Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV110406F VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC 1121 WEST WARNER ROAD SUITE 109 TEMPE, ARIZONA 85284 (480) 831-2000, (480) 893-1604 FAX June 15, 2004 Chuck Sweet Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Subject: Parcel, Neighborhood 3 V Dear Chuck, I would like to request that Parcel 3-C be pulled from the up coming Mayor and Counsel hearing. Please hold it pending resolution with Ventan If there are any additional questions please contact me. Sincerely, X�;� /' " ' 0—t, Richard Moes 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 June 25, 2004 Mr. Dick Maes Vistoso Partners 945 W. Vistoso Highlands Drive Oro Valley, AZ 95737 Fax: (520) 219-8000 RE: OV11-04-05, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel T, Parcel No. 219-22-4220; OV11-04-06, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Parcel C, a portion of 219-20-052K; and OV11-04-07, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 7, Parcel I, 219-54-002E. Dear Mr. Maes: The Oro Valley Town Council considered the above -referenced request for General Plan land use designation amendments at their June 16, 2004 hearing. The Council voted to deny the Neighborhood 7, Parcel I request (OV11-04-07) and voted to continue to their July 7, 2004 hearing the Neighborhood 10, Parcel I request (OV11-04-05). The Council continued the N10, PI request in order to give you time to prepare and submit for their consideration a market study regarding the viability, or non -viability, of commercial development in the vicinity of N 10, PI. Mr. Bryant Nodine will need this market study by Monday, June 28, 2004 in order to prepare an analysis and recommendation from staff to the Council for their July 7, 2004 packets. Please submit this report, and a cover letter for Council consideration, to our Development Coordinatior, Ms. Shirley Gay. Please also note that the Planning Commission continued their consideration of the Neighborhood 3, Parcel C General Plan amendment (OV11-04-06) to their July 7, 2004 hearing. We believe that you have withdrawn this application and we will convey this to the Commission at their July hearing. If you have not withdrawn this application, please advise Mr. Bryant Nodine immediately so that we can prepare a staff report on this case for the July 7"' Commission hearing. Mr. Nodine can be reached at (520) 229- 4807. If you have any questions about these applications before July 7th, please feel free to call Mr. Nodine or, after that date, please call me at 229-4814 or email me at smontanaLO)orovalley.net. I look forward to working with you to process this request in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Planner II C: Shirley Gay, Bryant Nodine, Bayer Vella, TOV; Charles Hulsey, Linda Thompson, WLB, Fax: 318-6170 www.townoforovalley.com 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 Linda Thompson and Charles Hulsey WLB Group 4444 East Broadway Tucson, AZ 85711 Fax: (520) 881-7492 (CH) & 318-6170 (LT) RE: OV11-04-05, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel T, Parcel No. 219-22-4220; OVII-04-06, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Parcel C, a portion of 219-20-052K; and OVII-04-07, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 7, Parcel I, 219-54-002E. Dear Ms. Thompson and Mr. Hulsey: We have received a facsimile transmittal from Mr. Brandon Wolfswinkel of Vistoso Partners verifying that the WLB Group is authorized to represent the property owners in the above -referenced General Plan amendment requests. I expect that the letter, with original signature, will arrive soon by U.S. Mail; therefore, I deem the applications complete. We will schedule the requests for initiation by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April 6, 2004 hearing. Should they approve the initiation, staff will prepare the case reports for a May 5, 2004 Commission hearing on the amendments. As mentioned previously, the Applicant is encouraged to submit a letter that addresses the four "findings of fact" required to be made by the Commission and Town Council for a General Plan amendment. The four findings of fact are found on page 1-3 of the July 1996 "Focus 2020 Town of Oro Valle General Plan". Although not required by Section 3-005.A, it would be appropriate because the Applicant's analysis may differ from that of Town staff and the findings of fact analysis is a central component of the review. If you have any questions about these applications, please feel free to call me at 229-4814 or email me at smontana(<�orovalle-y.net. I look forward to working with you to process this request in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Planner II C: Shirley Gay, Bryant Nodine, Bayer Vella www.townoforovalley.com Tistoso partners March 19, 2004 Town of Oro Valley Planning Department 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 To Whom It May Concern: Sent Via Fax to 520-297-0428 This letter is written as verification that the WLB Group is authorized to represent Vistoso Partners in the P.A.D. amendment and platting of Parcels 10-T, 7-I, and 3-C. Sincerely, Brandon Wolfswinkel Member/Manager State of Arizona ) ) ss. County of Maricopa ) Certified, sworn to, and subscribed before me this �A4 day of j1� , 2004. otary Public My Commission Expires 11'2f-os-- NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ARMNA MARICOPA COUNTY KARLA WILSON Arty Comrnlssion Exp*es Nov. 28, 2M 1121 'West `Warner Toad, Suite 109 `Tempe, ,Arizona. 85Z84 480-8 31-Z000 0 jax 480-89 3-1604 03/17/04 14:50 FAX 480 893 1604 VISTOSO PARTNERS 1@002 c -- -- OV4 "Vistoso partners March 17, 2004 Town of Oro Valley Planning Department 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85731 To Whom It May Concern: , Sent Via Fax to 520-297-0428 This letter is written as verification that the WLB Group is authorized to represent Vistoso Partners in the General Plan amendment of Parcels 10-T, 7-1, and 3-C. Sincerely, Brandgn Wolfswinkel Memb?r/Manager State f Arizona ) • ) ss. Countv of Maricopa ) sworn to, and subscribed before me this ! day of )lMzK, 2004. i Public My Crmmission Expires: i =" r nz 1 `West cWanwr 1�toa4 Suite 109 qempe, arizona. 85284 10 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 16, 2004 Linda Thompson and Charles Hulsey WLB Group 4444 East Broadway Tucson, AZ 85711 Fax: (520) 881-7492 RE: OV11-04-05, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel T, Parcel No. 219-22-4220; OV11-04-06, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Parcel C, a portion of 219-20-052K; and OV11-04-07, General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 7, Parcel I, 219-54-002E. Dear Ms. Thompson and Mr. Hulsey: The Town of Oro Valley staff has reviewed the March 9, 2004 General Plan Amendment applications for the above -referenced properties. The applications are deemed incomplete because they do not meet the owner signature requirements of Section 3-005 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR), specifically the requirement that the application be signed by the property owner(s). The property owner, Vistoso Partners, LLC, is a corporation and, therefore, the application must include a list of the corporate owners and the names of the corporate officers. The corporate officers must sign an affidavit that designates your firm as the authorized agent for the application. In addition, Section 3-005 requires that the application include "substantiation" for the amendment. The case report to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council must address the four "findings of fact" for a General Plan amendment. The second paragraph of your application letters do not present "substantiation" with regard to the four findings of fact found on page 1-3 of the July 1996 "Focus 2020 Town of Oro Valle General Plan". Although not required by Section 3-005.A, it would serve your client well if you would include in your application a letter or attachment that addresses the four findings of fact, which 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." www.townoforovalley.com v March 16, 2004 Ms. Thompson and Mr. Hulsey OV11-04-05, 06 and 07 Page 2 of 2 Your discussion on 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. If you have any questions about these applications, please feel free to call me at 229-4814 or email me at smontana(a,orovalle .net. I look forward to working with you to process this request in a timely fashion. Sincerely, --� 7441QOI—� Susana Montana, Planner II C: Shirley Gay, Bryant Nodine, Bayer Vella AFFIDAVIT'-'r PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA) :ss. COUNTY OF PIMA) JAM 7 E C. i' AC, i AS 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 20 was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: Request of day of ; that said publication Daily Territorial By Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 OPFICIAL SCA ROBFIE J�� t . P11.1A IJflfli<_ . My COMM 1. 20 Notar_IytFfi��th� i�y�ta' of Arizona My Commission Expires: I i I -0 (( NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Sec- tion 3-005 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GEN- ERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on TUESDAY, May 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV11- 04-06, THE WLB GROUP, REPRE- SENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) _TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNA- TION FROM COMMERCE PARK (CP) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL (MHDC) FOR A 4.5 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL C OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 3, LO- CATED AT THE END OF N. VISTOSO VILLAGE DRIVE, EAST OF E. INNO- VATION PARK DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 219-20-052K. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning Is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). Members of the public are invited to at- tend 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, Plan- ner 11, at 229-4814 or smontana@oro- valley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial April 16, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrov11-04-06 ap (, \\-Cy, C �'f MAR 0 9 2004 The WLB Group Inc. March 2, 2004 Mr. Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning & Zoning Administrator Town of Oro Valley Development Services Center 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Engineering • Planning Surveying • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Re: Neighborhood 3, Parcel C of the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (PAD) Approximately 4.5 Acres A Portion of Tax Parcel 219-20-052K Request to Amend the Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan WLB Job No. 185050-A-071 Dear Mr. Nodine: We are writing on behalf of the owner of the property, Vistoso Partners, LLC, to request an amendment to the Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan for the approximately 4.5-acre Neighborhood 3, Parcel C. This request is to amend to the land use designation from Commerce Park (CP) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR). The owner of this parcel is responding to market demand and wishes to build single- family, site -built detached homes on this parcel. The construction of homes on this parcel will be consistent with current surrounding land uses as well as current adjacent zoning. Presuming an approval of this requested amendment to the General Plan, the owner wishes to process an application to change the zoning from Campus Park Industrial "CPI" (Rancho Vistoso PAD) to Medium High Density Residential "MHDR" (Rancho Vistoso PAD). Based on the Development Services Fee Schedule, we have determined that the required fees for this request are $1,800. Please apply this amount to the account maintained by the Town on behalf of Vistoso Partners, LLC. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas • E-mail: tucson@wlbgroup.corn 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona 85711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 Should you have any questions regarding this request or require additional information, please call Rob Longaker or me at (520) 881-7480. Sincerely, THE WLB GROUP, INC. arles Hulsey, A.I.C.P. Vice President Land Planning and Landscape Architecture L:\185050\Neigh3\Parcel C\GP Amend letter.doc ..* 4 VENTANA ^ r VENTANA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. Manufacturing Operations 1910 Innovation Park Drive Tucson, AZ 85737 Phone. (520) 2294026 or (800) 227-2155 Fax (520) 229-5820 June 7, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Commission Members: I am writing to express Ventana Medical Systems' concern with regard to the proposed changes in land use designation adjacent to our property in the Rancho Vistoso Tech Park. Our decision to locate our North American Operations and Corporate Headquarters in Oro Valley was largely based on an understanding that our 39.5 acre property parcel was part of a much larger planned industrial site focused on attracting high tech and research based organizations. We are now concerned that the town is considering re -zoning for residential housing and schools a section of this larger industrial and open space. It is our opinion that our manufacturing, R&D and commercial activities should not be encroached upon by residential or school properties. Ventana Medical is a $1 billion market cap enterprise with near term growth potential for annual sales of between $500 million and $1 billion dollars. As our growth continues, we expect to approach 1000 highly paid employees at our manufacturing, research and development and world wide administrative offices in Oro Valley. While we are confident that you will take all constituencies into account in reaching your decision with respect to this re -zoning, please understand that your decision will impact our future development. Accordingly, we are placing our current expansion plans on hold pending resolution of this matter. In addition we will seek concessions from the developers on the parcels where construction has already begun and upon which we were not advised or consulted Ventana Medical has tried to be a good corporate citizen and partner to the Town of Oro Valley and both our Company and the Town have benefited from this relationship. We are growing at better than 20% per year and have created 113 new jobs since arriving in Oro Valley. Ventana is active in the community both on Boards and by sponsoring local community events and will be the start - finish line for next year's Oro Valley marathon. This is an important issue to our Company and we would like to request that we have the opportunity to weigh in and comment on any further actions in any parcel within the commercial/high tech areas whose boundaries include the area within the Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, Big Wash, Oracle Road and Tangerine Road. I Regards, Michael Gaul Vice President Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. Cc: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager Town Council members Jeff Weir, Economic Development Director H. Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director Robert Green Integrated Biomolecule Corp. Scott Aldridge, Western National Parks Association 04/19/2004 10:08 FAX 520 881 7A02 WLB GROUP CRI002/002 9 ,Fiindings of Fact Parcel 3C©J - 06�7 1. Changing Parcel 3C to residential is a reflection of the change in Land Use on Parcel N-3B from commercial to residential. 2. Changing NX from CPI to MDR meets 2 of the 3 policies in goal 4.1 and with goal 4.2. 3. We do not meet the third finding of fact. 4. Revising Parcel 3C to residential has no impact on the Town as a whole. Parcel71 67V1 ) 'eLj- r 6, -91 1. Change the area west of the wash to residential is more in keeping with the existing residential development in the area. 2. Changing the western portion of the parcel meets 2 of the 3 policies in goal 4.1 and with goal 4.2. 3. We do not meet the third finding of fact. 4. Revising the western portion of Parcel 71 has not impact on the community as a whole. Parcel 10T ' V I) ` P� - d 1. Changing this parcel from commercial to residential is more in keeping with the residential development in the area. 2. Revising Parcel T to a residential use meets 2 of the 3 policies for Goal 4.1 and Goal 4.2. 3_ We do not meet the criteria set forth in the third finding of fact. 4. Revising Parcel T to residential has no impact on the community as a whole. qPage 1 of 1 Montana, Susana From: Montana, Susana Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:47 PM To: 'Ithompson@wlbgroup.com' Cc: Vella, Bayer; Gay, Shirley Subject: General Plan amendments, OV11-04-05, 06 and 07 (Rancho Vistoso) Linda, I am preparing the staff reports for the three Rancho Vistoso General Plan amendments your firm submitted and I do not have any Findings of Fact rationale from the Applicant. In my March 17, 2004 certification letter to you I recommended that you submit these for each application so I can present the Applicant's view to the Commission. The staff report is formatted in such a way that staff presents the Applicant's version of how the applicant responds to each finding of fact, then we present our analysis. Without the Applicant's version, all I can present is my analysis. If that is OK with you, I will proceed. However, if you wish to submit your Findings of Fact for each application, I will need them faxed to me by Monday, April 19, 2004 at 9 AM. Thank you. Attached is the March 17, 2004 certification letter. 4/16/2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- 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 (MHDC) 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 smontana@orovalley.net. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- , OVI1-04-06, 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 (MHDC) 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 smontana@orovalley.net. 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, May 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: 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 (MHDC) 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 smontana@orovalley.net. Posted: 4-14-04 Bayer Vella, MCP Time: 1: 3 0 p.m. Senior Planner By: s g F:\OV\OV 11\2004\11-04-06\Notice\PZ.Notice 5-4-04.doe F:\OV\OV11\2004\11-04-06\Notice\PZ.Notice 5-4-04.doc AFFIDAVIT O1�UBLICATION 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 OF I•'IC AR IL NIZ"1 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 20 was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: Request of day of that said publication Daily Territorial By Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1 at i-. 20 u 4JAWOE G MAICIAS bac IAri3�4na PUMA CO'i t�f cn E -eires Notary Pu " tiSQ�i�fra2 e o Arizona F 1S11 « My Commission Expires: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9462 and Sec- tion 3-005 of the Oro- Valley Zoning Code Revised, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED GEN- ERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 i PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESO- LUTION (R) 04- OV11-04-06. THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VIS- TOSO 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 (MHDC) FOR A 4.5 ACRE PORTION OF PAR- CEL C OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGH- BORHOOD 3, LOCATED AT THE END OF N. VISTOSO VILLAGE DRIVE, EAST OF_E. aNNOVATION_RARK —_ -- --- ---- DRIVE, PARCEL NO.219-20-052K The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). Members of the public are invited to at- tend 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, Plan- ner II, at 229-4814 or smontana@oro- valley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovl14)4-06 ap The Daily Territorial PAGE 21 Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 25, 2004 June 1,A, 2004 Req: Attorney General hriarin all NOTICE OF ADOPTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA JUVENILE DIVISION In re the Adoption of JOSHUA K. SIRAVO, d.o.b. 09/03/92 A Minor. No, B- NOTICE OF ADOPTION TO POTENTIAL FATHER Notice is hereby given to ENIS CHERAMIE, JR. as follows: You have been identified by BEVERLY J. JOHNSON, that you are the father of JOSHUA K. SIRAVO, who was born September 3, 1992 In New Orleans, Louisiana. You are informed of the folbwlrhg: 1. BEVERLY J. JOHNSON plans to place the child for adoption. 2. Under Arizona Revised Statutes §8- 106 and 8-107, youhave the right to consent or to withhold consent to the adoption. 3. Your written consent to the adoption is irrevocable once you give it: ' 4. If you withhold consent to the adoption, you must Initiate paternity proceeding under Title 25, chapter 6, Article 1, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and to serve the norther within thirty (30) days of completion of the service of this notice. S. You have an obligation to proceed to judgment In the paternity action. 6. You have the right to seek custody of the child. 7. If you areestablished as the child's father, you must begin to provide financial support for the chili. 8. If you do not file a paternity action pursuant to Title 25, Chapter 6, Article 1 and do not serve the mother within thirty (30) days of completion of the service of this notice and pursue the action to judgment, you cannot bring or maintain any action to assert any interest in the child. 9. The Indian child welfare act may supersede the Arizona Revised Statutes regarding adoption and paternity. 10. You may wish to consult with an attorney to assist you in responding to this notice. DATED this 121h day of May, 2004, /s/ BEVERLY J. JOHNSON 7995 N. Iron Ridge Dr. Tucson, AZ 85743 CURTIS & CUNNINGHAM Attorneys at Law By: /s/ MARJORIE FISHER CUNNINGHAM Attorney for the Birthmother . THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE., IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THIS NOTICE, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT AN ATTORNEY. YOUR RIGHT TO PARENT YOUR CHILD WILL BE LOST IF YOU DO NOT ACT TO ESTABLISH YOUR PATERNITY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS. NO FURTHER NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 25, Z004 June 1, 8, 2004 Req: Curtis li Cunningham hmiravo jw NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL In accordance with ARS 9-082 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 . PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North Le Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- 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 (MHDC) FOR 4 14 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL I OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD r, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD, PARCEL NO. 219-54-002E. The subject parcel is approximately 14 acres In size and the zoning is Community Commercial (C-1) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD), except for areas within a wash that are designated as Open Space (OS). 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 smontana(igorovalley. net Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovii-04-07 ap NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m, on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- , 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 (MHDC) 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 11, at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. Pub: The Deily Territorial May 18, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrov11-04-06ap ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. M. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004• PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- 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 (MHDC) FOR THE 5.99 ACRE "PARCEL T" OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MOORE ROAD, EAST OF THE PROPOSED LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION AND APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET EAST OF KING AIR DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 219-22-4220. The subject parcel is 5.99 acres in size and the zoning Is Community Commercial (C) within the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (RV PAD). .. 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 11, at 229-4814 or amontana@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovl 1-04-05 ap NOTICE OF HEARING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA In the Matter of the Guardianship of ARMANDO BRAVO d.o.b. 620/88 NO. GC 20040304 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Petition ("the Petition") for Appointment of ANNETTI MORGAN as Guardian of a Minor has been filed with the above - referenced Court. A hearing has been set to consider the Petition on the 15th day of June, 2004, at the hour of 10:30 am. before the Probate Commissioner of this Court at 110 W. Congress St. Tucson, Arizona 85701 in a Courtroom to be assigned. An objection to the Petition may be made either by filing a written response with the Court at least five (5) days prior to said hearing date or by appearing in person or through an attorney at the time and place set forth herein. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING YOUR INTERESTS. This matter may not be independently Investigated or verified by the court. If you object to any part of the petition, you must file a written objection with the court describing the legal basis for your objection. Failure to file a written objection may jeopardize your Interests. Without your written objection, you should expect that the requested relief will be granted. If you question any other action of the fiduciary, file an appropriate written petition or motion with the court. This Is a legal matter. If you have questions, seek legal advise from an attorney. You have the right to represent yourself. If you represent yourself you must correctly follow court procedures. PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE RE: BRAVO DATED this 29 day of March, 2004. PHILLIP H. LARRIVA, P.C. By: /s/ Phillip H. Larriva, P. C. Attorney for Minor FILED PATRICIA A. NOLAND CLERK SUPERIOR COURT 2004 APR 29 AM 9:20 BY: N. Quijada, Deputy PUBLISH: The Daily Territorial May 18, 25, 2004 June 1, 2004 hrbravo jw "ANNEXATION" PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Town Council of the Town of Marano will hold a public hearing on June 1, 2004, at or after 7:00 p.m., in the Mayor and Council Chambers, Town Hall, 13251 N. Lon Adams Road, Marano, Arizona, to consider the following: South Neighbors Annexation: PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that consideration will be given to the annexation of approximately 28 acres in portions of Section 29, in Township 11 South, Range 13 East, Gila & Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona. 3 nr e I t a- For a legal description and other information regarding this matter, call Dick Greer with the Town of Marano at (520)682.3401. Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 2004 Req: Town of Manna hr8.1.04 ap NOTICE OF HEARING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA In the Matter of the Conservatorship of Yolanda Bejarano Galvan DOB: 220/1943 A Person In Need Of Protection. NO. G21287 NOTICE OF HEARING The Petition for Release of Funds will be heard before this court on June 10th, 2004, at 10:00 o'clock a.m, at the Pima. County Court, 110 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Dated 5/10/04. /a/ Robert B. Fleming Petitioner You are responsible to protect your own interests This matter may not be Independently Investigated or verified by the court. If you object to any part of the petition, you must file a written objection with the court describing the legal basis for your objection. Failure to fib a written objection may jeopardize your Interests. Without your written objection, you should expect that the requested relief Will be granted. If you question any other action of the fiduciary, fib an appropriate written petition or motion with the Court. This is a legal matter. If you have questions seek legal advice from an attorney. You have the right to represent yourself. If you represent yourself you must correctly follow court procedures. COPY MAY 12 2004 PATRICIA A. NOLAND CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT Pub: The Daily Territorial May 18, 19, 20, 2004 Req: Fleming 3 Curd, PLC hrgalvan jw NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA JUVENILE DIVISION In the Matter of:. Eddings, Shandy (DOB: 3122/87) Case NO.: 15910800 NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING ON DEPENDENCY PETITION Hon. Suzanne S. Cuneo TO: Joseph De Larl Eddings Address Unknown 1. JOHN C. GILMORE, JR. , Esq.. has filed a verified Dependency Petition pursuant to A.R.S. §8.841, et seq., alleging the above -named child tobe dependent within the meaning of ARS § 8-201, et seq. ' 2. The Court has set a Published Initial Hearing as to the. father for the 17th day of June, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Suzanne S. Cunco of the Pima County Superior Court, 2225 E. Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona, 85713, telephone (520) 740-2000. 3. You are hereby advised that your failure to personally appear In court without good cause shown may result In a finding that you have waived your legal rights and have admitted the allegations in the petition. In addition, if you fall to personally appear in court without good cause shown, the hearings may go forward In your absence and may result in an adjudication of dependency, termination of your parental rights or the establishment of a permanent guardianship based upon the record and the evidence presented to the Court. 4, You are entitled to have legal counsel represent you in this matter. You may hire your own attorney, or if you cannot afford and want to be represented by an attorney, one may be appointed by the Court. 5. If you are receiving this notice by publication, you may obtain a copy of the Dependency Petition and Temporary Orders by submitting a written request to: John C. Glimore,. Jr., Esq., 3125 E. 2nd Street, Tucson, Arizona 85716. 6. A request for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities must be made to the court by parties at least three (3) working days in advance of a scheduled court Proceeding and can be made by calling (520)740-2000. DATED this _day of APR 28, 2004. PATRICIA A. NOLAND, Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- , 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 (MHDC) FOR A 4.5 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL C OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATED AT THE END OF N. VISTOSO VILLAGE DRIVE, EAST OF E. INNOVATION PARK DRIVE, PARCEL NO.219-20-052K. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 smontana@orovalley.net. - VZ1 J, Bayer Vella, AICP Senior Planner F:\OV\OV11\2004\11-04-06\Notice\TC.Notice 6-16-04.doc Posted: 5-14-04 Time: 2:30 p.m. By: sg F:\OV\OV11\2004\11-04-06\Notice\TC.Notice 6-16-04.doc APRIL 16, 2004 claims will be forever barred. Claims must be presented by delivering or mailing a written statement of the claim to the Personal Representative or attorney at the address listed below. DATED: April 7, 2004 MESCH, CLARK & ROTHSCHILD, P.C. By /s/ Jonathan Rothschild Attorneys for Personal Representative Pub: The Daily Territorial April 9, 16, 23, 2004 Req: Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, PC crreyes jw NOTICE. TO CREDITORS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA In the Matter of the Estate of DOROTHY McCAULERY, (D.O.B. 03/15/21) No. PB 20040443 - NOTICE TO CREDITORS (for publication) NOTICE IS GIVEN that Ruth Ann McCauley has been appointed Personal Representative of this estate. All persons having claims against the estate are required to present their claims within four months after the date 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 Personal Representative or attorney at the address listed below: BOGUTZ & GORDON, P.C. 3503 N. Campbell, Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85719 DATED: 4/6/04, 2004. BOGUTZ & GORDON, P.C. By: /s/ Timothy M. Struse, Attorney for Personal Representative Pub: The Daily Territorial April 9, 16, 23, 2004 Req: Bogutz & Gordon, PC crmccauley jw NOTICE TO CREDITORS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA In the Matter of the Estate of: RUTH S. McCABE, DOB: 10/20/1910, Deceased. NO. PB20040423 NOTICE TO CREDITORS (For Publication) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert A. McCabe, Peter F. McCabe, and Charles B. McCabe, III, have been appointed Ancillary Co -Personal Representatives of this Estate. All persons having claims against the Estate are required to present their claims within four months after the date 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 Ancillary Co -Personal Representatives, c/o James K. Marvel, Attorney for Ancillary Co -Personal Representatives, 6700 North Oracle Road, Suite 504, Tucson, Arizona 85704. DATED: April 5, 2004. /s/ James K. Marvel Attorney for Ancillary Co -Personal Representatives Pub: The Daily Territorial April 9, 16, 23, 2004 Req: James K. Marvel crmccabe jw Hearing Notice 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, May 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona. . SUBJECT: 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 (MHDC) FOR A 14 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. The subject parcel is approximately 14 acres in size and the zoning is Community Commercial (C-1) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD), except for areas within a wash that are designated as Open Space (OS). 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 11, at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial April 16, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovl1-04-07 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, May 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hell, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: 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 (MHDC) 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 11, at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial April 16, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrov11-04-06 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, May 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: 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) The Daily Territorial TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDC) FOR A 5.99 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL T OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MOORE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET EAST OF KING AIR DRIVE, PARCEL NO. 219-22.4220. The subject parcel is 5.99 acres in size and the zoning is Community Commercial (C) within the Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 11, at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial April 16, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovl1-04-05 ap NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9-462 and Section 3-108 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 MAY 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: 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 The property owner requests a General Plan Amendment on 2.874 acres from Commercial Park to Community Commercial. If the amendment is approved and the site is annexed into the Town, it would enable a future rezoning application to C-1 or C-2 for commercial development. LOCATION: The property is located on the southeast corner of Rams Field Pass and Oracle Road. The property is located in Pima County outside the Town limits. - DESCRIPTION: The General Plan Amendment proposal is available for review at the Oro Valley Town Hall Development Services Building, 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona, during normal business hours. 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 mater, please contact Robert Conant at (520) 229-4800 or at bconant@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial April 16, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrovll-04-04 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, May 4,2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: 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 LOTS 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 SIDES OF LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD, PARCELS 225-112-360 & 224-360-13A The applicant has proposed a land use change to the 1996 Town of Oro Valley General Plan for two properties. Both properties are approximately ten acres in size. 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 24hours prior to meeting time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact David Ronquillo, Planner I, at 229-4817 or dronquillo@orovalley.net. Pub: The Daily Territorial April 16, 2004 Req: Town of Oro Valley hrov11-04-03 ap NOTICE OF HEARING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA JUVENILE COURT In the Matter of NELSON, DARLENE dob 06/30/88 No. J164674 SUPP CITATION NOTICE OF HEARING (Publication) Judge Cuneo TO: ALLISON TAVANO Address Unknown JOHN DOE (Alleged father) Address unknown The Arizona Department of Economic Security has filed a Dependency Petition in the above -entitled cause alleging the above -named child to be dependent within the meaning of A.R.S. §8-201, at seq., as amended. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a publication hearing on the Petition is set for June 30, 2004, at 8:30 A.M., in the courtroom of this Court located at 2225 East Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona. You may appear at the hearing and be represented by counsel. The Court will appoint counsel upon a showing of lack of financial ability to retain your own counsel. You are hereby advised that your failure to personally appear in court without good cause shown may result in a finding that you have waived your legal rights, including your right to a trial by jury In a termination of Parental Rights Proceedings and have admitted the allegations in the petition. In addition, if you fail to personally appear in court without good cause shown, the hearings may go forward in your absence and may result In an adjudication of dependency, termination of your parental rights or the establishment of a permanent guardianship based upon the record and the evidence presented to the court. Proceedings, to terminate parental rights can also occur based upon the grounds set forth in A.R.S. § 8- 533. If the Court determines that efforts to reunify a parent or guardian with a child would not be reasonable, the Court is not required to 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 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 is 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 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 118 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 mining,& Zoning Commission MeetiRl Minutes 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 Mning & Zoning Commission MeetillU knutes 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 PRAning & Zoning Commission Meet /linutes 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 PA ning & Zoning Commission Meet inutes 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 P11kning & Zoning Commission MeetA%inutes 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 I lAning & Zoning Commission MeetQ Minutes 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 P 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 RAning & Zoning Commission Meetigl-klinutes 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 dining & Zoning Commission MeetiRl 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 Planning & Zoning Commission Meet/linutes 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 McAl 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 3`d 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 Aning & Zoning Commission Mee4RJ 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 PlAkning & Zoning Commission MeeJ114Vlinutes 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 Phning & Zoning Commission Meetwinutes 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 15th 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 15th. 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 10t'? 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 s::?_ TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 4, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Susana Montana, Planner II SUBJECT: 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 BACKGROUND: Location The 4.5 acre portion of Parcel C (the "Site'), which is the subject of this General Plan amendment request, is accessed from the terminus (dead end) of N. Vistoso Village Drive, east of E. Innovation Park Drive. Two separate riparian habitats (washes) border the Site on its western and eastern boundaries. Histo The Wolfswinkel Group put forth a Rancho Vistoso "Community Plan" in 1985. That Plan, adopted by Pima County, intended Rancho Vistoso to be a "self-sufficient, master -planned community to fit carefully and respectfully into the natural desert and mountain setting." The Plan's residential densities range from very low density (1 unitlacre) to high density (up to 25 units/acre) and were intended to: • site housing carefully within sensitive environmental conditions in the lower density areas, and • in the high density areas, to accommodate multi -family housing close to shopping (an example of which is the Splendido project on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Moore Road). The Site is one of the "Commerce Office Park" commercial areas of the Plan, serving the corporate office park use that encompasses a large part of the eastern portion of the Rancho Vistoso community, located in Neighborhood 3, Parcels A and B. A large regional commercial center is located south of the Site, south of Tangerine Road and west of Oracle Road (the Neighborhood 4, "Vestar" shopping area site) and a neighborhood commercial center is located north of the site at Oracle Road and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard ( the `Bashas" shopping center). SITE DESCRIPTION: Subiect Parcel The subject parcel is an approximately 4.5 acre portion of the 8.55 acre Parcel C. The zoning is Campus Park Industrial within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). The site is a narrow ridge that wraps around a drainage in the central and western portions of the site. The elevation change is approximately 20' from the bottom of the drainage to the top of the ridge. It is undeveloped with washes bordering the east and west boundaries. The surrounding properties are: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 South: undeveloped Campus Park Industrial across a planned roadway West: open space North: undeveloped, platted medium density residential East: open space General Area: The Site's environs are: • overall the surrounding areas are designated in the Plan and zoned for office park uses; and • a 3 building, 182,000 square feet (so medical -related office, warehouse and light manufacturing complex (Ventana Medical has been developed to the west of the Site.) The Site and environs are described below and can be viewed on the attached map and aerial photo. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: Per the application letter (Attachment 2): The owner of this parcel is responding to market demand and wishes to build single-family, site -built detached homes on this parcel. The construction of homes on this parcel will be consistent with the land uses to the north. Presuming an approval of this requested amendment to the General Plan, the owner wishes to process an application to change the zoning from Campus Park Industrial "CPP' (Rancho Vistoso PAD) to Medium High Density Residential "MHDR" (Rancho Vistoso PAD). GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: 1996 Land Use Map: The current (1996) General Plan Land Use Map designates the Site as Commerce Park (CP). The Site environs are designated as follows (see also attached General Plan Land Use Map): Current 1996 General Plan Designation Location Ad'acentLand;UseDesi ation ;''Dens Alloyved Site Commerce Park N/A North (RV Parcel Neighborhood Commercial N/A B East (Open Open Space N/A Space) West (Open Commerce Park N/A Space, and further west is Parcel I: Ventana Medical Systems) Please note that the PAD zoning allows a higher density than the General Plan designation would allow. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 Proposed Land Use Man. The proposed General Plan amendment would designate the Site as Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) which would allow 5 to 10 RAC. Should this designation be approved, the Applicant would seek to change the Planned Area Development (zoning map) designation for the Site to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) which would allow 6 to 8 RAC. 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 landowner or owners at a particular point in time. " Applicant's response: "Changing Parcel 3C to residential is a reflection of the change in Land Use on Parcel N-3B from commercial to residential." Staff anal,: The TOV General Plan reflects the goal of the 1985 Rancho Vistoso Community Plan and the 1987 PAD, both of which sought a mixture of uses to service the "master planned community". The existing General Plan designation of Commerce Park for the Site satisfies these goals. The Site will be accessible by a proposed street that winds its way through the corporate office park to the west and connects to the proposed commercial and office park areas to the east. The Site is relatively isolated. A medium -density, suburban -style, single-family home plat has been recorded for Parcel B to the north, yet it has not been developed. Changing the designation to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) improves the Plan by creating a similar use to the approved use to the north. However, it detracts from the Plan because of the site's isolation (only accessible from a minor street which passes through the corporate park) and the potentially - incompatible uses of the light industrial uses to the east and west. It should be noted that these were the same concerns in the parcel to the north, but this development was a permitted use in the Oracle Road Overlay District. 2. "That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan. " Applicant's response: "Changing N3C from CPI to MDR meets 2 of the 3 policies in goal 4.1 and with goal 4.2. " TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 Staff analysis: A full analysis of compliance with the 1996 General Plan Policies is found as Attachment 5. Key policies germane to this application are presented below: Goal 4.1 seeks "To promote high quality residential neighborhoods." The proposed General Plan amendment would allow a rezoning which would constitute an amendment to the Rancho Vistoso PAD land use map. Any residential development within the PAD would be required to follow the development standards and guidelines of the PAD which, in the past, has resulted in high quality residential neighborhoods. However, in this case, there may be office park, light industrial uses in three directions, which could negatively impact the quality of the neighborhood. This goal is not met, with the current designations to the west, south and east. Goal 4.2 seeks "To ensure a jobs/housing balance within the greater Oro Valley region." Changing the land use designation to residential from office park may not further the goal of balancing jobs and housing within the Town. On one hand, housing on the site would be adjacent to the employment provided in the surrounding area. On the other hand, the Town is deficient in employment, particularly employment that can afford the average price of housing in Town; that of a technical occupation which is typically found in the CP land use. A preliminary analysis indicates that there may be a surplus of Commerce Park uses designated in this area. This analysis is not conclusive. Goal 3.1 seeks "To ensure long-term financial and economic sustainability for the Town of Oro Valley." Within this goal, Policy 3.1.D. seeks "A diverse economic base is desired to reduce Oro Valley's dependence on revenues from growth." Employment is part of that economic base. However, if there is a surplus of employment uses, it would not be utilized. [Note regarding school impacts: No information has been received from the school district and the school impact policies are worded so that they are applicable at the time of rezoning review.] 3. "That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment. " Applicant's response: "We do not meet the third finding of fact." Staff analysis: There are two other vacant sites designated for Medium High Density Residential within the Town: One on Oracle Road has been proposed for medium density development; the other in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 12 is proposed for casitas tied to the Ritz Carlton Resort. There are no other sites designated and available for this type of development. Thus, the proposal does meet this criterion. 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. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 Applicant's response: "Revising Parcel 3C to residential has no impact on the Town as a whole." Staff anal: Parcel C is an integral and important part of the Town's corporate office park complex. The office park is an important element to insure a diverse economic base for the Town. So, if there is not a surplus of office park land, the development of this site for residential uses may detract from the employment base of the Town. It also would increase the amount of residential area situated within office park uses. However, development of the site as an office park use could have impacts on the residential areas to the north. More information on the need for the Commerce Park designation and consideration of the ultimate uses to the east and south are needed to fully evaluate this finding. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: As required by State statute, public notification regarding the proposed amendment was given to adjacent property owners. At the time of report writing, no comments have been received. 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 A 1pp icant 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. Parcel B, immediately to the north, has been approved for a medium -density, single-family residential subdivision. 2. Preliminary indications are that there is an excess of Commerce Park land designated in the plan. 3. Finding number 3 is met. Factors Against: 1. The subdivision to the north has direct access to Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, whereas Parcel C is isolated and has circuitous access through existing or planned office park and commercial areas. 2. The loss of corporate office or light industrial -designated and zoned land within the Town's corporate office park may represent a loss of "high end" employment opportunities for the Town's residents. 3. With the information available at this time, it is not clear if the proposal meets findings number 1, 2, or 4. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 As a result, staff recommends denial of OVl 1-04-06, or a continuance to: (1) determine the need for this site as Commerce Park and (2) determine how the Commerce Park sites to the south and east should be developed. This site should not be considered in isolation. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following Motions: I move to recommend that Town Council deny OV11-04-06, finding that the proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) land use may result in a loss of a corporate office, employment -generating use, which would represent an adverse impact to the Town. OR I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-06, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from CP (Commerce Park) to Medium High Density Residential — MHDR (5 to 10 DU/ac) with the following conditions OR I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV11-04-06, a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from CP (Commerce Park) to Medium High Density Residential — MHDR (5 to 10 DU/ac). Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Application Letter 3. Site and Environs Aerial Photo 4. General Plan Existing Land Use Designation Map 5. General Plan Conformance Checklist c: Linda Thompson, WLB Group, Fax: 881-7492 Planm d Zoning Administrator F:\OV\OV 11\2004\11-04-06\Reports\PZC Report.doc µier M4 Attachment 1 - Location Map ,-- OV1 1 -04-06 - Parcel 21 9-20-052K 1 115 280 680 Feet GIS SERVICES: MARCH 2O04 wy:-4,,,+',.•-t"7� 1- h ►�•jt,,'�, yr ,_Gy'V,.,r,.. ,E,; tr4': 'a'.y"i.,f,}ii�jyL rr��,•.yl, •+_�,�:a j�+, •, r7y',.,�s+,y •S,tr,.-�f 'T � •�� r'r � � ..'t�,,,yy�` w`4id `� � �i�w�w .f._� r,ly �y' r.Yi �•i?Y"j`.!i, �i� `4• ��A. .. ; y �;'ai�?Y � , . 5,�. � f � s'."1'v ,�+,tM •���Awc t�,� aa,: .'°'t'�:�s. �►�3 '� `. . � -�&,"tr# Jet 4��. «"`�,; A ��r�,�f'•� ,��`: te t sa _�,+ r �i �> i.,':OA, i r1 �y '"�' 1 •� +� "+'�`:, r r�t f .:a�` �4 d• : a 3� f r�,r^+'' ` '�' '� `, a >+>< e.i tt � nir {. i . _. a +a s"i y �• <fl`'t ♦ b,. ,,��Ay -a. it r•. !'� `.,r�'��` i'° r i ,E ti'.Sv> ''t jJ _ri '�y, '��yyrty.i .r. iN r �r{ . f S r �t r ✓ J,, ' , r h- A A r E".,k. ! _ I► tF' "v1 • - e � '11r ` ,,.r� r'rfwri✓ � �'• �r 'C `' - � lC ; '•4 a Fa. %,c>p� ..,- t, �� �r .-, � ♦ ti 4 i ay< r -'. �t �1 -i };� r ' '`^�T t!ir`a r t h"" j �/ . � { �� � "�. .•-• i r�+, •a- ' i A:�. :d r �'. r, -' ' c.�� . !li t: , �� x yp"v;: ._x6 tr'�,: �•'v ,'�,a`4s � '�y w +� +r Y,Ar.. + •_' y� 1 f + �l' i�t*y:. �$ pSpg=� tt,•t ' • . � / ¢ fr� w • � �'�S x.' �• � �' +.+ "irk it SY a, a ��•• f' w�1.RC.. • ` i�#•:!''��i?<R1E� +. +6r ,:.Q..,'sa'f♦t Q erL Ly�.� S x!m,�;."+^Nje' « t c . + ,+�4. ' r..7�: y f:r �nrt/om'',1+• 1 p,',J.,•�' �. r♦ 'J►•ri +.•`y, tvp , f-^yn, �^2h,jov �p,4•4r!ar'`y.,�''', �•f K. >s,,'. ''•�7�. � .,lr,p r �.ram••.ti"t.* �T w✓•r'Ai'.y,�.':Y''.".'.,y'r■kr�•.•...v. r�r3;. it • •- y. t. I,.YM:ij2Mt�«Pb�i1,, yr:Yfa.� ,JS, �I,�r�iS..rfi •i it,e�,fti.♦• !i; ,yt-',''� {at FG.'.rfgt.' ..!4: y* r•Ir% 44yt.%y_ tr 7!bf"�.�ta•,«a.•�%+••;i' -', ar.J e'•• �s'• i ,may•," 1.^ y•, 1,,• V • M iyx•• 3 ar„`~'�f.r'"'a' 1 #C�. �„ "r'' Y? ii .:yt'V�r, T'� rir tdEr. y: 3"y ��;rra t. " �it� to a"t%Act. ..yit,� .,+^ i/61 O //+✓," `� Q ", t iti v �r : "L . $I' �H i ,_.ls�:rF ir' p'Fi!• truer ,, 'M.v ^ �',� '" t.. ��jE+. E4 rr♦� r• e , r a �; r• E. E i`,Y. Y. ��'c'C�,�Y!' .•,tei�• �' �i �. "0. '�.v:.a t <r.X... ,K.�•.� t, ��;� �ar�. � .I':�1 1.� r•: �'rt+aiew. .•«..w h ��` r. � � ��I ";r../'f. �' J # ,F,',rri'*5;:.w.! t•+,,,'�a �! LAL'+. i.`' a�' .►. r'' r °rliar„`'L • c `F� ,:�t� C9' iE`_+:�i:'Y w� w�,r,`,r��� � ► 's�'s.i. '� rf,. it �r�,•, :f :c. +�,`� ��k.1+, 1 y,. yI' - }i•t 0 �+`IF• �' 'ak, ,��'�"' +v%.., .1! . i• :t�''Lat, .a4j . 4•.: rrl,�• '�"i''�a 1�.1. .�y-'.-' • *�,y4raA, 4 r' . 'ti r a��y�r,•; '� 1 5i ~G3��i ; .' } ra;i'-„vj� E �S�K .ti���.'! ;i' ,'4 ,.M •Tr'!.a f'•:% �:•; 1.,i•;r4 :f. � !,�g •�,trr;`71'rr: , •c. „ �' • i � _.._.. u k �.. . "T�'•�•a¢,'i�;w�.• .{ :.kt A •i ,t } A"X. • ¢;r Y ;. Y T�I 'r _ - d ll/ ^-(> � `� '!�..,.,a h v Y , �y��r s ,+. i%!• �,1� a �a, i s S k'.� U� K�'.�.r • �^ `'.•. �-'lY..e`!' W r, :7��M ` 2;,�. '.w�KY�rh ry.'�� � ��•,ia�.? �Y < r r'•{ja���.=y c?c . t : , ! ``� y p �. • ?i •.y�,s s.. C :i k t.}�t�.rf� ••a' .s r• n rt..:rnt:�'r{ " •'.•, ;afT'"i� „VL, Y d.a� :.t•. .• F'�.,ys.► �R:• Sit@ try F, I+ ,'r� �.,,,, � v�,' .: 4 �I:,�R ::•?., w,.: �•�: a i� :. r^8"fryrd;., a �iY.: Y yM • -v,;.. 4!.. � � 'Yce���'�:'�+,+a{ G•, x �.f�i:�f ..�w�l�f"C,i'1''i7;; #,'�� S •.at.. Arta t' "+` r ,.. Sr+ r �:` = °, ,�' . _`• � . .,:`.�¢e a �i'a�r 1��.'•�+ ,"i t+�•�rwaixw.+" ��• `a�'u..I�� "�`�• �e� �'��-r,"k{ ''16i+4.?str�'vr 'P �ti Location N VISTpr 1 rr T •�!a�w'.,t .{?_: t, i`'Jf C ti' " °�"' tt �itl:* a+r f'# r t� L •� "1,l Z s'i r`1� �`rrG'r,1 NIEW LN v ` _. ��i• + `�+`'sk: f''k�,�Y_ RQy �'c" ,+P�` �, � : �• Gp�• ry�:.'t` 4•' r},•.�1 ,a,4 w i�`•r ;4� y+' ��a 6v°, �'•a,. a ' r S } i?�.,z.'a^? .:"` d.. 4 :r` �� r :MP•�' •p;':. >d1wt�, ar �;"•' t• 't' t.rrfj ,� •a�� � -TARKrr .. _ r � t 't'�:�t .. .1 ♦�,t +r hr , . t t t: . Mkt ,r• , 'ti�'� Rt ��l}� ••i. : i�sq:..,,.v :; 3��rK y,� i - c t r __ r . L. '7�^i."t• • ;"P t ��`�S1 • :�4' ,9. �; •J o'ti ,3'} •,:2 +.i�, 't yr� •� 'R r r ,�.�t#+nwwwea5.Y 31�''r'a:3$i� r !.�}a �•��1t .. y, r. �y,,� •. r r o�.• lea. �f.�J r♦ .>T t•6 " � . -i. 3"r• a' 1�` Ya � �"�i `zR'.� • :�. �" s'., ?'j�,�, 'f � .� �+'�� .7 A�I�k � � Sit o, , . g+ , ,.,.•, .. .... `„S r ,•kt i. '� S!`r � t rwt, r M .•4. '`a�� ttl, gG Ec � .'1�:Ar�'+�'.'yrt,Yai 'r. h ♦ }!,�tS'CyAi .�;,s? E�+t-.�,.'r'y.�,1i''��:aR �'••fjayJ, F- y���,*-�t,=,J'i��hjyP.ii f . ••.' Y7 _ K'i!� _ t4 S`��' K! �.,+._ �:;r` -$ `^tfC•z' F o 1{ . i�s'� K't rVi'.•y �7a•{,.: A2.° 1;• �: 3fa t;' ••X"L�.4rFr-4{�+?.' p;r ' ~�a �'yvr '�f ,.tr1 .• • J� , a , M'rL: ' 'k-' ♦ w • w, ,ri i•t ni �i. d �•. "1 .�t 4: ► Y fJ`�� 2 J•.it` Is1�1'. !!S� • • f} L »t a i '`a.y y,'►'} y7a ..at.�' .. •� �.sas• C ' .. r �a 1�'Q 1 �,r.. ti• 'a r ,; i tip a , t� �, r t. +ti . •r atEr f <, r a ri•�s1K y �lfks"' tirwtiC:sf'• ?-.':r=� i�?ir•�yyy t �y .i.1 y+tt�tti�:`"' Y'O�• .'f,r+�.s,s,'i •' • ... �r';� t}, :!'•f . a.t.►.r.; •. M ; .! .�1 �►«�Y F ♦- {••: j.s E,-+�'•t"�. S� }..,r •+YT?le s"t w`;• `-', .t �•`."r :r •.r/1a•r `t.: �'=•i.�. 4jY ,ye•�!^�t/ Jv, irnf. a "a. •. n' . w' j"• .o. .:3.0 r . r ar .s,,W.g ;,"e� 1.1:;>.t �',x r w �»�f* .rt ;fit , �a�j't 1 Z. •'F1fE} :.,. , •fin ��:� ^� 1�.,. :� � ••ti.:E•i s ,•y ,• . "', �r - t '}•' +�. '' dy..; d+';•s.�.., •``•n'4'f'A' -;:.. s. `.`�''a :r••. �, f� x. �5a;. :r�, �."' " :,� ;:. � .. art ,� ,:'+�� :�� •r> •:,, ��'. �-+,.; m ,r.•.A , •t . "SF'Q;ki-. , , f .r.,,�,• ..r r .'y a.i1 � -r S•► : ¢+�•l:.�fY:t ,,I'rr t ° - " ► :':••r �., f! '• ` + i a t «>> .: ` +M 'j e. C� . �:o{ rya • " ��,•'iT •'r-rw�}r rya. J a4.. �,::i a. �!:•`�E' E ".:a, : .yt,� ►'• •S�r' r:� " 7'•.,:r •� r i,• +7. f11+"'i'+ . «' ! `T"'` r;. y' .1V*,'#� '''SK1jj 'a ir� �4"w,.,�• 'ya:s ��, _�i� �� '•�s" •i r .r � 4 •; ..l' � �i ry ••��• ,.�t� +?i '�'*'1. x'r" . yl• ..-i *s.i" \ •'r 1 S • r r '. ,,►.k,► 4 • I ,.� �i.'�Yr•' ,:�"" f: y+ ] i tr•.y ,..7 _�• as 1 F „ !�-,t'.` �',:a �. � � �. • ',fF ,pr y. +f a. ,( ' aS �r i . .i } / J� !r> �•,-i, y. ,.E •y, t„ •r,�p s y 4r} K �::`►' ,:.r!.t.,;y Wr•" �j �; r,.1, ®•.. Mrt yF ,t,i. l• N. .�� a .r T �rt ,�txs r1'►1iYa i#:yf"_J .4 f..{�,rt1 T'.•tT.. t, r 1.f.,.l*��'•:�7"�n"t ar�.x.'a -.4� ~ a�'t "�"'L I},' r�•'ii^e •:a ;4,:��w��• •�iaij�1'ri.yY y,t� { ? r >' •!"_"• I 1 �c }„'� E a,,, • . '1.•�,Y"Cd :s' yE �C.Y: . r: tE .« 1,1I}ai • - iw„"s;:.1 .3� 43% , 7' •,.i.• •t',:rNy'r • i ' s" t� �%S.:ry yyE •1r .,. tk'.:_ . r.t+a.'w I, ✓�:?�'t .y r •.E. - • +." 1:.% ' r t y ry;+. .�i r :.� : • • • " ,.�" r. ,JET{ ►? .rY E. . •.}r.-a+ rtq aYi, ,u ?� >:°5�. ' , �.;• s7" i�rt r i . M o y lh ii•. ' f7'r 1�.•�t w:fi4 �i ► i . X"'try + �f .r �t .y is ,1 •$1l,` ar E t• �• •_; i , .: ;!` �� _'�'� p•, „fir t .+%y;� �' +.� r• t...� �,. -�. � :�. 1.•y" .# .,�o�t� �4 :' ',►`. ► M* �rjr Y i' / { it. • �' .,.�• t .{ fi .y r7v 4'<<, Jr # 4 t.r 1: ,+ s. a l : y,. h. A 4 :1 ew•H T. a^N%a .1i ♦ a r. a' ' r .�'. I •ra..s .r • ; •.; i 5 • • ��i a , LJe' . �.,r r �� a. ,kL'•�.^^•�CJ:'`w�..aa.•a.:S.f+� ..i 1a�t4:a, •..r . , Sv. f� P•,� .f%, wi ,•r: tad:! s ctii °y�;° �. -r: ' '�.. r i r 'aA.•tr1_ •. ,,�"�•n /t. .5•,� _`�!�'t " af• ^ t, .lay' "5� .S"i'M' ♦.': y.Y.,.41 :4t #;E•E!�ij,l {a r �,,, ' A �'a+., �:.li`. !'l't4r.::r �• xt''+a;; {:�i y; p ?',T.i_._�ir.�,��•�.�'.'µ._iss r ,► • ,fi,�a5:<M} ..,?.. �'v;'.r i; t, f tE.i f? y`v` •k s-'i'•l' �1 • T.� t, 11 .,�"a F 5 • i i!. �" •'. +n� 3. la ..,��� ` �, i '. a. �. �.• •sf �a+„ �~ ,�,�� � , ^ -w'J;t i.S• 3•'° • :. - Ya7 rc ::r� . a+P� K' y:.:-•^ ♦ t •'- � � .tr i „„ii '* ,.y.� • •y11..ra , , ,yY ..e .ti••�,4 v Ew ,�r y.._ Y,•, Sri, iy,n .L • it7♦ 1 �. •h 'i� •t .,2 - t" .. tr�iy.: i ,:.w .'4. ^. h lair• Jc 'Y.r i• X.., .� i• ;t. .!. .• } •`",'� ^�4 ri �!• .� t. _ Y'Y t ��� ,y� .; 't, +=r•. r,�, .ist. �,...,Tra �i 3U �.T'.:� E '- �,ati;; s,x. ,►f�:.>"{"a_, •+ry{ < .: •� �t'sr :it•", .: �e<' � n,� t,:.. �.4y'. r ' i :? `$". �,`• _.' • •�+' tF � .•.D!•�+ •�, • �•t�'q``rw y � rr� M'� - a i : •' i►�. � . f'o �4.. i •i � 4� • i . ,�;: ,, � ••.',T`c' i.'S til� l � �' � .,r.• ,t�, �• � • •L� r �iM'; r ' +�rl cx. r" ,� i�t,+•i► r. a.+ a R a ,k, r; «y. , t L s;;;, r' a •{ i' I ,i•.' .� .S •` (� •#��'rr ,�ra■�y`t�f' f '�t,:�►? r.+..vr.�V:',r•�`.ry�''..• ,:S.Y -. r��E Ii aY•� :.t:, �E�'•�'.y ,• F. `'►~i+•'�"E*• .'4 4Y' `w ,;,wt{t. a. i.•., "a .lt.,alri " M"i• �h . .i 1 �► t t r;. 'r 4ati r +T is 4• .;;4* �+r r r5ra f r' ++. - ^C; ) ` a n J.t' 4 ,.r,� t". . �:1►. s+ r.., t,,; w y + y7E yt •+�4. Y i, r • at, ^.;Y.i :'ti:r7•. "'' !1�1' :. �+,r� t y r + i. r,.. F. N„ _ •f• • rw 7..' F•f t.e� '•' 4 R s !1� ..r; r, • t:. w,� .#'+' r .I w'i �t• .�}..i' !r';', -'§N �s 1 +� r'i MyY {., tiY•',r' rj. I. i. 7" `! {y • ►,�� ^ �•" M'S. t.� rF+.; r' .'y><•: r4ty ;�•t fr.a .••► f' . rvE r Sri -•+i�,•`- .'f .e.�r. a . 1'E�a "# ,•t 4. ,.:•. ! w, '•�1 k•'�P• -Lta .+ 1_ a, t '•r .w T Q r E ^,fr.r 5 :•� �� _ .a rrr.ri w..:a • t.. aS. ti i.a.-.r •{ .a• a•., '+`+•.� .rf a.' a.. yi ' Y '. .a. !,,• + '�o}` ;! .i•�,"4 }Sr a Y.•+:r i a :.r. ? �.!,c'" -!'' ,��1 rE.• •{ {. �..,.,.F7'.. !?>S' 7'.,. •: � ' �• r � z; �?a.,.s; :a,; a ■, , n t �► f�r+y'� , , �•, •� r- s • "i �' v'+�•t!.'r. E• t��� +a�.t y+tij f r.'.i '}t'+P Ata• �;,t� >,• fa . 'l;. .ti••..• � ��. •ra,,.:. {�1►'.�a r ra••.. +1, `}�Xk� �• '�"' sE�.Ei:11. _•,r Y�" ! *• :.4�^r��• 1' p� '.i .r it ,fit �'F� ,M ii.tr' "a.. . �. L ..y -►, ► • ,�S 1 !. S.a r;a�•ti.3' 4 '? aE..', E • .4 r ♦ a. j . J t }' .. X L . > i 1 � F,,�'•t' I �d .�� t, _. .- .-1 .'.'� . �� s? i s: =+ ss+l�a'w:�Vi..:i.'-''Eau.... ..t..•�31r,.•t.. • .re:R•r .. i• ati �•■+c:«: '�.t+�!..r..,2. .er.�... .. ;�:'i.3•..i.. :.t�".a•.!.':'w.�. r .., iai}'M:,''S':.a•..i K ,. `.{t•.. . JIlLEY.R� ,•, Attachment 3 - Site & Environmental (Aerial Photo) o ,ss 310 020 Frrt O V 1 1- 0 4- 0 6 - Parcel 21 9- 2 0.0 5 2 K GIS SERVICES: MARCH 2O04 e OV11-04-06 Attachment 5 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CHEC%SHEET LAND USE ELEMENT Conformance Goal 1 Ir Preserve Oro Valley's natural Sonoran Desert environment and scenic resources which N/A are an importantpart of the commumty':s quality of life. Policy Promote clustering (average density) developments to protect environmentally sensitive areas. N/A 1.1B Clustering is a development design technique that permits a reduction in lot area and bulk requirements, provided there is no increase in the number of lots, and the remaining land area is devoted to open space. In large -lot or multi -family developments, clustering may also be accomplished by placing building pads close to each other as mechanisms are in place to protect remaining open space. Policy Clusters should be encouraged for the preservation of significant, passive use, natural open N/A 1.1C space within residential neighborhoods. The integration of natural open space within clustered developments should promote openness within the housing development. Policy The Hillside Development Overlay Zone (HDZ) grading and development standards shall be N/A L lD considered at the time of rezoning and shall supersede when a conflict exists between the land use map and the HDZ standards. Policy View protection shall be an essential aspect of Oro Valley's community design review and N/A 1.1E project approval. Policy Slopes 15% and greater shall be evaluated for development compatibility, safety, and N/A 1.1H preservation as natural open space. Policy 1.1I Oro Valley shall encourage the use of building envelopes in master planned communities, N/A which encourages natural buffers between housing units. Building envelopes designate the specific area that can be disturbed in any way during or following construction. The area outside the building envelope must be maintained in a natural state. Policy Consider development impacts on natural rolling terrain and emphasize low -density N/A 1.1K developments in these areas. Goa11 Z Promote a compahble mix of land usesythroughout the Oro Valley Plannmg: ea.;, D . The Rancho Vistoso Land Use Plan and PAD seeks a vast and dynamic corporate office park as a means of providing a diverse land use for the community and to provide high -end employment for residents. The loss of Parcel C as a corporate office site could diminish the vitality and identity of the Town's major employment center. Currently Parcel C is nearly surrounded by CP uses. Policy Encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers to minimize travel C 1.2A times. Parcel C is close to goods and services, parks and trails. Policy 1.2F Locate higher density land uses and transportation -dependent uses near major transportation C corridors. Parcel C has reasonable access to a major arterial in terms of travel times. Policy Strip commercial developments are discouraged and clustering of commercial developments at N/A 1.2H specific nodes or villages that are planned with strict aesthetic and design guidelines are encouraged. Freestanding pads are discouraged, except when expressly permitted in relation to overall gross leasable area and center design. Goal 13 use P facihties To romote `amt land lanmug and;the shared use of p N/A ,,. ,.�J...n Policy An evaluation of the adequacy of school facilities shall be developed as a finding for all N/A 1.31) residential land use requests before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of rezoning. Policy One elementary school site of at least 10 acres should be reserved within developments for N/A 1.3E every 500 elementary school level students forecasted to live within the development. Policy 1.3I Ensure safe bike/pedestrian access to school sites from open space, parks, and neighborhoods. N/A Goal 1 `4 Through proper Iand use mg,'the Town shall ensure tham t new developent does not N/A financially burden existin g„residents Policy The long-term fiscal impacts to the Town and its taxpayers relating to proposed new N/A IAA developments shall be evaluated as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Goal J ` To ensure the safe, convenient and efficient vehicular and non motorized traffic ' D circulation to serve both within and through the community` The proposal would place housing in an area that is isolated which would force residents to travel further for convenience shopping and personal services, than if the Site had direct access to a major arterial roadway. Policy Build sidewalks, sufficient outside lane width, and provide other specific provisions for safe and N/A 2.1D convenient use of arterials and collectors by bicyclists and pedestrians. Policy Bike, vehicle and pedestrian conflicts are to be minimized through appropriate design standards. N/A 2.1E Goal 2.3 Design a transportation network that promotes; the reduction of traffic volumes and D 'vehicle miles`traveled The proposal would introduce housing in an area that is accessible only through a corporate office park and its arterials and minor streets. Residents would have to travel outside the neighborhood for convenience goods and services, schools, parks and trails. Policy Bike paths should be constructed, where feasible, to separate bike and pedestrian traffic from N/A 2.3B motorized vehicles in order to provide safe access to schools and parks. Policy All new or reconstructed collectors and arterials should include sidewalks. N/A 2.3C Goal 2 4' Provide_for the efficient means of goods/services movement while preserving Oro Valley's ' N/A neighborhoods and the Sonoran Desert environment.. z , ° Policy View protection should be an essential aspect of Oro Valley's transportation design process. N/A 2.1D Where possible, permanent protection of scenic vistas is to be encouraged, especially from the Oracle Road scenic corridor. Road construction on slopes should minimize the visual imp [act of the roadway. Conformance: C = conforms; D = Doesn't Conform; NA = not applicable; U = unknown, too close to tell, etc. Make any notes regarding conformance on the back of the sheet. F/OV11/GP Conformance Checklist Page 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Goa131 To ensure tong term financial andeconoituc sustafnablity for the Town of Oro Palley N/A .... I s,c...,},,. L_ �R.. ... Policy 3.1F Maintain and enhance Oro Valley's residential/resort/recreation character. N/A Policy Prepare economic development impact analysis for significant development proposals. N/A 3.1H Policy 3.1J Employment -related uses are encouraged to provide work places for a growing employment N/A base. Office, technical, and corporate employment facilities shall be compatible and consistent with the scale of the surrounding area. Campus -type employment centers that emphasize a unified architectural theme, pedestrian orientation, inward -transportation patterns, and a natural landscaping theme are encouraged. These employment centers do not include high-rise structures or heavy industrial uses. Policy Heavy industrial and outdoor commercial uses that require significant infrastructure, introduce N/A 3.lK greater truck traffic, and are visually and environmentally incompatible with the Town's vision are generally unacceptable. Policy Institutional uses, such as colleges or health care, are desired and will be actively pursued and N/A 3.11, supported when located in appropriate locations. Policy Specialty commercial development, similar to St. Phillips Plaza in Tucson, is encouraged in N/A 3.1M appropriate locations. HOUSING ELEMENT Goal 41 To promote high quality residential neighborhoods D Parcel C is isolated and access to the Site would be through a corporate office park with light manufacturing uses. These uses could be 24-hour uses which could be noisy, odorous, heavily traveled and could otherwise disturb residents. This is not conducive to creating a high quality residential neighborhood and diminishes the Town's standard of a "community of excellence". Any complaints of noise, dust, odors, hours of operation or other perceived nuisances by residents of Parcel C could undermine the value and utility of the Corporate Park, a valuable asset to the Town. Policy Protect the integrity and aesthetic context of existing neighborhoods through the use of D 4.1A appropriate buffers. A medium -high density residential subdivision would not be an appropriate buffer to the adjacent corporate office park. Policy Apartment and condominium developments should have built-in recreational facilities and other N/A 4.1C amenities to serve residents. Goal 4 2 To ensure a Jobs/housing balance within the greater Oro Valley region U Policy Encourage the provision of a variety of housing choices matched to employees within a U 4.2A reasonable proximity of employment sites. Eliminating a corporate office zone in a predominantly residential community would not further the Town's or Rancho Vistoso's jobs/housing balance. However, if there is an excess of CP land, housing in the area would further this goal. Conformance: C = conforms; D = Doesn't Conform; NA = not applicable; U = unknown, too close to tell, etc. Make any notes regarding conformance on the back of the sheet. F/OV11/GP Conformance Checklist Page 3 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CHEC&SHEET PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT Conformance Gna151 , fia ensure that adequate pubhc facilihes and services are provided when needed =` U As described earlier, Parcel C is not provided sufficient services (particularly good access) to support residential use of the Site. Policy In cooperation with the school districts within the Oro Valley Planning Area, define both school U 5.1 C service areas and associated school needs that can potentially be met through proactive implementation at the time of development review. Policy Ensure that municipal services and facilities are or can be provided efficiently and cost- U 5.11) effectively prior to development occurring. See the earlier discussions. Policy All new developments should be evaluated to determine impacts on all Town infrastructure, N/A 5.1E including but not limited to schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. See earlier discussions. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION ELEMENT Goa161 To develop n comprehensive and connected parks, open space, and trails system Policy Plan for the connection of open space, natural areas, parks, trails, bike paths, and recreation N/A 6.1A areas to minimize conflicts with the environment. Policy Encourage private dedications of land as permanent natural areas or open space. N/A 6.113 Policy All developments should link their recreation facilities and natural areas to the community open N/A 6.1D space network where appropriate. Policy Trails shall ultimately connect to public preserves and the regional trail network per the Eastern N/A 6.1E Pima County Trails System Master Plan, where possible. Policy 6.1I Protect existing and establish new trail access points to major washes and regional preserves. N/A Policy 6.1J Develop a bike paths system that is separate from the roadways and serves to interconnect N/A various public facilities such as schools, parks, trails, open space areas, etc. Goa16 To protect the environmentally sensitive open space areas withm4the Planning Area Policy Open space preservation shall be used as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land N/A 6.213 use rezoning proposals. Policy Encourage natural open space connection to and the expansion of Tortolita Mountain Park. N/A 6.2C Policy Preserve and enhance open space areas that protect the visual, natural, and cultural resources of N/A 6.2G the community. Conformance: C = conforms; D = Doesn't Conform; NA = not applicable; U = unknown, too close to tell, etc. Make any notes regarding conformance on the back of the sheet. F/0V11/GP Conformance Checklist Page 4 SAFETY ELEMENT Goa17 41 To high residential neighborhoods t promote quality # k Policy School site planning in regards to public safety shall be developed as a required finding for N/A 4.1A development review. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT Goal 8 I- f To protect the Planning Area's natural attnbutes, wluchf have been designated asrya key Policy Wash encroachment may be permitted where floodplains are broad and shallow in order to N/A 8.1C permit a reasonable utilization of property, unless such encroachment impedes natural groundwater recharge of the aquifer. See eazlier discussion. Policy For drainage basins designated as "balanced basins" and any future basins designated as such, N/A 8.1E Pima County Floodplain Management policies and regulations shall be adhered to. Policy 8.lF Allow only floodplain-compatible uses in flood -prone areas. N/A Policy Indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats should be maintained and enhanced N/A 8.1G where possible. Policy Identify and protect light-sensitive uses and locations, i.e. Kitt Peak, Mt. Lemon, Mt. Bigelow, N/A 8.1H and the Pusch Ridge Wilderness area. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT G6a19 j To ensure that the built environment is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the 9k natural'surrounduigs. _ „ _ - Policy All development proposals should attempt to arrange buildings, massing of buildings, and/or N/A 9.1D arrangements of lots to preserve views from adjacent properties and streets while providing privacy for residents. Policy All development proposals should show design strategies used to minimize changes to existing N/A 9.1E topography and the disturbance of existing vegetation. Policy 9.1F All sides of buildings may impact their surroundings and should be coherently designed and N/A treated. Policy In order to maximize integration of the built environment with the natural environment, and N/A 9.1G minimize distractions of the built environment, all new development proposals should incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of buildings. Policy 9.1I All new development proposals should consider existing landscaping within 400 feet of the N/A project site to provide and maintain landscape continuity within the community. Conformance: C = conforms; D = Doesn't Conform; NA = not applicable; U = unknown, too close to tell, etc. Make any notes regarding conformance on the back of the sheet. F/0V11/GP Conformance Checklist Page 5 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ELEMENT Goa1142 x Top eserve tli willun Ehe Plannin if g Area. N/A uiquectilturai anc><histoc,resorce Policy Require cultural resource surveys for all new developments where evidence of N/A 10.2A cultural/archaeological resources is found. Policy Ensure protection of cultural resources discovered during construction. N/A 10.2B Conformance: C = conforms; D = Doesn't Conform; NA = not applicable; U = unknown, too close to tell, etc. Make any notes regarding conformance on the back of the sheet. F/OV 11/GP Conformance Checklist Page 6 C;Ull-c�y c(o APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION April 6, 2004 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Bill Moody Vice Chair Don Cox Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning EXCUSED: Commissioner Ken Kinared Also Present: Werner Wolff, Council Member Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney Bayer Vella, AICP, Senior Planner Conny Culver, Development Review Board Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Open at 6:02 P.M. Carl Kuehn, 9250 N. Calle Loma Linda, asked the Commissioners to think about the following, prior the meeting on April 27 h concerning an application for a General Plan update on R1-72 property. R1-72 does not exist as a land use classification in the new proposed General Plan. In the new proposed General Plan R1-72 has been merged with the next highest land use classification of Rural Low Density 1. It is all bulked together, going from lowest density of R1-144, which is 3.3 acres per house. The next highest unit is no longer R1-72, but is LDR1, which has the housing unit range 0.4 to 1.2. In other words, we are taking 2 classifications, one which currently exists in the 1996 Plan of 0.4 to 0.5 (which is R1-72) and combining it with the next highest one up. An unintended consequence of the application is that if granted, merely by ratification of the new General Plan, an automatic upgrade to RLD1 will occur. So the rights you are considering in the Dallman case later this month is really talking about potentially 7 homes on 5.95 acres. This is artifact of where we are in transitioning from our current Plan to the new Plan. This has not been an issue, but Mr. Dallman application will make it a critical issue. Bill Dallman, 755 West Vistoso Highlands, stated that the meeting on the 27t' is for application for 3 homes. He would be more than happy as part of the rezoning application and plan amendment application to only have 3 homes, no guest houses, no April 6, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes off buildings and keep those restrictions for a minimum of 25 years. He wants the neighborhood to understand that they will never have more than 3 homes. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Closed at 6:07 p.m. MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to approve the March 2, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1 OV11-04-03, LINDA POLITO, OWNER/APPLICANT, REQUESTS TO INITIATE 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 Mr. Vella said that an initiation is simply an opportunity for the Commission to consider whether the proposal warrants a public hearing. He presented a slide showing the subject property and stated there were two parcels, 10 acres apiece and said the plan was to move from roughly one residence per 3 acres to one residence per acre. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to initiate OV11-04-03, request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the Polito and Felker Properties. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 2. OV11-04-05, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDC) FOR PARCEL T OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 10, A 5.99 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL NO. 219-22-4220, LOCATED ON THE NORTHSIDE OF MOORE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET EAST OF KINGAIR DRIVE. Mr. Vella stated that the site is located at about Moore Road and Kingair Drive. The intent is to seek a change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential, responding to market demand. Commissioner Krenkowitz was concerned that converting neighborhood commercial to residential use did not meet Town Council's policy, that did not allow residential uses as a lesser included use in a commercial area. Mr. Vella said that the policy was in response to a zoning code amendment in the Oracle Road Overlay District. The Oracle Overlay District provided that an applicant 2 April 6, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes could automatically revert from commercial to residential. That provision was deleted by the Town Council in order to retain commercial. This is a request to initiate the merits of the case and would need to be discussed relative to the policy at a public hearing. Initiation provides an opportunity to request more information from the applicant. The code does specifically provide for that. Chair Moody reminded the Commissioners that an initiation does not make a decision regarding the land use change. It provides Staff and the developer an opportunity to provide more information that will help in making a decision. Commissioner Krenkowitz was bothered because the Code says the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the proposed General Plan amendment and based on its merits may order such amendments to public hearing. So the plan language suggests that you do pay some consideration to the merits. But if it is contrary to the policies and direction from the Town Council, then on its merits it does not go to public hearing, because it is beyond the scope of our authority. Attorney Langlitz was not familiar with the Town Policy saying that there shall be no down zoning. Certainly the statutes in the code provide for General Plan amendment. The code provision does say that based on the merits, the Commission will decide whether to hold a public hearing. The problem is the language is faulty and inconsistent with the State Statutes that require a public hearing in application and with general notions of due process. It is not possible for a body to hear a matter on the merits and then hold a public hearing. Public comment has to be taken into consideration under the statute by the Commission. When an application comes to the Commission everything that was submitted should be complete. Based on that, a public hearing should be scheduled and once everything is heard, a decision should be made on the merits. Mr. Vella assured Commissioner Krenkowitz that the only limitation to having the public hearing scheduled for the meeting in June to give more time than 15 days for the posting and publication of the notice, would be the 90 day deadline. Mr. Vella told Commissioner Anning that the approximate location of the subject property is where La Canada Drive extended. Vice Chair Cox said that there are several statements in our Code that are in conflict either with other codes or with State Statutes or with an individual's property rights. He requested that Staff make note of that particular line in the code. This also brings up the entire question of initiation and he would like Staff to also take a look at that issue. It may be good to have a Study Session to look at the entire process of initiation. As he understands, Oro Valley is one of the very few towns that require an applicant to go through this process. Vice Chair Cox also stated that he was opposed to the delay imposed on the applicant last time. Applicant, Staff and the neighborhood were all ready to proceed. It is imperative that delays are avoided unless there is good reason for it. April 6, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Bistany asked if an extension would be beneficial to add a more credible analysis to this application? Mr. Vella said that Staff could address all five cases within 30 days. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to initiate OV11-04-05, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10, Parcel T. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to amend the motion that the public hearing be held at the first regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in June 2004, with the posting, publication, and distribution of the notices required by the Code to be completed not later than May 1, 2004. Commissioner Bistany seconded the amendment to the motion. Discussion: Vice Chair Cox stated that he sees no reason for delay as neither Staff nor the applicant has expressed the need for a delay. Therefore he will not support the amendment. Commissioner Krenkowitz said that more than 15 days notice is necessary to allow for having a comprehensive presentation and to make sure there is very adequate notice to the public so there is the perception that they have been given opportunity to appear and make their comments known whether they are in favor or opposed to the application. Amendment to the Motion failed due to a 3 yes, 3 no vote. Commissioners Krenkowitz, Manross and Bistany voted yes. Chair Moody, Vice Chair Cox and Commissioner Anning voted no. Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no. Commissioner Manross voted no. 3. OV11-04-06, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCE PARK (CP) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDC) FOR PARCEL C OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 3, A 4.5 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL NO. 219-20-052K, LOCATED AT THE END OF N. VISTOSO VILLAGE DRIVE, EAST OF E. INNOVATION PARK DRIVE. Mr. Vella said the property is near Vistoso Blvd. and Oracle. To the west is the Ventana Medical site. To the North is a residential property that has already been approved by Town Council. Applicants rational is that they are responding to market demand. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to initiate OV11-04-06, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Parcel C, a portion of Parcel No. 219-20-052K. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no.. In April 6, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 OV11-04-07, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDC) FOR PARCEL I OF RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 7, A 14 ACRE PORTION_ OF PARCEL NO. 219-54-002E, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AND TANGERINE ROAD. Mr. Vella said the area the General Plan amendment is subject to, is from the large wash to the west. The display map was incorrect, but it was noticed correctly. Applicant wants to move toward Medium High Density Residential. Commissioner Anning requested that when this item shows up on the Agenda that the map will reflect what Tangerine Road profile will look like when finished, with an arial view so we can see proximity to the southern boundary of the amendment to the Tangerine Road Corridor. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to initiate OV11-04-07, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 7, Parcel I, a portion of Parcel No. 219-54-002E. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 5. OV11-04-04, BIGHORN COMMERCE LLC, REQUESTS TO INITIATE 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, PARCEL 220-040-10M Mr. Vella said that recently the Development Review Board approved a subdivision south of the site. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to initiate OV11-04-04, requesting an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan from Commercial Park to Community Commercial. Commissioner Bistany seconded the Motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 6. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES: DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING FILLING VACANCIES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, PLACEMENT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, AND THE ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. Vella said that he is unfamiliar with this item and suggested that since Commissioner Krenkowitz has been working on the draft that he review the Rules and Procedures. Attorney Langlitz assured Chair Moody that he will be reviewing the draft presented. 5 April 6, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice Chair Cox commended Commissioner Krenkowitz for the effort put into preparing the draft of the Rules and Procedures. Commissioner Bistany emailed a concern to Commissioner Krenkowitz regarding Site Tours. If less than 4 Commissioners attend a tour, the others are to do the tour on their own. If more than 3 took the tour at any one time thereafter, there would be a quorum. There should be language that there should be no more than 3 Commissioners on an individual site tour at any one time. Vice Chair Cox also emailed comments and concerns, and requested the list be mailed to all Commissioners. Commissioner Krenkowitz explained that the draft presented to the Commissioners was based upon 19 different documents that he was able to gather, including the Rules and Procedures that the Town Council follows. He contacted other communities including Scottsdale and Gilbert. The Department of Commerce also provided literature and planning materials. The draft seeks to remove Robert's Rules of Procedure as being the governing rule, because they are inappropriate for a small group such as the Commission. The Modern Rules of Order are more appropriate and easy to understand and apply. The literature obtained suggested first explaining what is expected of a Commission. The operating rules should state what the organization's purpose is. Then it should set forth the expectations of the Commissioners. The order of business is very detailed and the intent is to have this available to the public so they would know what the Commission does, what they can do and how it is handled. The goal is to set up a process that will provide due process to anyone who comes before the Commission. Due process being that they have notice, an opportunity to be heard, and they are all treated on an equal basis procedurally. Other items covered by Commissioner Krenkowitz were conflict of interest and Ex Parte contacts. The Commissioners brought up and there was discussion on the following concerns: • Sec. 2.11 E (page 18) Conflict of interest, what is the appeal process? • Sec. 2.7Ea (page 10) Continuances and Withdrawals, does this impact the 90 days on submittals? • Sec. 1.1 D (page 1) Language "perceived as rational", how is this determined? • Sec. 2.9E,d,iii (page 13) The last sentence is ambiguous. • Sec. 1.2E (page 2) Should have a time frame. • Sec. 1.2H (page 3) Language "biased viewpoint" is very subjective. • Sec. 1.3D (page 4) Include language urging Commissioners to contact Staff if more information is needed or something is unclear. • Sec. 2.5 (page 8) Site inspections attendance should count the same as regular meetings. Gel April 6, 2004 APPROVED Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes • Sec. 2.6D (page 9) Should need at least 2 or more Commissioners to propose changes to the zoning code. • Sec. 2.6E (page 9) Language to say one Commissioner with the Chair as a second. • Sec. 2.9E,d,i,8 (page 13) Add "unless solicited by the Commission" at the end of the sentence. • Sec. 2.11 B and D (page 18) Do these say the same thing? • Sec. 5.3 (page 20) Would like there to be a charge for copies. • Sec. 2.8B,iv,3 (page 14) A tie vote should be forwarded to the Council as a tie vote rather than an automatic denial, or reasoning behind each side's decision should be presented. Commissioner Krenkowitz also pointed out that when a motion is made it should be articulated with the reasoning behind the motion. MOTION: Chair Moody MOVED that Item #6, Planning and Zoning Commission Rules and Procedures discussion and action, be continued to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to adjourned the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,rnf Diane Chapman, Recordi g Secretary 7 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 6, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Susana Montana, Planner II SUBJECT: OVI1-04-06, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REQUESTS INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCE PARK (CP) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDC) 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. BACKGROUND: The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). The site is relatively flat and undeveloped. The surrounding properties are undeveloped and zoned as follows: North and South: RV PAD, Campus Park Industrial; West and East: RV PAD, Open Space. The current General Plan designation for the subject property is Commerce Park (CP). The 2003 proposed General Plan Update showed the property as Commerce/Office Park with a "back up" designation of Medium Density Residential. LANDOWNER'S REQUEST: The reason stated for the landowner's request to change the General Plan designation of the property from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential is: "The owner of this parcel is responding to market demand and wishes to build single-family, site -built detached homes on this parcel." ( 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 May 4, 2004. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning & Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to initiate OV11-04-06, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for the Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Parcel C, a portion of Parcel No. 219-20-052K. OR I move to deny OV 11-04-06, a request to initiate an amendment to the 1996 Oro Valley General Plan for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, Parcel C, a portion of Parcel No. 219-20-052K. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, OV11-04-06 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Request Letter 3. C: Linda Thompson, WLB Group, Fax: 881-7492 F:\OV\OVl 1\2004\11-04-06\Reports\PZC initiation rpt.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 N. LaCanada D� Oro Valley, AZ 85737' 0 G.'230 WEMAILED ZIP CC-C-L 22302016B HDP NORTHWEST LLC 127 SOUTH 500 EAST STE 100 APR ? 2 2004 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102-0000 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In accordance with ARS 9462 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, May 4, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-04-06 THE WLB GROUP REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REOUESTS.AAN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND`TSE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCE PARK (CP) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDC) 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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, Plano - tr at 229-4814 or smontana@orovalley.net. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 N. LaCanada E Oro Valley, AZ 8573 1 P ° h 219208170 VENTANA MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC 1870 W PRINCE RD STE 68 TUCSON AZ 85719-0000 APR 19 2094 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 N. LaCanada D Oro Valley, AZ 85737- 22302031A TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 00000-0000 MAiLEU APR 6 2004 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 N. LaCanada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 22302029B TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 00000-0000 l ,4. _ ut MAILED FIR 0V1 ZIP(L.-CIDE APR 1 6 2004 Town of Oro Valley Ps Oro Valley, AZ 85737 TLIC-SCIM.- PZ 06 04 .QDDRE-5SE1) $00-230 M A i I E D F P 0 f., I I P C f) F 7 219208170 VENTANA MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC 1870 W PRINCE RD STE 68 TUCSON AZ JUN 0 7 2004 NOThE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 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 TOWN COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN: TIME: at or after 7:00 p. m. on WEDNESDAY, June 16, 2004 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall, Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION (R) 04- , OV11-04-06, THE WLB GROUP, REPRESENTING VISTOSO PARTNERS LLC, REOUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCE PARK (CP1 TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDCI 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. The subject parcel is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the zoning is Campus Park Industrial (CPI) within the Rancho Vistoso (Planned Area Development (RV PAD). 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 2294814 or smontana@orovalley.net. �A Town of Oro Valley A I 1000 Km*rLTCam6EJ0rivft-iT BEL ERpSL F Oro Valley, AZ 85737 TLIC-SON, PZ 4ddt 1 $00-230 43 V,4YI 7 20C4 NI ---- I LE D F R 0 Kil Z I P C 0 D E .3 5 7 -- 7 MA Y 2 4 2004 Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 4-0f-s Pps;q v�FJT. I+tINI Y !:C)WCS 2 !A $ 00.23° 0004337343 MAY 7 2004 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 85737 219221620 BROCKBANK STEPHEN R & BROOKE W CP/RS 1050 E IMPERIAL HWY #D3 PLACENTIA CA 92870-1736 MAY 2 6 2004 �RETURF4 —?- �- TO .SENnF7R , - Town of Oro Valley . =0 North La Canada Drive Ulu Valley, AZ 85737 _14y. mh� v5 -A c. Ap gowr VA IA V NA i it 0 r. JIK R-11 f4 4�k 41 fel. kk I 4,4 Art 'T _15 H a m *i pW . if I KLUUUKGI D VISTOSC - DAD I I III