Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV100804TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Phone: (520) 229-4800 Fax: (520) 742-1022 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR: _ Zoning Variance _ Zoning Interpretation Appeal of Administrative Decision NATURE OF REQUEST: See Attached APPLICANT: The P PHONE: 623- ADDRESS: 110 Center (Bob Conant th Church Avenue, Suite 6320 ONVNER: DESCO Southwest Note: Submittals are due by noon CASE NO.: FAX: 622- Tucson, Arizona 85701 ADDRESS: 1795 East Skyline Drive, Suite 193 Tucson, Arizona 85718 PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: Northwest corner La Canada and Tangerine PARCEL #: 219-47-0170, 0180, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0050, 0060, 004A, 004C, 004B CURRENT ZONING: T-P, C-1 APPLICABLE FEE: $600 ATTACHMENTS: SIGNATME OF APP CANT (ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE Please provide the following information addressing 1 — 5 in the Findings from Section 21.6 I of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR). In order to authorize a variance request, the Board will be searching for sufficient evidence in accordance with the findings. 1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district? S b' E �y42ynslx-b 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self imposed or created by the owner/applicant? .See B;'7A440/% 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? 5 E� B BG /0,0 4. If granted, will the variance impose such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located? 56� �9717QG/�6' D 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding properties. S Act AO77'06" b 2 NATURE OF REQUEST: Interpretation of zoning district boundaries in order to determine the set back for a convenience use. While the project meets the intent and sprit of the Ordinance but not the letter (Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 25.1.G Convenience Uses), the convenience use in question is approximately 500 feet from the nearest residential structure to west, east and south of the site. The restrictions in the Oro Valley Zoning Code are designed to protect surrounding uses from disturbances potentially caused by "Convenience Uses". This is a perfectly reasonable concern and one that is fully supported by the developer. As a means to this end, the tow requires a 250 foot buffer between R-1 districts and Convenience Uses. The intent of this particular restriction is to provide enough distance between there two uses to allow for the dissipation of sound, vibration and light that would be considered a nuisance to surrounding residential neighbors. In keeping with the spirit of the code, the proposed development will take into account this concern and accomplish the same end as the restriction calls for while still allowing for the proposed use. Supplemental Questions for Application for a Variance 1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district? The conflict in this situation is created by the residential land uses to the east and west of the bank location both of which are located within 250 feet of the proposed "Convenience Use." According the Oro Valley Code, there must be 250 feet of separation measured from the edge of the residential district to the edge of the property/lease line of the convenience use in order to prevent the activity of the convenience use from causing disturbance to the abutting residential use. This property is unique because the distance between the proposed use and any existing residential use is actually much greater then the 250 feet the code finds sufficient. The nearest residential dwelling to the west is separated by more than 500ft. from the proposed "convenience use." The residential use to the east is separated by La Canada Boulevard, a 4 lane arterial roadway, and a wash. The distance between the nearest residence to the east and the proposed convenience use is approximately 500ft. 2. Are there special circumstances that exist that are not self-imposed or created by the owner/applicant? When the project site was rezoned, the western boundary between the new C-1 zoned portion and the existing R1-144 zoned portion was placed along the western border of the wash that bisects the site, not the actual property boundary which lies between 160'-200' further west along the portion of the boundary that is closest to the "Convenience Use" at issue. This was done to prevent disturbance of the residential uses to the east that could potentially be caused by commercial development west of the wash. What this did was create a large buffer area to the west of the C-1 boundary which will allow for a substantial amount of distance between the potentially conflicting uses in this case. 3. Is the authorizing of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? A drive-thru bank window is mutually beneficial to both the bank and its patrons residing in the surrounding community. By operating a drive-thru window, the bank is able to serve its customers with a level of convenience that is simply not possible by any other means which, as a result, greatly enhances profitability. For consumers, a drive-thru window provides a means to satisfy their banking needs from the comfort of their automobile. This convenience is particularly essential for customers with limited mobility as well as during the hot summer months here in Tucson. 4. If granted, will the variance impose such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located? The developer in this case is not asking for any privilege that is inconsistent with the intent of the restriction placed on "Convenience Use" which is to prevent such uses from creating a nuisance to its surrounding residential neighbors. For example: By authorizing this adjustment, the Board is not granting the developer the right to disturb or condoning the disturbance of residential districts by commercial "Convenience Use." Authorization of an adjustment such as that would be considered inconsistent with the restrictions placed upon other similar properties both in location and zone. The Board is simply acknowledging that given the circumstances present in this particular development, it is possible for the two uses to exist concurrently without creating unnecessary hardship to either party. 5. If granted, will the variance be the minimum necessary to afford relief and will not materially affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or surrounding properties? The relief requested by the developer is restricted to the amount necessary to carry out the proposed development. In fact, given the characteristics of this property, the protection of surrounding uses is greater than it would be under other circumstances. Any impact to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and surrounding properties that would be potentially caused by the proposed use will be mitigated by the distance separating the uses and screening elements in the development plan. The restrictions in the Oro Valley Zoning Code are designed to protect surrounding uses from disturbances potentially caused by "Convenience Uses." This is a perfectly reasonable concern and one that is fully supported by the developer. As a means to this end, the town requires a 250ft buffer between R-1 districts and Convenience Uses. The intent of this particular restriction is to provide enough distance between these two uses to allow for the dissipation of sound, vibration, and light that would be considered a nuisance to surrounding residential neighbors. In keeping with the spirit of the code, the proposed development will take into account this concern and accomplish the same end as the restriction calls for while still allowing for the proposed use. I I 2 0• TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE W II N � / Z W I 9 Z I ®7/ W Z I BUILDING SETBACK - So•-0• IBUFFER ® 5 60'-0• 25'-0 FUTURE R.O.W. 60.W t TRACT AREA S \ c , � o SITE PLAN A> MILLER RANCH TANGERINE/LA CANADA DRIVE PROJECT DATA • ZONING EXISrM S—M4 PROPOSED C • SfTE AREA oploss ASE U t7.33 AC. USABLE SRE AREA t5.04 AC. (INCLUDING ACCESS DRIVE) • BUILDING AREA BLD4 TYPES AREA PARKNO REO'D \ RMAUFANT 8.400 BO. Fr. 10/10O• 64 FETAL /BHOPPWG MITER t(400 SO. Fr. 5/MOD- 57 FWANCIAL 4,200 BO. Fr. 2AIM00- 15 l / TOEAL 2000 Bq FE. 1Se • PARKING PROMED Tsa PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE SCHEME 4.0 ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA EGLIN/COHEN ^F CMITECTB 7391 E U QUE IUDE R100 Wa0%. AZ 15115 F. (520) 995-2999 TE1 (52o) a95 5 4.9.08 JOB j 2463-07 MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION June 13, 2008 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Colleen Kessler, Member Paul Parisi, Member (served as Chair) Bart Schannep, Member EXCUSED: John Hickey, Member MINUTES - Approval of the Minutes of April 22, 2008 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep and seconded by Member Kessler to approve the minutes of April 22, 2008. MOTION carried, 3-0. CASE NO: OV10-08-04, Desco Southwest, represented by the Planning Center requests relief from the 250' distance required from a convenience use to residentially zoned properties. Subject (parcel #219-47-017A, 018A, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004C, 004B) located on the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737. Chair Parisi swore in the witness intending to testify. Bob Conant, Planning Center, representing Desco Southwest, stated that the property being considered (known as the Miller Ranch property) is located at the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road and has TP and C-1 zoning. He stated that the current property owners want to build a bank with a drive -through use on this corner. He explained that the C-1 zoning provides for a 250 foot setback from a residential district to help protect residences from light, noise, etc. Mr. Conant reviewed the zoning district line on the west and stated that they are asking for relief from the 250 foot setback by 25 feet. He stated that the buildings will block light and there is a wash/riparian area between the residents and the commercial area. Mr. Conant further reviewed the Zoning Map and an Aerial Context Map for the property and stated that there is confusion regarding the zoning lines and a determination needs to be made regarding the R1-36 zoning line on the east. He stated that they are asking that the R1-36 zoning lines be along the property lot lines of the Vistoso Gateway subdivision. He explained that this would then compare to Verde Ranch subdivision just south of the Miller Ranch property as 06/13/08 Board of Adjustment, Special Session Minutes 2 the zoning district boundary line is "well shy" of the right-of-way of Tangerine Road. Mr. Conant explained that if the lot lines were determined to be along the property lines then they would not need a variance on the east side, only on the west side. At the request of Member Schannep, Mr. Conant clarified that they are asking that the residential district line in this case be moved back along the property line to follow the lot lines. He explained that traditionally the Town did not include the rights -of -way in the zoning. In response to a question from Member Kessler, Mr. Conant explained that the Town's Zoning Code references the district boundary and it is the property boundary that is causing the confusion in the determination. He also confirmed that they would need a 25 foot variance on the west side due to the zoning district boundary line. Patty Hayes, Zoning Inspector, reviewed the staff report highlighting the following: Applicant is requesting relief from the 250 foot distance required from a convenience use to residentially zoned properties. (Business with drive -through use is considered a convenience use)., A bank is an allowed use on this property. ^- Property owners within 300 feet of the property were notified of the hearing. Property was posted and hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial and on line. Staff received no comment in support or opposition to this case. Property was rezoned from R1-144 to TP and C-1 in February 2007. The distance measured from a convenience use to a residential district is from the residential property boundary (lot line) not the house structure. Zoning districts in the Town extend over into the street right-of-way thus causing the zoning of the property to extend beyond platted property lines. Maps not clearly defined. Possibly eliminate the 250 foot requirement on this particular pad only may be best way to approach. Member Schannep questioned whether the Board was being asked to interpret the Zoning Code or to accept the property line verses the residential district line. Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Joe Andrews stated that the Board could try to determine where the zoning district boundaries are or they can grant a variance. Staff is recommending that the 250 foot setback not apply for this specific lot. However, the Board can determine the lot and boundary lines. In response to a question from Member Kessler, Mr. Andrews explained that there is no building allowed in the wash and it would also be re -vegetated by the applicant. 06/13/08 Board of Adjustment, Special Session Minutes 3 In response to a question from Chair Parisi, Ms. Hayes stated that it is customary to have a drive -through use with stand alone bank buildings. Chair Parisi opened the Public Hearing. He then swore in those witnesses intending to testify. Scott Christie, Oro Valley resident, stated that he lives just west of this property. He questioned whether the variance would apply to any other areas. (Chair Parisi explained that this variance would apply only to the bank and would not affect any future buildings.) Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated that the intent of the ordinance is to protect residences. He stated that the reason for the relief request has nothing to do with anything except for the design of this use. He said that the land is not creating a hardship; it is just that the applicant was wanting to place more uses on the property than space allows. He stated that the square footages should be reduced on the buildings and then a variance would not be needed. Chair Parisi closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Member Kessler, Mr. Conant explained that the owner/developer wants to place the bank on this corner. He stated that there have been a number of iterations of this particular plan. If the bank were moved to the west it would create a worse situation. He also explained that the bank with a drive -through would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep and seconded by Member Kessler to deny the variance for case OV10-08-04. DISCUSSION: Member Schannep stated that he tended to go the "cleaner" route but by making this change, it would go against the intent of the zoning. He also stated that he felt that this case did not meet all five criteria and the problem was being created by the property owner. Member Kessler concurred and also stated that she would be concerned about setting a precedent for other measurements and variances in the future. She also stated that other uses could be applied to this pad that would fall into the boundaries of the property and the bank use with a drive -through is bigger than was meant for the pad. MOTION carried, 3-0. 06/13/08 Board of Adjustment, Special Session Minutes 4 2. CASE NO: OV10-08-05, Paul Hofmann, represented by 31) architectural Designs, requests a variance from the required 15' side yard setback to 10'. Subject (parcel #224-34-1370) located at 935 W. Landoran Lane, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Chair Parisi swore in the witness intending to testify. Frank Rendon, 31) Architectural Designs, representing the applicant, Paul Hofmann, stated that they are asking that the side yard setback be reduced to 10 feet to allow a better functioning garage and driveway. He explained that the setback of the property when zoned by Pima County was 10 feet; however, when Oro Valley rezoned the area, the setback was changed to 15 feet. He reviewed pictures depicting the access to the current garage, the proposed garage and driveway and the large palo verde tree that hinders access. He further explained that other properties surrounding the subject property have 10 yard setbacks. In response to a question from Member Schannep regarding "tilting" the garage on the property, Mr. Rendon stated that even if the new garage were tilted, it would still encroach into the 15 foot setback. In response to questions from Chair Parisi and Member Kessler, Mr. Rendon stated that the palo verde tree is about 50 - 60 years old and provides shade for the house. He explained that the tree is about 2 - 3 feet from the corner of the garage. He stated that they have worked on the design for over a year to try to make the garage work. Mr. Rendon explained that in order to make the roof line functional and to not move the tree and keep the garage accessible for two vehicles, they could only make the 10 foot setback work. Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes reviewed the staff communication and highlighted the following: Property owner is requesting a variance from the required 15 foot side yard setback to 10 feet to build a detached garage. Property owners within 300 feet of the property were notified of the hearing. Property was posted and hearing was advertised in the Daily Territorial and on line. Staff received one inquiry but the caller had no opinion. A member of the Homeowner's Association also called but had no objection. House was built in 1963 in Pima County's CR1 zoning district which required a 10 foot side yard setback. Oro Valley's Zoning Code was adopted in 1981 with a 15 foot side yard setback required for R1-36 zoning. Chair Parisi opened the public hearing. He then swore the witnesses intending to testify. Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that it is clear that the hardship has been created by the design of the original house. He stated that it is not the a 06/13/08 Board of Adjustment, Special Session Minutes conditions of the property that are creating the hardship; it is the house location, size, design, etc. He stated that it is a tough decision but the previous zoning is not a justification for a variance. Paul Hofmann, owner of subject property, stated that he had submitted a letter with pictures and information regarding his property with his application. However, he had two additional statements from neighbors to the north and to the south expressing support of his request that he also wanted to present to the Board (items were presented to the Board for their consideration). Mr. Hofmann further explained that his house was built in 1963 along with many other houses in the neighborhood. The houses were built on properties with 10 foot sideyard setbacks so most of the homes were placed on their property with those provisions. He stated that his house was built with a carport that was later converted to a flat -roof garage and now he was trying to upgrade his property with a garage that will allow his family to park their cars and to also have additional storage. He stated that the law (ARS 9-462.06) provides for changes when it is justified and that the same privileges afforded to the neighbors should be afforded to all. He explained that they have tried to reconfigure the placement of the garage and they can not do it without a five-foot variance. He stated that if they cut the corner differently for the placement of the garage, they can't fit a second car in as the depth would not be great enough. He also explained that if they turn the garage, they can get a greater depth without it sticking out into the backyard. Mr. Hofmann further explained that the new structure will compliment the existing house and their goal was to improve the value of the property and put it to its highest function. In response to a question from Member Schannep, Mr. Hofmann explained that they can't currently park in the garage because they do have to store items in it. He further explained that even if there was nothing in the garage, it is very small with a ceiling height of about 6 1/2 feet high so it is much smaller than you would expect to see. He stated that they have always only been able to put one car in the garage due to its small size. Chair Parisi closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Kessler and seconded by Member Schannep to approve OV-10-08-05 a request to reduce the side -yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. DISCUSSION: Member Kessler stated that she went through the criteria and she felt that the large tree was a special circumstance on the property. She stated that if the tree was not there, the owner might be able to re -position the garage. She stated that due to the topography of the surroundings, that the circumstances were not created by the owner and in looking around the neighborhood, the house warrants a two car garage. 06/13/08 Board of Adjustment, Special Session Minutes She stated that the request was not detrimental to anyone in the area so she felt that the criteria had been met. Member Schannep stated that the Board has been very understanding in allowing homeowners to build or install amenities in order to enjoy and have the same property rights as the surrounding neighbors. However, this property owner already has a garage although it is undersized. He stated that the property owner bought the home and now he wants to build a bigger garage. He said that he felt that instead of taking the existing structure and widening it and making it higher, that it was all about the views. Member Schannep stated that the building was already there so he was opposed to granting the variance with the belief that the existing structure could be modified staying in the 15 foot setback and yet still keeping the tree. Chair Parisi stated that the project looks terrific but it is not in the 15 foot setback. He stated that there were other ways to modify the design of the garage and stay in the required setback and still enjoy their property. MOTION failed, 1-2 with Member Parisi and Member Schannep opposed. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schannep and seconded by Member Parisi to deny OV-10-08-05. MOTION carried, 2-1 with Member Kessler opposed. 3. Planning and Zoning Update - No report. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Kessler and seconded by Member Schannep to adjourn at 3:56 p.m. MOTION carried, 3-0. Prepared by: Roxana Garrity, CMC Deputy Town Clerk W ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REPORT CASE NO: OV 10-08-04 Hearing Date: June 13, 2008 Agenda Item No.: 1 Prepared By: Patty Hayes, Zoning Inspector REQUEST: Desco Southwest, represented by the Planning Center requests relief from the 250' distance required from a convenience use to residentially zoned properties. Subject: (parcels #219- 47-017A, 018A, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004C, 004B) located on the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737. REQUEST SPECIFICS: The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised section 25.1.G states no convenience use shall be located closer to a residential district than 250 feet. A business with a drive -through use, such as a bank, is considered a convenience use. The applicant requests elimination of the 250' setback for the southeastern comer bank lot of this development. SITE LOCATION: Subject property is located on the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road. NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 300 feet of this property were notified of this hearing by mail. The property is posted with a notice of hearing, posted online at www.orovalleyaz.gov and was advertised in the Daily Territorial. At the time of this report preparation, staff had received no comment in support or opposition to this case. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: Site: Subject property — Vacant land zoned C-1 and TP North — Existing house zoned Pima County's SR (suburban ranch) West- Existing houses zoned R1-144 East- Existing houses across La Canada Drive zoned R1-36 South - Existing houses across Tangerine Road zoned R1-7 SITE INFORMATION: The property was rezoned in February, 2007, from R1-144 to TP and C-1. The western portion of the property remained zoned R1-144. This property is referred to as Miller Ranch. The Miller Ranch has a gross area of 19.3 acres and is relatively flat. The houses and accessory buildings shown on the aerial photos have been recently demolished. A wash separates this property from the adjacent residential homes to the west. Portions of the wash have been previously disturbed. SUMMARY: Finding of Facts: • The proposed drive -through bank is located on the southeastern portion of the development. The zoning for this portion of the property is C 1. Zoning variances apply to the land and are applicable to any convenience use allowed in a C-1 zoning district; however, condition D of the February, 2007, rezoning prohibited the following uses: churches, drug store, gas station, hardware store, drive-through/drive-in restaurants, animal hospital, convenience store, pet grooming, auto repair, funeral home, automobile parts store, radio station and appliance repair store. The proposed use, a bank, is not restricted by this rezoning condition. • Condition #C of the February, 2007 rezoning allows the following uses on the C-1 portion of the project: printing shop, UPS store or similar, restaurants and bank with drive -through. • The 250' distance shall be measured from the abutting edge of the residential district to the closest property line or lease line of the convenience use. The limit of the property line or lease line shall include all required parking, landscaping, and setbacks of the specific convenience use. • The distance measured from a convenience use to a residential district is from the residential property boundary not the house structure. Zoning districts in the Town extend over into the street right-of-way thus causing the zoning of the property to extend beyond platted property lines. • The neighborhood east of this development is across La Canada Drive which is approximately a 125' right-of-way. As a major street La Canada Drive does provide a separation from the neighborhood. • West of the proposed bank pad, a planned retail/restaurant building, wash and a small portion of the property's remaining R1-144 zoning exists between the proposed drive - through bank and the nearest residentially zoned parcel. • If the variance is approved, the drive -through use will require a conditional use permit and the building will require architectural review. The Board of Adjustment should consider the following findings in making its decision: A. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district; and B. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; and C. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and D. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; and E. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Board may wish to consider the following motions: I move to [approve, approve with conditions, or deny] OV 10-08-04, a request to eliminate the 250' convenience use setback for the bank pad B. ATTACHMENTS: 1. BOA application 2. Location map 3. Ariel photo 4. Copy of the rezoning tentative development plan F:\OV\OV 1 0\2007\1 0-08-03\REPORT.doc D��- SaAh More, FAIC Planning and Zoning Director i h ,. "i .NtS :f �f ��' Ia YF� )r. Ta a }.•� `1>. ; 4 .,a,<� �..�74Orb irp r z '� ' � ' fa � ° �� �y a � ; +�iv t f E �' •. �. �' � c � .Y vyy �, � . � �, ! � � '"/ } � �A ...,y": S °v � -,,,s � :�, �'� �?' �•�1 s •+ r h t q r� a x��Q""' a r�� ,,1, wq�`b .. G'. �aldE ► f z - �..... a �:. .�.�. X �. fit.-..�'t. � ,.k. n •` L +ls:a _ aL 1 R,e'd'J $• - d r .. a 1.Tq '• v y{� �♦' � , � � ,'Tp •fir,- `� T"`7,"' �. ��,�Ms�'��e t�{'�R1�.•�. Or.: �'� •�- :.F .e '�r ANA f �Q, 49, vo All � w N N i I' �• La_Ganjada Drive ��„ liiiTfij�� � .+ �` �ij., . is `�.r 'rt * ��a t' �... A`�`r ylf ;tY r}�}t'� ?i • }hall T���:� e. .;�, d! r '-•.rs a+a � s l' � 1 , F ,j�1fP' � �♦ r r � ,t • N.. Y C / `` '4' , �`.R null'. s• .AR 1 ''� . t R PROPOSED ZONING: T-P & C-1 II A. GROSS AREA OF THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONE: 19.3 ACRES B. ZONING REQUEST: FROM RI-144 TO T-P: 14.3 ACRES FROM RI-144 TO C-1: 5.0 ACRES C. GROSS FLOOR AREA TOTAL: 188,650 SQ FT C-1: 22,500 SQ. FT. TP: 166,150 SQ. FT. D. FLOOR AREA RATIO TOTAL: 0.2 C-1: 0.1 TP: 0.3 E. BUILDING VOLUME RATIO: 0.2 H. BUILDING HEIGHTS VARY BASED ON SETBACKS (SEE PLAN) - MAX 34' I. PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 586 J. NATURAL UNDISTURBED AREA: 1.3 ACRES K. TOTAL OPEN SPACE: 3.0 ACRES L. FLOOD PLAINS WILL BE ALTERED TO FACILITATE RESTORATION AND AUGMENTATION OF RIPARIAN HABITAT. M. WATER SERVICE PROVIDER: ORO VALLEY WATER ADDITIONAL NOTES: I. THE TANGERINE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE CHAPTER 24.0 APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION IN THE REQUIRED 25' NO ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE. 2. ONLY NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE USED. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SITE RE -VEGETATION. 3. DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO DRAIN DRY. 4. A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT (PER ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE CHAPTER 27.0. LEGEND -- BOUNDARY - — — — - LANDSCAPE BUFFER "" PHASE LINE DETENTION BASIN ® 15-FOOT RIPARIAN PROTECTIVE APRON F:_•:_•:-] TANGERINE OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK DECORATIVE PAVING "- LOADING ZONE µ PASSENGER DROP-OFF — — — — — FUTURE EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING POWER LINE & POLES % — EXISTING WATER LINE �r`,zo n A� ease. Ov °G_ CS --6 ®° 40 ".7 TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 38 PROJECT DATA Use Footprint Total Scl.Ft. Bank 5500 6500 Total S.F. 5500 Office 8700 8700 Office 5000 5000 Office 4450 4450 Office 12500 25000 Office 5000 5000 Office 11000 22000 Office 10000 20000 Office 10000 20000 Office 9000 18000 Office 8500 17000 Office 10500 21000 Total S.F. 166150 Retail 7200 7200 Retail 5800 5800 Retail 4000 4000 Total S.F. 17000 Mobility Impaired Parking Required: 12 Van Parking: 2 Typical Spaces 10 Bike Parking Total Required: 29 Class one: 3 Class two: 26 #floors Height Parking. _ j &Qv� µ 1 25 max 19 t 19 E1fU27: E111325 MCIARIM 1 34 max 26 Eflfue /:,_ 1fff32 1 ' 25max 15 I E111333 j Efi1 E111335 111335\ 1 25 max 13 --»-T 2 . 34 max 75 1 25 max 152 34 max 66 -- - -- , 2 34 max 60 - _ Plma County / ? Y ax 2 34 m60 r 2 34 max 542 34 max 51 q r 9 2 34 max 63 ! �� Tt J ' !i I `{ Oro valley 498 LIMEWOOD ' 4 1 I- 1 25 max 29 j - �Sub'ect Pro y 1 25 max 23 �, 1 25 max 16 T i (TANGERINE E111334 E1413 _ En13j6� 68 _ E121304 Il //yJO��PPer USPS % Elemsnlnry Srinol ;. Parking Total: 586 E _ L 5 y47, le x NARANJA-` + LOCATION MAP SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 11 S, RANGE 3" = 1 MILE 13 E; PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA /� `✓' v / 19.3 ACRE PARCEL on the NORTHWEST CORNER OF TANGERINE ROAD & LA CANADA DRIVE ZONING REQUEST FROM R1-144 TO C-1 & T-P Scale: 1 "= 80'-0" Contour Interval: 1 foot Dated: January 2006 Rev: 08/30/2006, Rev: 11/15/2006, Rev: 12/19/2006, Rev: 12/29/2006 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Rev: 01/23/2007 • GRAHAM BRYCE Go planning resources MICHAELSARABIA OV9-04-02 6885 N. ORACLE RD. AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION JUNE 13, 2008 Oro Valley Town Hall Council Chambers 11,000 N. La Cafiada Drive CALL TO ORDER: at or after 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of April 22, 2008. AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR, THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER, AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CASE NO: OV10-08-04, Desco Southwest, represented by the Planning Center requests relief from the 250' distance required from a convenience use to residentially zoned properties. Subject (parcel #219-47-017A, 018A, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004C, 00413) located on the northwest comer of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737. 2. CASE NO: OV10-08-05, Paul Hofmann, represented by 313 architectural Designs, requests a variance from the required 15' side yard setback to 10'. Subject (parcel #224-34-1370) located at 935 W. Landoran Lane, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 3. Planning and Zoning Update ADJOURNMENT A packet of agenda materials, as listed above, is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the BOA meeting in the Town Hall Administration Building, during regular business hours. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If a disabled person planning to attend this meeting requires any special accommodations, please notify the Town Clerk at 229- 4700. NOT/CE TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing; however, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Board during the course of its business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Board on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Clerk of the Board. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on. Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda, which you are interested in addressing. "Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only." Posted: 6-06-08 4:00 p.m. cp AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) Jamie Macias, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he 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 Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OV10-08-04 MAY 27, 2008 was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues; that was first made on the 1st day of May 2008 and the last publication thereof was made on the 1st day of May 2008 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: 05/01 /08 at the Request of: Town of Oro Valley by �f ,'` `v4\ ;' /� Legal Advertising Manager g g Subscribed and sworn to before -me -.this 1st day of May 2008 � CELINDA ARGUE Notary Public in and for the County of Pima, State of Arizona Notary Public - Arizona Pima county Expires j0j31/2011 My Commission expires: 02/21/07 -Minutes, Council Regular Session 6 Hank Winter, 12300 N. Sunkist Springs Place, stated that they purchased their land in 2000 in order to get away from urban sprawl. He stated that the development is inevitable but he had concerns about the proposed height which would impact their views. He asked that the Council restrict the height for this development. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:22 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:37 p.m. Discussion followed regarding the proposed heights and limiting the northern three buildings to 28 feet but allowing up to 4 feet more to accommodate elevator shafts and architectural features, protecting the views of neighbors and those driving along La Canada Drive, viewshed site analysis, visual value of the site, and buildings in the C-1 district meeting the Tangerine Overlay District requirements. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Dankwerth and seconded by Council Member Gillaspie to adopt Ordinance (0)07-02, OV9-04-02, rezoning from R1-144 to T-P, Technological Park and C-1, Commercial District with Conditions in Exhibit "A" and adding Exhibit "B" (Allowable -Prohibited/Permitted Uses) as Condition 15 but deleting the last paragraph of Exhibit B nor the above lice+.) Adding Condition 16: Maximum floor area ratio of C-1 District area will be what is allowed in Technology Park which conforms to the General Plan elements. Adding Condition 17: The right-of-way will be dedicated to the Town upon effective date of rezoning. Adding Condition 18: The northern three buildings of the Technology Park (T-P) District will have a maximum height of 28 feet with the exception of the appurtenances necessary for the elevator shafts (which will be minimized but will not exceed 34 feet in height) and any special architectural features shall not be more than four (4) feet above the allowed 28 foot height. Exhibit "A": Please note, the following legend applies: • Strikethrough — PZ Commission items addressed by applicant in most recent submittal. Plain text - condition approved by PZ Commission. Bold — new staff conditions Italics — staff explanation for modification !_The development plan must be in substantial rnnfnrmanGe with the Tentative Development Plan This is a code requirement so no condition is needed. 2. Label the area adjacent to the roundabout along the west side of the property to specify that a future connection to the APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION JULY 6, 2004 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Acting Chair Don Cox Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Paul Loomis Council Member K.C. Carter Council Member Conny Culver Council Member K.C. Carter Council Member Barry Gillaspie Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Craig Civalier, P.E., Development Review Division Mgr. Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment CALL TO THE AUDIENCE OPENED AT 6:05 P.M. Harold Kandetzke, 10130 N. Sawgrass Drive, Oro Valley, is the President of the Valle del Oro Homeowners Association. He spoke on behalf of the Homeowners. At the next schedule meeting on August P, Mr. Wolfley, owner of the property at the northwest corner of Oracle Road and El Conquistador Way will be requesting a zoning change on his property from the current R-6 to C-1. Their homes are immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and considering the size, which is 2 Y2 acres, a rezoning will have a major impact on the homeowners. He requested, that prior to the August meeting the Commission grant to the Valle del Oro homeowners, a Study Session with the Planning and Zoning Commission at their clubhouse to view the property and give the homeowners an opportunity for an informal give and take with the Commission members, so the Commission fully understands the impact this will have on the quality of life. The time allotted to the homeowners at the meeting is not adequate to convey the level of concerns and the impact. The HOA has met with the applicant on several occasions and the land use issue has been a major disagreement. The rules allow for the Commission to direct the Staff to direct a Study Session and at this time he requests that the Commission do so. July 6, 2004 Approved N"s, Planning & Zoning Commission MeetlA 2 Vice Chair Cox asked Mr. Nodine to take the steps necessary to do so. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE CLOSED AT 6:10 P.M. MINUTES MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the June 1, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to approve the June 7, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to nominate Vice Chair Cox as Chairperson. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Krenkowitz that the by-laws call for annually electing officers in September. As there is a vacancy at this point, Staffs recommendation was to go ahead and elect officers now at your pleasure. Staff did not feel that this violates the by-laws even though the by-laws state that election of officers is done annually in September. Attorney Andrews said that the Board can suspend rules to have an election if so desired. Commissioner Bistany pointed out that the election process has its genesis not only in the by-laws but in Resolution 91-41 which says the election will be in September, and the Vice Chair becomes Acting Chair in the Chair's absence. Commissioner Kinared withdrew his motion. Commissioner Anning withdrew his second. It was the consensus of the Commission to have Vice Chair Cox continue as Acting Chair until the September meeting as specified in the Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws, when the Chair will be nominated and elected. 2. ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION It was the consensus of the Commission to wait until the September meeting as specified in the Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws, when a Vice -Chair will be nominated and elected. July 6, 2004 Approved M1us, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 3 3. CONTINUED ITEM, PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-01, TIERRA RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES, REPRESENTING DC INVESTMENTS, REQUEST A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR AN 8.35 ACRE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "OLD BUS BARN" SITE FROM TP (TECHNOLOGICAL PARK) ZONING DISTRICT TO "R- 4" (TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DESERT SKY ROAD AND VALLE DEL ORO ROAD, PARCEL NUMBERS 224-33-007A, 224-33-008A AND 224-33-011A Mark Castro, Tierra Right of Way Services, 1575 E. River Road, Suite 201, representing DC Investments, gave a presentation showing location of the property as just southwest of El Conquistador and Oracle Road. The property is on Desert Sky and Via del Oro Road. This is an ideal location for a residential subdivision. The surrounding uses and zoning are consistent with the proposal to rezone from Technology Park to R-4. New changes incorporated into the Tentative Development Plan (TDP) forced this continuance. Those changes were: • Number of lots reduced from 51 to 46 • Make this a gated community • Instead of single family detached units, make attached units of 3-4. • A recreation area of approximately Y2 acre was added. • Eliminate the open space alley in the center of the subdivision. The new layout shows: 45 lots • A recreation area relocated to the center of the subdivision. • Lots #23, 24, 25, and 31 through 35 will be reserved for single story units only. • Lot dimensions will remain 40 x 110. Prior to review by the Town Council a revised TDP will be provided. David Grounds, Dorn Homes, 3950 S. Camino del Arroyo, Green Valley, was available for questions on architecture. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Attorney Andrews told Commissioner Kinared that the Town cannot delegate authority for land use approvals to process to another entity. They only have to meet. If they don't meet, we get a letter that says they did not want to meet, i.e. school district. If the School District does not like the policy, it can be changed, but at this time they have to meet. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Krenkowitz that the electrical line through the property would need to be moved to accommodate development on the property. Mr. Castro said that the lines will be put underground with the utility easements. Mr. Nodine responded to Vice Chair Cox's questions as follows: July 6, 2004 Approved s, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeingl 4 • Conditions #9 B and P are necessary to be listed. The other conditions are included as a reiteration of what will be required by the Code. They are not necessary as a condition, merely a repeat. • Condition #3 gives guidance to Staff, applicant, and the Development Review Board (DRB) to control the architecture to respect the privacy of the homes to the south. There is nothing in the code that allows that, and that is why it is a condition in the rezoning because it becomes tied to the further review of the property. • The key thing Staff would be looking at is that there are no balconies, and not to create a lot of windows on that story facing the neighbors. This must be worked out with DRB and Staff to come up with an answer. • Condition #4G, front setbacks should vary on adjacent units, and could be added into the motion when made. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Bistany that it would take a 44-45 foot front elevation to meet the garage dimensions, lot to lot. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:35 P.M. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, supported the General Plan change from Technological Park to Residential, but he opposed this density. He thought the density should be the same as Sun Stone Estates. The rezoning raised issues of privacy. Privacy comes from the General Plan, not the zoning code. Policy 4.1A&B says we are to protect the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. The rezoning of this property at R- 4 is too intense. The issues that Staff has raised are all related to the density. The Sun Stone Estates project is R-17 and this project should be changed to that as well. The lots would be wider. He doesn't think the two stories should be included at all, but at least the privacy issue is mitigated to a greater degree. The streetscape issues, the crowded appearance of the streets, the alignment of the garages, etc. don't disappear but can be handled to a degree that is successful. The error here is that medium high density can include R-14 or R-17, so the designation of medium high density can be either. He suggested that the Commission rezone to R-17 so that the living environment concerns that have been raised are more easily adjusted, so the quality of life for these residents is superior to what it is likely to be with the rather crowded and congested condition. Vice Chair Cox expressed his appreciation to Bill Adler for his involvement over the past years and that the Town of Oro Valley is better off because of his interest. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:40 P.M Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that if this was adopted, it would be related to the revised plan referenced in Exhibit A, Condition #8 related to attachment #3. Mr Castro responded to Commissioner Krenkowitz's question that if the rezoning were to be to R1-7 there would be a great number of lot reduction. July 6, 2004 Approved M"s, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 5 Chris Phillips, 11178 N. Pomegranate, with DC Investments, the owners of the property said that they came in with a plan amendment about 6 months ago. At that time it was for 63 lots. There were two meetings with the neighbors, several staff meetings to address concerns and work out issues with the neighbors and the two stories issue. The project has gone forward based on that design. They added a rec area, gated the project, etc. To change the zoning would change the whole project. He thinks lower zoning would probably not be financially feasible for residential, and they would probably withdraw the rezoning and go back to TP. MOTION: Commissioner Don Manross MOVED to recommend approval of OV9- 04-01, Desert Sky Zoning Map Amendment to the Town Council, subject to the conditions of Exhibit A, adding in to 4.G. the word "adjacent" to read "The front setbacks for the houses shall vary so that no two "adjacent" units are equally aligned." Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 4. PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-04-02, CARL WINTERS, REPRESENTING SARAH MILLER, SUSAN AND BILLY MONTGOMERY AND KARTER AND PATRICIA KAY, REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (1996) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 TO 0.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (*1.3 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON 11.75 ACRES AND AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON 24.9 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WEST OF THE LA CANADA ROAD EXTENSION, PARCEL NUMBERS 219-47-004A, 00413, 004C, 0050, 0060, 0170 AND 0180. Carl Winters, 270 N. Church, representative for the applicant's position, presented an overhead showing the location of the subject property. During the last plan update the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission came up with a plan that designated the area on the east side of the wash for small corporate office buildings and part as commercial. On the west side of the lot we will eventually come back for a rezoning for R1-72 lots. He asked Susie Montgomery to give a background on the area. Susie Montgomery, 1410 W. Tangerine Road, moved there in 1971. There are now four generations living on the property. The use of the property was to raise and train foundation quarter horses, which they have done for the last 30 years on the property. The La Canada and Tangerine Road intersection and widening, and the La Canada Extension drastically changed the context of their property. Having the narrow property face a four -lane highway is no longer desirable for suburban living. With the Southeasterly corner of the property needed by the Town of Oro Valley for the La Canada Extension, pastures will need to be moved. The horses already had to be moved to a different area because of the construction and activity. They fought the road and intersection and lost, so they have worked with the Engineering, Transportation and Development Services Departments to see what would be the Town's vision of this type of growth along a major arterial road. The demographics drop off drastically from the northwest corner to the southeast corner, so any development will not be obstructing views. We care about our neighbors and have tried to meet with them to assure the Jul 6 2004 Approved M1Tf s Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 6 Y PP 9 9 9 development of the area will be consistent with what is along any major highway and intersections. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Manross that in the General Plan there are 10 acres at the South East corner of La Cholla and Tangerine and 60 acres on the South West corner of commercial property. Mr. Nodine replied to Vice Chair Cox's question regarding the statement "there remains a need for neighborhood commercial node", that it is based on what he presented in terms of the distance to other neighborhood commercial uses being 1 to 2 miles for vacant ones. In terms of developed ones, we are looking at a 2 miles distance. Uses compatible contained in the designation CN are uses that are neighborhood service in the General Plan. He read the CN zoning description from the General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:07 P.M. Hank Winter, 12300 N. Sunkist Springs Place, owns property located next to the subject property. He had a meeting with Mr. Carl Winters and the Montgomerys, which revolved around the specifics map that designated R1-72 zoning. The proposal states that it is Low Density Residential 1.3 to 2 dwelling units per acre. It is possible to have 2 homes per acre. He moved there because the suburban ranch was attractive to them. We are now looking at the possibility of 20 + homes in the area. We are concerned about the density of the residential area, not the commercial as much. If it remained as it is we would not be as opposed to roughly 5 homes. He is concerned to the 50 foot setback where the road starts directly off the property. He would probably have headlights into his backyard. He would probably be more in tune to a 50 foot setback at the first of the road. Maybe have a barrier wall considered to divide the property. The biggest concern is to have this rewritten so we all fully understand the project. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye, is not opposed to change, but he wants change to be compliant with the General Plan in this case. The vision statement in the General Plan says approximately that the view of the community for the future will leave things better than they presently exist. This is not an improvement to the General Plan and is not consistent with that vision. He doesn't think the rural character of an area is destroyed by La Canada Extension. He agrees with the Staff's Report saying the future plans of the area portends the end of the rural ranch character of the site and environs. We should not be engaging in a change of the character of an area simply to benefit the property owner. This is not an overall improvement to the plan or the community. It is an improvement for the property owner. As far as the commercial portion is concerned, the General Plan has some excellent advice. In the Land Use Settlement, 4.13, says the Town recently wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before authorizing a higher land use intensity than present zoning permits. We don't follow that advice. What study has been done that indicates there is a demand for lots of this size. There is a neighborhood commercial project now at the intersection of Naranja and La Canada. What is the magic of the 2 miles? People are not hesitant to go 2 miles or more if there is a use they wish to patronize. He doesn't think this meets Finding #1. It July 6, 2004 Approved M"s, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 7 is not an overall improvement to the plan. It is not consistent with the vision statement in the General Plan. Neighborhood Commercial is not warranted by a need established by a study. He is not sure two acre lots are marketable. How practical is this to offer to the community. What is the market demand for this higher intensity? Scott Christy, 12351 N. Sunkist Springs Place, pointed out where he lived in relation to the project. His big concern is not the commercial development, but everything that is going to take place on the other side of the wash, and the number of houses they put up against our property. As you see now, there are 3 SR lots above us with houses and we are satisfied with that. We understand the Montgomery situation with them having to sell out and leave. He doesn't fault them for trying to get this rezoned, but he would like to see a preferred plan for what they are going to do on that side of the wash. How many houses are there going to be. He would like to see a 50 foot natural open space set back against all our property lines on the west and north sides. He would like to see no more than 1 house per 1.5 acres at the most with that set back in place. With the neighborhood commercial part of it, he feels that will meet the guidelines. His biggest concern is the lifestyle and the view towards to mountain cannot take that many houses next door. Rick Sims, 1750 Sunkist, said in going through the procedure of this type of rezoning, he understands that this would essentially be a major rezoning and to accomplish that there would have to be 2 neighborhood meetings. He heard of one. Has there been two? Mr. Nodine said the major and minor rezoning would be related to the General Plan amendments, which is what we are doing. Currently there is no designation for major or minor. That will take place when the General Plan is adopted and ratified by the voters. Until then there is simple one type of General Plan amendment and there is no specification for the number of neighborhood meetings. We typically try to have at least one. So everyone knows, we are in the General Plan process, but it still has to go through the rezoning process, which is where we talk about details and specifics of the lot layout, setbacks, buffers, etc. Mr. Sims said there are other factors that need to be considered, such as no one has spoken of the communication onto Sunkist via the La Canada Extension. That could be a very serious interface leaving some serious problems similar to the ones on Moore Road. He encouraged having another neighborhood meeting, to get input and air thoughts. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:20 P.M. Mr. Winters responded to the public hearing saying that the Commission can see that the issue is the plan category and density range. He would submit that when the Town decided to run a four -lane boulevard up the edge of the property, it did make a substantial change to this property owner's property, and when the Post Office took over the only commercial site on this intersection, it did change the ability of looking at the additional area. We will be setting up another neighborhood meeting very soon. There is still some confusion on the exact layout of the intersection of Sunkist July 6, 2004 Approved N"s, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting connecting to La Canada. This property is annexed to the Town already. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Anning that Staff was also concerned with the linear nature of the property and it being prime for strip commercial. We looked at an office or incubator business type of use in the northern portion and focused on retail types of services in the southern portion. There are designations in the General Plan that would work in office types, but in the terms of zoning of the property, you are taking a commercial zoning and then using the rezoning process to specify where the uses are going to go. You can use a Tentative Development Plan and control things with the placement of buildings and parking, etc. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Kinared's concern of whether there was a demand for commercial office. Staffs analysis of need is based on distance to other sites and on talking to the broker on the site. There are very few incubator business types of sites available in Town. The broker felt very strongly that there was a demand for retail services in the area. Staff concurred. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that there has been discussion with the neighbors. It seems there is a mix of opinion about the connection along Sunkist. That is not part of the issue before the Commission now, because that was decided when the plat to the north was approved. The connection was made for potential future connection. The development of this property as is being proposed, is beyond the General Plan at this point. As proposed this property would not force the connection. There was discussion that it should make that connection and Staff had looked at that as an option. Staff did no go in that direction because of some of the concerns. If there is enough development in the future then eventually that connection will have to be made. Vice Chair Cox stated that he was also concerned if there was enough demand for commercial. Mr. Winters submitted that this property would probably not have grocery store on it. He envisions restaurants, small shops, etc. If there was a high quality restaurant, people would drive to it regardless of what else was there. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to continue this item until the regularly scheduled meeting in August to give the applicant time to add definition to the proposal and for applicant and Staff to be able to give more information. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 yes, 2 no. Commissioners Manross and Krenkowitz voting no. BREAK 7:35 to 7:45 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-04, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY SUBURBAN RANCH (ONE RESIDENCE PER 144,000 S.F.) TO ORO VALLEY R1-144 (ONE RESIDENCE PER 144,000 S.F.) FOR A NEWLY ANNEXED AREA, LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION OF TANGERINE ROAD/LA CANADA DRIVE July 6, 2004 Approved N"s, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 9 EXTENDED AND NEAR SUNKIST DRIVE, PARCELS 21947004B, 21947004C, 21947004A, 219470060, AND 219470050 Mr. Nodine gave the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. No Speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV9-04-04, translating the zoning from Pima County SR to Oro Valley R1- 144, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit A attached herewith. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes 0 no. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-04-03, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A TRANSLATIONAL ZONING FROM PIMA COUNTY RURAL HOMESTEAD (ONE RESIDENCE PER 180,000 S.F.) TO ORO VALLEY R1-144 (ONE RESIDENCE PER 144,000 S.F.) FOR A NEWLY ANNEXED AREA, LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO W. TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN CL., N. KING AIR DR., AND WEST TURTLE DOVE LN., PARCELS 21916001 D, 21916003A, 21916005A, 21916005B, 219160.07B, 21916007A, 219150010, 219150040, 219150050, 219150060, 21916001 B, 219160020, 21915007A, 21915007B, 219160160, 219150090, 219150080, AND 219120160. Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. He pointed out that Pima County Rural Homestead (RH) allows one residence per 180,000 square feet. There needs to be an additional condition to meet the State law that lot size shall be no smaller than 180,000 square feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M. No Speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV9-04-03, translating the zoning from Pima County RH to Oro Valley R1- 144, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit A attached herewith and the following added condition that lot sizes shall be no smaller than 180,000 square feet. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 7. PUBLIC HEARING, FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 PLANNING AND ZONING WORK PLAN Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report presenting the 2004-2005 Work Plan that is divided into two parts. The first page is items substantially completed and on going items. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that he will set a Study Session for the Commissioners to review the Boards and Commissions Bylaws. The next page of the Work Plan has the General Plan Update Election and other items as high priority. The Recreation Areas and Trails, Code Revisions and CPTED Amendment were initiated, but they are being done on a slower track. July 6, 2004 Approved Minutes, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 10 Mr. Nodine said to Commissioner Manross that at this point the status of the General Plan is that there have been a couple of Study Sessions with the Town Council. The Council has asked for another Study Session to present in more detail to the new Council what the proposals for changes might be. To make the May election, the process should start this month. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that there is to be a Study Session of Council to bring it back to the new Council. It depends on the Council's direction as to whether it comes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff's recommendation is that a small committee be formed that picks up the Commission, the Council, the opposition and the Steering Committee to look at changes that need to be made to the General Plan, and then take it through the process to the Commission, to the Council and then ultimately to the voters. Vice Chair Cox stated that one of the great criticisms of the last General Plan was that it was entirely too Town Council driven, and that it had lost its identity with the Steering Committee, etc. If the new General Plan is again perceived as a Town Council driven document, it may run into the same problems as before. He thinks a small committee is a good idea, but he would like to see a strong involvement of the Commission or to have a joint Study Session with the Council. Commissioner Kinared offered that there were clearly significant changes that were made after the plan left the Planning Commission. It would be helpful to the community if those differences were encapsulated so the population could better understand them. If it were significant changes it might be helpful for all of us to know why. Public discussion would be beneficial. He is a proponent of adopting a new General Plan because he is not sure the one we are using now serves us best. He also recognizes that we serve at the pleasure of the Council and that anything we do regarding the General Plan should be submitted as a request. Commissioner Krenkowitz agreed that Planning and Zoning should be involved in the process, but now it is before the Council. He suggested that we authorize the Chair to appear at a Call to the Audience before the Council and express to them the consensus of opinion that Planning and Zoning should be involved in the process of reviewing and developing the revised General Plan. Commissioner Bistany said that ultimately it doesn't matter who gets what into the plan. The point of departure is what actually winds up in the plan, and if it is not palatable to the community as a whole, it won't pass. We have to concentrate on what goes into the plan. The consensus was that the Commission would like Vice Chair Cox to make some type of notification to the Council that they want to have input. Attorney Andrews said that this should be an agenda item, unless the Commission wants to place it on the Work Plan. That could be taken care of under this specific agenda item under the open meeting law. Legal action includes any and all deliberation before the board that may result in final action by any other legislative body. This July 6, 2004 Approved dinutes, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 11 means the fact that the Commission is discussing this and wants to go to the Council with something later and bring a census forward to somebody who will cause legal action, could be considered legal action. Commission Kinared stated that the Work Plan points out that the Commission wants to have a study session with the Council for direction on modifying the plan and preparing for another election. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. No Speakers. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to forward the 2004-2005 Planning and Zoning Work Plan to the Town Council recommending adoption. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Krenkowitz highlighted the notification requirements and the rezoning and pad submittal requirements and procedures. His recommendation to Staff was that we ought to start moving into the procedure that the legislature has mandated in Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter 2. We can lay the foundation by picking up the procedural aspects that are in the statute. He suggested that the Commission take the good ideas from Growing Smarter and look at what can be done now, rather than waiting until the new General Plan is voted in. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 8. OV7-04-02, INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 27 OFF-STREET PARKING TO CLARIFY SECTION 27.6G1 AS IT PERTAINS TO PARKING DISTRIBUTION Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate an amendment to Chapter 27.6G1 as it pertains to parking distribution requirements. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 9. OV7-02-05, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO INCORPORATE PROTECTION OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS INTO THE ZONING CODE Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Staff does have the knowledge to develop the policies necessary. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to initiate an amendment to incorporate protection of visually sensitive areas into the applicable sections of the OVZCR. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 10. OV9-04-07, REQUEST TO INITIATE_ A_ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE TOWN'S RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT BY INCLUDING A PORTION OF A SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE LA RESERVE July 6, 2004 Approved Minutes, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 12 PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PUSCH WILDERNESS DRIVE AND NORTH BUCK RIDGE DRIVE, PARCEL 220-080-08K Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Manross that there was a plat being submitted at this time on the property. Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Kinared that in this case, that if the applicant is not encroaching into the designated riparian area, that they are not required to do the study and provide the information. The Town would have to do it. We are not out of order on this, depending upon how quickly this is done. There is no protection for the area at this time. We have notified the applicant upfront that we have taken this action. The applicant knew it was floodplain, not riparian. There are issues with the floodplain at this point as well. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that the plat that is coming in does encroach in this area, but at this point the applicant is not responsible for the study because it is not currently designated as riparian area. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to initiate a zoning map amendment to expand the Town's Riparian Habitat Overlay District to include a portion of Parcel 220-080-08K. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. 11. OV7-04-04, REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED TO REVISE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Mr. Nodine gave the Staff Report. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to initiate an amendment to the public notification requirements in applicable sections of the OVZCR. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. PLANNING UPDATE ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to adjourn the July 6, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recording Secretary NE7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF PIMA ) Jamie Macias, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he 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 Tucson, County of Pima, State of Arizona and elsewhere, and the hereto attached: RESCHEDULING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 13, 2008 OV10-08-04 was printed and published correctly in the regular and entire issue of said THE DAILY TERRITORIAL for 1 issues; that was first made on the 22nd day of May 2008 and the last publication thereof was made on the 22nd day of May 2008 ; that said publication was made on each of the following dates, to -wit: 05/22/08 at the Request of: Oro Valley Town Hall Notary CEUNDA ARGUE Notary Public - Arizona My commission expires.y Pima County Expires 10/31/2011 RESCHEDULING NSTICE 01! PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06,NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment has rescheduled the public hearing from Tuesday, May 27, 2008 to June 13, 2008, commencing at or after 3:00 p.rrL The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. Le Cafiada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OVII0-08-04: Desco Southwest repre- sented by the Planning Center re- cuests relief from the 250' dl=lance gqulred from a convenience use to residentlallylo. ned properties gub- fact: (parcels x219-47.017A. 018A. 0050. 0060, 004A. 004C. 0048) lo- cated the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road. Oro Valley. AZ. 65737. Site plans are available for review dur- ing normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be repre- sented. Any person seeking further in- formation on this request for a variance may contact Patty Hayes at 229-4819 or e-mail: phayes@orovalleyaz.gov. REO:Sarah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Director PUBLISH: The Dally Territorial May 22, 2008 hrJune13/100804 Im RESCHEDULING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment has rescheduled the public hearing from Tuesday, May 27, 2008 to June 13, 2008, commencing at or after 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-08-04: Desco Southwest represented by the Planninu Center requests relief from the 250' distance required from a convenience use to residentially zoned properties. Subiect: (parcels #219-47-017A, 018A, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004C, 004B) located the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Patty Hayes at 229-4819 or e-mail: pha. es a,orovalleyaz.ov. REQ: Sarah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Director Posted: By: Sg Date: 5-20-08 300 FEET FROM 219-47-018A, 018A, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004 C , 004 B A N S E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sec. 21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 commencing at or after 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10-08-04: The Planning Center requests relief from the 250' distance required from a convenience use to residentially zoned properties . Subject: (parcels #219-47-017A, 018A, 0050, 0060, 004A, 004C, 004B) located the northwest corner of La Canada Drive and Tangerine Road, Oro Valley, AZ, 85737. Site plans are available for review during normal business hours at the Oro Valley. Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons interested may appear in person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be represented. Any person seeking further information on this request for a variance may contact Patty Hayes at 229-4819 or e-mail: phayes@orovalleyaz.gov. O: Sarah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Director Posted: ByDRM Date: 4-29-08 Time: 10:00 a.m. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ORD VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In accordance with Sea 21.6.H of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 9-462.06, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 commencing at or alter 8:00 p.m. The meeting will be hold at the Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive and the subject matter will be as further described below: OV10418-04: The Plannina Center re Site plena are available for review dur- ing normal business hours at the Oro Valley Town Hall, Development Service Center. Persons Interested may appear In person, by agent or attorney, and the petitioners must appear or be repre. sented. Any person sseldng further In. formation on this request for a variance may contact Patty Hayes at 229.4819 or e-mail: phaMQ4orovallevaz.aov. REO: Sarah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Director PUBLISH: The Dally Territorial Aprl11, 20aa 1/000804 Jh