low density to the north. Staff, on another item on the agenda, will be trying to preserve low rural density to protect the Airpark in the long term. This site goes into Vistoso and up to the Resort at Vistoso and is much better located if you want local people to work there. The Economic Development Director was very clear with the meeting with the neighbors and the Montgomerys and Kays, that this would be an ideal site and strongly supported this as commercial, but did not support the residential. At the last meeting, the discussion with Scott and Hank was that they wanted to go back to the parcel sizes in the original plan, so this is not a surprise to them. There is nothing here that wasn't discussed in that meeting that this map doesn't accurate represent or reflect. Mr. Winters apologized for not faxing the information to them earlier. This area is not densely developed. On the other side of La Canada are acre lots, which is the same as the applicant proposed. The densities are the same. The applicant had no problem with this not being commercial, and understood what Tech Park zone permitted. Mr. Winters urged the Commission to recommend it go forward to Council. Commissioner Bistany asked how Mr. Winters saw the impact to the neighbors to the west and how some of the concerns would be mitigated. Mr. Winters responded that he saw the property with individually owned offices. It would be small buildings with small corporate offices, possibly a local engineer or local people who would have local employees, which is not available in Oro Valley. The CC&R's would control height, color, architectural style, landscaping, lighting, screening, etc. A draft of the CC&R's would be part of the zoning case. Commissioner Krenkowitz said that one of factors against the proposal as identified by Staff is #2, which may be a crucial consideration. How would you respond to the factor that says change in the land use designation and intensification of zoning on the subject parcel could be growth inducing, in that further pressure may be placed on adjacent rural residential parcels to the north and west of the site to similarly request more intense development? Mr. Winters said this site is unique. It is on two major arterial intersections. If there was a growth inducing thing that happened on this property, the Town did it by making the road so major, with water and sewer lines, light poles, traffic signals, etc. He thought the Town wanted to have employment campuses in several locations. This is carefully located. All the other properties on the other intersection are totally developed. It would mean that if you live here, it would provide you a place for your office instead of having do go outside of Oro Valley. Regarding the contiguous properties, you can't go east because it is Town owned property there and a big wash, then you get into acre lots at Vistoso Gateway. You can't go north unless you assemble some properties in order to do it. You can't go west for basically the same reason. Other properties would have to be bought out in order to have a big enough project to pay for the investment that would need to go into it. Those lots also don't have as good of access as La Canada and Tangerine. The only place that may happen would be where Rural Metro owns property to the north and that is a wash. He did not see this as "creeping officism". With good buffering, light shielding, September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 etc., it would do a better job preserving life style of the neighbors as commercial rather than as residential. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner McKee that Tech Park would allow labs. Staff would look at whether that would create a hazard. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that regarding demonstrating a demand, because the retail uses were taken off the site Staff did not do a neighbor commercial/retail type of analysis. Also, regarding the La Cholla intersection, the closest major commercial area of that scale is at Lambert and La Canada, and at Tangerine and First. Tangerine and First is the more comparable one. Densities decrease to the west, but La Canada and Tangerine will be a major intersection in the future. La Cholla is projected in the ten year plan to connect to 1-10 and be a major intersection with Tangerine to try to shunt traffic off of Oracle Road and traffic going south. It will be a primary north/south road, next to Oracle. Mr. Nodine echoed what Mr. Winters mentioned, that Mr. Weir looked at the demand in terms of not doing an analysis, but in terms of talking to people about potential users on that site. He has identified a couple of users and feels because of that interest, with only a little bit of outreach that it would be a good location. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner McKee that the Economic Development Administrator felt the retail potential of the site was very low and because we were looking at retail further to the west and there was retail a couple of miles to the south, that the area would not support retail. The need in the Town is greater for the Commerce Park. Commissioner Bistany said that this intersection is in its infancy now. When you look at demand you have got look to the future. As this intersection gets bigger and more traffic gets on it, it will force demand. He envisioned what the intersection will look like when the road opens up and there is increased traffic. Demand is not a critical factor at this time. Mr. Nodine told Chair Cox that conditions can be added to the General Plan Amendments, but Staff tries to discourage them because you are trying to create that kind of use condition and get a general idea of how it will develop. Rezoning is when the uses are defined more clearly. Chair Cox suggested that in the future when there are hearings that are commercially oriented and information is needed, that either Mr. Weir or his staff make an effort to be present. MOTION: Vice Chair Anning MOVED to recommend to Town Council regarding OV11-04-02, that the General Plan Amendment change from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR) to Commerce Park be applied to the area between La Canada and the wash, and that the area west of the wash remain as it is presently at RLDR. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 Discussion: Commissioner Kinared said that is spite of not having a market analysis, he believed from the land use perspective, this is an appropriate location for this use. However, he is conflicted because Council consistently told us that they wanted us to uphold the General Plan as it was, not as we might like it to be. It is difficult to vote in favor of a recommendation that he suspects the Council will overturn. But he plans to vote yes. Chair Cox said he looks upon the Commission as a recommending body to the Council. The Council will do what they want. His vote is not made with Council influence. Commissioner Manross said that he feels this type of development is needed in the Town and is an ideal location. Splitting this into two parcels is not the way to go. He feels it is better handled going through as Commerce Park and then handling it through the zoning process and the design and review process. It would better benefit the owners of the property, the Town and the people around it. He will vote against the motion. Commissioner McKee asked Mr. Winters how he feels about splitting this. Mr. Winters said he thinks Mr. Manross is on target. Putting residential on the other side of the wash doesn't do anything, because the plan is to make the wash a central focal point of the Commerce Park. The neighbors to the north and west can be buffered through that process. Staff wants the applicant to fix the wash. The restoration of the wash becomes a focal point of creating this amenity and part of very expensive office space. Commissioner McKee thought the biggest issue is the impact to the residents to the west and the question whether Technical Office space will make it better or worse than residential. A continuance may be worthwhile while that is considered and therefore he will vote against the motion. Motion carried with a 5 yes votes and 2 no votes. Commissioners McKee and Manross voting no. BREAK: 7:28 p.m. to 7:38 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: OV8-04-03, BP MAGEE LLC, REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE USE IN A C-2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON BUILDING PAD 10 WITHIN THE ORACLE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE AND MAGEE ROADS, A PORTION OF PARCEL NUMBER 225-51-3890. Dennis St. John, B.P. Magee, 3915 E. Broadway. The subject property is 30 acres located south of Magee. Pad 8 and 10 are located at the southern end of the property. There is a signal light off Suffolk Drive which is Y2 mile south of Magee. He gave a brief history of what has transpired with the property. He discussed the Conditional Use September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 Permit (CUP) for Pad 8 (National Bank) and Pad 10 (Brakemax). The project is subject to Pima County noise and odor regulations. A key point for discussion is the impact of Pad 10. Hours of operation will be closing at 7:30 p.m. and will not operate on Sunday. For day time, a sound study was done. An Addendum to the Summary Report on Noise Impact dated 8/16/04 was distributed to the Commissioners. The neighbor's concern was that this particular building is going to create noise through the background noise of operation or impact wrenches specifically. The Noise Study that was commissioned. used as a reference the Rooney store on Oracle in full operation. We were able to record the store on site. The project site currently, in early morning, has 51 decibels of noise, which comes mostly from Oracle Road. The loudest time was at noon with 57 decibels. Recording from the current Brakemax, the decibel readings with no impact wrenches would be able to be handled with the 10 foot wall that runs along the back of the building. With that wall, the noise from Pad 10 would be reduced to 46 decibels. The south and west side of the building is solid. Any noise from the building moves to the east. The critical measurements are along the south wall. The everyday occurrence of sound was reduced 43 to 46 decibels, less than the existing 51 in the morning and 57 at noon. The impact wrench however put out more acoustics than can be handled. Thus the sound engineer came up with a system where a 12 foot wall sticks out from the south corner of the building. That, in combination with the 6 foot wide, 12 feet high walls (or fins) between each of the bays, break up the sound to the point where even the impact wrench is below 45 decibels. That is below the ambient level of acoustics as they exist today. Speakers in the buildings, radios, etc., were a concern. It was determined there would be no impact from that. The speaker from the drive -through window for the bank is 80 decibels with it is as loud as it will go. Using 80 decibels with the distance and a 6 foot wall to the south, it is reduced down to below the ambient level. Other design factors: Pad 10 air conditioning units will be at least 15 feet from the back wall. There will be at least a 2 foot parapet on the roof. Loading and trash hauling will be restricted to the hours of the center's development plan. Applicant agreed with the conditions of approval with the exception of #3. A 5 foot screen was placed between Pad 9 and 10 for cars parked there and to give a backdrop for the plants on both sides of the wall. The wall is not a sound wall and does not serve any purpose for acoustics. If the #3 condition is changed from a sound wall to a screen wall, the conditions would be accepted as recommended. Mr. St. John told Commissioner Kinared that wind was not factored into the report because wind blows in all directions. Temperature and moisture do affect noise somewhat. Mr. St. John replied to Commissioner Manross that the plastic poles were put on the property to determine the height of the back of the buildings during the DRB process. He also confirmed that the western edge will have a 10 foot acoustical wall and a 6 foot September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 wall on the south edge. They have also agreed to landscape between the existing asphalt and the property line. Trees will be moved to the barrier area and junk cleaned up. The owner of the apartment complex to the south preferred a 6 foot wall vs. a 10 foot wall. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. He pointed out that when Staff looked at this project, they not only looked at the ambient levels of 45 to 57 decibels, but looked at trying to make sure the sound was lower than that, particularly below 40 decibels. Forty decibels was what the Town used to have in its code for a limit on a continuous noise at a property line. Forty decibels is regarded as a quiet residential neighborhood, and is below conversation level. The 5 foot wall does not attenuate sound. Item #3 is not needed if the wall is only to be used as a screen wall. Mr. St. John told Commissioner McKee that heavy insulation is intended to be vinyl faced batt insulation that lies between the joists. Mr. Nodine recommended that before we take this to the Council that we work with the acoustical engineer and define what heavy insulation means. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:11 P.M. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, would support approving a CUP for the Brakemax service use if it were on Pad 8 rather than Pad 10. Further away from the residents, the noise issue could be more easily mitigated. This kind of use always leaves its doors open. An assistant manager at a Brakemax, told him it is simply a matter of convenience to leave the doors open because they are moving cars around. Mr. Adler thought the "wings" sound walls are unattractive. The open repair bays are unsightly. If the bays faced north, it would be less conspicuous and further from the neighbors. He doesn't know if the wings will work. If it were in a different location in the center the noise would be more easily controlled and aesthetically it would be a more pleasing center. Mike Greenlees, 601 W. Harelson Street, thanked B.P. Magee and Dennis St. John for working with the neighborhood in getting the sound reduction in this development. They have taken down the sign which is also appreciated. Basically, unless Pad 8 and 10 can be switched around, we do support the CUP for Pad 10. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:16 P.M. Mr. St. John responded to Mr. Adler's comments regarding the open doors. In the acoustical report the first recommendation was to close the doors, but from a practical context, we don't think that will happen. That is why the walls were added. The fins were designed by the acoustical engineer and supported by Staff, so we think it is the best solution. As far as the location of the Brakemax on Pad 10, we feel that is the best use because of the hours of operations. September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 Mr. St. John told Chair Cox that the elevation from Oracle Road drops about 6 feet and then goes back up. It is lowest between Pad 9 and 10. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend approval of OV8- 04-03, the request for a brake shop on Building Pad 10 in the Oracle Crossing shopping center, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A, with the following amendments: Item #2, the applicant shall install effective sound attenuation insulation on the entire area of the interior ceiling of the building as cited in the August 10, 2004 Noise Impact Forecast for the Project. Item #3, delete.. Item #5, no speakers may be used that are audible to the adjacent residential properties. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: OV8-04-02, BP MAGEE LLC, REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BANK USE IN A C-2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON BUILDING PAD 8 WITHIN THE ORACLE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE AND MAGEE ROADS, A PORTION OF PARCEL NUMBER 225-51-3890. Dennis St. John, B.P. Magee, 3915 E. Broadway stated that he would not elaborate on the presentation. The only thing he would object to in the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A, is #3. He would like #3 to be amended to say the Applicant shall provide a 12 foot landscaped area on all side of the building with the exception of the side with the bank's drive -through. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. He pointed out that to the south of Pad 8 is not the Desert Lodge, but is a dentist's office. In terms of the 12 foot landscaped area, it was not interpreted to mean the drive through had to be landscaped out.from the building. Code says 5 feet adjacent to a drive -through. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that hours of operation could be 24 hours if not specified. Typically drive-throughs do operation 24 hours, but Staff did not see that as a major issue because of the location and screening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:26 P.M. Mike Greenlees, 601 W. Ha.relson Street said his only concern was traffic coming in with their headlights on and the impact that it may have in the background. Trees planted in the direction cars come in would be good to help screen. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. Mr. St. John responded to the public comments that lights from Oracle when coming into the area are going down a bit, so they would probably hit the wall. September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 Mr. Nodine said that there is usually a flat area at the top of an entrance. In the landscaping plan we can put some of the largest trees in that line of direction. He has made a note to do that. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend approval of OV8- 04-02, the request for a bank in the Oracle Crossing shopping center, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A, with an amendment to Exhibit A #3 that states the applicant shall provide the required 12 foot landscaped area on the north, east and west sides of the building, with a 5 foot landscaped area on the south side, which satisfies the provision in OVZCR Section 9-102(E)4. Commissioner McKee. seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: OV8-04-04, MR. GEORGE VIGNYVICH, REPRESENTING M & 1 BANK, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BANK, LOCATED IN THE ROONEY RANCH SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST AVENUE AND ORACLE ROAD IN AREA "D" OF THE ROONEY RANCH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, PARCEL 220-09-0240. George Vignyvich, Vice President in charge of real estate and development in the State of Arizona for the M&I Bank. The bank headquarters are in Wisconsin and they are in seven different states. He would like to seek approval to operate the bank on First and Oracle. Customers for Oro Valley currently have to travel quite a ways through traffic to Tucson to do their banking. He would like to bring the banking facilities home to those in Oro Valley. M&I is a $34 billion bank and are big enough to provide all the services necessary but small enough to do it with a personal touch. All the conditional uses have reviewed and the bank is more than willing to comply. Regarding item #3, the bank does not put in any walk-up Automatic Teller Machines (ATM), only drive up ATMs as they are much safer for the customer not to have to leave his or her car. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 8:34 P.M. THERE BEING NO SPEAKERS. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to recommend approval of OV8-04-04, the request for the M & 1 Bank in the Area D Rooney Ranch shopping center, subject to the conditions described in Exhibit A. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 7. OV7-04-05, REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO CREATE A R1-305 SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AND A LA CHOLLA AIRPARK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Staff responded to a two part request from the La Cholla Airpark representatives. The Airpark has some CC&R's that restrict development in that area to 7 acre minimums, and would like zoning to reflect the CC&R's to gain security that the area will be more protected when annexed into Oro September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 Valley. It would also allow things related to the Airpark, such as air craft hangers, etc. that would not be allowed in R1-144. The second part would create an overlay district for the Airpark to address safety and noise issues. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Kinared that if the airpark use were eliminated, the La Cholla Airpark would not be interested in annexing to the Town and the zoning wouldn't apply. There were some safety zones done a number of years ago by PAG that he will verify that they meet the FAA requirements. If we follow those and don't get carried away with creating safety zones that cover more area, no one will be affected to the point they would say lets close the airpark. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that he did not know if there were any undeveloped residential in the Airpark area now. He also said that the size of aircraft is currently limited by the size of the runway. Mr. Nodine said in response to Chair Cox that he did not see how the potential of people wanting the Airpark closed in the future could be addressed in the overlay district, because zoning is a legislative act. Zoning could be changed. As long as the Airpark kept being used, it would be a legal non -conforming act. Commissioner McKee added that if the Airpark has received grants from the State or Federal Government for improvements, it may tie the land up so it can't be used for anything else as long as it is still being used as an airport. Having this overlay district is a big step to help avoid potential future dispute regarding the use. MOTION: Commissioner McKee MOVED to initiate an amendment to create a seven -acre, single family district and a La Cholla Airpark Overlay District within appropriate sections of the OVZCR. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. 8. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSION MEMBER TO A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair Cox said he was the representative from Planning and Zoning who sat in on the initial Steering Committee and would appreciate being appointed to this committee. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to recommend the appointment of Chair Don Cox to the General Plan Update citizens' committee. Vice Chair Anning seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Kinared said he felt it was appropriate that Chair Cox is appointed because he was involved not only on the Steering Committee but with all the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings during the process. He would also like to suggest that the liaison on the Council appoint Commissioner McKee as well because he also participated in that process and would offer a slightly different perspective. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. September 7, 2004 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 PLANNING UPDATE Staff is looking for volunteers to help with changing the code for public notification. Meetings would be during the day. Commissioner Bistany volunteered. Citizen Planning Institute (CPI) will start in October. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will start in October and next month Staff will ask for a Commission member who will sit in on those meetings. The Commercial Code is going to the Town Council in a.Study Session on October 11. Projects: • Regarding the Riparian Code Amendment initiated a couple of months ago, Staff is working with biologists to define and get agreement between the applicant's biologist and Town's biologist where riparian area is and bring back at the October 6t' meeting • The Plat for the Wolfley rezoning (restaurant) property is going to Town Council and the area just north (Bednar property) is also coming in now with similar issues. • Chewy's Restaurant is being proposed at 9800 N. Oracle, but there is an archeological site there which will have to be worked with. • Northwest Medical Center is proposed for completion in November or early December and there will be a ribbon cutting in January. • Bond projects: Steampump Ranch, Naranja Town Site, Honeybee Village, and Kelly Ranch. • Active Annexation projects: Westward Look Resort and La Cholla Airpark. • Road Construction: La Canada Extension, First Avenue Bridge and Pusch View Lane Extension, and La Cholla and Tangerine. Commissioner Krenkowitz said that another draft of the P&Z Rules has to be prepared and should be done by October. ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission September 7, 2004 meeting. Commissioner McKee seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 7 yes, 0 no vote. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Rec6fding Secretary TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Susana Montana, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONTINUED ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO COMMERCE PARK (CP) ON APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. BACKGROUND: Previous Proposal for This Property. The Commission reviewed a General Plan amendment request for this property at their July 6, 2004 hearing. That request was to designate approximately 11 acres located west of the on -site Wash to Low -Density Residential use, and about 24 acres located east of the Wash to Neighborhood Commercial use. The Commission voted to continue this item with the following motion: MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to continue this item until the regularly scheduled meeting in August to give the applicant time to add definition to the proposal and for applicant and Staff to be able to give more information. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Manross and Krenkowitz voting no. At that hearing, the Applicant was asked by the Commission to describe the market demand for neighborhood commercial space, particularly retail space, at this location. Subsequent to that Commission hearing, the Applicant met with the Town's Economic Development Administrator regarding the demand for retail space versus small office space at this location. The Applicant asked Mr. Jeff Weir, the Town's Economic Development Administrator, to comment on the potential demand for commercial space at this location. In a July 13, 2004 meeting with staff and Mr. Carl Winters, the Applicants' representative, Mr. Weir stated that he believes there is a demand for small corporate office space, technology research and development office space, and similar small-scale office park uses in Town, and that this site would be suitable for this type of use. Mr. Weir has submitted a July 19, 2004 Memorandum to that effect which is attached as Attachment 3. On July 21, 2004, the Applicants' representative held a neighborhood meeting on the proposed General Plan amendment in which neighboring residents discussed their concerns with the potential for commercial use on the site. They expressed concerns with traffic, noise, view blockage and nighttime glare associated with potential commercial use of the site, particularly retail use. The Applicant has decided to change the proposed Project from a mix of residential, retail and office space to small-scale office space for small high-tech firms and similar small businesses (see Attachment 2). TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 Property Annexation Five of the seven parcels were annexed into the Town on May 19, 2004 (Ordinance No. (0) 04-22). The translational zoning action (OV9-04-04) changing the zoning of those five parcels from Pima County rural residential use (Suburban Ranch District) to Oro Valley rural residential use (R1-144 District) was approved by Town Council on July 21, 2004. The translational zoning allowed for the keeping of livestock on the five annexed parcels, per the Pima County October 2002 Zoning Code rules. SITE DESCRIPTION: Subject Parcels The seven subject parcels are 38.8 acres in size. Approximately 2.15 acres would be devoted to Tangerine Road right-of-way, and another 2 acres or so may be devoted to a Limewood Drive right-of-way, leaving a development area of about 34 acres. The Site contains five single-family homes and a horse raisingibreeding operation. There is a degraded riparian habitat ("Wash") listed in the Town's "ESL Riparian Update" data base; however, the update has not yet been adopted as part of the OVZCR riparian habitat protection overlay district regulations. Portions of the Wash have been graded and denuded by farm activities and a driveway to provide vehicular access to homes. Environs The site is surrounded by the following uses: North: Single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels zoned rural low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County; South: Tangerine Road and single-family homes in platted subdivisions zoned Town of Oro Valley (TOV) Single Family Residential (RI-7) District; East: La Canada Drive Extension and a single-family subdivision, zoned TOV Single Family Residential (R1-36) District; and West: A mixture of vacant land zoned TOV Single -Family Residential (R1-144) District, and single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels, zoned low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County. The character of the Site is rural residential, as are the properties to the north and west. However, the extension of La Canada Drive north to Moore Road as a four -lane divided arterial roadway, the development of residential subdivisions to the east and northeast, the ongoing development of Tangerine Road as a four -lane divided arterial roadway, and the continued development of medium -density suburban residential subdivisions to the south have changed the character of the site and environs. The Site lies at the edge of a growing residential suburban community. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: The landowners' new request is to change the General Plan designation of the property from Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR) to Commerce Park. Their application letter is shown as Attachment 2. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT: As stated in Focus 2020, "the granting of a general plan amendment will be based on the following findings of fact". A previous interpretation clarifying the intent of this statement indicates that "all four findings should be met", and recommendations for approval should be based on amendments that create the "greatest good to the community". 1. "That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time. " Applicant's response: "The Town of Oro Valley Economic Development Department has gone on record as supporting this site for the desired small corporate office park due to a number of things that implement policies of the current plan, including: a. Providing employment within walking distance to 'white collar' housing. b. Providing for a quality office park at a major arterial intersection which easy access to all major areas of the community, including, but not limited to i. Private and public airport facilities ii. Sufficient water, sewer and other infrastructure iii. Proximity to government offices iv. Excellent physical environment for highly paid employees that are current residents of the greater Oro Valley and 'Tortolita' area." Staff anal: The 1996 General Plan Land Use Map designates the Site as Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR). The Site environs are designated as shown on the following table: Current 1996 General Plan Designation Location Land Use Designation Density Allowed Site Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 residential units per acre-0.3 RAC North Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 residential units per acre-0.3 RAC East Northeastern part: Low Density Residential, LDR 1.2 LDR 1.2 = 0.6 to 1.2 RAC Southeastern part Vistoso Gateway): LDR 2.0 LDR 2.0 = 1.3 to 2.0 RAC South Southwest of site (Verde Ranch subdivision): Medium Density MDR = 2.1 to 5 RAC Residential (MDR) C = Neighborhood Commercial Southeast of site Post Office): Commercial C West Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 RAC TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 The highest intensity General Plan designated land use in the area is the Commercial zone located at the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive, cattycomer to the Site; this property was intended by the Town to be a neighborhood -serving commercial use but, instead, it is a Town -serving quasi -government or institutional use. The proposed General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential to Commerce Park would allow the Applicant to seek a zoning map amendment for the property to a Technological Park (TP) District which would allow small-scale office buildings for high-tech businesses or medical offices and, with a conditional use permit, a restaurant. Depending upon the scale, siting and design of the buildings, this type of office use in a TP District could be complementary to the low density residential areas to the west and north. A campus office park for small lots, with stand-alone office buildings of a similar scale and height as the ranch homes to the west, and with sufficient landscape screening of parking, would fit into the context of the suburban neighborhoods to the east and south. This use would provide an appropriate use for a site that abuts two major roadways. The proposed use could provide a development that could serve as a gateway into the Town to the south and to the Rancho Vistoso community to the north. The use could serve as a buffer between the arterial roadways and the residential uses to the north and west. This would be an improvement to the General Plan. 2. "That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan. " Applicant's response: "The amendment is consistent with the vision, goals and policies of the general plan. Specifically, this site meets the criteria set forth in Policy 3.1J which includes provision of work places that are consistent with the scale of the surrounding area and will emphasize a unified architectural theme, pedestrian orientation, natural landscaping and inward -transportation patterns." Staff analysis: Key policies germane to this application are presented below: Land Use Policies_: • Policy 1.1B: "Promote clustering (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. " • Policy 1.2F: "Locate higher density land uses and transportation -dependent uses near major transportation corridors. " The Applicant proposes to develop a "campus park -like" office complex which would provide small office buildings for technology businesses seeking to own their own property. This complex would feature: • The 34 acre Site would be subdivided into separate lots. The lots east of the Wash would be about one acre in size, the lots west of the Wash and north of the Limewood Drive alignment would be about 1 acres each, and the lots west of the Wash and south of the Limewood Drive alignment would be about 1 acre in size. • The lots located west of the Wash would be limited to one-story. • The western lots would provide a 50 foot wide setback from the western property line to serve as a buffer from the residential land to the west. • The lots located east of the Wash could be two-story and 25 feet in height. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 • There would be a 35 foot wide setback from La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road. • The main entry road into the Site would be a roadway suitable for a public right-of-way for a Limewood Drive extension to La Canada Drive. • The office buildings are expected to be a series of owner -occupant, free-standing buildings located within a heavily landscaped "campus park -like" setting. • The buildings would face La Canada Drive and the distant eastern mountain views of the Catalina Mountains. • The buildings west of the Wash would be designed to be "residential" in scale and character. • There may be a restaurant use to serve the office users. This type of development on the property would be compatible with Policy 3.1 J of the General Plan. Natural Resource Conservation Policies: • Policy 8.1A: "Aggressively ensure that damage caused by blading is repaired and returned to its natural state. " • Policy 8.1C: "Wash encroachment may be permitted where floodplains are broad and shallow in order to permit a reasonable utilization of property, unless such encroachment impeded natural groundwater recharge of the aquifer. " • Policy 8.1G: "Indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats should be maintained and enhanced where possible. " The Site contains a Wash that has been altered. The General Plan amendment would facilitate an intensification of land uses which, as part of the rezoning Tentative Development Plan (TDP) and conditions of approval of the rezoning, would very much likely include a restoration of this Wash. The Wash could be restored with the exception of where the access roadway to the western portion of the Project would cross it. It is expected that this roadway would be aligned with the Limewood Drive right-of-way. The Wash can be incorporated into the design of the Project as a landscape and open space feature for Project users. Restoration of the wash and minimization of wash crossing should be an integral part of the Project rezoning site planning and design efforts should this General Plan amendment be approved. 3. "That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. " Applicant's response: "The general land use plan does not provide any alternate location for this particular type corporate office park." Staff analysis: The General Plan designates 700 plus acres within the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhoods 2 and 3 as Commerce Park use. Of this, approximately 200 acres is developable, the remainder being developed or open space. This is all in one ownership and the plans for this are for a large, large -lot corporate center unlike the one being proposed. Another 400 acres is designated as Commerce Park north of the Town boundaries along Oracle Road. This area is TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 virtually all State land and is part of the County's preservation initiative request. Thus, though there are other similarly designated areas, they may not be appropriate for the proposed use. 4. "That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process. Applicant's response: "And, finally, this amendment will be of benefit to the community to the whole and suitable mitigation means can and will be developed for the subsequent zoning and development processes." Staff analysis: As described above, there may be impacts associated with the General Plan amendment related to the following: • land use, height and size limits; • intensification of land use relative to the lower -density rural home sites to the west; • potential massing and scale impacts associated with office buildings within the context of surrounding developments of single -story single-family homes; • potential light and glare associated with new commercial development -related indoor and outdoor lighting and vehicle headlights to surrounding residential developments and to motorists traveling La Canada Drive and/or Tangerine Road; and • consideration of the restoration of the on -site Wash. Any rezoning of the Site will include a Tentative Development Plan that should incorporate the following features: • careful placement of building pad locations and building orientation; • buildings of a residential scale and character; • landscape buffers and screening of buildings and parking areas, particularly to the west; • careful siting of parking areas, screen walls and vegetative screening; and • restoration of the Wash to enhance the riparian habitat and aesthetic value of the Wash. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: As required by State statue, public notification regarding the proposed amendment was given to adjacent property owners. On May 13, 2004, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the proposed General Plan amendment and the Project. Comments by neighbors and owners of adjacent, vacant home sites, related to commercial office development include: • There was concern that new development, especially 2nd story development, would adversely impact the "dark sky" ambient. There was some support for limiting the commercial portion to one-story buildings to preserve views and as well as to eliminate the potential for dusk (sunset) glare from 2nd story windows and to eliminate night time light seen from the 2nd story windows affecting residents to the west. There were TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 comments that the Post Office outdoor lighting did not do an adequate job of protecting the "dark sky" of the rural environs and that the Project should do a better job. • There was concern about access to the Project and to La Canada Drive from Sunkist Drive (pros and cons). • There were comments that this Site serves as an important visual and functional "gateway" to the Town and to Ranch Vistoso, especially important if the Ritz Carlton is built. There was support for a high quality and attractive design for the roadway improvements and landscaping and for the Project design and landscaping. It was suggested that the Project be built by one developer or somehow the Project should be assured that each phase or piece should contribute to a coherent design for the whole. Overall, many of the aforementioned issues may be addressed as part of a rezoning effort. PUBLIC PRESENTATION: Pursuant to Resolution (R) 98-31, "all presentations before Boards, Commissions and Council for rezonings, subdivision plats, development plans and planned area developments must be formatted to be shown on the Town's projection system or overhead system. The Planning and Zoning Administrator; however, may exempt certain projects." A presentation must be designed to insure that the audience, staff and voting body can view the graphics. Examples of acceptable computer formats are Power Point, Arc View, a videotape presentation, and/or overhead transparences. The Applicant is responsible for the development, presentation and coordination of all presentation materials. If an applicant does not conform to the aforementioned resolution, the item may be continued due to non-compliance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The following is a summary of factors identified by staff: Factors For. 1. The proposal meets General Plan Findings of Fact with the possible exception of Finding Number 3. 2. The proposal recognizes the encroachment of suburban residential uses on rural residential "horse property" and the inherent use conflicts of suburban housing next to horse operations. 3. The proposal would provide office space for low -intensity high-technology businesses served by arterial roadways and located at a convenient "gateway" to the Town and to Rancho Vistoso. 4. The neighbors and adjacent property owners support the land use change with certain caveats about limiting building height and scale, providing vegetative screening and insuring "dark sky" outdoor lighting throughout the Project. The issues may be addressed as part of the rezoning application. 5. The proposal meets all applicable General Plan policies. Factors AZainst: 1. There are other CP designated lands within the Town. These may be able to accommodate the proposed technology office uses, depending on their ultimate development. 2. Change in the land use designation and intensification of zoning on the subject parcels could be growth inducing, in that further pressure may be placed on adjacent rural residential properties to the north and west of the Site to similarly seek more intense development. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 In sum, the "Factors For" outweigh the "Factors Against". As a result, approval of OV 11-04-02 is recommended. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential, R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to Commerce Park (CP). OR I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential, R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to Commerce Park (CP) with the following condition(s) OR I move to recommend that Town Council deny OV11-04-02, finding that: Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Application Letter and Site Plan (Note: The applicant is preparing a revised plan which shows larger lots to the west and replaces the T-P zoning designation with the CP General Plan designation.) 3. Letter from Jeff Weir, Town Economic Development Administrator Copy: Carl Winters, Planning Resources, Fax: 520. 628-7637 P1anm14g-afdjZoning Administrator FAWOV11\2004\11-04-02\Reports\PZC Sept Report.doc Cj) ((-U 4 "a� APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 3, 2004 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Acting Chair Don Cox Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Doug McKee Commissioner John Anning EXCUSED: Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis Council Member Culver Council Member Dankwerth Council Member K.C. Carter Council Member Barry Gillaspie Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Craig Civalier, P.E., Development Review Div. Manager Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Jeff Weir, Economic Development Administrator Susana Montana, Planner II CALL TO THE AUDIENCE OPENED AT 6:05 P.M. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place. As often as not, the General Plan Land Use Map does not factor in terms of the designations, the specific conditions on the site, topography, contours, riparian areas, washes, etc. It does not factor in conditions on properties immediately adjacent to the site. The Land Use Map has an advisory notice that reads as follows: "The land use designations on this map are policy recommendations only. Designations may or may not represent actual zoning on properties. No decisions regarding land purchase or possible construction should be based solely on these designations." So an applicant comes to you and says they relied on the General Plan designation to purchase some property because that property showed on the General Plan Land Use map a specific designation. If they purchased the property believing that is what they were entitled to, the Applicant is either exaggerating or they made a miscalculated business decision that the Town does not want them to make. That is why this advisory August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 notice is on the Land Use Map. It was his recommendation when the property at the corner of Tangerine and La Canada, across from the Post Office, was before the Commission and Council, that to protect the washes and riparian areas on the property, it needed to be at a lower density. That wasn't done. If you walked that property today, now that it has been mass graded, you would not be pleased with the results. That is why land use designations on the General Plan Map are recommendations for the Town's preferred use, but they are not to be relied upon. At a meeting last month an applicant say he relied upon it. The Commission needs to understand that it is clear on the Land Use Map that that is not to happen and he hopes in the future the Commission will keep that in mind. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE CLOSED AT 6:08 P.M. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the July 6, 2004, Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes as written. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1. CONTINUED ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.3 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON 11.75 ACRES AND AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON 24.9 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 00413, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. Mr. Nodine presented the Staff Report. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to continue OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to LDR (1.3 to 2 RAC) for 11.75 acres west of the on -site Wash and from R- LDR to NC for 24.9 acres east of the Wash, until such time as the Applicant re- defines the project. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 2. PUBLIC HEARING — OV9-02-06, PROFILE DESIGN REPRESENTING WOLFLEY/EL CONQUISTADOR, REQUESTS A REZONING FROM R-6 (MULTI FAMILY) TO CA (COMMERCIAL ZONE) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND EL CONQUISTADOR WAY, PARCEL 224-33-131 B Mr. Nodine presented the Staff Report, showing the location of the site and surrounding neighborhood and what was proposed on the site. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that there was nothing in the report regarding hours of operation. There are a fair number of opportunities for restaurant uses within the Town, August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 with 4 or 5 commercial sites approved, but still in the development process. The closest ones to this site are two restaurants being proposed near Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Bistany that a restaurant wasn't included as one of the listed items of prohibited uses because first of all it is not no noise, no traffic, no architecture that other uses besides the ones listed would generate. It is that the listed ones generate these to a greater extent than the restaurant. Restaurant's traffic is generally at a very tight peak and then closes off when it is not at that peak. Restaurants can be smaller than some of the other uses. The listed prohibited uses have greater negative impact. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner McKee that a beauty salon is an accepted use. Acting Chair Cox said that the conditions should say that if a restaurant is approved the applicant will install a scrubber for odor abatement. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner McKee that he could not answer the question as to how effective the scrubbers are. Experts indicate that the best approach is to proactively put a scrubber on and that is the best way to eliminate odors. He is not aware of any standards for scrubbers for restaurants. David Williams, 1421 W. Chapalla Drive, Tucson, apologized for being late. Property owner Deloy Wolfley, and Designer Carl Kilgore were also in attendance. The land use rezoning request fits the General Plan of Oro Valley, the Oracle Road Corridor, the activity or commercial node that is located at El Conquistador Way, and it fits as a positive contribution to the Town economically. There have been neighborhood meetings and the applicant has responded to their concerns. Applicant is in agreement with Staff concerns and stipulations listed in the Staff Report. Carl Kilgore, Architect for Profile Design Inc., 8511 E. Kent Place, talked about the issues related to the restaurant use on the property. The property basically sits along a corridor which is implied as a commercial corridor. The property was originally in a zone designated as CN, which under the General Plan is C-1. The proximity to the Valle del Oro town homes is 180 feet to the enclosed dumpsters, 233 feet to the building face, 290 feet to the proposed restaurant location and 372 feet to the outdoor dining, which is concealed by the building. The office and restaurant use is concentrated near Oracle Road, away from the townhomes. The low use surface parking is placed adjacent to the town homes. The 10 foot required landscaped buffer has been increased to 37 feet and an effort will be made to maintain the mature landscaping within the first 12 to 15 feet adjacent to the town homes. Included is a 4-5 foot berm to screen parking lights and vehicular noise. The planned uses are office space, restaurant and beauty salon. The office space would be about 19,000 square feet, the restaurant about 5,000 square feet and beauty salon about 3,000 square feet of the building. The deleterious factors determined, based on conversations with the neighbors, were crime, specifically vandalism as related to the consumption of alcohol, trash, noise, parking overflow into surrounding properties, traffic movement, and food odors. August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission McJ111 Minutes 4 Crime: Mitigating efforts would be: no dancing or operations related to a night club; live entertainment would be limited to indoor spaces only, i.e. a piano player; no stage performances will be permitted, there could be training for drunk driver identification; and a relationship formed with a cab service for transportation of intoxicated patrons. Trash: Will be contained in a walled enclosure. There will be no fast food or drive through operations permitted, consequently trash related to wrapped foods and containerized foods would not be applicable. The outdoor dining located on the east side of the property would have a 24 to 30 inch high wall to prevent trash from blowing out into the property. Noise: Live entertainment would be limited to indoor spaces. There may be background music, but no stage performances. The outdoor dining on the east is away from neighbors and screened by the building. Parking: An analysis showed the eastern half of the property was sufficient for the evening parking. There may be a minimum overflow into the lower parking area. The applicant felt that restrictions into that parking area may cause overflow into the neighborhood. They envisioned a valet service to park cars in the restricted area. Traffic Noise and Light Intrusions: A screen wall will be included to block light from vehicles coming to the property. There is a 4-5 foot buffer berm. The valet service would control parking into the lower lot. There would be no fast food or drive through operations which cause higher traffic volume. Odors: Scrubbers and oxidizers run from $20,000 to $25,000 per hood to install. The cost is somewhat prohibitive. The exhaust outlets would be about 45 feet above the town homes finished floor elevation. The lateral proximity is over 290 feet to the nearest town home. Applicant feels there would be sufficient odor dissipation given the distance and with prevailing winds from the south west. The patron profile is geared to business clientele, families, retirees, winter visitors and upper class operation. The food service profile is primarily a sit-down, dine -in restaurant. No banquet provisions are envisioned for the establishment. Anticipated services would include breakfast, lunch and dinner, with the peak hours 7 to 9 am, 11:30 am to 1:30 pm, and 6 to 9 pm. Comparable dining opportunities would be Metro Grill to the south. Uno's to the east, the two restaurants in the resort, and to the north Risky Business and Rubios are not comparable. The envisioned bar would be a bar waiting area with about 27 seats. The applicant would consider specific hours of operation. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant is proposing a high end restaurant that fits into the image of Oro Valley and development along Oracle Road. All the specific design concerns have been addressed. There is water, sewer, police service and adequate road service. August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 Mr. Kilgore responded to Commissioner Bistany that there are many high end restaurants that serve breakfast. The breakfast would be geared for business meetings, but would be open to the public as well. Mr. Williams told Commissioner McKee that there has not been an analysis on sales tax impact for this project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:50 P.M. Harold Kandetzke, 10130 Sawgrass. There have been several people discussing the General Plan. I would like you to focus on a different element in the General Plan for Oro Valley. I quote from the housing section: "to promote high quality residential neighborhoods" and the way it is intended to do that is to protect the integrity and aesthetics context of existing neighborhood through the use of appropriate buffers.. I'd like to talk about intensity of different zoning levels. I heard that this property was originally zoned CN, which happens to be neighborhood commercial. I have a question as to why that was changed. In the vision for the Oracle Corridor, everything was moved to C-1; a much higher intensity. CN also has a 5 acre minimum. The Land Use Plan says nothing about how the incompatibilities between C-1 and existing neighborhoods are going to be addressed. The General Plan does say that extensive buffering needs to address these incompatibilities. Five acres on a much less intense zoning certainly gives you more space to address the buffering issue. Whereas 2.5 acres certainly limits your ability to buffer existing residential neighborhoods from the incompatibilities of C-1. In addition, the General Plan Land Use Plan does not, when it designates a property C-1, take into consideration the size of the property. It just says it would like to see everything along that corridor C-1. Does that mean that a quarter acre parcel is going to be designated C-1, and that is going to be accepted? Or is there going to be some discussion how those parcels are going to affect the surrounding neighborhoods? The commercial use with the restaurant is a problem. You have heard about scrubbers, etc. to get rid of odors and that sort of thing, and I haven't heard a specific answer to that. The applicant has identified 200 and 300 feet separation between the building and the neighbors. However there is a parking lot approximately 37 Y2 feet from our back yards. I would expect 37 Y2 feet to be inadequate to any kind of buffering. The parking lot with the lights from the cars is an invasion of privacy. Parking lots and cars generate noise and I don't see any kind of adequate buffering to abate the noise or mitigate that concern. Another item is the road that is going to open up the property to the north. That road is going to generate additional traffic. There are 28 single family homes and two office buildings proposed to be constructed, which will put additional traffic through there. You have an east -west access from Thorneydale to Oracle through the side roads, avoiding traffic lights and coming through specific neighborhoods. And that is going to happen. On the compatibility issues, policy states commercial uses should seek to locate near new population centers, not within population centers. It says the office space, speaking about this property, is compatible with residential uses. We don't have any problem with . August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 6 professional office space. We have a problem with the commercial space. Restaurants may be compatible if mitigation measures are implemented. Whose mitigation measures? Ours? The Applicants? The Staff? But it may be compatible. I think what we have is a very distinct incompatibility that is not being addressed. Policy 3.1.j encourages employee related uses, such as offices, to provide employment for growing communities. You are talking about upscale jobs. You are not talking about waiters, bus boys, and dishwashers. The size of the restaurant certainly doesn't seem that it is going to generate enough sales tax for it to be significant in the Town's plan. In terms of the views, the applicant said the building will be no taller than the trees. We can see through the trees. We get some air through the trees. That won't happen with a building. So if the building needs to be there, it should be lower than the tree line. Mr. Adler addressed the issue on the front end of how the General Plan and the C-1 along the Corridor is a vision and is not an entitlement. Staff has done some work to try to mitigate the exposures that our residential community is going to have. However, I would like to understand what they are doing to promote a higher quality neighborhood there with this rezoning. Geoff Masters, 249E. Southern Pines Drive, lives directly across the street from the subject project. There are a number of items of concern. The Staff Report talks about surrounding land uses, north are R-6 and R-4, currently vacant and with town houses. To the south are R-6 and some vacancy. To the east is R-4 and to the west R-4. If the Staff Report, Profile Design, and Wolfley/EI Conquistador development goes through, a commercial development will go smack-dab in the middle of R-6 and R-4. It designates this property as community commercial. As stated in the General Plan, it denotes. areas of commercial development at the intersections of principal arterials. El Conquistador Way is not a principal arterial. It goes two blocks and then goes around the golf course. Mr. Kilgore said the scrubbers are cost prohibitive. Maybe they should not talk about putting a restaurant in if they can't do it properly. One other item that hasn't been broached is, what happens on the road that the Town wants to come in from the property to the north (Bednar property)? The Town and ADOT want the traffic flow through that property. How will the 5 town homes that back up to the wash and the six immediately behind this development be affected by the new road? What happens to the wastewater that runs through after if come out of the new pipes they are proposing to install and cover and not go all the way to the end of our property? Those questions need to be addressed. Section 16.103 on page 6 of the Report says, "Locate and design buildings in a manner that is harmonious with the natural contours of the land". If you have looked at that property and the plan you know there will be no contours. It will be taken down to 8 feet above Oracle Road. That will make it so we hear and see trucks that go up and down Oracle Road. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, thinks the piece of land is too small for the proposed August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 7 use. That is why there are problems with this mitigation. To put a parking lot 12 yards from someone's bedroom is not only insensitive, but unconscionable. I would ask that you not do that. The only way that the proposed use can be adequately mitigated is to reduce it. Legal Department has indicated that you can restrict the type of restaurant. I would suggest that the restaurant, in fact, not be a restaurant, but rather be a coffee bar or coffee shop, so that snacks, coffee, soft drinks, etc. are available to the business users of the office space, and the parking requirements are reduced. It is conceivable that the square footage for the office use itself needs to be reduced. Reduce the parking so that the parking and automobile noise is further away from someone's living room. The only way that can be done is to reduce the use. The coffee bar or snack shop could serve breakfast and lunch, but not dinner. It is the evening and nighttime hours that are the most disturbing to the residents. The residents have no problem with the office use. They recognize some traffic is going to be disturbing them in the morning hours when people come to work. If the restaurant was restricted by type, the amount of parking could be reduced, and it could be moved further away from the neighbors. The major concern is noise. The Staff Report talks about compliance with Policy 1.2G. It talks about commercial uses should be located near population. This is not what the General Plan had in mind. This is not near, but on top of. This does not comply with the General Plan. Dan Lupo, 9980 N. Roxbury Drive, is the president of the Colony of Oro Valley HOA. We are sympathetic to our neighbors concerns and we would have those same concerns. But our primary concern is that the way it is now with an R-6 designation, it is possible to have apartments built there. Our vote is unanimously against having apartments built in that area. With the restrictions and suggestions mentioned, we hope that things can be implemented. Those of us who live along Valle del Oro Road, who could be looking at those apartments day and night, and the traffic it would cause, are definitely opposed to any kind of apartments. We would be in favor of this new C-1 designation with the restrictions that have been mentioned by previous speakers. Deloy Wolfley passed on speaking. Valerie Wunder, 10124 N. Sawgrass Drive, is concerned for the people who live in her development. She is a member of the HOA board. We have lived in our community and choose it for specific reasons. Mr. Wolfley has presented a very fine design, but we are objecting to some of his suggested uses. One of her concerns is if Mr. Wolfley's intentions would be followed by subsequent owners of the property. It is important that the Commission consider the views of the residents who have made their choices and investments in the community. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:10 P.M. Mr. Williams, applicant, said Oro Valley cares about its neighbors and this case is going to hinge on trying to address those concerns. We think we have. Staff has addressed why the restaurant is less obnoxious than other uses and the hours of operation. The protection of neighborhoods is very important, and moving this building up to the Oracle Road frontage is an attempt to respond to that. Also tied to the relationship of commercial services being close to homes, is being within walking distance. Buffering is a difficult issue. It is a small site no matter what is put on this site. It is zoned to allow apartments and offices and parking lots with a 10 foot buffer. The screening is set up so no headlights August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUi Minutes can intrude to the north. There will be noise that can be heard, but there will be noise on the site no matter how it is developed. Apartments would create noise all the time. The residents of Valle del Oro can hear Oracle Road today, it is getting wider and noisier. The General Plan has several policies that will specifically support this project. Mr. Kilgore said the hours of operation could be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. We did not say we would not install scrubbers. We said that given the location of the exhaust outlet that putting in a scrubber may not be that beneficial. Mr. Williams pointed out that if this zoning is approved and the property changes hands, the restrictions would run with the land. The conditions will always be there no matter who the owner is. So we have assurance as neighbors and community members that this is the way it has to be developed, if it is developed under C-1. Otherwise, it is under R-6. Mr. Kilgore responded to Acting Chair Cox that lowering the height more would increase some of the slope challenges around the perimeter of the property. It is possible, but not to a great degree, probably about 2 to 3 feet at the most. The restaurant traffic can be handled in the right parking lot. Valet parking with a gate would alleviate additional parking and would control parking in the western parking area after 6:00 p.m. He did not believe there would be any parking in the north end of the parking lot closest to the town homes. The valet service would be mainly for the underground parking and any overflow to the western parking. Mr. Kilgore told Commissioner McKee that the traffic study was done early on in the process and he did not know if Bednar's property had been submitted at that point. Craig Civalier stated that the traffic to Bednar's was not included in that report. He estimated that peak hours, 7 to 9 am and 4 to 6 pm, may generate 45 trips from that parcel. If there was no connection onto El Conquistador, the only access would be Oracle and it would increase U-turns at both El Conquistador and Oracle and at Greenock and Oracle. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Bistany that R-6 is for multi -family. Commissioner Anning pointed out that in Chapter 7, Section 504, Property Development Standards, it says any property for which R-6 zoning is requested shall contain a minimum of 5 acres if the proposed use is residential, or 1 area if for business or professional offices. This site is already zoned R-6, so it would be allowed to develop as multi -family. Are we better off with development under R-6 or C-1? Mr. Nodine said that R-6 district can have 2 story building height at 25 feet. Where it abuts R-4, maximum building height of 18 feet within 50 feet is allowed. Buffer yards require 10 feet. Setbacks of buildings are 30 feet front, 20 feet rear and 20 feet side yards. In comparison with the development plan submitted for C-1, if R-6 potentially developed fully with no mitigation, C-1 is the better plan. Staff tries to mitigate impacts with applicants anytime they come in. Apartments have people full time, where commercial tends to have August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission MeelAl Minutes 9 people to a lesser extent. However, commercial does have peaks where apartments do not. It is hard to compare. You could get a developer in the existing R-6 who may want to develop to the full extent the code allows. When rezoning comes forward, there is more negotiation and less exaction. R-6 does not allow restaurants. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to recommend approval to the Town Council of OV9-02-06, rezoning 2.58 acres located on the northwest corner of El Conquistador Way and Oracle Road from R-6 to C-1, upon satisfaction of the conditions listed in Exhibit A attached, herewith. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION that in addition to the conditions suggested in Exhibit A, add: Condition #19: Scrubbers would be required for the restaurant, Condition #20: Hours of operation would be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M., Condition #21: The west parking lot would be gated to prohibit parking after 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Manross and Commissioner Anning accepted the Amendment to the Motion. Acting Chair Cox said that the process in this particular case, is hopefully a process to follow in the future of having more study sessions, so we can thoroughly hear and understand the issues that come before the Commission that have such an effect on the Town and residents most effected by it. The residents were not opposed to an office complex, but to the restaurant. While there may be impacts created by a restaurant that are somewhat negative, he doesn't believe a restaurant with the restrictions placeed on it will create such hardship as to make it a major problem. The applicant has done a good job of buffering, and is doing everything within their power to make this an overall improvement to the Town of Oro Valley. Commissioner Bistany agreed with Mr. Adler's comments. He thinks this is much too ambitious a project for 2.5 acres. He thinks this is an R-6 zone and we have to take into consideration, on this size lot, the impact it will have on the residents in this area. The applicant by his actions and development admits this is going to be a problem because there are a lot of buffers, and a lot has to be done to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. There is only a 200 foot run down El Conquistador before you have to make a left or right hand turn. People will miss the turn and end up in the residential area and it will be confusing. Commission Kinared stated that this particular proposal is a very clear illustration of the issue we deal with throughout the interpretation and implementation of the General Plan. If we ignore the General Plan we will never develop "retail in my back yard" and we will have to support ourselves with a mandatory property tax rather than a voluntary sales tax paid in part by non -Oro Valley residents, and existing neighborhoods will be entitled to obscure the General Plan vision. He does not think that is okay for the good of the general community. He will support this proposal. August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission McAlu Minutes 10 Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on whether the zoning could be limited to the three uses requested? Attorney Andrews said that at this point it would be an amendment to the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Doug McKee MOVED that the uses for this project should be limited to the three uses in the proposed development plan: (1) Business and professional offices, (2) Restaurant, and (3) Personal services. Commissioner Manross did not accept the Amendment to the Amendment to the Motion. There being no second to the Amendment to the Amendment to the Motion, the Amendment to the Amendment to the Motion failed. MOTION with Amendment carried 5 yes, 1 no, Commissioner Bistany voting no. BREAK: 7:40 P.M. to 7:47 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-05, DENNIS ST. JOHN, REPRESENTING BP MAGEE LLC, REQUESTS A REZONING FROM C-2 (COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS THAT RESTRICT RETAIL USES TO C-2 WITHOUT USE RESTRICTIONS, AFFECTING AN APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE AND MAGEE ROADS, PARCEL NUMBERS 225-51-3880, 3890, 3900, 3910 AND 3940. Dennis St. John, 3915 E. Broadway, gave a power point presentation on the zoning condition request for Oracle Crossings. He gave a brief history of the property with the background of what they have been doing. He also showed the location of the property in relation to Oracle Road and the property to the north. The whole parcel is 30 acres, with the northern 21+- acres already zoned C-2 with conditions. The site in question is nearly 10 acres. The PADA was approved by Mayor and Council in March. The area was annexed into the Town and went through a transitional zoning change with conditions. Condition 1 allowed that the uses on the 10 acre former TR parcel are limited to uses applied to the Pima County TR, general office or motel in nature. Condition 2 (should be 6) said that any convenience uses on that parcel are subject to Pima County zoning or, if silent, to Oro Valley zoning. Applicant is requesting that Condition #1 be removed and allow retail uses permitted in Town C-2 zoning. Mr. St. John listed some of the users for the PADs: PAD 6 — restaurant PAD 7 —jewelers or other retail use PAD 8 — National Bank, one story, 10,000 square feet with buffer area and drive through. PAD 9 — office building, could also be a restaurant location PAD 10 — Brake Max, bays facing Oracle, 10 foot high sound wall, landscaping in 20 foot area, 35 to 60 feet to hard pavement of Northern Avenue. There will be landscaping and a sidewalk, and it will be maintained. There is a screen wall in the front August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meellll Voinutes 11 with additional landscaping. The back is solid and colors have been selected by the neighbors. PAD 11 — Peter Piper Pizza PAD 12 — a series of shops with small spaces Neighborhood meetings were ongoing and concerns of height, colors, sound, odors, and landscaping have been answered. A sign package goes to DRB for review in September. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. He stated that there would be a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the bank and brake shop. The issues related to the odors associated with the pizza restaurant and with the brake shop. In terms of the brake shop, with the CUP, Staff would look for a noise mitigation plan and any other mitigation that might be necessary. All issues would be taken care of when the CUP came forward. In terms of the pizza place, there is a requirement in the development plan that there be an odor mitigation plan, including scrubbers, etc. Staff recommends removal of condition #1 which would make this consistent with the remainder of the property including retail uses. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that Staff had looked at restricting access onto Northern Avenue, which would go directly to Magee. Access onto Magee has to be via the property to the north or getting onto Oracle Road at Suffolk. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Manross that there is no vehicular or pedestrian access onto Northern from Magee to the southern most part of the boundary, except for one area to the north where there is pedestrian access, which is in the C-2 area. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:10 P.M. Janice Rosenberg, 760 W. Harelson Street, lives just west of the project. She wanted clarification whether height specifications will be the same as approved by the Council? Mr. Nodine said it will have the same restrictions, but it may not go that high. Mike Greenlees, 601 Harelson Street, thanked Dennis St. John and others working with this project. They have addressed every condition that the neighbors have asked for. As a neighbor who is directly across from this development, he supports this rezoning. Mark Wierzbinski, 2555 N. Oracle, has the property bordering Brake Max. He is against the Brake Max. He is sort of okay with the bank and everything else, but Brake Max is going to be right there. He can imagine the impact wrenches going on and off. Is the rezoning going to allow the Brake Max, and if so, can we push it away from me? Mr. Nodine said that the rezoning doesn't automatically allow the brake shop. That still requires a Conditional Use Permit, but we know the applicant is proposing a brake shop in that area, because they have already submitted for the CUP. Town Code requires that there be no more than 40 decibel maximum continuous noise at the property line. Staff would be looking at how that affects neighbors and can it be mitigated further with standard approaches. Forty decibels is well below standard conversation. August 3, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting -minutes 12 Mr. Nodine assured Commissioner Kinared that if this request is approved there would still be a CUP required and a hearing process to approve that CUP. As part of the CUP we would look at noise mitigation. Any time you look at a CUP you look at the impact and a number of ways to regulate. Mari Kaestle, 7555 N. Oracle Road, lives directly south of the development. She recently moved to Arizona and enjoys living next to undisturbed desert. She questioned what kind of barrier there will be on the south end of this development. Will there be a big wall, a 2 story building, or will there be natural environment left there? She was concerned about the brake shop and the food service. Odor is a big issue. The apartment complex is lived in by older tenant, who enjoy the quiet and privacy. The loss of that is a real concern to those who live there. She knows development is necessary, but hopes the area on the south side can be protected. Mr. St. John referred back to the slides showing PAD 9 and 10 and explained what is proposed. There will be a 10 foot high wall on the west side that drops down to a 6 foot wall adjacent to the apartments. There will also be a buffer area between the store and the apartments with a retention area, with heavy landscaping. It is a fairly wide green space with a distance from the store to property of approximately 150 feet. In the CUP the Applicant has ask for the hours of operations to be to 7:30 p.m. to allow time to clear out the bays and lock up. There will be a solid wall on the south side where the apartments are. Outside work will be restricted on the south. They have to meet the 40 decibel requirement. The 22 foot height does apply to the whole back corridor on the west fagade. The office building will be about 26 to 28 feet tall, and is in the middle of the site. The apartments to the south will be able to see the office building. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to recommend approval of OV9-04-05, rezoning to C-2 District for Parcel Numbers 225-51-3880, 3890, 3900, 3910 and 3940, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE There was no planning update to report. There is a request to put the General Plan on the Council agenda for August 18, 2004. The committee that sets the agenda has not met yet. ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to adjourn the August 3, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recor ing Secretary TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . MEETING DATE: August 3, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Susana Montana, Planner H SUBJECT: CONTINUED ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL DR--O TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE (0-0.3 DU/AC) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR--1.3-2 DU/AC) ON 11.75 ACRES AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RLDR (RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) USE ON 24.9 ACRES, THE SUBJECT PARCELS ARE LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. BACKGROUND: The Commission reviewed this General Plan amendment request at their July 6, 2004 hearing and voted to continue this item with the following motion: MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to continue this item until the regularly scheduled meeting in August to give the applicant time to add definition to the proposal and for applicant and Staff to be able to give more information. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Manross and Krenkowitz voting no. NEW INFORMATION: The Applicant asked Mr. Jeff Weir, the Town's Economic Development Director, to comment on the potential demand for commercial space at this location. In a July 13, 2004 meeting with staff and Mr. Carl Winters, the Applicants' representative, Mr. Weir stated that he believes there is a demand for small corporate office space, technology research and development office space, and similar small-scale office park uses in Town. Mr. Weir has submitted a July 19, 2004 Memorandum to that effect which is attached as Attachment 1. On July 21, 2004, the Applicants' representative held a neighborhood meeting on the proposed General Plan amendment in which neighboring residents discussed their concerns with the potential for commercial use on the site. They expressed concerns with traffic, noise, view blockage and nighttime glare associated with potential commercial use of the site, particularly retail use. As a result of the recent meetings, the Applicant will seek a revision to the General Plan designation and land uses proposed for the site. The Applicant has requested a continuance of this item (please see Attachment 2). TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a continuance be provided as requested. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider the following motion: I move to continue OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R- LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to LDR (1.3 to 2 RAC) for 11.75 acres west of the on -site Wash and from R-LDR to NC for 24.9 acres east of the Wash, until such time as the Applicant re -defines the project. Attachments: 1. July 19, 2004 Memo from Jeff Weir, Town Economic Development Director 2. Applicant request for continuance letter. 3. OV 11-04-02 July 6, 2004 staff report to the Commission without attachments Copy: Carl Winters, Planning Resources, Fax: 520.628-7637. Zoning Administrator F:\OV\OV 11 \2004\11-04-02\Reports\PZC Aug Report.doc APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION J U LY 6, 2004 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Acting Chair Don Cox Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Paul Loomis Council Member K.C. Carter Council Member Conny Culver Council Member K.C. Carter Council Member Barry Gillaspie Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Craig Civalier, P.E., Development Review Division Mgr. Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment CALL TO THE AUDIENCE OPENED AT 6:05 P.M. Harold Kandetzke, 10130 N. Sawgrass Drive, Oro Valley, is the President of the Valle del Oro Homeowners Association. He spoke on behalf of the Homeowners. At the next schedule meeting on August 3`d, Mr. Wolfley, owner of the property at the northwest corner of Oracle Road and El Conquistador Way will be requesting a zoning change on his property from the current R-6 to C-1. Their homes are immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and considering the size, which is 2 Y acres, a rezoning will have a major impact on the homeowners. He requested, that prior to the August meeting the Commission grant to the Valle del Oro homeowners, a Study Session with the Planning and Zoning Commission at their clubhouse to view the property and give the homeowners an opportunity for an informal give and take with the Commission members, so the Commission fully understands the impact this will have on the quality of life. The time allotted to the homeowners at the meeting is not adequate to convey the level of concerns and the impact. The HOA has met with the applicant on several occasions and the land use issue has been a major disagreement. The rules allow for the Commission to direct the Staff to direct a Study Session and at this time he requests that the Commission do so. July 6, 2004 ApprovAlinutes, Planning & Zoning Commission 1 Mng 2 Vice Chair Cox asked Mr. Nodine to take the steps necessary to do so. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE CLOSED AT 6:10 P.M. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the June 1, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the June 7, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to nominate Vice Chair Cox as Chairperson. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Krenkowitz that the by-laws call for annually electing officers in September. As there is a vacancy at this point, Staffs recommendation was to go ahead and elect officers now at your pleasure. Staff did not feel that this violates the by-laws even though the by-laws state that election of officers is done annually in September. Attorney Andrews said that the Board can suspend rules to have an election if so desired. Commissioner Bistany pointed out that the election process has its genesis not only in the by-laws but in Resolution 91-41 which says the election will be in September, and the Vice Chair becomes Acting Chair in the Chair's absence. Commissioner Kinared withdrew his motion. Commissioner Anning withdrew his second. It was the consensus of the Commission to have Vice Chair Cox continue as Acting Chair until the September meeting as specified in the Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws, when the Chair will be nominated and elected. 2. ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION It was the consensus of the Commission to wait until the September meeting as specified in the Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws, when a Vice -Chair will be nominated and elected. July 6, 2004 ApprovelukriNnutes, Planning & Zoning Commission "g 3 3. CONTINUED ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-01, TIERRA RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES, REPRESENTING DC INVESTMENTS, REQUEST A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR AN 8.35 ACRE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "OLD BUS BARN" SITE FROM TP (TECHNOLOGICAL PARK) ZONING DISTRICT TO "R- 4" (TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DESERT SKY ROAD AND VALLE DEL ORO ROAD, PARCEL NUMBERS 224-33-007A, 224-33-008A AND 224-33-011A Mark Castro, Tierra Right of Way Services, 1575 E. River Road, Suite 201, representing DC Investments, gave a presentation showing location of the property as just southwest of El Conquistador and Oracle Road. The property is on Desert Sky and Via del Oro Road. This is an ideal location for a residential subdivision. The surrounding uses and zoning are consistent with the proposal to rezone from Technology Park to R-4. New changes incorporated into the Tentative Development Plan (TDP) forced this continuance. Those changes were: • Number of lots reduced from 51 to 46 • Make this a gated community • Instead of single family detached units, make attached units of 3-4. • A recreation area of approximately Y2 acre was added. • Eliminate the open space alley in the center of the subdivision. The new layout shows: • 45lots • A recreation area relocated to the center of the subdivision. • Lots #23, 24, 25, and 31 through 35 will be reserved for single story units only. • Lot dimensions will remain 40 x 110. Prior to review by the Town Council a revised TDP will be provided. David Grounds, Dorn Homes, 3950 S. Camino del Arroyo, Green Valley, was available for questions on architecture. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Attorney Andrews told Commissioner Kinared that the Town cannot delegate authority for land use approvals to process to another entity. They only have to meet. If they don't meet, we get a letter that says they did not want to meet, i.e. school district. If the School District does not like the policy, it can be changed, but at this time they have to meet. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Krenkowitz that the electrical line through the property would need to be moved to accommodate development on the property. Mr. Castro said that the lines will be put underground with the utility easements. Mr. Nodine responded to Vice Chair Cox's questions as follows: July 6, 2004 ApprovgWinutes, Planning & Zoning Commission hAL9 4 • Conditions #9 B and P are necessary to be listed. The other conditions are included as a reiteration of what will be required by the Code. They are not necessary as a condition, merely a repeat. • Condition #3 gives guidance to Staff, applicant, and the Development Review Board (DRB) to control the architecture to respect the privacy of the homes to the south. There is nothing in the code that allows that, and that is why it is a condition in the rezoning because it becomes tied to the further review of the property. • The key thing Staff would be looking at is that there are no balconies, and not to create a lot of windows on that story facing the neighbors. This must be worked out with DRB and Staff to come up with an answer. • Condition #4G, front setbacks should vary on adjacent units, and could be added into the motion when made. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Bistany that it would take a 44-45 foot front elevation to meet the garage dimensions, lot to lot. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:35 P.M. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, supported the General Plan change from Technological Park to Residential, but he opposed this density. He thought the density should be the same as Sun Stone Estates. The rezoning raised issues of privacy. Privacy comes from the General Plan, not the zoning code. Policy 4.1A&B says we are to protect the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. The rezoning of this property at R- 4 is too intense. The issues that Staff has raised are all related to the density. The Sun Stone Estates project is R-17 and this project should be changed to that as well. The lots would be wider. He doesn't think the two stories should be included at all, but at least the privacy issue is mitigated to a greater degree. The streetscape issues, the crowded appearance of the streets, the alignment of the garages, etc. don't disappear but can be handled to a degree that is successful. The error here is that medium high density can include R-14 or R-17, so the designation of medium high density can be either. He suggested that the Commission rezone to R-17 so that the living environment concerns that have been raised are more easily adjusted, so the quality of life for these residents is superior to what it is likely to be with the rather crowded and congested condition. Vice Chair Cox expressed his appreciation to Bill Adler for his involvement over the past years and that the Town of Oro Valley is better off because of his interest. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:40 P.M Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that if this was adopted, it would be related to the revised plan referenced in Exhibit A, Condition #8 related to attachment #3. Mr Castro responded to Commissioner Krenkowitz's question that if the rezoning were to be to R1-7 there would be a great number of lot reduction. July 6, 2004 Approvnutes, Planning & Zoning Commission "ng 5 Chris Phillips, 11178 N. Pomegranate, with DC Investments, the owners of the property said that they came in with a plan amendment about 6 months ago. At that time it was for 63 lots. There were two meetings with the neighbors, several staff meetings to address concerns and work out issues with the neighbors and the two stories issue. The project has gone forward based on that design. They added a rec area, gated the project, etc. To change the zoning would change the whole project. He thinks lower zoning would probably not be financially feasible for residential, and they would probably withdraw the rezoning and go back to TP. MOTION: Commissioner Don Manross MOVED to recommend approval of OV9- 04-01, Desert Sky Zoning Map Amendment to the Town Council, subject to the conditions of Exhibit A, adding in to 4.G. the word "adjacent" to read "The front setbacks for the houses shall vary so that no two "adjacent" units are equally aligned." Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 4. PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (*1.3 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON 11.75 ACRES AND AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON 24.9 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 00413, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. Carl Winters, 270 N. Church, representative for the applicant's position, presented an overhead showing the location of the subject property. During the last plan update the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission came up with a plan that designated the area on the east side of the wash for small corporate office buildings and part as commercial. On the west side of the lot we will eventually come back for a rezoning for R1-72 lots. He asked Susie Montgomery to give a background on the area. Susie Montgomery, 1410 W. Tangerine Road, moved there in 1971. There are now four generations living on the property. The use of the property was to raise and train foundation quarter horses, which they have done for the last 30 years on the property. The La Canada and Tangerine Road intersection and widening, and the La Canada Extension drastically changed the context of their property. Having the narrow property face a four -lane highway is no longer desirable for suburban living. With the Southeasterly corner of the property needed by the Town of Oro Valley for the La Canada Extension, pastures will need to be moved. The horses already had to be moved to a different area because of the construction and activity. They fought the road and intersection and lost, so they have worked with the Engineering, Transportation and Development Services Departments to see what would be the Town's vision of this type of growth along a major arterial road. The demographics drop off drastically from the northwest corner to the southeast corner, so any development will not be obstructing views. We care about our neighbors and have tried to meet with them to assure the July 6, 2004 Approved Minutes, Planning & Zoning Commission Jugg 6 development of the area will be consistent with what is along any major highway and intersections. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Manross that in the General Plan there are 10 acres at the South East corner of La Cholla and Tangerine and 60 acres on the South West corner of commercial property. Mr. Nodine replied to Vice Chair Cox's question regarding the statement "there remains a need for neighborhood commercial node", that it is based on what he presented in terms of the distance to other neighborhood commercial uses being 1 to 2 miles for vacant ones. In terms of developed ones, we are looking at a 2 miles distance. Uses compatible contained in the designation CN are uses that are neighborhood service in the General Plan. He read the CN zoning description from the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:07 P.M. Hank Winter, 12300 N. Sunkist Springs Place, owns property located next to the subject property. He had a meeting with Mr. Carl Winters and the Montgomerys, which revolved around the specifics map that designated R1-72 zoning. The proposal states that it is Low Density Residential 1.3 to 2 dwelling units per acre. It is possible to have 2 homes per acre. He moved there because the suburban ranch was attractive to them. We are now looking at the possibility of 20 + homes in the area. We are concerned about the density of the residential area, not the commercial as much. If it remained as it is we would not be as opposed to roughly 5 homes. He is concerned to the 50 foot setback where the road starts directly off the property. He would probably have headlights into his backyard. He would probably be more in tune to a 50 foot setback at the first of the road. Maybe have a barrier wall considered to divide the property. The biggest concern is to have this rewritten so we all fully understand the project. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, is not opposed to change, but he wants change to be compliant with the General Plan in this case. The vision statement in the General Plan says approximately that the view of the community forthe future will leave things better than they presently exist. This is not an improvement to the General Plan and is not consistent with that vision. He doesn't think the rural character of an area is destroyed by La Canada Extension. He agrees with the Staffs Report saying the future plans of the area portends the end of the rural ranch character of the site and environs. We should not be engaging in a change of the character of an area simply to benefit the property owner. This is not an overall improvement to the plan or the community. It is an improvement for the property owner. As far as the commercial portion is concerned, the General Plan has some excellent advice. In the Land Use Settlement, 4.13, says the Town recently wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before authorizing a higher land use intensity than present zoning permits. We don't follow that advice. What study has been done that indicates there is a demand for lots of this size. There is a neighborhood commercial project now at the intersection of Naranja and La Canada. What is the magic of the 2 miles? People are not hesitant to go 2 miles or more if there is a use they wish to patronize. He doesn't think this meets Finding #1. It July 6, 2004 Approved Minutes, Planning & Zoning Commission NMg 7 is not an overall improvement to the plan. It is not consistent with the vision statement in the General Plan. Neighborhood Commercial is not warranted by a need established by a study. He is not sure two acre lots are marketable. How practical is this to offer to the community. What is the market demand for this higher intensity? Scott Christy, 12351 N. Sunkist Springs Place, pointed out where he lived in relation to the project. His big concern is not the commercial development, but everything that is going to take place on the other side of the wash, and the number of houses they put up against our property. As you see now, there are 3 SR lots above us with houses and we are satisfied with that. We understand the Montgomery situation with them having to sell out and leave. He doesn't fault them for trying to get this rezoned, but he would like to see a preferred plan for what they are going to do on that side of the wash. How many houses are there going to be. He would like to see a 50 foot natural open space set back against all our property lines on the west and north sides. He would like to see no more than 1 house per 1.5 acres at the most with that set back in place. With the neighborhood commercial part of it, he feels that will meet the guidelines. His biggest concern is the lifestyle and the view towards to mountain cannot take that many houses next door. Rick Sims, 1750 Sunkist, said in going through the procedure of this type of rezoning, he understands that this would essentially be a major rezoning and to accomplish that there would have to be 2 neighborhood meetings. He heard of one. Has there been two? Mr. Nodine said the major and minor rezoning would be related to the General Plan amendments, which is what we are doing. Currently there is no designation for major or minor. That will take place when the General Plan is adopted and ratified by the voters. Until then there is simple one type of General Plan amendment and there is no specification for the number of neighborhood meetings. We typically try to have at. least one. So everyone knows, we are in the General Plan process, but it still has to go through the rezoning process, which is where we talk about details and specifics of the lot layout, setbacks, buffers, etc. Mr. Sims said there are other factors that need to be considered, such as no one has spoken of the communication onto Sunkist via the La Canada Extension. That could be a very serious interface leaving some serious problems similar to the ones on Moore Road. He encouraged having another neighborhood meeting, to get input and air thoughts. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:20 P.M. Mr. Winters responded to the public hearing saying that the Commission can see that the issue is the plan category and density range. He would submit that when the Town decided to run a four -lane boulevard up the edge of the property, it did make a substantial change to this property owner's property, and when the Post Office took over the only commercial site on this intersection, it did change the ability of looking at the additional area. We will be setting up another neighborhood meeting very soon. There is still some confusion on the exact layout of the intersection of Sunkist July 6, 2004 ApprovJWnutes, Planning & Zoning Commission lv�+Lg 8 connecting to La Canada. This property is annexed to the Town already. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Anning that Staff was also concerned with the linear nature of the property and it being prime for strip commercial. We looked at an office or incubator business type of use in the northern portion and focused on retail types of services in the southern portion. There are designations in the General Plan that would work in office types, but in the terms of zoning of the property, you are taking a commercial zoning and then using the rezoning process to specify where the uses are going to go. You can use a Tentative Development Plan and control things with the placement of buildings and parking, etc. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Kinared's concern of whether there was a demand for commercial office. Staffs analysis of need is based on distance to other sites and on talking to the broker on the site. There are very few incubator business types of sites available in Town. The broker felt very strongly that there was a demand for retail services in the area. Staff concurred. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that there has been discussion with the neighbors. It seems there is a mix of opinion about the connection along Sunkist. That is not part of the issue before the Commission now, because that was decided when the plat to the north was approved. The connection was made for potential future connection. The development of this property as is being proposed, is beyond the General Plan at this point. As proposed this property would not force the connection. There was discussion that it should make that connection and Staff had looked at that as an option. Staff did no go in that direction because of some of the concerns. If there is enough development in the future then eventually that connection will have to be made. Vice Chair Cox stated that he was also concerned if there was enough demand for commercial. Mr. Winters submitted that this property would probably not have grocery store on it. He envisions restaurants, small shops, etc. If there was a high quality restaurant, people would drive to it regardless of what else was there. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to continue this item until the regularly scheduled meeting in August to give the applicant time to add definition to the proposal and for applicant and Staff to be able to give more information. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Manross and Krenkowitz voting no. BREAK 7:35 to 7:45 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-04, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY SUBURBAN RANCH (ONE RESIDENCE PER 144,000 S.F.) TO ORO VALLEY R1-144 (ONE RESIDENCE PER 144,000 S.F.) FOR A NEWLY ANNEXED AREA, LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION OF TANGERINE ROAD/LA CANADA DRIVE July 6, 2004 Appro4onutes, Planning & Zoning Commission ld"g 9 EXTENDED AND NEAR SUNKIST DRIVE, PARCELS 21947004B, 21947004C, 21947004A, 219470060, AND 219470050 Mr. Nodine gave the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. No Speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV9-04-04, translating the zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1- 144, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit A attached herewith. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes 0 no. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-03, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY RURAL HOMESTEAD (ONE RESIDENCE PER 180,000 S.F.) TO ORO VALLEY R1-144 (ONE RESIDENCE PER 144,000 S.F.) FOR A NEWLY ANNEXED AREA, LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO W. TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN CL., N. KING AIR DR., AND WEST TURTLE DOVE LN., PARCELS 21916001D, 21916003A, 21916005A, 21916005B, 21916007B, 21916007A, 219150010, 219150040, 219150050, 219150060, 21916001 B, 219160020, 21915007A, 21915007B, 219160160, 219150090, 219150080, AND 219120160. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. He pointed out that Pima County Rural Homestead (RH) allows one residence per 180,000 square feet. There needs to be an additional condition to meet the State law that lot size shall be no smaller than 180,000 square feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. No Speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV9-04-03, translating the zoning from Pima County RH to Oro Valley R1- 144, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit A attached herewith and the following added condition that lot sizes shall be no smaller than 180,000 square feet. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 7. PUBLIC HEARING, FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 PLANNING AND ZONING WORK PLAN Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report presenting the 2004-2005 Work Plan that is divided into two parts. The first page is items substantially completed and on going items. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that he will set a Study Session for the Commissioners to review the Boards and Commissions Bylaws. The next page of the Work Plan has the General Plan Update Election and other items as high priority. The Recreation Areas and Trails, Code Revisions and CPTED Amendment were initiated, but they are being done on a slower track. July 6, 2004 Approved Minutes, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 10 Mr. Nodine said to Commissioner Manross that at this point the status of the General Plan is that there have been a couple of Study Sessions with the Town Council. The Council has asked for another Study Session to present in more detail to the new Council what the proposals for changes might be. To make the May election, the process should start this month. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that there is to be a Study Session of Council to bring it back to the new Council. It depends on the Council's direction as to whether it comes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staffs recommendation is that a small committee be formed that picks up the Commission, the Council, the opposition and the Steering Committee to look at changes that need to be made to the General Plan, and then take it through the process to the Commission, to the Council and then ultimately to the voters. Vice Chair Cox stated that one of the great criticisms of the last General Plan was that it was entirely too Town Council driven, and that it had lost its identity with the Steering Committee, etc. If the new General Plan is again perceived as a Town Council driven document, it may run into the same problems as before. He thinks a small committee is a good idea, but he would like to see a strong involvement of the Commission or to have a joint Study Session with the Council. Commissioner Kinared offered that there were clearly significant changes that were made after the plan left the Planning Commission. It would be helpful to the community if those differences were encapsulated so the population could better understand them. If it were significant changes it might be helpful for all of us to know why. Public discussion would be beneficial. He is a proponent of adopting a new General Plan because he is not sure the one we are using now serves us best. He also recognizes that we serve at the pleasure of the Council and that anything we do regarding the General Plan should be submitted as a request. Commissioner Krenkowitz agreed that Planning and Zoning should be involved in the process, but now it is before the Council. He suggested that we authorize the Chair to appear at a Call to the Audience before the Council and express to them the consensus of opinion that Planning and Zoning should be involved in the process of reviewing and developing the revised General Plan. Commissioner Bistany said that ultimately it doesn't matter who gets what into the plan. The point of departure is what actually winds up in the plan, and if it is not palatable to the community as a whole, it won't pass. We have to concentrate on what goes into the plan. The consensus was that the Commission would like Vice Chair Cox to make some type of notification to the Council that they want to have input. Attorney Andrews said that this should be an agenda item, unless the Commission wants to place it on the Work Plan. That could be taken care of under this specific agenda item under the open meeting law. Legal action includes any and all deliberation before the board that may result in final action by any other legislative body. This July 6, 2004 ApprovNilnutes, Planning 8 Zoning Commission "9 11 means the fact that the Commission is discussing this and wants to go to the Council with something later and bring a census forward to somebody who will cause legal action, could be considered legal action. Commission Kinared stated that the Work Plan points out that the Commission wants to have a study session with the Council for direction on modifying the plan and preparing for another election. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. No Speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to forward the 2004-2005 Planning and Zoning Work Plan to the Town Council recommending adoption. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Krenkowitz highlighted the notification requirements and the rezoning and pad submittal requirements and procedures. His recommendation to Staff was that we ought to start moving into the procedure that the legislature has mandated in Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter 2. We can lay the foundation by picking up the procedural aspects that are in the statute. He suggested that the Commission take the good ideas from Growing Smarter and look at what can be done now, rather than waiting until the new General Plan is voted in. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 8. OV7-04-02, INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 27 OFF-STREET PARKING TO CLARIFY SECTION 27.6G1 AS IT PERTAINS TO PARKING DISTRIBUTION Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate an amendment to Chapter 27.6G1 as it pertains to parking distribution requirements. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 9. OV7-02-05, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO INCORPORATE PROTECTION OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS INTO THE ZONING CODE Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Staff does have the knowledge to develop the policies necessary. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to initiate an amendment to incorporate protection of visually sensitive areas into the applicable sections of the OVZCR. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 10. OV9-04-07, REQUEST TO INITIATE A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE TOWN'S RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT BY INCLUDING A PORTION OF A SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE LA RESERVE July 6, 2004 Approved Minutes, Planning & Zoning Commission JUMIng 12 PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PUSCH WILDERNESS DRIVE AND NORTH BUCK RIDGE DRIVE, PARCEL 220-080-08K Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Manross that there was a plat being submitted at this time on the property. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Kinared that in this case, that if the applicant is not encroaching into the designated riparian area, that they are not required to do the study and provide the information. The Town would have to do it. We are not out of order on this, depending upon how quickly this is done. There is no protection for the area at this time. We have notified the applicant upfront that we have taken this action. The applicant knew it was floodplain, not riparian. There are issues with the floodplain at this point as well. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that the plat that is coming in does encroach in this area, but at this point the applicant is not responsible for the study because it is not currently designated as riparian area. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to initiate a zoning map amendment to expand the Town's Riparian Habitat Overlay District to include a portion of Parcel 220-080-08K. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 11. OV7-04-04, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO REVISE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate an amendment to the public notification requirements in applicable sections of the OVZCR. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to adjourn the July 6, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, `�;✓' �� /�.-✓ � \ . _i/± �/,'.,♦ ter r't_�-i-� `�--�'/ Diane Chapman, Regording Secretary 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 6, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Susana Montana, Planner II SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLDR--O TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE (0-0.3 DU/AC) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR-4.3-2 DU/AC) ON 11.75 ACRES AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RLDR (RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) USE ON 24.9 ACRES, THE SUBJECT PARCELS ARE LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. BACKGROUND: Five of the seven parcels have recently been annexed into the Town. The translational zoning action (OV9-04- 04) will be on the same agenda as this General Plan amendment request. The Applicants are preparing a rezoning application. The following is a tentative. review schedule: • July 6, 2004 Translational Zoning action by Planning and Zoning Commission • July 6, 2004 General Plan Amendment consideration by Planning and Zoning Commission • Aug. 7, 2004 Rezoning application consideration by Planning and Zoning Commission • Aug. 18, 2004 Translational Zoning and General Plan Amendment consideration by Town Council • Oct. 20, 2004 Rezoning application consideration by Town Council SITE DESCRIPTION: Subiects Parcels The subject parcels are 38.8 acres in size and approximately 2.15 acres would be devoted to Tangerine Road right-of-way, leaving a development area of 36.65 acres. The Site contains five single-family homes and a horse raisingibreeding operation. There is a degraded riparian habitat ("Wash") listed in the Town's "ESL Riparian Update" data base; however, the update has not yet been adopted as part of the OVZCR riparian habitat protection overlay district regulations. The Wash has been graded and denuded by farm activities and a driveway to provide vehicular access to homes. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 Environs The site is surrounded by the following uses: North: Single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels zoned rural low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County; South: Tangerine Road and single-family homes in platted subdivisions zoned TOV Single Family Residential (R1-7) District; East: La Canada Drive Extension and a vacant but platted single-family subdivision, zoned TOV Single Family Residential (RI -36) District; and West: A mixture of vacant land zoned TOV Single -Family Residential (R1-144) District, and single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels, zoned low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County. The character of the Site is rural residential, as are the properties to the north and west. The future development of Tangerine Road as a four -lane divided arterial roadway, the eminent extension of La Canada Road to Moore Road as a four -lane divided arterial roadway, along with the continued development of medium -density suburban residential subdivisions to the eastern and southern edge, portend the end of the rural, ranch character of the site and environs. In sum, the Site lies at the edge of a growing suburban community. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: The landowner's request to change the General Plan designation of the property from Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR) to a combination of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is detailed in the application letter (Attachment 2). GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT: As stated in Focus 2020, "the granting of a general plan amendment will be based on the following findings of fact". A previous interpretation clarifying the intent of this statement indicates that "all four findings should be met", and recommendations for approval should be based on amendments that create the "greatest good to the community". 1. "That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time. " Applicant's response: "The property owner is seeking a General Plan Amendment consistent with the 2003 plan update to change 7 parcels (two in Oro Valley and five currently in Pima County) from Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR) west of the wash and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) east of the wash. These uses will be needed in order to rezone to R1-72 west of the wash and C-N east of the wash. The R1-72 zoning will allow the development of several residential lots along the west side of the existing wash to help buffer the C-N zone. The C-N zoning designation will allow development of a multi -use office and commercial complex with such things as a grocery store, restaurants, other retail and corporate offices. This development will TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 bring jobs, shopping and entertainment closer to the community as more families move into the area and fulfill a need identified by the Town Economic Development staff for small corporate offices." Staff anal: The 1996 General Plan Land Use Map designates the Site as Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR). The Site environs are designated as follows: Current 1996 General Plan Designation Location Land Use Designation Density Allowed Site Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 residential units per acre- 0.3 RAC North Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 residential units per acre- 0.3 RAC East Northeastern part: Low Density Residential, LDR 1.2 LDR 1.2 = 0.6 to 1.2 RAC Southeastern part (Vistoso Gateway): LDR 2.0 LDR 2.0 = 1.3 to 2.0 RAC South Southwest of site (Verde Ranch subdivision): Medium Density MDR = 2.1 to 5 RAC Residential (MDR) C = Neighborhood Commercial Southeast of site (Post Office): Commercial (C West Rural Low Density Residential—R LDR 0 to 0.3 RAC The highest intensity General Plan designated land use in the area is the Commercial zone located at the southeast corner of Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive, cattycomer to the Site; this property was intended by the Town to be a neighborhood -serving commercial use but, instead, it is a Town -serving quasi -government or institutional use. Otherwise, the nearest commercial service areas are the following sites: • Future NE intersection of Moore Road and La Canada Drive - subject of a General Plan amendment request to develop as a residential subdivision. • SW intersection of La Canada Drive and Naranja Drive • Three corners of First Avenue and Tangerine Road intersection. The highest density General Plan designated residential use in the area is the Medium Density Residential (MDR) subdivision south of the Subject Parcels which is called "Verde Ranch". The proposed General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial for the western portion of the Site, and to Low Density Residential 0.3 to 2.0 RAC for the eastern portion would fit into the context of the suburban neighborhoods to the east and south. The properties to the west are rural residential home sites or are undeveloped. Those properties would remain low density, although the proximity to a major arterial (when Tangerine Road is improved) may induce those property owners to seek a more intense use of their land and/or they may seek a land use that would serve as an effective "buffer" between residential home sites and the noise and air quality effects of the Tangerine Road traffic. The TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 subject amendment would continue the current pattern of suburban residential development and would service this residential community by allowing nearby small-scale commercial businesses. 2. "That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan. " Applicant's response: "Revenue Enhancement and Balanced Uses are important aspects of the proposed NC land use. The Office and Commercial uses on site will help to diversify the economic base and allocate additional land for income -generating uses. The NC use will also create a balance of various land uses in the area in order to ensure provision of public services and maximize infrastructure efficiency while ensuring the protection of the community's unique environment as recommended in Section 4.1.3 of the General Plan. The NC land use designation is ideal for this property as is will provide a commercial area located at the intersection of two arterial roadways with proximity to existing and planned residential areas. Commercial uses would serve the surrounding neighborhood and be integrated with the neighborhood." Staff analysis: Key policies germane to this application are presented below: Land Use Policies_: • Policy 1.1B: "Promote clustering (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. " • Policy 1.2A: "Encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers to minimize travel times. " • Policy 1.2F: "Locate higher density land uses and transportation -dependent uses near major transportation corridors. " • Policy 1.211: "Strip commercial developments are discouraged and clustering of commercial developments at specific nodes or villages that are planned with strict aesthetic and design guidelines are encouraged. Free-standing pads are discouraged, except when expressly permitted in relation to overall gross leasable area and center design. " The applicant proposes to separate the land uses utilizing the existing Wash; in this manner, the residential lots are "clustered" within a quiet cul-de-sac and the commercial developments are "clustered" along the La Canada Drive major thoroughfare. The location of the commercial development is ideally located to serve surrounding residential neighborhoods. The commercial portion, however, should not be developed as a "strip commercial" single -module building facing La Canada, but, rather, should be designed as "residential" in character as is possible with clusters of free-standing, single -story building pads oriented toward the distant eastern mountain view (Catalina Mountains) as well as the arterial roadway. • Policy 1.31): "An evaluation of the adequacy ofschool facilities shall be developed as a finding for all residential land use requests before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of rezoning. On May 5, 2004, the Town Council adopted, by Resolution (R) 04-15, a policy requiring developers and home builders to meet with Amphitheater School District. This must be accomplished upon review of a rezoning proposal. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 Housing Policies: • Policy 4.1A: "Protect the integrity and aesthetic context of existing neighborhoods through the use of appropriate buffers. " • Policy 4.1B: "Encourage maintenance, protection, and enhancement of established residential neighborhoods. " • Policy 4.2A: "Encourage the provision of a variety of housing choices matched to emplovees within a reasonable proximity of employment sites. " The proposed General Plan amendment would provide a transition in residential density from the lower -density rural residential home sites to the west ( 1 unit per 3 acres) by providing an incrementally -higher ( 1 unit per 1.6 acres) yet still low -density cluster of homes between those rural home sites and the major arterial roadway and the medium -density suburban neighborhoods to the east. The semi -rural character of the R-72 zone would provide a distinct housing choice for Town residents where the 5,000 square foot lots within suburban tracts predominate current development patterns. Natural Resource Conservation Policies: • Policy 8.1 A: "Aggressively ensure that damage caused by blading is repaired and returned to its natural state. " • Policy 8.1 C: "Wash encroachment may be permitted where floodplains are broad and shallow in order to permit a reasonable utilization of property, unless such encroachment impeded natural groundwater recharge of the aquifer. " • Policy 8.1G: `Indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats should be maintained and enhanced where possible. " The Site contains a Wash that has been altered. The General Plan amendment would facilitate an intensification of land uses which, as part of the rezoning Tentative Development Plan and conditions of approval of the rezoning, would very much likely include a restoration of much of this Wash. The Wash could be restored with the exception of where the access roadway to the residential portion of the Project may need to cross it. The Wash can be incorporated into the design of the Project as a land use buffer, as a visual screen separating the uses, and as an amenity for both proposed land uses. Restoration of the wash and minimization of wash crossing should be an integral part of the Project site planning and design efforts should this General Plan amendment be approved. 3. "That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. " Applicant's response: "The proposed project is located in Sector 5, or the Tortolita Foothills sector, of the General Plan. This sector lies within the Town of Oro Valley's Planning area, but much of it is outside the Town's incorporated boundaries. The area is comprised of primarily single-family residences on large parcels." "While the NC land use designation will allow development that will provide balanced uses and revenue enhancement, the LDR land use designation allows for more homes to be built while maintaining the Low Density character of the area. The LDR land use designation will allow for single-family residential development that permits retention of the rural, open character of the areas as recommended in section 4.14 of the General Plan." TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 "This request is also consistent with the staff and Commission recommended 2003 Plan Update that was adopted by the Mayor and Council. This designation for these properties was never the subject of any opposition, even though this plan did not receive popular vote. Finally, this amendment is consistent with the State "Growing Smarter" legislation as the widening of Tangerine and the extension of La Canada along the entire east boundary of the property, together with major water, sewer, and utility extension, make this land cost effective and capable of the proposed uses." Staff anal The General Plan provides a use similar to this at the southeast corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road. However, that site, which was intended to serve as a neighborhood -serving convenience retail "node" for the surrounding neighborhoods, was developed as a quasi- institutional use (the Town's U.S. Post Office). There remains a need for a neighborhood -serving commercial node at this intersection. There is a smaller commercial node at the terminus of La Canada Drive (extension) and Moore Road; this 5 acre site, identified as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel T, was recently requested by the owner to be changed to a residential land use designation (OV11-04-05) and this Commission voted (5 — 1) to recommend denial of the change, finding that the loss of this neighborhood -serving commercial use would represent an adverse impact to Neighborhood 10 and the environs. This item was continued by the Town Council and the applicant was directed to provide a market study. Similarly, the loss of the Tangerine/La Canada commercial node by the development of the Post Office represented a lost opportunity to serve the emerging residential neighborhood of its environs; the subject General Plan amendment would rectify that loss. 4. "That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development process. Applicant's response: The Applicant did not respond to this finding. Staff analysis: As described above, there maybe impacts associated with the General Plan amendment related to the following: • intensification of land use relative to the lower -density rural home sites to the west • visual impacts related to building heights which could be permitted by a rezoning to R1-72 (22 feet) and a CN (2 story or 25 feet) zone • potential massing and scale impacts associated with a "strip commercial" building design associated with a CN zone within the context of surrounding developments of single -story single-family homes • potential light and glare impacts of new commercial development -related indoor and outdoor lighting and vehicle headlights on surrounding residential developments and to motorists traveling La Canada Drive and/or Tangerine Road associated with a CN zone • consideration of an adequate local transportation network Any rezoning of the Site will include a Tentative Development Plan that should incorporate building, parking, safe and interconnected pedestrian and bicycle pathways, wall and vegetative screening, riparian habitat (Wash) and TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 landscaping treatments, and siting designs that mitigate potential impacts and that enhance the riparian habitat and aesthetic value of the on -site Wash. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: As required by State statue, public notification regarding the proposed amendment was given to adjacent property owners. On May 13, 2004, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the proposed General Plan amendment and the Project. Comments by neighbors and owners of adjacent, vacant home sites include: • The residential portion of the site should be a low density; one that offers a transition from the lower density rural home sites to the west to the commercial portion of the site to the east. It was felt that a Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan land use designation would be appropriate. • The residential portion of the site should be developed with only one-story homes to protect the privacy of homes to the west and to preserve views of the mountains to the east. • There was concern that new development, especially 2"d story development, would adversely impact the "dark sky" ambient. There was some support for limiting the commercial portion to one-story buildings to preserve views and as well as to eliminate the potential for dusk (sunset) glare from 2"d story windows and to eliminate night time light emiminating from the 2"d story windows affecting residents to the west. There were comments that the Post Office outdoor lighting did not do an adequate job of protecting the "dark sky" of the rural environs and that the Project should do a better job. • There was concern about access to the Project and to La Canada Drive from Sunkist Drive (pros and cons). • It was felt that the wash would be a good "buffer" between the two uses on the Site. • It was acknowledged that suburban encroachment into the rural homestead area appeared eminent and this may conflict with horse operations within the area. New residents may object to dust, odors, flies and outdoor storage of equipment related to horse operations. There was a question as to whether the current horse operation, or parts of it, could remain in the new residential zoning portion (R1-72 zone); there was support for that. • There were comments that this Site serves as an important visual and functional "gateway" to the Town and to Ranch Vistoso, especially important if the Ritz Carlton is built. There was support for a high quality and attractive design for the roadway improvements and landscaping and for the Project design and landscaping. It was suggested that the Project be built by one developer or somehow the Project should be assured that each phase or piece should contribute to a coherent design for the whole. Overall, many of the aforementioned issues may be addressed as part of a rezoning effort. PUBLIC PRESENTATION: Pursuant to Resolution (R) 98-31, "all presentations before Boards, Commissions and Council for rezonings, subdivision plats, development plans and planned area developments must be formatted to be shown on the Town's projection system or overhead system. The Planning and Zoning Administrator; however, may exempt certain projects." A presentation must be designed to insure that the audience, staff and voting body can view the graphics. Examples of acceptable computer formats are Power Point, Arc View, a videotape presentation, and/or overhead transparences. The Applicant is responsible for the development, presentation and coordination of all presentation materials. If an applicant does not conform to the aforementioned resolution, the item may be continued due to non-compliance. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The following is a summary of factors identified by staff. Factors For: 1. The proposal meets General Plan Findings of Fact. 2. The proposal recognizes the encroachment of suburban residential uses on rural residential "horse property" and the inherent use conflicts of suburban housing next to horse operations; the proposed land use would provide a more compatible use and buffer to the rural home sites to the west. 3. The proposal would provide space for low -intensity neighborhood -serving commercial uses located on arterial roadways and at a convenient "gateway" to the Town and to Rancho Vistoso. 4. The neighbors and adjacent property owners support the land use change with certain caveats about limiting building height, providing vegetative screening and insuring "dark sky" outdoor lighting throughout the Project. The issues may be addressed as part of the rezoning application. 5. The proposal meets all applicable General Plan policies. Factors A ag I 1. Intensification of zoning on the subject parcels will set a precedent to intensify the zoning in the immediate area. In sum, the Factors "For" outweigh the Factors "Against". Asa result, approval of OV 11-04-02 is recommended. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to LDR (1.3 to 2 RAC) for 11.75 acres west of the wash and from R-LDR to NC for 24.9 acres east of the wash. •a I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-02, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-LDR (0. — 0.3 DU/ac) to LDR (1.3 to 2 RAC) for 11.75 acres west of the wash and from R-LDR to NC for 24.9 acres east of the wash with the following condition(s). OR I move to recommend that Town Council deny OV11-04-02, finding that: Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Application Letter 3. Project Site Plan Copy: Carl Winters, Planning Resources, Fax: 520. 628-7637. /� -b- � " Plann Zoning Administrator F:\OV\OV I 1 \2004\11-04-02\Reports\PZC July Report.doc C,vl�_0`� o� APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION May 4, 2004 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:07 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Bill Moody Vice Chair Don Cox Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning ABSENT: Commissioner Don Manross ALSO PRESENT: Werner Wolff, Vice Mayor Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee Conny Culver, Development Review Board Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment CALL TO THE AUDIENCE OPENED AND CLOSED AT 6:08 PM — NO SPEAKERS MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to approve the April 6, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-03, LINDA POLITO, REPRESENTING THE POLITO AND FELKER PROPERTIES REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3DU/ac) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.6-1.2 DU/ac) FOR LOT 10 & 15 OF THE LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS; LOCATED 1/8 MILE WEST FROM THE INTERSECTION OF LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD AND EGLESTON DRIVE, ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD, PARCELS 225-112-360 & 224-360-13A Applicant, Linda Polito, 75 W. Linda Vista Blvd., spoke representing her family, who are the owners of 10 acres south of Linda Vista, and her neighbors, the Felkers, who own 10 acres north of Linda Vista. They have owned the property for a long time, and did not buy May 4, 2004 Approved Uning & Zoning Commission Meet inutes 2 the property with the intention of subdividing it for a maximum number of homes in the future. They feel it is important to ask that the General Plan be revised now to reflect the uses that have grown up around them, and what the proper land use should be in future years. They have no intention of rezoning in the near future. The development around their property has been either higher density or the school. It is not likely that these two properties will be developed with 5 acre home sites. If the land is left at a planning designation that is not suitable, then it will stay undeveloped until such time as the development pressures get to the point where higher density will be considered. What is developed further down the line may not be as desirable as it should be if not planned properly. When land is cleared for horse property, the vegetation goes away and there are insects and odors. With the planning designation being asked for, future property owners who ask for rezoning have to go through the rezoning process before the Commission. They are asking for one acre parcel designation. They have no sewer on the property and are unlikely to get sewer. Because of where her house is located, it is unlikely she would ever put 9 other houses on it because her house would probably cover more than one acre. She would like flexibility to plan around the wash area that crosses her property diagonally to try to leave it in a natural condition. That might mean a different lot layout would be envisioned in the future. One house per acre would allow for looking at the property in terms of desert habitat, vegetation, elevation, topography and the rural nature of the neighborhood. It is a way of insuring the property will be developed in low density, single family residential,. Bryant Nodine gave the Staff Report Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Kinared that Staff did not recommend distinguishing between the two parcels. When looking at a General Plan map, you are looking at a broad approach to designations. We look at where there are specific differences as the rezoning process goes through, then that differentiation is developed between the sites. However, there is nothing to stop the Commission from looking at the two parcels and making recommendations separately. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Krenkowitz that the four findings are looked at overall as a basis for consideration and approval, and then Staff judges how the proposal meets those findings. If all four findings aren't met, there is a presumption of denial unless there is clear proof that it provides some benefit to the community. Attorney Andrews replied to Commissioner Krenkowitz that the language says it will be based on the findings, it doesn't say it has to follow them precisely. Based is a broad term. Although the proposed General Plan had a change in that language, that General Plan did not pass. Staff based their approval on those findings of fact, and although it did not fully meet one finding, in their opinion, it met it closely, and therefore, is based on the findings. Attorney Andrews would not say whether or not the proposed General Plan was a clarification of the intent of the 1996 General Plan, because that General Plan does not say how it will come forward with the General Plan as it eventually will be proposed. If the intent of the proposed General Plan is to clarify the standard and they are the exact same findings, he would have no problem. If they are not the same findings, then it may not be a clarification. May 4, 2004 Approved PlAning & Zoning Commission Meet inutes 3 Commissioner Kinared stated that this is an extremely important discussion because almost all the agenda items tonight are General Plan amendments. Is it inappropriate to have reference to a defeated General Plan? Attorney Andrews said that typically in the law, you use something to clarify and help you to get to where you want to go. It may well be a clarification to help you understand better, but not to guide specifically. As a plan, the defeated General Plan is irrelevant, but as language to help guide the Commission it is not irrelevant. Attorney Andrews told Commissioner Kinared that he did not have knowledge of everything that has come forward from the General Plan over the past. If the 4 findings are confusing, a clarification should be requested. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Bistany that the intention of the applicant, unless included in the amendment itself as a condition or as part of the motion, is simply on the record. We check the records when a rezoning comes in to see what the discussion was, but it is not a binding element. Mr. Nodine responded to Vice Chair Cox's question regarding finding of fact #3 that from a planning standpoint, in most cases it is not achievable. That is one of the reasons it has been looked at closely in updating the Plan and why the Steering Committee took it out with Staffs concurrence. If taken completely literally, if there is any other vacant parcel in the Town with that same designation, almost no matter where it is, or regardless of how good the amendment might be ultimately, it would trump all the findings. It was a block to any consideration of any change no matter how good. The Commission should evaluate all the findings together, otherwise if #3 is taken literally, nothing could be improved. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:35 PM Helen Dankwerth, 11515 N. Flying Bird Drive, said permitting rezoning changes in this area is very troublesome to her. This is one of two significant areas left in Oro Valley with properties of this size. We, the Town, claim to want to provide diverse housing opportunities. If that is truly the case, why would we want to do away with what is essentially a very precious resource? If we continue to change, i.e. amend the General Plan, our zoning designations essentially become meaningless. This has the effect of causing us to question the sincerity of the Town's desire to provide diverse housing. In this instance, as in so many others in the recent past, change in zoning would mean the wishes of one individual takes precedent over the wishes of many. That is contrary to everything the Town professes to stand for. Consider your vote very carefully and vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people who live in this area. Conny Culver, 10503 N. Fairway Vista Lane, agrees with Commissioner Kinared that to combine these two properties is an error. The northern property clearly abuts a much higher density residential and should not be considered in the same manner as the southern property, which doesn't abut any high density residential. Her suggestion is that these should be considered independently from each other. A change in a General Plan designation is the first step in rezoning. If the applicant's intent is clearly not to rezone at this time, why take this step? We are opening a door that should not be opened until the May 4, 2004 Approved Uning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 applicant clearly states the intention involving what will be done. This is premature. She doesn't think it should be done. It doesn't appear the findings of fact have been met, and we should not recommend approval for a change in designation. Bruce Stammer, 1 E. Desert Sky Rd., #12, along with John Grady represents Desert Sky Club on East Desert Sky Road. They feel the Linda Vista Corridor should not be allowed to change. It would result in large losses of green space. This change could cause a domino affect along the whole length of West Linda Vista Road. The property on the north side of the road does affect his property, and some of the others properties it is up against. The homeowners feel the same way. They are happy with the green space. Some of the properties were purchased since the 1996 General Plan and the land use designation was important in their decision to buy. It isn't fair to make this change. He read aloud a letter from one of the homeowners. They purchased property in Desert Sky Club in 1998 after careful consideration of surrounding properties and zoning. At the time they were told the property behind their home was zoned for no more than 3 homes and they were satisfied with that zoning. Shortly after moving into their home there was a discussion with Mr. Felker and he indicated he was not planning to change the zoning to accommodate more homes, and that he liked the green space surrounding his home. Carl Kuehn, 9250 N. Calle Loma Linda, showed a Power Point presentation of the Felker and Polito properties. Both properties came forward after the proposed General Plan and there were some recommendations made. When Monte Vista was made into higher density, there was a buffer planned. It is being proposed that the western boundary of the buffer move further to the west. The people in Linda Vista are interested in finding out if there is going to be a buffer zone, where is it going to be, and where the western boundary is going to be. The sides of the lots are built out, but he applauds the Felker and Polito applications coming forward to request a planned proposal to get this boundary on the un- built out portions of their land. This is what came forward in the General Plan amendment. The same application was denied. The decision by Planning and Zoning at that time was to save the western 1/3 of the Polito property as an RLDR or R1-144 lot and give LDR1 on the eastern side. Now is the time to make the correct decision for both lots. The eastern portions of both lots are SRAs, as is the Dallman's lot. Building out in this area has to be done with some sensitivity. This application deserves very careful consideration. There is a potential compromise solution that is much more complex than just a simply yes or no. There is no justification of redefining land use classification on the built-up western portions. These are R1-144 lots with homes on them and plenty of room to carve out an R1-144 lot around them. Eventually someone is going to have to have the lot that has one acre lots to their east. The most feared thing is that this be absorbed by the applicants, and we split it in half and conserve the R1-144 on the western 1/3 and allow LDR1 to be built out to the east. That stops the domino effect of everybody asking for the next lot over. We know that if you grant LDR1 across the entire lot that Mr. Dallman will be in here tomorrow asking for his lot to be changed again. He recommends that you consider conditional approval stipulating that LDR1 apply only to the eastern portions of the lots and the western portions of the lots continue as R1-144. John Lupo, 9614 N. Golden Sun Drive, is President of the Sunstone HOA, which is just east of the Felker property. There should be a stipulation that the maximum amount of vegetation be kept, and the access to any homes built on the property be as far away as May 4, 2004 Approved Aning & Zoning Commission Meetingg Minutes 5 possible from the wall of Sunstone to cut the traffic down between these two properties. The homes should be single story, single family homes and no livestock housed on the properties. It should be stipulated that the common wall that separates the property be the applicant's responsibility to maintain. He was not totally against a reasonable change in use. The integrity of the land should be maintained. Sid Felker, 50 W. Linda Vista. They have owned the property since 1976 and were actively involved in the Town incorporation effort. They have raised their family there, and believe they have been good stewards of the land. Things have changed over the years. In 1976 Linda Vista was a dirt road, people had horses for personal use and could ride over to the Canyon del Oro Wash. Over the years they have consented and agreed to development changes as appropriate, i.e. Balboa, Sandstone and Desert Sky. All three are beautiful projects and good neighbors. Good planning makes sense and it seems more important to know what is going to be on a piece of property rather than leave it to chance. This is a appropriate change. He is not asking for rezoning. The General Plan alerts people who move into that area that the property may have a different use subject to rezoning efforts. Linda Vista Citrus Tracts needs the protection of the General Plan and rezoning. The restrictions expired in the early 70's. Everyone that appeared has taken advantage of the lapse of those deed restrictions by splitting their lots to some degree. Now, there are no restrictions and no controls. We can have one horse per 30,000 square feet, so theorically, there could be 30 horses on my property with offsprings. Horses being used in the Linda Vista Tracts are not for personal use, but for boarding or show, and are trailered in and out. He seldom sees a horse being ridden in the area. He thinks this is an appropriate amendment to the General Plan to start the process where eventually this property will be subject to some zoning restrictions, to subdivision standards and subdivision development standards. The horses and those related uses are a much more effective tool in clearing the desert than taking a bulldozer out there. He has spoken to his immediate neighbors and he believes that most of them are supportive of the request. He understood and was not necessarily opposed to Mr. Kuehn's suggestion regarding a buffer zone built into the property. They want the flexibility in the zoning process to say they would like more homes on the property, and where the best place is to put them. He is concerned that CDO high school has continued to expand over the years. Two large pieces with a home on it offers an acquisition mode to the school district. The school district already owns a 10 acre parcel of Calle Buena Vista and they originally had it planned for a elementary school. That has been tabled, but they will not sell the land. This property needs protection. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, can say for a fact that the four findings of fact are to be met. He was directly involved in that language. Mr. Krenkowitz raised the question regarding the sentence granting a General Plan amendment. The sentence following that is particularly important, "it shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that the change meets the above listed findings." What would be the point in asking the applicant to prove that the proposed change meets the four findings if they don't have to be met? Mr. Nodine's interpretation applies to himself. It does not apply to the citizens who are directly involved in those findings. When Mr. Nodine came out with his interpretation, I challenged him, asking him to poll the members of the General Plan Advisory Committee. I know he did, because I also did. The majority confirmed without exception that it was their intent that the four findings of fact be met. As for Mr. Krenkowitz's point, there is no question that May 4, 2004 Approved Aning & Zoning Commission Meeting-Vlinutes 6 the four findings is not an issue of whether they should be met, or partially met. They are to be met. If you want to change them or revise the language, we are in the process now, but at the moment they have to be met. As far as finding #3 is concerned, it was his point of view that we needed to protect the integrity of the land use map. He views the General Plan as a document that was adopted, like he views any other adopted document. So the fact that finding #3 imposes a burden on the applicant is okay. We should not have a document that is easy to change. At the time that this language was created and approved there was no question that all four findings had to be met. There is not reason in insisting the applicant meet the findings unless they have to be met. Gerald Korte, 460 W. Linda Vista, has lived there for 35 years. He congratulated the Planning Staff that they got the notices out regarding changes coming to the neighborhood, cause that has not happened in the past. He noted that the Staff Report did not include the petition turned in at the last meeting with over 80 signature by property owners in the area and adjoining the area in opposition to it. Carl Kuehn made a compromise offer, and some residents may entertain a compromise that looks inside of both properties which has current owners residence be R1-144 or RLDR in the General Plan. This would provide a true buffer to properties to the west and end creeping rezoning. Otherwise it will keep going right on down the road. The remaining portion of both properties, if granted a General Plan change to LDR1, would provide a buffer to their east side. He did not have a problem with this compromise if that is done. If granted to the whole property, he would be in opposition. Bill Dallman, 755 W. Vistoso Highlands Drive. If you talk about appropriate sites, one of the thoughts about appropriate, is can you buy it. If we are going to make the amendment process undoable, do away with it so that no one ever comes forward. If we are going to make it a real process by commending the Constitution of the United States, and if we are going to pay attention to Growing Smarter and using property as it should be used, then it might be a different step. His property is directly west of the Politos and we approve of their application. He thinks that anybody who thinks that backing up to the 2,000 student high school is rural property is wrong. His late wife and he were two of the original owners of Desert Sky and lived at 13 E. Desert Sky. It backed up to the Tucker property. We had a nice house on 1/6 of an acre and a very controversial rezoning. If we would have thought that custom homes on one acre lots behind were going to be planned for then, we would have been thrilled because we were told from day one that that land would be developed as it should. The Commission should consider what a reasonable use for land is and is this rural property? Rural is given as open land. The designation that people are looking for is a rural open characteristic. To the east are 1/6 and 1/12 acre lots. We are trying to have a graduated approach. To the west of his property are two homes on 3.6 acres, then 1.8 and one lot over is 1.97 and 1.445 and two tenths of a mile to the west are one acre lots. He doesn't believe that rural property is a correct designation. He supports the applications that are in front of the Commission. The voters turned down the proposed General Plan. They don't want high density, mixed use neighborhoods, and property taxes. They do want low density, high quality controlled growth, which is the kind of growth proposed. He appreciates Mr. Kuehn's efforts to be a real estate broker, but he doesn't believe the Politos have to sell to anybody. He will go forward to the Council with his proposal. These folks deserve the same consideration. If you don't want anybody to ever have a plan amendment, then do away with it. May 4, 2004 Approved F�t�hning & Zoning Commission Meeting 6nutes 7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:05 PM Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Anning that if owners of the subject properties, either present or future, choose to remove the current vegetation in favor of horse corrals, etc., it can't be prevented. We would look for mitigation salvage on the property. They would need to get a grading permit, but we couldn't deny the grading permit. Odors, flies, and things that don't respect property lines could be a reality on both of these tracts without a whole lot of mitigation. Commissioner Anning said that if he was in Desert Sky Club or Sunstone Estates, he would be careful what he was wishing for, because one acre lots in this kind of location is not unreasonable. Also, he feels that if the authors of finding #3 are proud of it, then shame on them. He thinks it is a ridiculous finding to have to meet. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-03, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Cox reminded everyone that we are not doing a rezoning here, but simply an amendment to the General Plan. The only way creeping rezoning can take place is if the property owner comes before the Town and asks for it. People who have property rights understand that that is a right. One action does not necessarily mean it will happen next door. Commissioner Krenkowitz said he thinks the motion is ill advised and unsuitable. The Commissioner's privilege to disagree does not extend to non-compliance. The 4 findings of fact are there and are essentially the Town law. If you don't like it, appropriate action can be taken to have it removed. As long as it is there, it can be criticized, it can be recommended to be removed, but it has to be complied with. The comment that suggests the 3rd finding is insurmountable is an exaggeration. There are proper cases where clear and convincing facts can be presented to meet the findings. It might require the applicant do a lot more work, but why do these applications have to be rushed through? There isn't sufficient time for the applicant to justify the application. The burden is upon the applicant, not the Staff, to justify it and not upon the Commission to come up with other reasons why it might be a good idea when it doesn't satisfy the requirement of what the ordinance is. We are duty bound to comply with the ordinance and for those reasons he will vote against the motion. Commissioner Bistany disagreed with the motion. This is not simply a General Plan amendment, but a precursor to rezoning. It would be the beginning of the end of Linda Vista Citrus Tracts. There will be no buffer. We need this kind of property and it should remain intact. We do need horse property here. If you have findings of fact, either you follow them or don't have them. Commissioner Kinared said there are conflicting opinions, which provide opportunity for interpretation of the General Plan and all the components. That is the Commission's job. May 4, 2004 Approved F'I9hning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 8 He agreed that we should proceed and he would vote in favor of the motion. However, there is a compromise that has been offered. If he is here when the follow up zoning comes before the Commission, he would be more inclined to pursue that alternative. Chair Moody agreed with Mr. Kinared. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to amend the motion to limit the proposed designation to the eastern half of both parcels. Motion died from lack of a second. Commissioner Krenkowitz pointed out that if you go ahead and approve the redesignation, then the applicant has the right at a subsequent time to rezone the property in that designation. You can't subsequently give it to them and then take it away from them. Motion carried, 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Bistany and Krenkowitz voting no. BREAK 7:15 to 7:25 pm 2. PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-05, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) FOR THE 5.99 ACRE "PARCEL T" OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MOORE ROAD, JUST EAST OF THE TERMINUS OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET EAST OF KING AIR DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 219-22-4220. Charley Hulsey, the WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway, Tucson, represents the applicant, Vistoso Partners. This property is on the west side of Vistoso. Future alignment to the south would be La Canada. Surrounding this piece is almost all medium density residential. Currently we are processing tentative plats for medium high density. It was initially set aside as a little neighborhood commercial piece. There are about 6 acres that are usable, but is too small for a neighborhood commercial facility, and too large for a convenience store. We would like to see it become medium high density residential. He told Commissioner Kinared that medium high density has to do with the lot size. Medium density give you a 5000 square foot lot size, and this is a little below that. The lots surrounding are medium high. Access to the parcel is through the adjoining subdivision to the north. In response to Vice Chair Cox's question, Mr. Hulsey said there has not been anyone approach the property owners to use as commercial. There was some interest in apartments, but no one wanted to do that. He told Commissioner Krenkowitz that, in his opinion, the property did not meet #3 finding of fact, but in Staffs opinion, it did. Mr. Nodine presented the Staff report. May 4, 2004 Approved PlAkning & Zoning Commission Meeting�Minutes 9 Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that the property is an odd size. A convenience use would be about half the size and a standard shopping center would be about twice the size. That doesn't mean that something could not be done. The question is, is there going to be a demand for commercial in the area and what would fit? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:40 PM Ken Barrett, 1651 W. Travel Air, does not live in Oro Valley at this time. What he would like to see is less homes. A factor not brought up is the safety concern. The people at the airpark are always trying to fly safely, reduce noise, and keep the people happy. That area is right under the flight path, which gives the people something to complain about. They are trying to do everything they can to be friendly neighbors. He does not want to see a bunch of people under the flight path. David Sirota, 13701 N. Piper Drive has been a commercial real estate broker for the last 23 years. He agreed with Mr. Nodine that commercial follows the rooftops. There may not be the density now to support commercial, but it will be there. He lives in the La Cholla Airpark and agreed with the concerns of increased density. Roughly an airport a week in the United States gets closed. The vast majority of that is because of noise. Most of those airports were there first, but residential encroached into the area. We want to deny that flying isn't safe. We make it as safe as we can, but the fact that it still makes news if something happens, indicates that it is a rarity. The increased density in that area does not make sense. Helen Dankwerth, 11515 N. Flying Bird Drive, is concerned about safety. She found out recently after meeting with Chuck Sweet and Mark Langlitz, that not only were there homes that would potentially be developed here, but also the site of the school that has been deeded to Amphi by Vistoso Partners lies directly beneath the east -west aviation overlay district. That corridor is used as an emergency access. If pilots cannot access the north -south runway because of problems, the east -west one is used. You have a potential disaster in the making if something happens. Can you imagine an elementary school beneath that area? She would not like to be making the decision about having that school there. What disturbed her greatly, was that neither Mr. Sweet nor Mr. Langlitz were aware of it. She strongly suggested that before anything is done, there is further investigation. Conny Culver, 10503 N. Fairway Vista Lane, is very concerned about taking more commercial property out of service and putting in additional residential. This would take out the revenue generating property and put in a very draining property. We can't afford to do that. Sales tax revenue is going to be the life blood of Oro Valley, and we are taking it away by taking out commercial development. She shared the concerns regarding the airpark. There will be aircraft noise and traffic. La Cholla Park would be a beautiful, natural jewel to have in Oro Valley. If we keep encroaching in there and creating these problems, someone's property rights will be violated. The question is whose. She asked the Commission to think very carefully about this. Commercial makes sense. She asked that denial of this application be recommended and that we move forward with generating some sales tax revenue for the citizens of Oro Valley. Howard Richmond, 1890 W. Hawkridge, moved here about 2 Y2 years ago. He read that May 4, 2004 Approved Pinning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 10 Oro Valley needs sales tax revenue to operate satisfactorily as a community. Because developers says houses are a hot ticket now days, they will put as many in and sell them as fast as they can. Developers knew full well for many years what the zoning and planning was in this place. In his experience, it seems all too frequently that the developers come and agree to all this, but then they have a new idea of how they can make a few more bucks. This would be a detriment to the community. There would be more road traffic. It would not generate the sales tax revenue. It should be kept as commercial. Let the developer be creative in finding a satisfactory use for this property. David Sirota responded to Chair Moody's question, that there are not many experimental aircraft used, and they have to conform to the FFA requirements. Approximately 60% of the airplanes are 25 years old or older. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 PM Mr. Hulsey rebutted the public comments. Initially the Rancho Vistoso PAD set aside a certain amount for commercial, but that was prior to any other zoning in this area. At the time Vistoso was zoned, none of the commercial existed at La Canada, First Avenue and Tangerine. The corner where Walgreens and the bank are located has since been zoned and is about 12 to 15 acres. The Safeway site is 15 acres. A typical Circle K or Giant Gas Station goes on about 1 Y2 acres. We are trying to continue to develop medium high density residential, which is what has been working in that area. The market is there for it, but not for commercial on that corner. The Town has been explicit over the last few years, that commercial corners need to be every two miles, not somewhere halfway down the middle of the block, and that is what this piece is. It doesn't make sense in today's market. There are portions of La Cholla Airpark that are jewels, from a designer status. Some of it is not a jewel. He would argue that Vistoso may be the bigger jewel. Vistoso is probably the premier, multi -use, multi -plan, master planned community in the state. It provides housing for the lower end, entry buyer all the way up to the exclusive homes in Stone Canyon and Honeybee Ridge. There is not another project around that does that. We are not costing the Town any sales tax. If you don't shop there, you would come back to La Canada and Lambert or Safeway. The sales tax doesn't leave the Town; it just goes to another place. In response to Commissioner Kinared's question of why that was designated early on, Mr. Hulsey said that at the time there was no concept that the rest of the corners would go commercial. There were no plans to annex south of Moore. Planning is not a static thing, but moves constantly. The land uses and needs of the people change. Neighborhood Commercial is something Safeway size that people can walk to. What you would have here is a gas station and convenience store. Vistoso is building out at about 65%. This site makes no sense as a commercial corner. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to recommend that Town Council approve OV11- 04-05, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from C (Neighborhood Commercial) to Medium High Density Residential — MHDR (5 to 10 DU/ac). Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Cox was conflicted over this because he is a strong supporter of May 4, 2004 Approved Aning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 11 getting commercial, sales tax generating businesses in here. He agreed with the applicant that he doesn't know what would go on the site other than about half of what is at La Canada and Lambert. There is a market demand for homes. He recommended taking a hard look at the property. He doesn't think this is a commercial piece of property. Commissioner Bistany said he agrees with Staff that a motion at this time to make the change is premature. To close this out prior to the development of the area and require people to travel that distance, he agreed that it is a long trip. The land is not developed yet and he didn't see any urgency to make the change. Commissioner Krenkowitz went back to the fact that the application does not satisfy the 3rd finding of fact, notwithstanding that the Staff chooses to present some other kinds of analysis. If the applicant says it doesn't meet the finding, that is the end of the question. He was not persuaded at all that commercial is inappropriate. In the future someone may have some creative solution as to what will go there. There was a decision made in 1996 that a convenience application would be appropriate here because it would serve the surrounding community. Since there isn't clear and convincing evidence that this would be a substantial benefit, and since one of the findings of fact has admittedly not been satisfied, it would be improper to recommend that the Town Council change the designation and he would vote against the motion. Commissioner Anning would also vote against the motion. His principal concern was that we don't have La Canada extended and Moore Road extended as a reality yet. He didn't see the urgency at this juncture to bail on a commercial concept. He thought we should get the arterial roads in and then see if someone shows up with some innovative thinking on the property. It is a difficult property to deal with because of size, but on balance patience is needed. Motion failed with 4 no, and 2 yes vote. Chair Moody, Commissioners Bistany, Krenkowitz and Anning voting no. MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Town Council deny OV11-04-05, finding that the loss of a neighborhood -servicing commercial use, as allowed by the current designation, would represent an adverse impact to Neighborhood 10 and the environs, and that the application doesn't satisfy all of the Four Findings of Fact required for an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no. Vice Chair Cox voting no. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-06, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCE PARK (CP) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) FOR A 4.5 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL C OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 3 LOCATED AT THE END OF N. VISTOSO VILLAGE DRIVE, EAST OF E. INNOVATION PARK DRIVE, PARCEL NO 219-20-052K. Charles Hulsey, the WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway, represents the applicant, Vistoso May 4, 2004 Approved NlAnning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 12 Partners. A couple of years back the Town approved the ability to convert the Commerce Park designation to residential uses. The parcel to the north of the property is being developed by Cottonwood Properties. There is an interest in developing the area once designated as Commerce Park to residential uses. We are following the same path as Cottonwood has taken. One of the concerns expressed by Staff is that we would be putting residential traffic out onto an industrial roadway. When we developed the plans for Ventana, and processed the tentative plat for all of the pieces within Commerce Park, we also proposed that the roadway come out and intersect with Oracle Road. It gives the opportunity for this site to develop as residential and not mix the two forms of traffic. Cottonwood has already proposed an access to the south, which will likely be emergency access only. This would put traffic onto the same roadway. There is a riparian corridor to the east and Cottonwood is to the north. This project is a reaction to the way the area started to develop. The commercial has established itself up on the corner by Bashas. When Cottonwood changed everything to residential to the north, it changed the long range prospects of this parcel. It is more in keeping to develop as residential. Mr. Hulsey responded to Commissioner's questions. Cottonwood has established what will happen here. The rest will be residential. The developer will build the extension of North Vistoso Village Drive out to Oracle. This would probably be a requirement of the plat. The traffic study had to go through ADOT last time, and the extension to Oracle would be contingent upon a light at some point in time. Mr. Hulsey responded to the items that didn't conform on the General Plan Conformance Check Sheet as follows: Goal 1.2: This item does not address the entire Oro Valley planning area. It addresses this immediate area of Rancho Vistoso, and it is compatible to have entry level housing adjacent to major employers, such as Ventana Medical and the hospital. This is close enough that people could ride a bike or walk to work as opposed to driving. That is a compatible use. Goal 2.1: Vistoso is the only area in Town with a mix of vehicular and pedestrian traffic that was designed from the beginning. Goal 2.3: We are bringing in and planning for residential development in close proximity to where jobs and shopping are available. Goal 4.1: There isn't a neighborhood in Vistoso that isn't high quality. Goal 4.1A: The only existing neighborhood is to the north. It is a platted subdivision and we are proposing to do exactly what they are doing. BREAK 8:23 TO 8:33 PM Chair Moody excused himself at 8:23 PM. Vice Chair Cox reconvened the meeting. Mr. Nodine presented the Staff Report. May 4, 2004 Approved Aning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 13 Commissioner Kinared was troubled by the findings of fact as applied. If we use the analogy that Commissioner Krenkowitz did, then it is essentially our constitution, and we need to abide by it. We also need to recognize, that every time the Council has taken action over the past 8 years, that has amended the constitution. We should have those amendments available and understand why exceptions are being made to these four findings. He would request a joint Study Session with the Council to discuss this, because it is a continuing issue on every General Plan item considered. Mr. Nodine responded that that was the Commissions purview, and he recommended that should be treated as a separate item. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:45 PM Conny Culver, 10503 N. Fairway Vista Lane. This does not meet the findings of fact. We need Commercial Park. Coincidentally we need a maintenance yard. This is industrial. It has convenient access to Oracle. No one wants a maintenance yard in their back yard, but she doesn't think Ventana would mind. Nine acres isn't quite bit enough, but there is room to grow. She suggested that this item be continued and the opportunity explored. The Town is looking everywhere for a place to relocate the maintenance yard. Take some time and look into this before removing it from industrial use. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:48 PM Mr. Hulsey responded that this is not industrial land, it is Campus Park, which is substantially different from industrial land. The CC&R's and design standards for development to do not allow for a maintenance yard to be developed in Rancho Vistoso. Vice Chair Cox said that one of the problems the Town has with its current maintenance yard is that it is in the middle of a residential area. If in fact the road was put out to Oracle, it might make a major change, but right now he doesn't want Town vehicles to run the same circuitous route that cars do. It is a bad idea, because it is a noise and safety hazard and you are only switching to the same problem. Commissioner Anning felt that he was being asked to operate in a vacuum. As he looks at the General Plan north of Vistoso Blvd. and Oracle he sees a lot of Commerce Park developed in housing, apparently attributed to the Oracle Road Overlay. He would like to have a Study Session and sit down with the developers of Vistoso to find out what their thinking is on where the remains of Rancho Vistoso are going. He would like to know what Staff and Economic Development's thinking is. He was sympathetic to a continuance. Commissioner Krenkowitz wants to know what can be accomplished with a Study Session. What is the purpose and goal? He would like some assurance that this kind of Study Session is in accordance with the last direction we got from Council at the joint Study Session. We were criticized for asking for a more information in order to satisfy the Commission's obligations under the General Plan code. It is disturbing that Staff feels it is not clear that this amendment satisfies the findings. A convincing case hasn't been made and it should be denied. He would like assurance that a Study Session is consistent with the Commission's responsibilities and not overreaching into those of the Town Council. May 4, 2004 Approved PLning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 14 He would also like to be assured by the Town Attorney and Planning people that we are not getting involved with the 90 day issue again. Mr. Nodine told him that a recommendation would have to be to Town Council by June 15''. Mr. Hulsey said they would volunteer to hold a Study Session, thus delaying the date it has to go to Council, so the Commission could see long range plans and details for Vistoso. Attorney Andrews said that the only people who would complain about not meeting the 90 day deadline would be Mr. Hulsey and his group. They could always withdraw this application if they want to hold a workshop. The other recourse is to let the application stand and have it brought back before the 15'n. Mr. Hulsey was not interested in withdrawing, but would be glad to hold the Study Session. Attorney Andrews will look into whether the applicant can waive the time. Vice Chair Cox agreed with Commissioner Anning's thoughts. We have several items before us and in the past that deal with small parcels of Rancho Vistoso. Rancho Vistoso was laid out years ago and what was laid out then may not be a good plan now. A Study Session would be helpful to get the big picture of Rancho Vistoso. He wanted to make it clear the Mr. Hulsey would waive a sufficient amount of time to the Town, if we don't meet the deadline. Mr. Hulsey agreed that was correct. Commission Bistany asked that the traffic pattern be covered in detail in the Study Session Commissioner Krenkowitz asked if we can explore the possibility of an agreement with the property owner to carry this matter to the first regular meeting in July so that there would be time to schedule a Study Session sometime before June 10tn? Mr. Hulsey said it comes to a July hearing date and that is fine. MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue consideration of OV11-04-06, a request for an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation from Commercial Park to Medium High Density Residential for a 4.5 acre portion of Parcel 6 of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3 to the first regular monthly meeting in July, 2004, and that a Study Session with the applicant and any other interest parties be scheduled no later than the middle of June, 2004. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-07, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) FOR A 14 May 4, 2004 Approved Hanning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL I OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 7. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL NO.219-54-002E. Charley Hulsey, the WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway, represents the applicant, Vistoso Partners. The parcel is that area lying west of Safeway. Since this plan was developed in 1987, the State decided to build Tangerine Road as a limited access roadway, meaning that there would be no access onto Tangerine from this commercial development. All access would come off Woodburne on the north, or off of Vistoso Blvd. Even then the access would be limited off Vistoso Blvd. by an ordinance that the Town has adopted concerning Tangerine Road. The Town adopted an ordinance to protect riparian areas and there is one on the site. The easement for the sewer line runs along the north side of Tangerine Road. The wash can't be disturbed. A year ago a developer looked at this for apartments, but that went away. Now a developer wants to build medium high density residential on the site. He made an offer and is ready to begin as soon as we can complete what we are doing. Their request is to be allowed to convert the back piece into residential with access onto Woodburne Avenue, leaving the front piece as commercial with access off Vistoso Blvd.. This plan was developed prior to the State saying you can't have access off Tangerine and prior to the other corners becoming commercial. Mr. Nodine presented the Staff Report. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:10 PM Bill Niehaus, 12194 N. Sterling, pointed out where he lives in relation to the property and stated when coming onto Woodburne, you can't see either right or left. You have the park and Painted Sky Elementary. The road is posted for 25, and no one goes that speed. If access isn't permitted to that commercial from Tangerine, it would all come from Woodburne. That isn't going to work. What is going to go in there? You will get as tenants, a Chinese Restaurant, a nail salon, and a couple of realtors. It won't be retail, but more a commercial office space. You have spaces already sitting vacant and more to be built across the street. He would rather have single family residents than commercial. Steve Conrad, 1440 E. Elixir, disagreed with Staff on the benefits of open plan in the neighborhood and the adverse impact. There is a traffic issue on Woodburne. Increasing the number of people would also increase traffic. The elementary school is already at capacity. The types of homes proposed would bring in families and would increase the amount of students in the elementary school. While he understands it is very difficult to put commercial there, he thinks that if we don't have an idea then we shouldn't to it. He would like to see the applicants prime benefit to Oro Valley and the neighborhood. How will putting in more homes help the neighborhood. From an environmental perspective, he understands riparian area requirements are being met, however, both the park and the school are at capacity. From a financial perspective, he sees only a short term benefit. While we are not sure what amount of sales revenue will come in, again we are limiting their ideas so therefore we are saying there are no sales benefits. Think of the benefits to the community for this proposal. Bill Heston, 12147 N. Seasons Loop. His property backs up to Woodburne Avenue. He May 4, 2004 Approved Manning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 purchased that house knowing that there was an open area behind zoned as commercial property use. Over the six years they have been there, they have seen a fire station and a request router center put in there, who have been good neighbors. He agrees with most of the topics presented here. It is not efficient use for commercial property. It has very limited access to Woodburne Avenue. While he believes residential use would be best on this property, he would like to suggest changing it to open space. The area around Tangerine and First Avenue are currently planned to be heavily developed. He feels a change to open space would be a good use for the community and provide a nice open setting and a buffer to the south end of Rancho Vistoso. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 PM Mr. Hulsey responded that the impetus for looking at this parcel was that it needs to be something other than commercial. We have already made another school site available to the school district. They have asked for ownership of that site, which means that they are ready to build another school site within Vistoso. As for the park being at capacity, we have constructed more parks that originally planned to be built in this area. We added the Woodshade Park and the size of the park built on Woodburne is larger than proposed. We will be adding some recreational facilities within the development of this parcel of land. We will continue to add recreational spaces as we go along. Vistoso is already 51 % open space. We are in the process now of trying to wrap up the construction of all the trails and pathways that were committed in the original plan. We would like to get on with this. We already have a builder who wants to get started quickly. Mr. Hulsey told Commissioner Krenkowitz that he does not know whether the builder builds two stories or not. The site drops from Woodburne down to the wash. Two story homes would not block the mountain views. The 18 feet height limit is too stringent. The ability to change rooflines is important. He would like to not limit the height to 18 feet. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-07, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from C (Neighborhood Commercial) to Medium High Density Residential. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. 5. OV11-04-02, PLANNING RESOURCES, REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUESTS INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-LDR--O TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR--0.3-2 DU/AC) ON 11.75 ACRES AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM R-LDR TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) USE ON 24.9 ACRES, THE SUBJECT PARCELS ARE LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. The applicant was present but did not wish to speak May 4, 2004 Approved Pinning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 Mr. Nodine presented the Staff Report MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to initiate OV11-04-02, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the following seven parcels: 219-47-004A, 00413, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170, and 0180. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. 6. PUBLIC HEARING — OV9-03-25, PLANNING RESOURCES, REPRESENTING DEVELOPMENT SITES LTD., REQUESTS A REZONING FROM R1-144 (RESIDENTIAL WITH 144,000 S.F. LOT MINIMUM) TO R1-36 (RESIDENTIAL WITH 36,000 S.F. LOT MINIMUM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD NEAR CAMINO DEL PLATA AND JUST NORTH OF THE WILSON SCHOOL PARCEL 224-110-190 PORTION Commissioner Kinared asked to be excused from Item #6 because of a conflict of interest. Rick Sathre, Development Sites LTD., 10260 N. Krauswood Lane, is the owner and developer of the property. His planner and engineer were both present. His introduced his planner, Carl Winters. Carl Winters, Planning Resources, 270 N. Church Avenue gave his presentation. The subject property is along Tangerine Road. In the Town General Plan, the wash defines the boundary of the area that is recommended for 1-2 units per acre and the area that is to remain at 3.3 units per acre. The property abuts Wilson School. There have been several meetings with the neighbors and almost all the issues brought up have been resolved. It does comply to the plan. We will retain the riparian area. A small trail will be put along the riparian area. It is his understanding on Exhibit A, Item 6 that the Oro Valley Water Company has withdrawn their request for the well site. On items 12A and 12B, we have been dealing with the school district. They probably are not going to ask for a turnout because you are not supposed to have turnouts on State Routes. Bryant Nodine gave the Staff Report. Mr. Nodine said that the statement on page 5 of the Staff Report, "Staff is recommending a condition that such a survey be completed...," is in the Code so it isn't necessary to add to Exhibit A. Also, prior to any platting of the property the applicant would need to meet the Arizona State Museum's and Town's archaeological requirements. Commissioner Anning had a problem attaching Conditions like this to rezonings. For the most part they are issues that can be dealt with at the platting process. How many are not covered by existing codes and ordinances? Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Anning by going over the attached conditions and explaining why they needed to be included. Commissioner Anning stopped Mr. Nodine's response and said that where he came from May 4, 2004 Approved-Rinning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 18 Conditional rezoning was a definite legal no -no, and he felt that we are doing too much and we need to be real careful how many of these we do. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Bistany that there are no provisions for parks in the common areas because of the size. It would be very small and so what Parks and Rec and Staff recommended was to get an in -lieu fee from the developer, which would be used to improve parks somewhere in the area. The common areas will stay common areas. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:40 PM Nancy Martin, 11780 N. Via De La Verbenita, asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to come up with a plan to look at the entire region around Wilson (School). She is the Wilson School liaison representing the 1,483 students and their families. They would like to see a proactive stance regarding all the potential development that will be coming to their area. Parents and neighbors are very nervous of the potential outcome. Not only will there be traffic and road issues on La Cholla, but also capacity issues at Wilson. Now is the time to look for an appropriate site for a park as well. As each developer comes in with their piece of the pie, we must remember that the infrastructure around La Cholla, Tangerine, Glover and Wilson School is lacking when it comes to road safety and schools. Even though this developer is a small piece of this puzzle, we must remember the cumulative effect of these small developments and their impact as far the infrastructure and the lack of it. She asked the Commission to come up with some kind of consensus plan and a vision that our schools, neighborhoods, citizens and developers can work with. With excellent planning and forethought all would benefit. Tom Barr, 11865 N. Vista del Sol, is contiguous with the subject property. He complimented the developer for his communication to his neighborhood and to addressing every issue and doing the right thing. He has been swell to work with. He appreciates the opportunity to stand up and say some nice things. He sees the Commission has a tough job, thanked them for the good job they are doing. This particular development and developer have been extraordinarily sensitive to their concerns. Linda Goodwillie, 11600 N. Vista del Sol, said her property is continguous to the subject property. She just met with the developer and is also impressed with him. He answered many questions she had. She agreed that we need a General Plan for all the vacant land around Wilson. She has noticed driving in and out of there, that the roads cannot handle the amount of traffic. Tangerine Road is a danger and a disaster waiting to happen. La Cholla is very overcrowded with all the kids coming into the school. More high density put into that area without the roads being able to handle cars, is going to be a big problem. She agreed that there needs to be some planning because there is a lot a vacant land south of Wilson School. She is glad the developer is taking into consideration conservation easement throughout the major wash. The wash handles a lot of wildlife as a wildlife corridor and has a lot of big vegetation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:48 PM MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Council approval of OV9-03-25, rezoning 17.57 May 4, 2004 Approved Anning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 acres located on the south side of Tangerine Road near Camino Del Plata from R1- 144 to 111-36, subject to all of the conditions listed in Exhibit A to the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 0 no. 7. PUBLIC HEARING — OV11-04-04, BIG HORN COMMERCE LLC, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN'S GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL PARK TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RAMS FIELD PASS AND ORACLE ROAD AND OUTSIDE THE TOWN LIMITS, PARCEL 220-040-10M Commissioner Kinared returned to the meeting. Bob Solfisburg, 1521 E. Placita Buea, applicant, has roughly 3 acres of property located at the south east corner of Ram's Field Pass and Oracle Road. It was part of Allied Signal property and has since been subdivided. The Shurgard development is to the south. There is a shared access and development agreement with Shurgard for access to Oracle Road, and an easement over his property that Shurgard uses out to Ram's Field Pass. Over the last couple of years the TP property to the north has be developed as residential. The approximately 15 acres to the east, also part of Allied Signal, is being proposed for 86 housing units. He would like to change the General Plan from Commercial Park to Community Commercial which would allow support retail services for the new residential coming to the area. Bryant Nodine gave the Staff Report. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:55 PM Betty Hegarty, 2381 E. Stone Stable Drive, stated there is commercial across the street that has not been developed yet. She didn't feel that retail stores on that side of Oracle would be of any use and would probably end up being vacant stores. She was against changing the zoning on that property. Susan Dembowski, 11289 N. Majestic Ram Place, said this plan would not benefit the community. If approved, and the site was annexed into the Town and subsequently received rezoning for Community Commercial development, it would totally change the nature of the neighborhood, which is one of single family homes, many with very young children. Community Commercial would likely serve non-residents who pull on and off Oracle for brief commercial transactions rather the minimal needs of the neighborhood. Increased traffic and noise are not compatible for this area. Potential future rezoning could well change the nature of this portion of Oracle Road, which is extremely close to Pusch Ridge and the State Park. This would be in contrast to the present status of the area as Commercial Park. The integrity of this very beautiful area should be maintained. First Avenue and Oracle provide a lot of commercial now. Ed Dembowski, 11289 N. Majestic Ram Place. A gentleman earlier talked about a desire for commercial every two miles. When he drives up from Tucson, there is commercial at First Avenue and then at Tangerine. Everybody talks about how wonderful it is to live on Oracle and look up at Pusch View Ridge. All of a sudden there are 3 acres that hasn't May 4, 2004 ApprovedAnning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 been able to be developed as Commercial Park. There are not enough residents to serve this commercial development. This is out of context to everything he has heard tonight about where you place them, what you do, and how it is supposed to be supportive. It follows the rooftops. Who is going to support this 25,000 square feet of retail shops? Who is going to come by when you have everything you need at First Avenue and at Tangerine? How will this fly from an economic viewpoint? John Martin, 11285 N. Majestic Ram Place, pointed out the location of his house and that there were about 200 houses total in the whole area. He moved here from Nebraska a year ago and looked all over Tucson area for a place to build. He loves the area and purchased a lot where he did because of the unobstructed view of the mountains. Originally he was told that the subject parcel was zoned to be a park, but wouldn't be effective until Oro Valley annexed the area. Then it was changed to Park Commercial, and would be a setting like Honeywell. Everything up and down Oracle is well done and fits into the area. Shurgard sticks out like a sore thumb. The developer is tied into Pima County and could put another thing similar to Shurgard under the plan that they have. They are trying to get this changed so they can put in multiple tenants. He would like to see it get annexed by Oro Valley and stay as a park. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:05 PM Applicant Bob Solfisburg responded to the public comments. This is a small site of only 3 acres along Oracle Road. There are 200 homes in the immediate area. What the market is telling us is that the users prefer the going home side of Oracle Road. There is limited choice of high visibility, easy access retail development on Oracle Road going north. Not everybody wants to go into a major neighborhood shopping center. Uses could be cleaners, chiropractors, offices, retail uses, etc. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Bistany that it is correct that there were not enough people in the area to support this project. The primary users would be the people off of Oracle Road. He also stated that this rezoning does not have to be done now. But, looking at the long range of what makes the most sense, it looks as though that is commercial because of the size of the property and the types of uses around it. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that the types of uses under Community Commercial are the middle range of commercial, which are the same as you would get in a C-1 or C-2 type zoning. It has to be small to fit the site, so it would be offices, doctor's offices, any retail use except the bigger ones like automotive. The range is very wide- open. It could even be a service station, but that would require a conditional use permit. Mr. Nodine stated to Commissioner Krenkowitz that a "regional service use" means that it can't be a neighborhood only service use because of the amount of homes in the immediate vicinity, and the fact that it is on Oracle Road. The traffic on Oracle Road will be a basis of revenue generation for that site. It would serve a much broader area. It is appropriate to put it in a Community Commercial classification rather than regional commercial because of the size. It is going to serve a large region but size of the site will dictate what can be put on the site. It can only be zoned C-1 because of its size. May 4, 2004 Approved PAnning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 21 Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Anning there are two ways to implement office zoning. One is residential service, but that also has apartments. Neighborhood Commercial has office uses, but some of the types of retail have to conditioned. There is not an office district. Commissioner Anning sees offices as the right solution to a very small parcel and more acceptable to the general neighborhood because of the limited hours of operation with very low intensity. Lacking that, he is concerned that the 2.8 acres will not support much. He would rather hold this in abeyance until the right kind of zoning category is available to handle an office designation. Todd Otis, 2940 St. Augustine Place, Tucson, is part owner of the property. The current General Plan designation, due to the property's limited size, restricts what can be put on the site and eliminates most uses. This was created back for potential expansion for Garrett. Now we have taken away the larger potential user, which is really what the Campus Park Industrial was designated for. It was designed for a larger industrial user to create an employment hub. He thinks the end use will be service retail with some office type users. Only C-1 zoning will allow for uses for development of the site under the current General Plan classification and potential zoning. That would allow for a small end development that he believes would have enough users that have expressed an interest that there is a demand for it. The demand for the existing Campus Park Industrial type use does not exist because you can't develop under certain criteria without the larger site. The existing designation is inappropriate because it won't allow development of the site for its highest and best use. He explained how the site went from the 80 acres to the existing size of 3 acres. Potentials users that have approached him are service oriented companies, flooring, medical, chiropractic, etc. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that there isn't a different process that would be more appropriate for some of the things that have been mentioned. If the property was brought into the Town and the zoning translated, it would be translated to Technological Park. Technological Park allows some professional offices and very little retail geared to servicing the needs of the Tech Park. He also said that if this is approved by the Town Council, the applicant would probably come in and request something like a C-1 zoning. And yes, it would probably be very tempting to condition it to control the types of uses. MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Council that it deny OV11-04-04, amending the General Plan by redesignating 2.874 acres located on the southeast corner of Rams Field Pass and Oracle Road from Commercial Park to Community Commercial finding that the application doesn't satisfy all of the Four Findings of Fact required for a General Plan Amendment and that the proposal of Community Commercial may be inconsistent with the highest and best use of the adjoining properties. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Krenkowitz stated that he had concerns as to what happens to this property. Although it is called Community Commercial, it is really regional commercial. If this isn't passed and the property is annexed into the Town, the present Pima County May 4, 2004 Approved Anning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 22 zoning would be translated into Technological Park. Within that context we are more likely to achieve the kind of development that is appropriate to this particular parcel, whereas rezoning now to Community Commercial opens up the possibility that the kind of development will not be appropriate and will be unacceptable to the people in the area. On that basis, the better course is to recommend denial. Mr. Nodine responded to Vice Chair Cox's question, that the translation would not prevent the applicant from requesting rezoning at that point, as long as it meets the General Plan. Motion passed with 5 yes, 0 no. 8. OV7-04-03, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO INCORPORATE CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) STANDARDS MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to initiate an amendment to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Standards to the applicable sections of OVZCR. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to adjourn the May 4, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recording Secretary %/ • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 4, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Susana Montana, Planner H SUBJECT: OV11-04-02, PLANNING RESOURCES, REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN, GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-LDR) TO A COMBINATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) FOR AN 11.75 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) FOR THE REMAINING 24.9 ACRES OF THE SEVEN PARCEL PROPERTY, TOTALING 36.65. ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND SOUTH OF SUNKIST ROAD, PARCEL NOS. 219-47- 004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170, AND 0180. BACKGROUND: The subject parcel is 38.8 acres in size and is comprised of seven parcels; approximately 2.15 acres would be devoted to Tangerine Road right-of-way, leaving a Project Site of 36.65 acres. Only two of the parcels lie within the Town of Oro Valley (TOV) jurisdiction. The 1996 General Plan designates those two parcels as Rural -Low -Density Residential (R-LDR), allowing 0 to 0.3 dwelling units per acre (0 — 0.3 DU/ac). The remaining five parcels lie within Pima County jurisdiction, yet they are included within the TOV General Plan Boundary and are designated in the TOV General Plan as R-LDR. Since the seven parcels lie within the TOV General Plan Boundary, the Town has the authority to designate the land uses for those parcels. However, the properties not located within the Town limits would need to be annexed into the Town before the Town could entertain a rezoning request by the property owners. Annexation Efforts The Applicants have initiated the annexation efforts for the five northernmost parcels of the Site. It is anticipated that signature collection would begin in May and, by June, the Town Council would be able to act upon the property owners' request for annexation. Site Features The Site contains five single-family homes and a horse breeding operation which is deemed a "farm" use. The site contains a natural riparian habitat ("Wash") listed in the `ESL Riparian Update" data base which has not yet been adopted as part of the OVZCR. Site Environs The site is surrounded by the following uses: North: Single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels zoned rural low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County; TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, OV11-04-05 Page 2 South: Single-family homes in platted subdivisions zoned TOV Single Family Residential (Rl- 7) District; East: A vacant but platted single-family subdivisions, zoned TOV Single Family Residential (R1-36) District and single-family residential lots, zoned R1-36; and West: A mixture of vacant land zoned TOV Single -Family Residential (R1-144) District, and single-family homes on 3 to 9 acre parcels, zoned low density residential, Suburban Residential (SR), by Pima County. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: The reason stated for the landowner's request to change the General Plan designation of the property from Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR) to a combination of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is to develop the site with both residential lots to be located west of the Wash and neighborhood commercial uses to be located east of the Wash, abutting La Canada Drive extension. The "C-N use would allow development of a multi -use office and commercial complex with such things as a grocery store, restaurants, other retail and corporate offices." The residential land use "will allow the development of several residential lots along the west side of the existing wash to help buffer the NC zone" (please see attached application letter). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate the proposed amendment to the 1996 General Plan. Staff will evaluate the amendment and prepare the necessary background information for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 1, 2004. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning & Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following Motions: I move to initiate OV11-04-02, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the following seven parcels: 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170, and 0180. OR I move to deny OV11-04-02, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for. The following seven parcels: 219-47-004A, 004B, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170, and 0180. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Request Letter C: Irene Volenick, Planning Resources, Fax: 628-7637 FAMOVl1\2004\11-04-02\Reports\PZC initiation rpt.doc M zz A z O L—_ — W SUNKIST.RD -- Site _ z Location X z _- 0 z f' z 1—W-TANGERINE RD C H VW fl, taP go Location M a p 0 135 , 270 , H2O0, 6�0 F.« e OV1 1 -04-02 - Parcel 21 9-47-0 (4A,4B,4C,50,60,1 70,180) GSSERVICES.:=RC4 r 4' !\■M ■1MAIMN - Town ofOro Valley 4 ll000North LuCanada Drive -- —`---- - Oro \/allo}\��� ��7�7 ���� � '------ ` -- )p ' ------- ----- = /v /--J�� ' -- [O[R F61 09'2- 22404704V MDTO8TE\/EN ` c�� � �n��� 3225E8'�SBLlNBBD#lO7O �`�` � - GlLBEDIAZ 85234'OOOO Town of Oro Valley m%- RA 4 11000 North La Canada Drive - Oro Valley, AZ 85737 - L: — ------------------------------------------------------- P�s � .'i-iLLL, 219470060 MONTGOMERY SUSAN E & BILLY C JT/RS 1410 W TANGERINE RD TUCSON AZ SEP 2 2 200: 85737-0000 ' -L / Q -5 IPVPJ�ARD TlcM:)E EXP RTN TO SENDQ' MONTGOMERY PO BOX 1219 RED ROCK AZ 85245-1219 RETURN TO SENDER Town of Oro Valley 4 11000 North La Canada Drive - Nil Oro Valley, AZ85737 i -1 E F ii 04 224050190 DAVIS BRUCE WILLIAM & DIANNE DALENE JT/RS 11908 N COPPER BUTTE DR TUCSON AZ 85737-0000 Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 a 224046780 PEDERSEN GORDON & MC DONALD MELINDA M CP/RS 1312 W DESERT DEW PL TUCSON AZ 85737-0000 `SEP�� -- r S�dDL I r Town ofOro Valley ll0O0North LoCanada Drive Oro Valley, A-Z 85737 � }&lANINE VCP0O P P OZ 0K0VALLEY AZ «�� 85737'0000 »���^ wELo676 85737ao03 170* 1* oq/Ro/0'4 RETURN To SENDER WELCH BOX CLOSED UNABLE To roRw*no RETURN TO sEmoEn Town of Oro Valley Nor 11000 North La Canada Drive c,�'�� A2 .�y---- �. - -• Oro Valley, AZ 85737 w 224046970 KAISER MARY E & KAISER ROBERT I & RENETTA L 0 AZ DESERT COULD PL TUC 5+&O 2 2 Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 0C $ 00 p 21947012D DIEHL DANIEL C JR & MICHELLE A MRS 850 E EDGEWORTH DR ORO VALLEY AZ SEP 2 7 2004 85737-0000 DIEH850 8i�7J72Oi2 IN 14 09/20/04 RETURN TURN 'TO SENDER NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN 'TO SENDER :55- Fil 1,11; 11:1 I'lli I, i fl: ii Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Cafiada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 fit.- LV :) - 0 2 -1-A "0.-23a 0004337343 AUG13 200-1 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 8 5 -', 7 219470060 MONTGOMERY SUSAN E & BILLY C JT/RS 1410 W TANGERINE RD TUCSON AZ AUG 85737-0000 MONT410* 657372007 1703 14 08/17/04 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND MONTGOMERY PO BOX lalq RED ROCK AZ 85245-1019 RETURN TO SENDER mw Town of Oro Valley 'I-, ;G4 Z6� 11000 North La Canada Drive F=—-4.----- -�— Oro Valley, AZ 85737 17 `� r 0f 1 A $ 00.230 0004337343 SEP17 2004 IAAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 22400790 --�h1R�qSKI MICHAEL R & AMY E CP/RS - - 85737 OCT 0 4 2004 M, �'i ri £;�-s�!?�t,� ;�t �! ! 1.i,111i��lt1311111I��Iilliiill�l�Iiltilti7� =IRA _ 11141. ml GENERAL NOTES: A. GROSS AREA OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: 38.8 ACRES B. ZONING REQUEST FROM RI-144 AND SR(PIMA COUNTY) TO RI-72 (12.75 ACRES) AND TP (26.05 ACRES) C. GROSS FLOOR AREA: 25% D. FLOOR AREA RATIO: 25% E. BUILDING VOLUME RATIO: ? F. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: ? RAC. G. NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 5 H. BUILDING HEIGHTS: 1-2 STORIES - < 25' I. PARKING REQD.: ? PARKING PROVIDED: ? J-K CONSERVATION EASEMENT: 5.00 ACRES DETENTION: ? ACRES NO ACCESS EASEMENT: ? ACRES BUFFERYARDS: ? ACRES PARKS REQD.: ? ACRES PARKS PROVIDED:?ACRES GENERAL OPEN SPACE: ? ACRES TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: ? ACRES OR ?% L. FLOODPLAINS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED OR FILLED UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN ENGINEER. M. WATER SERVICE PROVIDER: ORO VALLEY WATER SCALE: 1 "-200'-0" 0 200' ADDITIONAL NOTES: I. STREET LAYOUT SHALL BE PER TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STANDARDS WITH 45' ROW. 2. ALL SAGUAROS SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE, OR IF NECESSARY FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, HOUSE PLACEMENT (ONLY WHEN NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTS) ON LOTS, SALVAGED AND RE -PLANTED ONSITE. 3. ONLY NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SITE RE -VEGETATION. 4. WROUGHT IRON OR SOME (OTHER) APPROPRIATE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE FIFTEEN FOOT RIPARIAN APRON, EXCEPT WHERE WASH ACCESS IS PROVIDED. 5. DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO DRAIN DRY AND TO BE USED AS RECREATION AREAS. 6. CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK SYMBOL SHALL BE LIMITED TO SINGLE STORY AND 18 FEET. IF HOUSES ARE SITED ON THEIR SIDE, THE SET BACK SHALL BE 20-FEET. 7. 50% OF THE LOTS ALONG LA CANADA ROAD SHALL BE S INGLE STORY AND 18 FEET. 8. THERE WILL BE NO ENCROACHMENT IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN ENGINEER. 9. A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE FORMED FOR THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH SHALL BE CHARGED WITH PRESERVATION OF THE PROTECTED RIPARIAN HABITAT IN AN UNDISTURBED STATE. PROPOSED ZONING: RI-7 33 4 J J SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 11 S, RANGE 13 E; PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA LOCATION MAP SCALE, 3' = I Mile 0 0,5 Mile LEGEND ')C L • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BUFFERYARD SETBACK LINE — — — FUTURE ROW --- -- — T.O.V. DRAINAGE EASEMENT 0 0 0 0 o TELEPHONE EASEMENT ELECTRIC EASEMENT DRAINAGE PROPERTY LINE 404 JURISDICTION BOUNDARY EXISTING SEWER GAS GAS GAS GAS EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE WHW HWHW — EXISTING WATER LINE — — — — 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY FLOW ARROW TRAFFIC CIRCULATION DIRECTION 0. S. — OPEN SPACE OPTION A IS' RIPARIAN SETBACK # SINGLE STORY ONLY A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT (PER ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 14-101). THE TANGERINE OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 10-0) APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE REQUIRED 50' NO ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE. THE RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 10-7) APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. A FIFTEEN FOOT SETBACK SHALL BE PRESERVED ALONG THE HABITAT CORRIDOR AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. WITHIN THIS AREA ALL EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PRESERVED. APPLICANT: ■ .pLanning resources planninq landscape architecture urban design development consultants 270 North Church Avenue, Tucson Arizona 85701 (520) 628-1118 fax: 628-7637 2111 East Broadway, Ste. 14, Tempe Arizona 85282 (602) 921-0208 fax:921-9561 PARCELS 219-47-0170, 0180, 0050t 0060, 004A7 004B, 004c ON TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CA NADA ROAD REZONING FROM RI-144 AND SR(P.C.) TO RI-72 AND TP SCALE: I'=100'-011 CONTOUR INTERVAL: I FOOT OCTOBER 2, 2003 IV 02020.01 V:I-'LAIN INIINU Kt�)UUNLCJ r-ILtJrKUJCI, I J \ULVLU.UI I"I UN I VUMtKY - MILLtN rKurtK I yumAr-niuz) I r Vr I IVIV.uvvu FIRE > STATION M� OFEN 70 m 15000 of �\�\ Kj RETAIL 25,000 5f GENERAL NOTES: A. GROSS AREA OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: 38.8 B. ZONING REQUEST FROM RI-144 AND SR(PIMA COUNTY) TO RI-72 AND C-N C. GROSS FLOOR AREA: ? D. FLOOR AREA RATIO: 25% E. BUILDING VOLUME RATIO: ? F. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: ? RAC. G. NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 5 H. BUILDING HEIGHTS: 1-2 STORIES - < 25' I. PARKING REQD.: ? PARKING PROVIDED: ? J-K CONSERVATION EASEMENT: ? ACRES DETENTION: ? ACRES NO ACCESS EASEMENT: ? ACRES BUFFERYARDS: ? ACRES PARKS REQD.: ? ACRES PARKS PROVIDED:?ACRES GENERAL OPEN SPACE: ? ACRES TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: ? ACRES OR ?% L. FLOODPLAINS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED OR FILLED UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN ENGINEER. M. WATER SERVICE PROVIDER: ORO VALLEY WATER SCALE: 1 "-200'-0" 0 200' RETAIL 50,000 5f 9.1 AC r PIMA COUNTY P,1-72' Af- IC �z 1.7 AC � Kl-72 � � V V [_%�.d 2.3 AC (2.0 AC 3.0 AC LA CANAP. ADDITIONAL NOTES: I. STREET LAYOUT SHALL BE PER TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STANDARDS WITH 45' ROW. 2. ALL SAGUAROS SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE, OR IF NECESSARY FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, HOUSE PLACEMENT (ONLY WHEN NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTS) ON LOTS, SALVAGED AND RE -PLANTED ONSITE. 3. ONLY NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SITE RE -VEGETATION. 4. WROUGHT IRON OR SOME (OTHER) APPROPRIATE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE FIFTEEN FOOT RIPARIAN APRON, EXCEPT WHERE WASH ACCESS IS PROVIDED. 5. DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO DRAIN DRY AND TO BE USED AS RECREATION AREAS. 6. CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK SYMBOL SHALL BE LIMITED TO SINGLE STORY AND 18 FEET. IF HOUSES ARE SITED ON THEIR SIDE, THE SET BACK SHALL BE 20-FEET. 7. 50% OF THE LOTS ALONG LA CANADA ROAD SHALL BE S INGLE STORY AND 18 FEET. 8. THERE WILL BE NO ENCROACHMENT IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN UNLESS APPROVED BY TOWN ENGINEER. 9. A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE FORMED FOR THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH SHALL BE CHARGED WITH PRESERVATION OF THE PROTECTED RIPARIAN HABITAT IN AN UNDISTURBED STATE. 1.7 AC 1.7 AC 25 5pace5 �Illllllllle 18,000 5f 10,000 5f NO: R.1-36 PROPOSED ZONII\G: RI-7 A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED AT 1HE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT (PER ORO VALLEY ZOI`1I NG CODE ARTICLE 14-101). THE TANGERINE OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE AF'TICLE 10-0) APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE REQUIRED 50' NO ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE. THE RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE ARTICLE 10-7) APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. A FIFTEEN FOOT SETBACK SHALL BE PRESERVED ALONG THE HABITAT CORRIDOR AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. WITHIN THIS AREA ALL EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PRESERVED. APPLI 1.8 AC 1.7 AC � CANT: 2.9 OPTION B n[anninn resources planning landscape architecture urban design development consultants 270 North Church Avenue, Tucson AriArizona 85701 ■ (520) 628-1118 fax: 628-7637 2111 East Broadway, Ste. 14, Tempe 85282 (602) 921-0208 fax:921-9561 28 '» 33 33 A J L SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 11 S, RANGE 13 E; PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA LOCATION MAP SCALE, 3' = 1 Mile I - I n 0 0.5 Mile r)-7 r)CZ LEGEND • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BUFFERYARD SETBACK LINE — — — FUTURE ROW _ — - T.O.V. DRAINAGE EASEMENT 0 0 0 o a TELEPHONE EASEMENT ELECTRIC EASEMENT -- - DRAINAGE PROPERTY LINE 404 JURISDICTION BOUNDARY EXISTING SEWER AS °AS AS AS- EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE Hw Ill HN--- HW-- EXISTING WATER LINE — — — 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY FLOW ARROW TRAFFIC CIRCULATION DIRECTION O.S. — OPEN SPACE 15' RIPARIAN SETBACK SINGLE STORY ONLY PARCELS 219-47-0170, 01807 0050, 0060, 004A, 004B, 004c ON TANGERINE ROAD AND LA CA NADA ROAD REZONING FROM RI-144 AND SR(P.C.) TO RI-72 AND C-N SCALE: I'=100'-011 CONTOUR INTERVAL: I FOOT