HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 8/4/2015 M I N UTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGU LAR SESSION
Au g ust 4, 2015
TOWIV HALL, DIS BUILDING, H4P1 ROOM
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rodman called the August 4, 2015 regular session of the Oro Valley Planning
and Zoning Commission to order at 6:00 PM.
R4LL CALL �
PRESENT: Bill Rodman, Chairman
Greg Hitt, Commissioner
Melanie Barrett, Commissioner
Charlie Hurt, Commissioner
Tom Drazazgoski, Commissioner
Bill Leedy, Commissioner
EXCUSED: Frank Pitts, Commissioner �
ALSO PRESENT:
Joe Hornat, Council Member
CAL L T� AU D I E N C E
There were no speaker requests.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
Council Member Hornat updated the Planning and Zoning Commission and audience
`on the following:
- Eagles Nest (Olson Property) has some activity on site � .
- Update on property located between Shannon Road and Camino Del Fierro just north
� of Tangerine Road _
1. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSI�N AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROPOSED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A CABLE LINE ON EXISTING
August 4, 2015 Planning&Zoning Commission Page 1 of 6
, � �
UTILITY POLES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INA ROAD, BETWEEN PASEO DEL
NORTE AND ORACLE ROAD, OV1500812
;
Robert \Kirschmann, Planner, presented the following:
- Applicant's Request
- Location
- P ro j e ct V i ews .
- General Plan Criteria
- Conditional Use Permit Criteria
- Recommendation
Michael Scooles, construction manager for Zayo, presented the following:
-Area of I nterest -
- Total Length
- Zayo fiber will be placed
Michael Waites, project manager for Zayo, commented that Zayo is working with Cox
Communication to see if work can be done simultaneously.
Chairman Rodman opened the public hearing.
There were no speaker request.
Chairman Rodman closed the public hearing.
M4T14N: A motion was made by Commissioner Hurt and seconded by Commissioner
Leedy to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow Zayo Group to
install approximately, 1,130 feet of cable line on existing utility poles on the north side of
Ina Road between Paseo Del Norte and Oracle Road, based on the finding that the
proposal is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
2. YOUR VOICE, 4UR FUTURE DISCUSSI4N AND COMMENTS
Bayer Vella, Planning Manager, presented the following: �
- Meeting Purpose
- Land Use Proposal Open House
Questions/Concerns from the Commission
- What is the essential difference between Commercial Office Park vs. Neighborhood �
August 4, 2015 Planning&Zoning Commission Page 2 of 6
Commercial Office?
- What is the benefit to the developer in having down grade in zoning?
- Will the input from these meetings effect the recommendation?
- If these properties are controversial we ought to go through the Major General Plan
Amendment process which involves public involvement.
- Page 72, number 70: Creating development review strategies that require new �
development to link adjacent or contiguous environmentally sensitive lands
together. Is
this a new requirement to have the lands linked together? �
- Page 72, number 69: Reviewing and amending the zoning code as needed.
- Page 72, number 72: Developing new and improve existing land use regulations
that discourage unnecessary spread of development. Continuing to manage
development and allow for compact development and flexible design options,
including clustering, transfer of development rights or other techniques.
- The actions are probably not just for maintenance of our current laws but actually
saying we are going to be developing, reviewing and amending the codes that we
have.
- Page 74, number 72 strike the text allowing for compact development
and flexible design options, including clustering, transfer of development rights or
other techniques. Insert we have the Environmentally Sensitive Lands
. � �Ordinance (ESLO) and that's what going to stand, but we are not going to have an
action saying we are going to develop and improve the existing one.
� - A concern that the lot sizes are becoming too small is what the Commission is
hearing from guest speakers. The current General Plan isn't changing that. In the
proposed draft, it takes cluster development one step further and develop new cluster
development. This is more than we currently have. The reason to strike the text is to
develop new and improve existing land use regulations that do that.
- There is a concern with lot size and community conflict with ESLO, but don't see a
problem continuing with the current policy. Lets not suggest that we intend to alter the
interpretation.
- Deleting the last two bullet points of number 72 doesn't do any damage to our existing
law. Deleting the text doesn't say we are going to go even further on that path.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that what the commission is speaking about
is in the environmental section. You shouldn't be surprised that this section they are
talking about preserving and less concerned about growth. The problem we all have is
that there are going to be in any kind of document that tries to represent the community
you are going to have inconsistencies but down right contradictions.
August 4, 2015 Planning&Zoning Commission Page 3 of 6
We need to make sure we are reflecting the community and isn't what you think is
� desirable it's what the community thinks is desirable. It's the Guiding Principles on
which the Plan is based on. All the committees focused on how they can develop
policies based upon these Guiding Principles. � �
- Why are we against compact development, clustering and the transfer of development
rights and what are the negatives of that? �
- A concern heard from guest speakers at Commission meetings are lots without yards,
people should have yard. There are a lot of houses that fill out the entire lot with no
� yard with the kids playing in the street and in the desert with 6B guns. This does not
promote safety, it says we want to attract young professionals, family entertainment,
good schools, parks, hiking and recreation, swimming pool, access and low crime rate
in the Guiding (�rinciples. All this is furthered by a balance between family-friendly
communities that people can have at least a small yard.
Mr. Adler continued on with his comments that in maintaining financial stability you're
going to have growth. Since we have very little space left, it's going to be higher density
which many people are not in favor of.
- Concerned about the clustering and any other part in the draft that encourages it, as
opposed to leaving the current process, and agrees with other commissioners as to ,
why it has to be in here. Not sure that is what the general public would in fact
want. This should go back to the Committees and do as they choose. What are
the major causes for concerns we have about clustering? Maybe in the update the
commission can see where it's worked well or need some tweaking.
- All these are great ideas. Transfer of development rights is a great way for people to
have high density in one location and preserve other parcels that the Town doesn't
have to buy. Transfer development rights is probably the best thing we can
do. Clustering is much more effective for infrastructure and resources. It's a win-
win that the conservation people thinks is good idea, the development community still
get to develop their property.
- More specific provisions being made for recreation for youth, the Town of Oro Valley
itself provided some low cost recreational activities for youth. When people said they
wanted a community center, people thought this is what the community center was �
going to do. We do allow for little league and soccer but none of it is provided by the
Town or through the Community Center.
- Guiding Principles talk about family entertainment, activities for all ages, attracting
young professionals, opportunities to interact and amenities. These are listed in the
Guiding Principles as things people wanted but don't see a whole lot of in the actions.
- Page 22, CC.2. Provide equitable and appropriate park facilities and services for
residents of all ages in the community. It would be nice to include a provision for
August 4, 2015 Planning&Zoning Commission Page 4 of 6
equitable low cost appropriate park facilities and services.
- Page 69, number 28: Youth civic engagement and involvement, this is the place
where the above provision could be added. .
- Page 70, number 45: Study and evaluate the feasibility of the development of public
recreation or community education facilities in the community. This can be more �
, specific, maybe include things that are listed from the Guiding Principles.
Mr. Adler, stated the committees had some control on the criteria to amend the General
Plan. This is where we can hold the applicant's feet to the fire for things that were
important to the community. These criteria's are not in the current Plan and originated .
by careful reading of the General Plan. The Committees took the comments from the
community and Mr. Adler believes what is in the draft is fair and actually reflect the
interpretation of what the Guiding Principles say.
Diane Bristow, Oro Valley resident, distributed a hand out to the Commission on Type 1
versus Type 2 —Acreage table. Existing is 5 acres or larger to trigger a Major General
Plan Amendment and the proposed is 20 acres of larger. Staff notes Marana has a
threshold of 80 acres of larger and Pima County has 640 acres or larger. Ms. Bristow
used a conversion table to compare all the square miles in Oro Valley, Marana and
Pima County into acres. .
Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that the chart shows a shortage of land
so we should be looking at it very critically. The only possibility for it to be looked at
critically is not to be raising the allowable acreage to 40 acres. Keeping the acreage
down is still in harmony with other communities. We need to look at where we are
today and what we have to work with it.
- Chairman Rodman commented that the 40 acres is suitable to give all the attention �
that is need in terms of how land is developed.
- Page 7 of Attachment 1 - Targeted Topics, number 1: On balance, the request is
consistent with the Vision, Goals, and Policies of the General Plan, and will not
adversely impact the community as a whole or a portion of the community, text should
be added to include unreasonably adversely impact the community. The way it
currently stands we are going to hear people say that this will adversely impact the
community.
Letter c: Impact other public services including police, fire, parks, water and drainage
unless careful analysis and explanation of anticipated impacts is provided to the Town
for review. Some kind of statement that the Town would also approve these
services. This statement is just saying that it has been provided.
PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)
August 4, 2015 Planning&Zoning Commission Page 5 of 6
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Leedy and seconded by Commissioner
Barrett to adjourn the August 4, 2015 Planning and Zoning regular session meeting at
7:44 PM.
MOTION carried, 6-0. �
Prepared by: .
,
� � ` °�
„ • .��
�� 1, --�'���,���
� - Roseanne Flores � � �
� Recording Secretary � �
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes�are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the � �
�� � regular session of the Planning�and Zoning �Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on-the 4t" �
� day of August 201�5. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a
q uorum�was present.
August 4, 2015 � � Planning&Zoning Commission Page 6 of�6 � �