Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV90329 3 • TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Conant, Planner II SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — OV9-03-29, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) EXTENDING, REMOVING OR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT; OR (2) CAUSING THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO ITS FORMER ZONING CLASSIFICATION (R1-144 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE, PARCEL 224-018-270 BACKGROUND: On December 21, 1993, the Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 1993-182 rezoning the property south of Tangerine Road and north of Naranja Drive to PAD. The Town of Oro Valley annexed the area in November 1994 (Ordinance 94-29) and zoned the property PAD in June 1995 (Ordinance 95-46), subject to the original PAD conditions adopted by Pima County. SUMMARY: The PAD document adopted in June 1995, states in Section 501.B that the zoning would expire on July 7, 1996, unless the conditions of the original zoning as adopted by Pima County Board of Supervisors and made a part of the PAD had been satisfied. One of those conditions was submittal of a plat or development plan. To date, Monterra Hills, Monterra Knolls, Monterra Ridge and Monterra Estates have been platted and developed. The property located on the south side of Tangerine Road and north of the Naranja Town Site has not been developed nor has a plat or development plan been submitted within the allotted time frame. Technically, the zoning on the referenced property expired July 7, 1996; however, the Town has not taken any formal action as required and in accordance with ARS 9-462.01(E): "The legislative body may approve a change of zone conditioned upon a schedule for development of the specific use or uses for which rezoning is requested. If at the expiration of this period the property has not been improved for the use for which it was conditionally approved, the legislative body, after notification by certified mail to the owner and applicant who requested the rezoning shall schedule a public hearing to take administrative action to extend,remove or determine compliance with the schedule for development or take legislative action to cause the property to revert to its former zoning classification." The subject property was to be developed per the PAD as Multi-family and Commercial, pertinent sections of the PAD are attached to this report. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Page 2 GENERAL PLAN: The General Plan designates this property as Medium Density Residential (2.1 to 5.0 DU/ac). The zoning is not in compliance with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may take one of the following actions,recommend that; 1. Cause the property to revert to R1-144. 2. Extend the current zoning and set a schedule for development. 3. Remove the zoning conditions. Staff recommends reverting the zoning to R1-144 because the zoning has expired and no action by the developer has taken place in the last seven years and to insure that any future zoning and development conforms to current OVZCR standards. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following suggested motions: I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV9-03-29, to nullify that portion of the Monterra Hills PAD on the subject parcel and revert the zoning to R1-144. OR I move to recommend that Town Council approve OV9-03-29, to extend the PAD zoning and establish a development schedule as follows: Attachments: 1. Ordinance 94-29 2. Ordinance 95-46 3. Sections of the Monterra Hills PAD QL., Pl. s Zoning Administrator F:\OV\OV9\2003\9-03-29\REZ.PZ.RPT.doc s , • ORDINANCE NO. (0)94-29 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION; EXTENDING AND INCREASING THE TOWN LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4,ARTICLE 7,ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,AND AMENDMENTS THERETO,BY ANNEXING THERETO CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING TOWN LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. WHEREAS, a petition in writing, accompanied by a map of said real property, having been filed and presented to the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, signed by the owners of more than one-half in value of the real and personal property and more than one-half of the persons owning real and personal property as would be subject to taxation by the Town of Oro Valley in the event of annexation within the territory and land hereinafter described as shown by the last assessment of such property, which territory is contiguous to the Town of Oro Valley and is not now embraced within its limits, asking that the property, more particularly hereinafter described, be annexed to the Town of Oro Valley and to extend and increase the corporate limits of the Town of Oro Valley so as to embrace the same; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, are desirous of complying with said petition and extending and increasing the corporate limits of the Town of Oro Valley to include said territory; and WHEREAS, the said petition sets forth a true and correct description of all the exterior boundaries of the entire area proposed to be annexed to the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona and had attached thereto at all times an accurate map of the territory desired to be annexed; and WHEREAS,no alterations increasing or reducing the territory sought to be annexed have been made after the said petition had been signed by any owner of real and personal property in such territory, and WHEREAS, the provisions of A.R.S. § 9-471 et seq., and amendments thereto,have been fully observed; and, WHEREAS, proper and sufficient certification and proof of the foregoing facts are now on file in the office of the Oro Valley Town Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, together with a true and correct copy of the original petition referred to herein, which is on file in the office of the Pima County Recorder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS: ;., "et I t o r I n SECTION 1. That the following described territory be, and the same hereby is, annexed to the Town of Oro Valley, and that the present corporate limits be, and the same hereby are, extended and increased to include the following described territory contiguous to the present Town limits to-wit as fully described in the Attached Exhibit "A", including state lands. SECTION 2. That a copy of this ordinance, together with an accurate map of the territory hereby annexed to the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona certified by the Mayor of said Town,be forthwith filed and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Pima County, Arizona. SECTION 3. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict; SECTION 4. That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, sub-section,sentence, clause,word or phrase of this ordinance is,for any reason,held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. SECTION 5. That all pre-annexation agreements entered into pursuant to ARS 9-500.05 are hereby satisfied. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 9th day of November , 1994 . Richard S. Parker, Mayor .ATTEST: Kathryn' uvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney ;__ n n 1 1 11 0 7 ORDINANCE NO. (0)95-46 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH TOWN ZONING IN CONFORMANCE WITH PRE- EXISTING PIMA COUNTY ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY, KNOWN AS THE MONTERRA HILLS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY BY ANNEXATION ORDINANCE NO. (0)94-38, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH WHEREAS, on the 10th day of December, 1994, the Town of Oro Valley, by Ordinance Number (0)94-38, annexed certain real property known as the Monterra Hills property, said property being located south of Tangerine Road and is abutted on the northeast by the Tangerine Hills Subdivision, to the southeast by the Tangerine Meadows Subdivision, along the southeast by the Melcor/Rivers Edge property and to the southwest by the Wong property. Adjacent to the west lies State land. Along the northwest corner lies a section of the Copper Creek Subdivision. Rancho Vistoso, Neighborhood 7, lies directly to the north, and is further described by map and legal description in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley is required by applicable State statute to apply appropriate and comparable Town municipal zoning to the newly annexed area; and WHEREAS, the pre-existing Pima County zoning for said property was SR, TR (with conditions), CB-1 (with conditions), CR-4, CR-4 (with conditions), and CR-1 (with restrictions), and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona has considered at a public hearing the appropriate zoning district to be applied in translation of the area annexed by Ordinance Number (0)94-38, and has made its recommendations known to Town Council: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That the Zoning Map of the Town of Oro Valley, as adopted by Ordinance Number 58, as amended, be and the same is further amended to include all that certain real property as described further in Exhibits "A" and "B" by map and legal description, annexed by Ordinance No. (0)94-38. SECTION 2. That certain real property as further described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached herewith, known as Monterra Hills, which was annexed to the Town of Oro Valley by Town of Ordinance Number (0)94-38 is hereby rezoned from Pima County SR, TR (with conditions), CB-1 (with conditions), CR-4, CR-4 (with conditions), and CR-1 (with restrictions) to Oro Valley Planned Area Development (PAD). Said property is specifically as shown on the map and legal description, Exhibits "A" and "B", copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 3. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict; SECTION 4. That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Any person found guilty of violating any provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues shall be a separate offense punishable as described herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 27th day of June , 1995 . Che 1 Skalsky, Mayor cx,c,"Pc.e..4.4...:0-- r.' ATTEST: Paul Parisi, Vice Mayor (for Mayor Skalsky) /,... , -4-7.4-•>,Li C Cc:-..Le-e-e-<-1-1_,' Kathryn'Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: , r‘44, .....--------------2,4 Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney EXHIBIT "A": . a I I I 1 , t 1 PAD DEVELOPMENT AREAS ' 23 R rommam•p-O-isimmc SRG 1 1 '• • t N11- 1 tie • • ' 1 l� t » 3s ` It AIDE 1 ' ■ ilk ( + • :� t z I 1• (cB•I)0@ •.t ^ TZ CB 1. an��. `�• a N •... - - . 0 TZ-144 � " • (C R- 4) . TR),...., . SR Y i • aaaa1• TZTR aaaaaa --� ►. . • • ®®, 14 MONTERRA RIDGE LOTS 1-166 • 1 SR o - • • I lei. 19 CR-4111Z TZ-1 NIONTERRA KNOLLS �� - Y)( � LOT 1-169. 1 ` 0� � — �)_L . C R-'6 l 4 MONTERRA ZZ - 4 '4 ESTATES " I • © LOTS 1-22 y . I 111 19 . . ' ---- 3 to Mo= AA Tv , 19 1: 170 1, � i:... - i �� ® a 0 417.) 1n 04411 � „', a � 1.7 1., 1.0 •� 177 t•Ti ' y • 1 1' •0 ®• 1 \ , ..�mi, Hein) ��. 77 0�'1 1 Z . 7, s t s •sl1a ' - se i 1w 1 "° " '_ " MONTERRA HILLS ®�•.� , . ., ..l a4a. LOTS 1-187 13 .1, • I7T a ( 40 gin A;d I 5": a 411511111 • • 1.it Altrjr / / ti • ( 7 • 44I7 l•47 I0\7 1y / • •i• EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (1) MONTERRA HILLS, Lots 1-187, •Blocks A, B, C, and Common Areas A, B, C, and D, being a subdivision of a portion of Section 1 and 2, T-12-S, R-13-E, G. &S.R.M. , Pima County, Arizona, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 42, Page 30, Pima County, Arizona; (2) MONTERRA ESTATES, Lots 1-22 and Common Areas A and B, being a resubdivision of Block C and Common Area D in MONTERRA HILLS Lots 1-187, Blocks A, B, and C, and Common Areas A, B, C, and D, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 42, Page 30, being a portion of Section 1 and 2 , T-12-S, R-13-E, G.&S.R.M. , Pima County, Arizona, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 45, Page 22 , Pima County, Arizona; (3) MONTERRA RIDGE, Lots 1-166 and Common Area A, being a resubdivision of Block B, MONTERRA HILLS Lots 1-187, Blocks A, B, and C, and Common Areas A, B, C, and D, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 42 , Page 30, being a portion of Section 1 and 2 , T-12-S, R-13-E, G. &S.R.M. , Pima County, Arizona, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 46, Page 34 , Pima County, Arizona; and, (4) MONTERRA KNOLLS, Lots 1-169, Block A and Common Areas A and B, being a resubdivision of a portion of Block A, MONTERRA HILLS Lots 1-187, Blocks A, B, and C, and Common Areas A, B, C, and D, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 42, Page 30, being a portion of Section 1 and 2, T-12-S, R-13-E, G. &S.R.M. , Pima County, Arizona, as recorded in Maps & Plats, Book 46, Page 33 , Pima County, Arizona. % F \ (� ! .[. ,, ..1 1/'I ( I• /.1 I I ' '� IK1xH1A�« _I V Ch. , '/ , .. 1 1-„, \r' , fl:SICI A i :10 \\..:N..•'/%/s1-......"\cti.i.\. \ .. ,11,,\1,..,........___„,,........ .77. . .4'.......;••.....:::• •''...\: A - VI . ! .. 7:77/ ./ • I 1 • 1 .. \ 1 •' \ .. e• 7 f - r-- - fr l..l• I TANGERINE ROM) I ,� /s+1 �� J 1....---- /----(* .:'.• -L. •'''.. • . . ....47,. ..c„..1_....; .... . 3. . cA7 /. cs /. Amor i....././;1:,. i.i•I';:".-1,-*.......„ ,.... v--,1"- - • %.--_.___ .!a fa"..r. ,: :try: . 7e, / . _..z c., . .; "soy • • •••V , 1:cal _;.. . 1 i• •-•.. .,. ; / ...1.P. IP' " •••• , /I .. / . ,,,, • FA.-7 '.7:4. •••• .0.:•:•.., •:,Z • $4 .2.tr.:...V•P' 1: • • ../I.c•' .,Is."07://2.*.:•: 1 kl • pA 0 • N I.14 4 11! {• /�f / , �/ • k• •/ ,C•' / / /GI•)�- `�:••. 1'#4.!Mi�..6, •JI• • •• • 7.•.2 • .". (1:PA.r.;:r'1.6..r ,::,,••••.:::....::•••• sin ; / //// i / ••,..\••:•.!t. •.5,71.•. • . !!'', • •A\ '-'14'•' .•___4'' I.*. /:/tile••:...1.1▪ .1.;•444.1::•:..:7,A........r: ... 11, c.a____ __-.T..� ; ,•i:: .•-.1 Y t�'7 / Vv/ PROPERTY .• ' / !J / /4- Sq • : ' .AO 1 t.. .? 1 - ce 111.N4 PIT -` _` i� $e s• • I .�_ ___/ .'/I ' .• l_s^.- . / 1-- . —...• In ,..4., - :.,.. iv, / ... y 7/ • - \ • {• fi ,Ic-= a 1 la I,; / / ! • 1 .. •• : 4."=L.. — = == - 1-- ,,,• :c` .•. •NARANJA ROAD j �/ / �/ j• �'•+���,r'1 (� /i �% / i I C"t ( 1 ;L ' .••I.•'". / ,• .•4• ..••.•-. '''.• , . / / / \1 j 1./ (n.�) / / 11.144 �� r I —/t Liti.144 I ' • • • •• •11� � I, ~ • '111 ....7. ..s -. %: / / I.( / / /.//:X..; \PAD 7y • -s..,•, 1 ) .-.i 1 •• ►10''•1.. L/ I ` • I'•;•`▪ '1/- ....,,...;,..• .• ..•,, .� •ill -�•!1./•/<1�f. • /. \ ••\ ♦ �/ �/ (II • _►.,1- t ♦ . . /� • Iu •:. 1 `;-'',� ll I I •-, �1..� • . . t''t:F�:1��,✓iJlt( ', ;'' ,/• �1 J :./ i =_ , 1;/ Ii 1 II. 1 ..n. (\ s; ' )4:���.� 3•:-...‘ .,••• ., . • ••9.--- '• I.!.• ;••••••• •••-•7•"‘:;••47*--4r •5 )1..I /• / /.i /,/ r'. jil \ • - ,"•. .,\�i.._ . VI //' • --� A.4 �I '/`'.z _11.F;C`-s:-• ;i%'� cl1•s/�'� • �!- ;` ��-s •'` f� .1`-w_-=: '•. .`, y// • ��: 1f•- -- '� .I. •t% ✓,r_•• ,l %/ `�. �� i-/",11/ -. -'• �• —-_/ram' ,�•l' — �'f ( / .-- -__�••. • -- _ ▪ r1/..•.'••:s'•NR,/'i., • •. //, • - _1♦, j�/ m.14 4 . -_`t • •. • •, ...f-:: w://r • Q"r - 1 �1 i. •l `' ▪1.'o 71:1.:•j i•: .T r. •s Ill.,.i -�. .ri••� y) i ; • • -i /in /I/ / sn .- f r ? • _• •s,.♦I'is 1.,4� / /: t i •,••,, ♦• -/ ,- •••_1i J •.1...:,I•...'.!•i j(..•�r:•..•. .y !'1 ..r. / /• -,,� �__�:r: -21 .• ?• if� JJ-•T�• • ~ 1 / , .�r�:+•�..' 4,• $/ 1..4 ..• "1' {..'.�•'y- r�.r., f-� i / I• %' r� 'r' _ .1 •,,lu� !• .Fi•' •• e. ./ •=t:' i n• U • t�'•t•.�;�•....••,, t /c' •\ /A0.ti: .",; ;,(: 2• V' / /./�` ..11:.7.../I I _`,!-l!�+._..nn.w: =,>',r•#: ',\%,‘ S N ►11D •/• - �. .�- - -s.•• • '. •,-,yea d • , • -••7 • l�.�:... \•� /4E/ / (- 7. /,^'�- ils.y •--f " I !h`/••s 1•••A• I • �ti •. •/ ll't` I - �I r' �•"': ,� <, '�j�''''`dam• 6 l_ ►•:�\�• iSl1 - ��(� '♦• - 1\� -_� - • � •7•.�•/ //'/// A • 1.1'`•.t�"/ _ �� r•\•\, ----.--- �7� • ,� ..•„I•' taw 1 I ,(-' R.4.1. •`. •[:i'Pao : ♦�/.- , / • ...,../.g ' ..:_j 4.y.,--..---.. .r.,.‘ . :.. -• .. ..1377...r.p.-ri //ram• • r. t•:.,,.._ 14, ..„•._..,.. J•f /•• // /// - • ' --; .•; .•'''. -1';-I : • E; -1.:-64"""' t ej;:lc.‘e.-77.1 -•/•..;......- . --51.4-Y.f—,. a U -: I-1 • / :,r-pc-r \ • 'r TRANSLATIONAL ZONINGN It. •--• �-.:�. , _ �• :�;�,�..y;) . MONTERRA HILLS 1 RANS •/ • - �. :\,�;_� /— � � `r PIMA COUNTY TR (WITH CONDITIONS CR-4 r - • • • . %:t CR-4 (WITH CONDITIONS), CB-1 (WITH CONDITIONS), 1 .,�r•;3 :1:1':: ~'... • / — •:. AND SR j __,....74 -/._/ 7 • : / ; ORO VALLEY PAD (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT) / Sec. 401 Development Standards - Accessory Structures. A. Permitted coverage: Maximum five percent of the individual lot area. B. Height limitation: Twelve feet. C. Minimum setback requirements: 1. From main building(s): Seven feet; 2. From property lines: In accordance with applicable Oro Valley Building Codes. Sec. 501 Additional Zoning Stipulation for Monterra Knolls, Lots 1-169. A. Rezoning Conditions. 1. No building permit issued without certificate of compliance. 2. Recording an acceptable plat that will provide the necessary rights- of-way for roads and drainage. 3. Submittal of a development plan if determined necessary by the appropriate Town agencies. 4. Conformance with Chapter 18.81 (Grading) of the Pima County Zoning Code. 5. Recording the necessary development related covenants as determined appropriate by the various Town agencies. 6. Recording a covenant to the effect that there will be no further subdividing or lot splitting without the written approval of the Town Council. 7. Wastewater Management Condition: A suitable arrangement with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department regarding sanitary facilities. 8. Flood Control Conditions: a. Recording a covenant holding the Town of Oro Valley harmless in the event of flooding. b. The property owner must comply with the detention/retention conditions and restrictions as stated in the Floodplain Management 3 • Ordinance since the property lies within a Critical Basin c. The property owner must contribute his "fair share" of financial contributions toward off-site drainage improvements as determined necessary by the Flood Control District during the plan review process. d. The property owner comply with the Flood Control Policies stated within the Rancho Vistoso South Neighborhood Plan, and when completed the Highlands(Phases II &III)Basin Management Plan. This plan will be subject to the approval of the Flood Control District. The property owner will comply with the findings and approved solution of the Basin Management Study and if necessary, contribute financially to a regional solution or reduce the overall number of lots permitted in the rezoning to allow adequate space for on-site local detention. e. On-site retention of the increase in the five (5) year event will be required because of the requested land use and density. g. No encroachment into 100-year floodplain for roads shall be permitted for the purpose of reclaiming land for development. 9. Transportation Conditions: a. Access to the subject property from Tangerine Road shall need written approval by Arizona Department of Transportation prior to the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance. b. A written certification from the Arizona Department of Transportation stating satisfactory compliance of all its requirements shall need to be submitted to the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the Zoning Ordinance. c. Adherence to the Pima County Hillside Development Overlay Zone. d. Dedication of 150 feet for the south half right-of-way for Tangerine Road adjoining the subject property. In addition, an 80-foot building setback will be required. e. The property owner shall conform to adhere to all provisions of the bridge and road financing agreement adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 5 and 6, 1986 (Resolution No. 1986-71 and No. 1986-72). f. Provision of all necessary improvements on Naranja Drive as 4 determined by the Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District. 10. Adherence to Chapter 18.73 (Landscaping) of the Pima County Zoning Code. 11. Tentative plat or development plan when filed per Chapter 18.69 (PCZC) must adhere to the preliminary development plan as presented at public hearing. Note that provision of bufferyards required by Chapter 18.73 (PCZC) in the TZ-TR and TZ-CB-1 areas may reduce the areas shown to be developed in the preliminary development plan. 12. Concurrent with tentative plat or development plan submittal, a preservation study and plan for all saguaros and large trees (those with a trunk diameter over 4 and under 18 inches, measured three feet above the ground), shall be prepared by an independent horticulturist and submitted to the Town Planning and Zoning Department. For saguaros, this study shall cover the entire area proposed for development, for large trees, it shall cover the areas proposed for development which are also shown as having "high density vegetation" on Exhibit II of the site analysis. The developer shall covenant to preserve or relocate on-site all saguaros and large trees that are so recommended by the preservation plan. Each lot shall have desert landscaping. Salvaged vegetation, vegetation that is indigenous to the site, should be used on-site in bufferyards and in front yards of lots. 13. No site disturbance within the 100-year floodplain of.Highland Wash, and its main tributary, except where necessary for retention and detention required by the Flood Control District, for the recreation trail along Highlands Wash, and for road crossings of the main tributary wash. Grading limits and undisturbed areas shown on Exhibit 30 of the site analysis shall also be adhered to. 14. No encroachment of lots is permitted at all within the existing 100- year floodplain of Highlands Wash and its main tributary. No bank protection is permitted in those same areas, except where required by Flood Control District adjacent to road crossings. 15. Adherence to Chapter 18.61 (HDZ) of the Pima County Zoning Code is required. No commercial zoning is permitted on any parcel having an average cross slope of fifteen percent or greater, or on any building envelope containing individual slopes of fifteen percent or greater. 16. Sewer lines shall be located in public rights-of-way or public access 5 easements only, not in functional open space except for the sewer route shown on Exhibit 43 of the site analysis. 17. TZ-TR zoned area is restricted to residential development, in conformance with the Rancho Vistoso South Neighborhood Plan. 18. At least four marked access points to the Highlands Wash trail system shall be provided from the TZ-4 area, including at least one from the northern TZ-4 portion. 19. The developer shall covenant to revegetate, using large trees and other plant materials transplanted from other parts of the site, the top of the prominent ridge in the south-central portion of the site (shown as "HDZ natural area" on the preliminary development plan). The plant density shall approximate medium-density vegetation cover as described in the section I-D and Exhibit II of the site analysis. B. Time limits, extensions and amendments of conditions. 1. Time extension granted (12/21/93)with the expiration date of July 7, 1996, and subject to the original standard and special conditions. 2. No building permits shall be issued based on the rezoning approved by this Ordinance until all conditions of Section 501-A are satisfied as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director. 3. The rezoning conditions of Section 501-A may be amended or waived by resolution of the Town Council in accordance with Article 3-1 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. B. TZ-1 SINGLE RESIDENCE ZONE: Monterra Estates, Lots 1-22. Sec. 111 Permitted uses. A. Uses permitted: 1. Single dwelling; 2. College or governmental structure; 3. Community service agency; 4. Temporary manufactured or mobile housing; 5. Private school; 6. Temporary real estate office; 7. Library; 8. Playground or athletic field; 9. Museum. 6 or animals, and C) All horses, cattle, sheep, goats, or other similar animals must be confined within a stock-tight fence in an area no less than four hundred square feet per animal. Such fenced-in area shall be set back ten feet from the rear where it abuts an SR, TZ-1, and TZ-2 zone, and forty feet from the rear where it abuts a zone other than SR, TZ-1 and TZ-2, and forty feet from a side property line. A setback of ten feet shall be permitted on the side yard where the adjacent property owners have a written recorded agreement to this effect, but, in no event, shall a corral be closer than fifty feet to any residence or living quarters in an abutting property. Sec. 511 Additional Zoning Stipulations. A. Rezoning Conditions. 1. No further subdividing or lot splitting without the written approval of the Town Council. 2. Grading for TZ-l area allowed only for house pads, driveways, streets and utilities. 3. Adherence to the Pima County Hillside Development Overlay Zone. 4. Adherence to Chapter 18.61 (HDZ) of the Pima County Zoning Code is required. No commercial zoning is permitted on any parcel having an average cross slope of fifteen percent or greater, or on any building envelope containing individual slopes of fifteen percent or greater. C. TZ-TR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Sec. 121 Permitted uses. A. Uses permitted: 1. Single dwelling; 2. Duplex dwelling; 3. Multiple dwelling; 4. Recreational facilities; 5. Temporary manufactured or mobile housing; 6. Private school; 7. Temporary real estate office; 8. College or governmental structure; 9. Community service agency; 10. Library; 8 11. Playground or athletic field; 12. Museum. 13. Hospital or sanatorium; 14. Clinic or dispensary; 15. Professional or semi-professional office; 16. Motel or hotel, together with the following accessory uses located on the premises and having no exterior entrance closer than one hundred feet to a public street: A. Retail shops, B. Personal services, C. Recreational facilities, D. Restaurant, E. Beverage service; 17. Administrative, engineering, scientific research, design or experimentation facility, and such processing and fabrication as may be necessary thereto, provided: A. All such operations be completely housed within buildings located on a site of no less than ten thousand square feet, B. All such buildings shall set back not less than twenty-five feet from any property line abutting a residential zone, C. A dust-proofed off-street parking area be provided for all such vehicles incidental to said operation, D. One additional such parking space be provided for each three persons regularly employed on said premises, E. Buffering and screening is provided in accordance with Landscaping, Buffering and Screening Standards, F. There is no manufacturing or warehousing of goods for sale at wholesale or retail, and G. Any activity conducted on said premises shall be free of dust, noxious smoke, fumes, odors or unusual vibrations or noise. 18. Agriculture and horticulture, flower and vegetable gardening, nursery or greenhouse used only for propagation and culture and not for retail sales: 19. The keeping of small animals, such as rabbits, chickens,but not for commercial purposes, provided not more than twenty-four such animals per eight thousand square feet of lot area are kept; 20. Community storage garage, provided: A) Said garage is used for the storage of private passenger vehicles only, and B) The entrances and exits for said garage are on a public alley or directly abut a public street; 21. Transitional use where side of lots abuts a business or industrial zone: Any residential use permitted in TZ-4, including TZ-4 area and yard requirements, provided such uses extends not more than one hundred feet or two lots, whichever is the lesser, from the zone boundary. 9 Sec. 221 Conditional uses. None. Sec. 321 Development Standards - General A. Minimum lot or site area: 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit (lot): Four thousand five hundred square feet; 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit (site): Ten thousand square feet. B. Minimum lot or site setbacks: 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit (lot): A. Front: Twenty feet; B. Side: None. Zero lot-line siting of dwelling units on individual lots is permissible, subject to Building Codes; C. Rear: Ten feet. 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit (site): 1. Front: Twenty feet; 2. Side: Seven feet each; 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet. 3. Where this PAD district abuts RI Zones, a minimum twenty foot landscaped buffer yard is required. If natural vegetation conditions warrant, the Planning and Zoning Director may allow the buffer yard to remain as natural open space. C. Minimum area per dwelling unit: i. Single-family detached dwelling: Four thousand five hundred square feet; 2. Duplex or multiple dwellings: One thousand square feet. D. Minimum lot or site width: 1. Single-family detached dwelling unit (lot): Forty feet; 2. Duplex or multiple dwelling unit (site): Sixty feet. E. Building height limitation: I. Thirty-four feet; and 10 2. In areas restricted by the hillside development zone (HDZ), no building shall exceed two stories; 3. In areas adjacent to scenic routes within two hundred feet of a property line, no building shall exceed twenty-four feet; 4. For all conditionally approved rezonings that do not have an ordinance for TZ-TR, if a third story is requested within the thirty- four foot height limit, approval shall be requested at a noticed Town Council public hearing. G. Minimum distance between main buildings: Fourteen feet. Sec. 421 Development Standards - Nonresidential. A. Minimum lot area: None B. Minimum lot width: Sixty feet. C. Minimum yard requirements: 1. Front: Twenty feet; 2. Side: Seven feet each; 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet. D. Height limitation: 1. Thirty-four feet; and 2. In areas restricted by the hillside development zone (HDZ), no building shall exceed two stories; 3. In areas adjacent to scenic routes within two hundred feet of a property line, no building shall exceed twenty-four feet; 4. For all conditionally approved rezonings that do not have an ordinance for TZ-TR, if a third story is requested within the thirty- four foot height limit, approval shall be requested at a noticed Town Council public hearing. E. Minimum distance between main buildings: Fourteen feet. Sec. 521 Development Standards - Detached Accessory Buildings. A. Permitted coverage: Forty percent of the minimum rear yard area plus fifty percent of any additional space in the rear of the principal building. B. Maximum height: Twenty-four feet. C. Minimum distance requirements: l. To main buildings: Seven feet; 2. To front lot line: Sixty feet; 3_ To side lot lines: Four feet; 11 4. To rear lot line: a. Four feet if building is not used for poultry or animals, b. Fifteen feet if building is used for poultry or animals. Sec. 621 Additional Zoning Stipulations. REFER TO SEC. 501. REZONING CONDITIONS A.l-19 & B.1-3. D. TZ-CBI COMMERCIALBUSINESS ZONE Sec. 131 Performance Standards. A. All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building unless otherwise specified and any use operating as a store, shop, or business shall be a retail establishment. All products produced on the premises shall be sold at retail on the premises. B. Performance standards: 1. Noise and vibration: No noise or vibration shall be permitted which is discernible beyond the lot line to the human sense of feeling for three minutes or more in duration in any one hour of the day between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m., or of thirty seconds or more duration in any one hour during the hours of seven p.m. to seven a.m.; 2. Smoke: No emission of smoke from any source shall be permitted; 3. - Odors: No emission of odorous gases or other matter shall be permitted in such a manner as to create a nuisance or hazard beyond the property lines; 4. Fly ash, dust fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; 5. Liquids and solid waste: No wastes shall be discharged in the streets, drainageways or any property which is dangerous to the public health and safety, and no waste shall be discharged in the public sewage system which endangers the normal operation of the public sewage system. C. Certifications: The Zoning Inspector shall not issue a permit for any use until the applicant has provided the required number of plans showing the certificates of the department of transportation and flood control district, traffic engineer, and health department director certifying that said use complies with all laws and regulations under their jurisdiction, and the zoning inspector has determined that the use complies with this section. Sec. 231 Permitted Uses. A. Any use as permitted in Section 121 TZ-TR. B. The following uses, as restricted in Section 131: 12 1. Air conditioning, heating, and ventilating fixtures or supplies: Retail, all within enclosed building; 2. Antique store; 3. Apparel store; 4. Art needlework or hand-weaving establishment; 5. Art gallery or store; f. Business and professional offices; 7. Business schools; 8. Hospital for animals including boarding and lodging,provided that there are no open kennels maintained, and provided all activities will be conducted in soundproof buildings; 9. Medical or dental offices including laboratory; 10. Museum; 11. Optician; 12. Parks, playgrounds and community buildings other than,hospitals 13. School, private, operated as a commercial enterprise; 14. Studio for professional work or teaching of any form of commercial or fine arts; 15. Automobile parts store; 16. Bicycle store; 17. Book store, excluding adult book store; 18. Camera store; 19. Candy store; 20. Clothing store; 21. Craft shop conducted in conjunction with retail business which may include ceramics, mosaics, fabrics, jewelry, leather goods, silk screening, dress designing, sculpturing and wood carving; 22. Delicatessen 23. Department store; 24. Drug store; 25. Electronic equipment store; 26. Fabric store; 27. Florist; 28. Furniture store; 29. Gift shop; 30. Grocery store or supermarket within a shopping center; 31. Gun shop; 32. Hobby or toy store; 33. Home improvement store; 34. Ice cream store; 35. Music store; 36. Restaurants, not including sale of alcoholic beverages or drive-in or drive-through types; 37. Sporting goods store; 38. Stationery store; "39. Swimming pool supply store; 40. Variety store; 13 41. Photograph studio; 42. Post office; 43. Printing, lithography, publishing or photostating establishment; 44. Private clubs not including alcoholic beverages; 45. Shoe repair; 46. Banks and financial institutions; 47. Churches; 48. Hardware Sec. 331 Conditional Uses. A. Feed store: Including sales and outdoor storage of hay. The applicable fire district shall receive written notice of the conditional use application and of all public hearings. Sec. 431 Development Standards - Nonresidential A. Minimum lot area: None. B. Minimum lot width: None C. Minimum yard requirements: 1. Front: Twenty feet, which may be used to meet off-street parking requirements, or as part of an off-street parking lot; 2. Side: None; 3. Rear: Twenty-five feet, except for a corner lot, which may be used to meet off-street parking requirements, or as a part of an off-street parking lot. D. Maximum building height: Thirty-four feet. E. Minimum distance between main buildings: None. Sec. 531 Development Standards - Residential A. Minimum lot area: Ten thousand square feet. B. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: One thousand square. feet C. Minimum lot width: Sixty feet. 14 D. Minimum yard requirements: 1. Front: Twenty feet, which may be used to meet off-street parking requirements, or as part of an off-street parking lot; 2. Side: Seven feet; Rear: Twenty-five feet, except for a corner lot,which may be used to meet off-street parking requirements, or as a part of an off-street parking lot. E. Building height limitations: 1. Maximum building height: Thirty-four feet. 2. In areas restricted by the hillside development zone (HDZ), no building shall exceed two stories; 3. In areas adjacent to scenic routes within two hundred feet of a property line, no building shall exceed twenty-four feet; 4. For all conditionally approved rezonings that do not have an ordinance for TZ-CB-1, if a third story is requested within the thirty-four foot height limit, approval shall be requested at a noticed Town Council public hearing. F. Minimum distance between main buildings: Fourteen feet. Sec. 631 Development Standards - Detached Accessory Buildings A. Permitted coverage: Forty percent of the required rear yard and any additional space within the buildable area. B. Maximum building height: 1. Within the required rear yard: Twenty-four feet; 2. Within the buildable area: Two stories or thirty-four feet. C. Minimum distance requirements: 1. To main building: Seven feet; 2. To front lot line: Twenty feet; 3. To side lot lines: None; 4. To rear lot line: Four feet. 5. Where this PAD district abuts R l Zones, a minimum twenty foot landscaped buffer yard is required. If natural vegetation conditions 15 warrant, the Planning and Zoning Director may allow the buffer yard to remain as natural open space. Sec. 731 Additional Zoning Stipulations. REFER TO SEC. 501. REZONING CONDITIONS A.1-19 & B.1-3. E. TZ-144 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE Sec. 141 Permitted uses. A. Uses permitted: 1. Single dwelling; 2. Agriculture. Sec. 241 Conditional uses. A. Library; B. Playground or athletic field; C. Veterinary Hospital; D. Swimming school; E. Commercial riding stable; F. Club or lodge; G. Commercial kennel; H. Community stable; I. Museum; J. Private or parochial school; K. Residential substance abuse diagnostic and treatment facility; Sec. 341 Development Standards - General A. Minimum site area: One hundred forty-four thousand square feet. B. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: One hundred forty-four thousand square feet. C. Minimum setback requirements: 1. Front: Fifty feet; 2. Side: Ten feet each; When adjacent to street: Twenty feet; 3. Rear: Fifty feet. 4. Where this PAD district abuts R1 Zones, a minimum twenty foot 16 _ EXHIBIT "C" PAD DEVELOPMENT AREAS { 23 !t 1.37 - i S _ P N� I r 23E 1 _ 1 -- - 1, .'' '::: -..' ..' -,.:' /31. ':' ...: .!.. :,.. t'....,. f -: ':;.: -t -'-74:::--s Z..:T'':-..- i'::; 7-- 7 ./2- -; .'s i21! ';'-.7'; :-..:• ::;-' -!. ,, s,'' •'. .....• - 12 A13Elk Ell s , .,,.,. t ,_ . . (ce-0 © ,... ...t . ,:__ • TZ-CB16 — .. TZ-4 r 17444 Q tr 0 $7 . SR urR), (C R—4 . .. . f .lir t- .-- _. ;. -F• TZ-TR .�� a ; 1 Hi Y: HHH :. :* MONTERRA RIDGE ,:_ ,� LOTS 1-166 s- SR , s % 0 i I=.. I I I I I I I 111.r..: ' less 19 ... ill CR-4 T_Z-1 - - ;.,„:.. . ' MONTERRA KNOLLS , I LOT 1-169 \ 4 ; - Ili. •3 17— —--1 -- ! C -4 ® MONTERRA — - � 22 ESTATES - 1 © - .: ) _ ,. :,. ) L0TS122 I • • 111-11--C i Iq a 's ' .• S 10 I i.: MST VII.� 1 • 1 11 I ' - !I exat *o® 4 7 O n --------------- � z 41110 IIIIIJ•• fa 7s so 71/ 1t 2 C.LJyIN . ,. " '_ " MONTERRA HILLS ��,.- , ...„ _�.. .7 LOTS 1-187 - y •1)7 - 13 caligli .. ,. .. r. ll 4 •t C7 Aua b s7 N`•'a ® 1 _ 1 7 - mm© m t llr. , NARANJA 1 .-l-`;1 I :-I V-I. , -I ..1._I •IL- i.... ..:i-:-.1_r=G-T--I_ I"-,1,-•I -3--I 7 3 .-a.__-...: _ . _ : r =152 t t:•t. :t-_J -J.11:::r'I..1. W-11:_12-, i. -.1:s i.;.-i 7 i i.::I i ->. I T '° 173 177 — 11/25/2003 16:39 520882a9 STUBBS & SCHUBAPT PC PAGE 01/02 •r STUBBS & SCHUBART, P. C. ATTORNEYS&COUNSELLORS AT LAW 340 NORTH MAIN AVENUE TUCSON,AZ 85701 PHONE: (520)623-5466 FAX(520)882-3909 LSchubart@StubbsSchubart.com Belle@StubbsSchubart.com FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET To: FROM: BOB CONANT, PLANNER II G. LAWRENCE SCHUBART,ESQ. MARK LANGLITZ, TOWN ATTORNEY • COMPANY: DATE: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NOVEMBER 25, 2003 FAX NUMBER: 742-1022 TOTAL No. OF PAGES WITH COVER: _ 229-4774 2 PHONE NUMBER: CHARGE: NEW WORLD RE OV9-03-29 --MONTERRA HILL PAD ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW C7 PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U. S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING: 11/25/03 Letter—Request for Postponement NOTES/COMMENTS: COPY TO FOLLOW BY 1 1'CLASS MAIL: , X YES _NO 11/25/2003 16:39 520882QQE9 STUBBS & SCHUR.RT PC PAGE 02/02 Stubbs & Schubart, P. C. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law H0 N. Main Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 stubbslazstarfet.corn LSchubart@btubb5Schubart.com P. O. Boot 50547 Robert C. Stubbs Tucson,Arizona 85703 G.Lawrence Schubart'` (520)623-5466 Thomas M.Parsons Fax(520)882-3909 Damian M.Fellows Robert M. Savage November 25,2003 .,630admitted aFarnsylvania SENT BY FAX TRANSMISSION 1ST CLASS MAIL Oro Valley Planning&Zoning Commission c/o Bob Canat, Planner II TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737-7016 Re: OV9-03-29-Matter Concerning Monterra Hill PAD REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT Dear Bob: Today I spoke with Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney, regarding the Notice I recently received scheduling a hearing on the Monterra Hill PAD. The stated purpose for the hearing is to resolve whether the developer complied with the schedule for development; or, alternatively, whether the zoning should revert to its former classification. Inasmuch as I was the attorney representing New World Homes, the owner, at the time the property was annexed by Oro Valley in 1994, it is essential that I review these now-closed files and reconstruct the facts. This cannot be accomplished before the December 2, 2003, hearing and, moreover, I have a scheduling conflict. After discussing my request for postponement with Mark Langlitz, in a subsequent telephone conversation he indicated he spoke to you and you indicated the staff had no objection. I ask that the matter be rescheduled to the January 6, 2004, Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing. In light of the fact this matter was placed on the Planning & Zoning Commission's Agenda by the Oro Valley staff, the fact that the Oro Valley staff does not object to this request, and due to my scheduling conflict, I will not appear at the hearing on December 2, 2003. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, TUBBS&SCHUBART,P. C. Lzwer......wizgAgoze GLS/bmmh G. Lawrence Schubart cc: M. Langlitz,Oro Valley Town Attorney (Sent by Fax Transmission/ 1st Class Mail New World Homes 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 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING A PORTION OF MONTERRA HILLS PAD BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONNG COMMISSION: TIME: at or after 6:00 p. m. on TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall,Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING—OV9-03-29,THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD,LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE: (1) EXTENDING, REMOVING OR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT; OR(2) CAUSING THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO ITS FORMER ZONING CLASSIFICATION(R1-144 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), PARCEL 224- 018-270 The Monterra Hill PAD was adopted by the Town Council on June 27, 1995,the PAD states that the zoning shall expire on July 7, 1996, if the property has not been improved for the use for which its was conditionally approved. Pursuant to ARS 9-462.01(E), the Town Council shall take administrative action to extend remove or determine compliance with the schedule for development,or take legislative action to cause the property to revert to its former zoning classification. Prior to a possible change in zoning, the matter must first be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the Town Council. 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 Bob Conant, Planner II at 229-4822 or bconant@orovalley.net. POSTED: 11-19-03 Bayer Vella,AICP time: 9 : 0 0 a.m. Senior Planner by: d r m F:\OV\OV9\2003\9-03-29\REZ.PC.PUBLIC NOTICE.doc 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 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING A PORTION OF MONTERRA HILLS PAD BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONNG COMMISSION: TIME: at or after 6:00 p.m.on TUESDAY,DECEMBER 2,2003 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall,Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING—OV9-03-29,THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD,LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE:(1)EXTENDING,REMOVING OR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT;OR(2)CAUSING THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO ITS FORMER ZONING CLASSIFICATION(RI-144 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT),PARCEL 224-018-270 The Monterra Hill PAD was adopted by the Town Council on June 27,1995,the PAD states that the zoning shall expire on July 7,1996, if the property has not been improved for the use for which its was conditionally approved. Pursuant to ARS 9-462.01(E),the Town Council shall take administrative action to extend remove or determine compliance with the schedule for development,or take legislative action to cause the property to revert to its former zoning classification. Prior to a possible change in zoning,the matter must first be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the Town Council. 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 Bob Conant,Planner II at 229-4822 or bconant(worovallcv.net. 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 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING A PORTION OF MONTERRA HILLS PAD BEFORE THE ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONNG COMMISSION: TIME: at or after 6:00 p.m.on TUESDAY,DECEMBER 2,2003 PLACE: Oro Valley Town Hall,Council Chambers 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING—OV9-03-29,THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD,LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE:(1)EXTENDING,REMOVING OR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT;OR(2)CAUSING THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO ITS FORMER ZONING CLASSIFICATION(R1-144 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT),PARCEL 224-018-270 The Monterra Hill PAD was adopted by the Town Council on June 27,1995,the PAD states that the zoning shall expire on July 7,1996, if the property has not been improved for the use for which its was conditionally approved. Pursuant to ARS 9-462.01(E),the Town Council shall take administrative action to extend remove or determine compliance with the schedule for development,or take legislative action to cause the property to revert to its former zoning classification. Prior to a possible change in zoning,the matter must first be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the Town Council. 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 Bob Conant,Planner II at 229-4822 or bconant o:orovallev.net. ;„:4 nvi i,i'774,-,'' ,9';'9U ;',1'''' ‘:s;11; VK ..: ;'+ 7r-74./0//917W r--47zic- ,,,r,.?1,44 .4%.444,,-,„ 5*-4,4i,<,.... :,.,, ,,,,,,,/- ,v5 w..wAN..:..a4.,,,,,,,, ,„„„•.,..awr-,4'., ,., . .„,..?,• ",' ,nV; a77,,,;",,,, a A " :&,,r 4;;;;A:A„ 4 '- ,0 '', ,,,AR010A4,-,;;;;OMi...A„;A A t 4,t•,;. A04,'0:04„. A. ,i,t''; 04 ,• ...A,,,AVAAA'74" ", /:/, 'W"/,'";61,W) :VP•*4;/,',44Y),"0,'','',4 • :',"',I.:: w,--1",".„,,•,w, '',,Av-r4 g,46%,...4/0",,,,,,0,A.44,:r-0,•00"A,0•40,i''‘.t. , \ \ .1 '4 ;,., ' y>,4.... .!..(, , PRO'',/,',4/13;,,,(.0,?, ,04,44',1,,,,,•''''',5'",%4%''''''''.'''‘'''‘",','''''' '''' ',';;i.1 i",,';,,, , ': '1 getWerA OK .."1,,,,,,,,,- ‘..,..-,.„,„'47 a"Of.;•,:'0 A? , A .,,, //„;;;',1:;,&.;;-, =r5V,.:',;',:i5kgati'.:.;,,,'•4:.W:4, .%,,X'0,',„..... \ ..,,,f•v'.", • 4,' . tH.7;,".(4 v•R''„ ' ,,, r777777777,77777,77,77757/77, 7 a a: """:',"''•a"f,"" 7"'"'":',, , „, 44,4,4 i 4,,,',444 4447, ',4 4'''''4 4 1'444.4444444 4 4,444044AX 1111E ' „00 , t 0 A A Nkv, Ali ••„, ,,,, ,„ , 7.7,5.„„___;;;;;;1,,,,0,,',..,,, 4::4:4:". "#Ve /''' - — ,,,,,,, '''' 41111* ilit 711111747 IP' 'I' 170 77'' 47,,,7'7 7 4,7.4,0,4,4!•,.:- ", ...,.."'`..'', 1 %Cr .„..,,A; ‘/„t;• kArAA000A';A,,,,', . .• ' .li.*•;'' ' all,kapie,,„„____ -x grt.4' A l'AtitA t?„ f,;.•,,;::'z.;' • orrr dorf„ A 1 Sim 4rorrnorro I* ; :I A , 111401111/ * * 0 4 011114 r, 4 /.:• • ,...,' , ,,f,, ,,,I.k„? ,..4:,/,,.., !..'.4 at ""fr,.''„.;4';'',74:4-',.. v ; %• 4 / .:.,,.,!..;1,,,.;4 -.;v9/..,*.....*to A.',II —1 . •:, 'Ata0040,00, _. •*or Itt / • - 77 777 577 7/7 ,,,,, 7772577/, 7,7 Yffe,r/J , a 4'' •.,, 0 : A„-,, A .;,0 0• „t 0,...„'' •0 0 '., 00 0.*0 * , . , , , . ",..„..,.„... _ ,.. " 5.rr,./rir:=4 0,''•'!:::,4„ <(:.:,•,,4=, ''..;:r ..., ,.., 40 -_ .. n AUI14 . ,,, , ,,,,. • 1111, 7111WI ,,,0 .,,,40 At'404A;:"', A',"4A.:• ;4;.:,' -,,,,„, 0;0, \ , t, „....,000:T; ; ,,..:::;, .,„.. ,,,„....,„ „,Wk..„ Air,re liWj,rz;‘,,,,,-t‘,,,,-, . , 5 . At A;0.0", 4,, — --- ' t P,A1001 A 0•A'' 40",'..„iy mg". V714 -• I. , ..•, . .,..-; ,,,,,k,,,--4-,, -' "•!,,r ,,,i-:,." ', ft, 1,„ 411). ,," #,* 1' ,--- o„,,%',,‘,,,• .vp,' '4,,',,*4,,'‘'',,f,-; ,3 --;""rrrr,r;rrk, 44,„ ,•,. `, ,„„ ./), „ ,,,,,7„,,,,,,,jig,iteitAi., 0 ; • A;A' 4.,...., . , , Illirier'e—r.;.,..,.,.0„ OV9-03-29 . / /.. ...41°#i, , ... ' rtil - 600 feet . --,...... 4.,......., ,. itvir ia • .„.. ., ,...„ „„/„„. , , „:3 : . „ , „ ••••..„,,,,,,....„..„:, ..„ "•iilliff)A. 1111111110111111110040Tr;0, 04, rip 411111 MI , 111 iii ,mito„..F.A00 lissavis,! :Rims '.01r%ti i I.a,isi . , , .:''',I,.i. ..i,4;;' ,„ ,„, 0;;,,,;,„0, 0 0° .4 14/0 if oo 4:10, A At / ill 2111//11.1•° 11111 at'11alill°1.441646‘ ,,..'0;:;,i; •%d', 0/0, .0'A'4 i:,%"',,,,111 • 0 0 . 40. " ,,,, , :i, C.- -------.1Th'''"'''',74"4 4040*'''•A 0 A l;'',;t t t.• $.414 ,A° ;,*; °A ' ri NO all A 1111Figt '''Alr-40;0,-, i''' .,, fir 0110 Iv 04A'00,g 0," • re . ...„, ,, „ / El 014:16.. at, .../so,//4, // ipra ,1t,'',, ,.,ii.1.,', a ',,,, ,.______, v.::::zvo,,,,,, /*//14 •••;, r-Arr,k,,,,, 1111 III --...= r ,,,„,,.PV V,,,,,,,Vr''''."..,'-,y,,,,, 4. V., '''IVA • '' or • , , A'A • ' War 411141,11rijarli, 11111 Illi - kir ik Z , .:. .,..„ , ,. 4t. ,L, k.•„. i AA 0 AA,.At, ,* i o*, 01 if 4 ,, e-; ,r I •, ,404,; „trtri i° 't 40.04 ..;t 4,›1\ ,7'4-,• ,, Trr„1„ .1„ ,lm,,za*1 ., , .,,. ,,,, „ , r,.o rr",AA --. ; ,• 4,4....0;22•1,A, '";'''',47.1'''':;;,1';'',1'0';,' '';'''';';;;:''%.: 1:',..",:.;7:%:.,,..':A.1",:‘!!!';'70C/::',.,44,00:„A''41r;A11"4111% 1111111111111111161111:7:f ''''0'')' '415' '4'',''''' -,;',.,,A"'',:,,•';,..r0 :,:"V., AA Plti tit;00,4"4 ,,,!,,, W I. I "' ''''•-•-.1 "-—4'7 /° , . -:..„,„0-0:,--—4.0___.--- , ; 4 t;;,;A " 4t vo A,,41=,q"',=.44&:..::!•A !..%::, kkkriv,,k1,kkV '1.4', , k , , , ‘, / ,W „'kkuv .„ . , x,,, ,•102,2, , 2,04,0 0,00000A4 Ai0;04004;,.n. 0t A; 111; ', A.:044 ' ".0. 1 . . or or •0 , 0 10 • I 0 \ 0 1 , ' \ '''.\•1 i--,..a. 1.1, ) .2 ,./I i ,,,','„,/, , I, .1 '- •'44, -;•/ • /' \-, ," , ',r '? , ,,•r , ,,, ,,,,,, = =• ="^',.;4,0,4 ,,•A'•,r,'y,,,,,e.A 4,/,',44,r..fkr ,q-,4r.,,..itsaokf,,„rfra ,,,V"".4 0"."',.„':•::.,,,, ' '""V","""%","=.,,,,,a,,g,t0,44 4,r'•.0,,020.0",,,:.,,,''f'.'AG,.4'4 (VVV,..,,V SVP,,4,.,P,V,,,,', i.';';/,,,,,,':'7M,;‘;At;',','';',4::;',,e Ac.4.:;i4,4'''.'..:',/h,V,34 A.0044;;AA A 0',A,b•r,mik,ft,, ,, ,4,4,,,,4,2,,,,,,,,,,,,40,t„,,,,„„n„,,,,,A0,00.0VVV,A.VAV,,V, ,,W"r4,4 '244 -'..V '41";0'....-!%/0 r',,,V!!e'v AA t,.,r44:;,..4,,,V&Ve0 Mt . .,,7,,,,,,,,, •„ ,. ,,,. , ,,,,,,.:i,,,„,,,,, ,,,,,,,;, ,,,,:m,,,,,,,, „.„•,,....,,‘.„s„,, „„:„..." .„,,„.,,„,„:„„.„.„..„,„,,,.„.,,„,,,,,,,, ,,,,,4..,'"'' „VV.,,,,,, „ , ,,',;V.,...', v"aa. ,x," 4,, ,T.st; • 4,,, . ',0'..,,,.iVrt.,,,'-,', ..,,,''',, j•,',401,,, ' 0,,0',.0 0, ,,•,A00 F,...;'04,0,A 4,00.0'0 . , ,,..,,,,,:•" .„..0,,,, ' „,„ „ ,, ,, / , - ,... IR --.- ,- • .„„,,•:-...„„,„,.„,„,„,,„,,,,.,„„,.,„„,,,,,,-„,„„,.„4„,„•,„,,,,„,„,„, / 44'4'.;•' 'S 4;',V-4 41; r, ',.,„ •.4 4 „r:.4,,r,•, -, :•.;,'r=„..V r.',,,,ii.,,,,,,,/,4 0=4",=7,r',/,,,,,,,,/,,,,r:rr 4-,.....r',' 4,'-' ..„, -• • -,'===,,,,, ,-,,,,==::Ykr.`,tr,,,,',,r,,;,i4rr,vo.cr,r„, 7.1 '' '.2'1,:, •1 00;4U4=' " =,,,., Ir'' .'"==r,..; ,,.:=4.,:=A WI 040 1 .4,,Ne4m- r•,; ',kir"-.,4',-',,,,:;,,,', ..,,,, h..,!,,-.-x:,-::,.4c"?,$'',,4-z4,,,fi-ri A!•:•:•••k 4,i0.;li,:••itY MOM PM • '*57''' "' ',;:•Z t.:A.''' '',„ / t,..--,;:.,; ' , ' •''', ,.,•,0••• Cr. 0,/,'-', •.'0"'. •" ' " ' I 1 ,,,,• ,, . , z/10T":''''- fr',12 . 4 :,- ,,,f• --..•, AIMF" ,, . „..._ ,.... , . . . . •••-•• ,•.•, -,:. - . , 4416 ,,,,,,,,,ef, ,,,,--,--.;- ,„, , N.• .a. \ , . 1 ) s\ A ' ' 11111 im him ,.. \ . ,„;.• , . - ' li,Tion :•,,,,,,;.. , ',1,w1' .. ',,,C,,/< . , / _AMAI "4f,.,,7A,,,,c:1.3.:',.;:;‘::: ::: 1kki'‘ ' ', s's,: l' .74 . ....„,,,,,,.,,,,,„.,„,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,•..: 4 . , (,, iilml„, „,,,,,,.,. ,.„.„.,,,',.*Ar,,,,,,,,,,,„,,.,,,,,,..,..,,,,,y„,,..4.,•, , ,„ . , ..• ..-;•,,,,,4414,/,',,,ferr ,A,J.f,r!' , ,A0'' IA',C/ 'AAAA0004(tAA,A1,AAA' \ .. 'Ilk ,..,, , • *„. ,..,,,,,k/i„k,7 ',114 =4/1,'' ''''''''' / \- 7 VON" ,„I \s'\, 11 ..,„:.;:•:'''!•::.i;./;,•::.,-- .:•••,:::'•:','t i: .... „, . . ..„4.., it', '4,', '` 'Sit Alliallifittak if, , -- --"awArK",••••": "":1;,P...,,,',"'".,',;,-',;',a, .:4,.',:,, ,..„/ ' r ,, W,x,,?'ay.:,//,:,,,5r,,,,,,l,,,,-",',-,'''..,'''''''r'r''''"'".(''' r '-r r 4,.:. „iiiitarrirriiiiikkV: V,. • „,,---"' / '''''''," / „-•• fr/ '''''Th---r---._----,-/'. 'f''''.':''';5•‘14%''''‘'',..:'-'=„--.,:tt-',':„1..:..,‘:::':.::1. :,';;;:"-:,,',W?;',,'.0' ,„„,------ '',1;,•„•,•..'\ ,,-ir- ,,,,,,•,'„#%-oo, • 4,0pr„,4, ,, , ,,,, , :- 4 lir;r 4„•,.t..4,„ ; k, -',' „ ... . . „. "--- \ ,,,„ ...",z,,.,,, ,,,, ,•....,,,,,,•,$.:0 e,crr,r..: , , „r 1,,,V 'td-:; ' ;;;;1;zA'',';'271,1:•..':r'; i:,r wit Iran" &i, „„„ „„„.„,„*„.„ ',,,:i ,„,"„ 0A/•A,Atif• 'AA' ;1 i v;;;A.,;AAP'',;,;',4,2',A,4,4104iiii*lig '-'4"%%, ;,::,"4;..;0''''''''''''''.".'''':.•:.::::,,.A;04 4 °°/'0'il /_ lai,„/„.,A,,,,,/41Al.0.,,„„0"I ...,0,04A2'lc, ,_„,,,,,,„00 „,..,... ,,,,,,,„ „,,,,,„,,,,,,„,„„,.„.„,„„ , •,., , ir--,,iii ....414,.....,..4....0.4‘, ..... '2"'"V"4',', '„'. =kkk g',;,,o,,,‘,./',' '' /" Avg a • -''''''"'"'-';<A'Alf''''''''''''' '1,1S:1",,i0,%?;::4.AA AAR;A, ' „, \9 1 APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 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 Others Present: Mayor Loomis Werner Wolff, Council Member Mark Langlitz, Town Attorney Craig Civalier, P.E. Development Review Division Manager Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator Susana Montana, Planner II Bill Adler, Board of Adjustments Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee Conny Culver, Development Review Board CALL TO THE AUDIENCE AT 6:04 P.M. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley stated that during the rezoning process we need to consider quality of land as we consider the intended use. Quality of the land can be dismissed because we have a Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Ordinance, open space requirements, recreational space requirements, buffer requirements, etc., and that appears to some to take into account the quality of the land. It is his impression that quality of land is not just the plants, vegetation, or subtle contours. The level of density should be at the lower range of allowable density. If it is a commercial rezoning, take into account the permitted uses and square footage allowable. It should be at the lower range of the intensities. He suggests that this should be factored in as a future item to be considered. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE CLOSED AT 6:07 P.M. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2 MINUTES MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes from November 4, 2003. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 yes, 0 no vote. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-03-03, ZONING AMENDMENT FOR A 76.5 ACRE PORTION OF A 79.5 ACRE PARCEL (NO. 220-090-160) LOCATED EAST AND NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF FIRST AVENUE AND LAMBERT LANE, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY FROM MIXED USE (COMMERCIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND CREATING NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE NEW "AREA Z" SUB- AREA. THE REZONING APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY A TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOME SUBDIVISION OF 160 LOTS. Keri Silvyn, One S. Church Avenue, Tucson, represents the developer, CDO Partners. Also present are Rob Longaker and Charley Hulsey, WLB Group and Blake Hastings from CDO Partners. The original Rooney Ranch PAD was a much larger parcel that included the subject parcel, the Home Depot and the Fry's parcels that are currently developed. It was a PAD entitled for a mix of uses, residential, commercial, and office. The 76.5 acres at issue tonight is currently entitled for a combination of more office, commercial, neighborhood recreation, multi- use recreation and some single family residential uses, essentially the equivalent of the mixed use neighborhood type of a development. CDO Partners monitored the General Plan process very closely, listening to the Town resident's wishes for the future planning of the Town as well as talking to the neighbors most affected by this development. The preference was that there be no mixed use type of development, no apartments and no other type of multifamily dwelling units. We looked at what the market was dictating for housing in Oro Valley, and it indicated single family residential homes. CDO Partners met with a number of prospective builders, looked at the cost of development and determined the minimum number of lots needed to maintain the current market demand. The PAD amendment proposes 152 single family residences on 76.5 acres. Seven lots have been deleted since the last meeting to accommodate staffs previous request that the cut and fills be limited to 15 feet. There is 40% of the land dedicated to open space. There will be 4 recreation areas totaling approximate 2 acres. All recreation areas will be connected by sidewalks and trails. This land use proposal offers a much less dense development than the property is currently entitled, which results in less traffic noise and other consequences of higher density and intensity uses. Rob Longaker, WLB Group 4444 E. Broadway, Tucson, discussed design elements of the project. Architectural style will abide by all criterion in the zoning code. Incorporated into the development are varied front yard setbacks, varied elevations and floor plans, staggering and varying locations of one and two story homes. The project will adhere to landscape standards established by the Town. The project proposes a 25 foot buffer yard along First Avenue and will use drought tolerant, low water use plants, xeroscaping, and native plant preservation. This project will comply with Chapters 10 and 15 of the zoning code regarding grading with two exceptions. What is proposed is approximately 3 acres graded into the 25% slopes. (Map was December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 shown detailing where the grading would be done.) Other project's, that have been graded into 25% slopes, guidelines have been incorporated into this project. Mr. Longaker showed slides of sample slope treatments in other projects using earth colors and a variety of bench treatments with landscaping. The proposed bench would be approximately 8 feet wide allowing for more landscaping. Mr. Longaker presented visual analysis photos from various vantage points around the property showing how the property would look before and after development. There was also a slide showing a connector road to the north. A second connection would be difficult to place due to topographical issues with the property to the north. Keri Silvyn stated that since the continuance from last month there have been a number of discussions with Town Staff. Almost all of the conditions from Exhibit A have been incorporated as proposed by Staff. There are a few items the applicant has exceptions to in Exhibit A. OVZC, Sections 10-307 and 10-308 list the 1996 General Plan requirements that apply to a PAD application and list certain specific and required findings for a PAD amendment. Ms. Silvyn distributed a matrix that describes how they meet the required 80% of the General Plan requirements in Section 10-307 and a number of specific findings as well. Section 10-307 lists 48 General Plan criteria, 35 of which apply to a residential type development. They meet 30 of those criteria, which is 86% of the required 80%. She provided a modified version of Attachment 1. They feel the grading proposed is appropriate for the site and request that conditions 1 and 12 be removed to allow the 15 foot cuts and fills and grading into a limited number of 25% slopes. Condition #2 B and C, they acknowledge that they have to complete a letter of map revision through FEMA to remove approximately 5 acres of the property from the 100 year flood plain. They are comfortable with Condition 2B that they demonstrate the pre- development and post-development during each 100 year event is not changed. It is a requirement during the platting process. Condition #3 deletes the word "collector" street as the traffic impact analysis doesn't justify a collector street. They have asked for Condition #7 to be deleted, as the Town approved traffic impact analysis specifically states that an access off North First Avenue from that 3 acre parcel could be safe. The concerns related to access on North First Avenue should be addressed in the development stage of that 3 acre parcel. They request a modification of Condition 12 D. The currently proposed PAD provides a modified framework for determining a substantial change to the PAD. That language has been in there since they resubmitted at the end of the summer. It is not a new section. The primary reason for this change is that there is no specific homebuilder involved with this project currently. They would like to provide the standards in the PAD document but still have some flexibility with the TDP depending upon the developer that comes in. The following areas are where they are asking for some flexibility with the backstop that they still have to comply with the PAD requirements: • Lot size and number of lots, providing that the lots have to conform to or exceed the minimum development standards established by the PAD. • The drainage scheme shown on the TDP may vary particularly if lot configuration changes. However, it still must comply with the OV floodplain management code and drainage criteria including the requirement that the pre and post development drainage cannot change. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 • Treatment of graded slopes shown on the TDP could vary, but still must comply with the grading standards. They would like the language modified to indicate that the grading limits cannot extend beyond the limits on the TDP to provide the assurance that no more than 3 acres of the 25% slopes would be graded. • Layout of streets to vary so circulation still provides a logical and efficient movement of vehicles and the circulation plan cannot contradict the traffic impact analysis. When the plat comes forward, with these potential changes, it still has to go through Staff, DRB and Town Council for compliance with this PAD document for approval. This amendment meets the required number of General Plan criteria per the section of the code dealing with PADs. It is supported by the neighbors most affected by this development and it makes good planning sense. Ms. Silvyn responded to Commissioner Krenkowitz question regarding page 2 from the Staff Report about the applicant not providing the required analysis of the project to both upstream and downstream watersheds, that Section 10-300 requiring certain information being provided at the time of the PAD. That information has been provided. What Staff is asking for is more detailed analysis as to up and down stream drainage effects, which is required at the time of platting. Commissioner Krenkowitz felt that the issue of up and downstream drainage effects is so critical that he felt if the applicant could not address this issue now that he would not recommend it going forward to Council. Mr. Longaker said that WLB's staff hydrologist has done a preliminary examination regarding this issue. Two major hydraulic occurrences happen in this project: (1) There are flows that are entering the northern part of the site and there are essentially three defined washes on the site. The eastern wash will have a limited bank protection. An encroachment analysis was done which quantified how much water goes through the project. The analysis says how much the area can be shrunk down without creating negative effects either up or downstream. The bank protection does not negatively effect either up or downstream. The same is true of the western wash. (2) FEMA has mapped the 100 year floodplain for the CDO Wash. In order to build in that area, the applicant plans to remove the area from the floodplain and use the criteria necessary to do so. The bank protection necessary will not increase the water surface elevation or velocity and as a consequence does not negatively affect the watersheds. Mr. Nodine presented the Staff Report. The applicant has revised the project based on our discussion and has revised Exhibit A with some minor changes to some of the conditions. Issues still of concern are: The 25% slope, area still affected has about 3 acres with 25 slopes, the CDO floodplain and cross access. Mr. Civalier does not agree with the applicant about the upstream and downstream impacts. The Code Section 3-104-4-e-3 and 4 specifically states you need to look at the up and downstream effects during rezoning. He wants the developer to be responsible for any effects there are. The preliminary report submitted to the Town and County was insufficient. Mr. Civalier is less concerned about the on-site floodplains vs. the eastern one because they are much smaller. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 5 Mr. Civalier said that after review of the traffic impact report the Town Engineer would not allow another access to the commercial site on First Avenue because it is too close to the bridge. There should be a collector street and it should go north to Palisades. Staff is also concerned about the location of the connection street proposed to the north. Connection streets should be located where the major body of lots is and there would need to be a cut through for that. Mr. Nodine stated that the applicant brought up the fact of precedents for the 25% slope. Oro Valley Town Center is a site that has no flat areas in the residential portion, and the only way to make it work was to allow encroachment for the homes to the north into some 25% slopes. In the Rancho Vistoso area there was a PAD that was developed at a scale that did not pick up all the 25% slopes, so there were development areas that were shown that had 25% slopes and text that said no development in 25% slopes. We had to look at how to address the discrepancy in the PAD and a trade provision within the PAD to allow that. In this case the 25% slopes are mapped and we are proposing the development follow the code as it is established to avoid the encroachment into the 25% slopes. The project does conform to the General Plan and many of the policies. Staffs concern is about access, slope, and floodplain, etc. A PAD should be based on the Zoning Districts within the Code and then to achieve a superior product from what was provided within that zoning district. With the grading of the 25% slopes and the additional cuts and fills, Staff is not convinced that a superior product has been achieved. Staff was concerned that the PAD allows more flexibility in terms of future changes to the TDP without the process of going to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council. Mr. Nodine said that it is a good plan. It has the types of uses and products that the Town wants to see. How it gets adjusted and treated in the future is why Staff is recommending denial. Staff would encourage the Commission to try to move this forward and include conditions in Exhibit A to create a product that would be what the Town is looking for. Mr. Civalier told Chair Moody the Town plans to start work on widening First Avenue next fall. Mr. Civalier responded to Vice Chair Cox that Pusch View Lane across the CDO is going to help traffic in this area. There will be approximately 300 left turns in the peak hour at the intersection of Lambert and First and most of those will be diverted to Pusch View. The size of this development is not high impact. The improvements of four lanes divided plus north left turns lanes should offset any impacts. The La Canada Extension which will begin next spring should also help take the traffic burden off First for traffic going to Rancho Vstoso Boulevard. Mr. Civalier said that it is true that until all flood or water flow issues are addressed to satisfy the Town, Pima County and FEMA, the applicant cannot build homes. All problems will be solved before building. Vice Chair Cox said that although we continue to address connectivity that the Town continues to build compounds with no connectivity. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6 Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Bistany that an analysis was not done on what the project would look like from Oracle going north, but he would be very surprised if it was visible. It would be visible from walking down the wash and the trail along the wash. If it were visible from Oracle, it would look like some very small rooftops tucked in between some hills. Commissioner Bistany feels that the applicant is trying to fit a lot of homes in topography that can't accommodate those homes. He would like to see before and after photos from the east side of the hills. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 7:10 p.m. Helen Dankwerth, 11515 N. Flying Bird Drive, Oro Valley, asked the Commission to please listen to the Staff Report which offers expert opinions. If denial is recommend on the basis of lack of compliance with pre-approval requirements of our existing codes, as well as lack of documentation required by Pima County Flood Control District, then granting approval would be tantamount to saying that you have little confidence in Staffs opinion, but seem disposed to approve based on what benefits the developer rather than citizenry. I understand and completely agree with the desire of close neighbors for single family homes rather than apartments. However, the new plan as shown, while an improvement over the first display of a few weeks ago, still shows the plats to be of singularly unimaginative design, apparently intended to cram the most homes into the area with little regard to providing an aesthetic balance and natural fit between topography and construction. Furthermore, this is an area which with the Pusch Ridge Bridge extension will still experience ever more traffic in the near future. Apparently the neighbors were under the mistaken opinion that there would be a traffic light at Naranja and Oracle, which according to the Staff Report is not a sure thing. She implores the Commission to act wisely. Insist on conformity with our codes and respect the Staffs opinion. Sue Fry, 10929 N. First Avenue, Oro Valley, would like to state again her support for this rezoning. All the neighbors most directly impacted by this rezoning are here in the audience. We don't want commercial, multi-family, mixed use on this site. We want residential. At the last meeting some compared this property to the Kai property to the north. The committee knows the zoning between the two cannot be compared. However, the property's current approved zoning can be compared to the Lambert/La Canada PAD where apartments are now being built. She asked that the Commission not loose sight that the owner/developer of the PAD already has an approved plan that the neighbors want. Bryant Nodine said last month that this residential rezoning is in line with the proposed Oro Valley General Plan and the wishes of its citizenry, because it is lower in density and not mixed use. Whether commercial or residential is built, there will be grading. It should be controlled. The applicant promised to keep the three hills that face First Avenue intact. They have tried to minimize the grading in their plans as much as possible given the amount of fill needed. The presentation of this planned community is aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding area, much more pleasing than the back side of Fry's, Home Depot, Albertson's, and Target, etc. Also more pleasing than apartments and commercial would be on that piece of property. The rezoning issue is not difficult. Just envision a nestled community of single family residential homes behind the hills on First Avenue vs. a cold and boxy commercial and apartment complex with their parking lots of cars and the transience it will bring to our neighborhood. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 7 Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, said the applicant used the word entitlement. They may be entitled to certain uses. But they are not entitled to wreck havoc on the land, which is what they are proposing to do whether they build apartments, commercial or single family homes. He thinks we need to factor in the quality of the land. One of the entitlements of Oro Valley residents is to count on employees and elected and appointed officials to preserve, protect and enhance where possible the natural amenities and visual resources of the Town. The conditions in Rancho Vistoso and the Town Center are not the same, so are not precedent setting. The purpose of the planned area development zoning is to allow customized designing of development standards to result in a superior project. When washes are filled flows are diverted. Cutting into 15% and 25% slopes change the nature of the land rather than building to the land. This is the reverse of what citizens want. His concern is not visibility as much as it is respect for the land. It seems that compliance with reasonable zoning code expectations is a requirement. He does not believe this project conforms to the General Plan. The General Plan requires that the built environment conform to the natural environment. He thinks the grading should be treated as a variance. There should be a study session to meet with the applicants on this. Conny Culver, 10503 N. Fairway Vista Lane, Oro Valley said that on November 4 the Commission continued this hearing. At that time the applicant agreed to all the conditions in Exhibit A. Since then the only conditions met by the applicant have been minor. The applicant continues to ignore four major conditions. They plan to develop the wash and build homes in the floodplain, by doing so the flow will move faster and potential damage to property downstream has not been eliminated. The applicant claimed they were confident they were okay. Pima County isn't. Staff isn't and neither is she. The zoning code should be honored on this issue. This project proposes removal of many slopes. We must respect and preserve the slopes. Cuts and fills up to 19 feet are shameful. Everyone in Town knows this property and that mass grading would a desecration. The applicant is currently committed to build clusters of single family homes within the available limits. She thinks Ms. Fry and her neighbors would be much happier with that situation than a string of homes. Traffic along First Avenue is already problematic so she would instruct the applicant to cooperate with the traffic engineer and deliver an acceptable traffic plan. To all of this, add the blatant attempt to exclude the Commission and the Town Council from further proposed changes on this site, the applicant is clearly attempting to circumvent the zoning code. They call it flexibility. If the TDP changes they must come back to the Commission. There could be significant buffers between these uses if mixed uses were built. The violations of our code and General Plan are unacceptable. She asks the Commission to continue this hearing and instruct the applicant to meet all of our development standards, submit the required reports and conform to the policies of our General Plan, then and only then should this project be sent to the Town Council. When she fought to make Beztek a better project, she learned the judgment of citizens and volunteer boards and commissions is set aside all too often. Don't allow this to be another example of victimizing the citizens of Oro Valley. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:20 p.m. There was discussion on how the community has changed since the PAD was approved in 1989, and vested rights of the applicant for the current zoning. The neighbors want single family residential. Exhibit A takes the applicant closer to what is wanted, but the applicant does not want to follow Exhibit A exactly. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 8 Vice Chair Cox asked if this project as presented would present to the Town of Oro Valley and the citizenry, something that will improve the Town and property values of everybody in the Town, or will it deter from the property values? His goal is to move the project forward and do what is best for the Town of Oro Valley. If the project was moved forward with reservations on Exhibit A, the applicant would have a chance to make changes if he so desired and the Town Council would have the final say. MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to forward OV9-03-03 to the Town Council recommending approval with all of the conditions listed in Attachment 1 to the Staff Report so as to bring the project into compliance with the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised and into conformity with the General Plan. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. BREAK: 7:40 p.m. to 7:50 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: OV11-03-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AN 8.35 ACRE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF PARCEL NUMBERS 224-33-007A, 224-33-008A and 224-33- 011A, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DESERT SKY ROAD AND VALLE DEL ORO ROAD, CHANGING THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM A "CP"— COMMERCE PARK LAND USE DESIGNATION TO A "MHDR"—MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. Mark Castro, Tierra Right of Way Services, 1875 E. River Street, Suite 201, Tucson is representing DC Investments in this General Plan Amendment. He gave a brief background of the property, the purpose for the plan amendment and a summary. He presented a preliminary concept plan which would provide 53 lots meeting the R6 development standards and goal of the client, which is to maximize the use of the property. There is a 15 foot buffer yard that goes around the property, open space and detention basins. The findings that must be met to support the plan amendment: 1. The amendment constitutes a benefit to the Town. The medium high density use development will have a positive impact on the tax base by attracting more property owners to the site. This will also add to the consumer base. The existing structure will be demolished eliminating an eye-sore that has been there for several years. 2. The amendment is substantially consistent with vision, goals and policies of the General Plan. It is surrounded by residential use and so this development would remain consistent with the surrounding uses. 3. The amendment proposes acceptable means for mitigating any adverse impact on the community. It will not impose any impacts on the community. In conclusion the current use of this property has not attracted any further interest for commercial business given its low visibility and location within a residential neighborhood. Mr. Nodine clarified that we are not approving a concept plan tonight as part of a general plan amendment. The concept plan was just presented by the applicant as an additional item. The applicant has addressed many issues that were in the Staff Report, so Mr. Nodine only addressed the General Plan analysis and the findings. December 2, 2003 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 9 PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:00 p.m. William Huneycutt, 189 Silverstone Place, Oro Valley, asked that the plan have single story housing at least on the outer edge. The exit has very little traffic on Desert Sky and Eggleston because it is not a major street. He would prefer that the exit not be lined up Eggleston to keep people from running the stop sign and going through too fast. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, said that he is satisfied that this proposal proves that the four findings of fact in the 1996 General Plan not only are adequate and fair, but obviously can be met. He supports the amendment. Mr. Adler feels the nature of the land is what he was referring to in the call to the audience. The quality of this land is a bit unusual. It is not environmentally sensitive, not riparian, but very nicely vegetated and it seems that the amendment should be to medium density residential rather than high density, in order to have larger lots and show more respect for the land. He would like to avoid mass grading. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 8:04 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to forward OV11-03-01, Desert Sky General Plan Map Amendment to the Council recommending approval. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. 3. PUBLIC HEARING— OV9-03-29, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE (1) ALLOW THE CURRENT ZONING TO EXPIRE PER THE PAD DOCUMENT, (2) EXTEND THE ZONING FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OR (3) REZONE THE PROPERTY, PARCEL 224-018-270 Mr. Nodine stated that Staff has a letter from Larry Schubart, Attorney, who has asked that this item be continued. He would like to research the case to make a determination of his own whether they have met the zoning conditions. Staff agrees with providing them with the time to do that and would recommend continuance of the case to the January meeting, making the date non-specific. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:09 p.m. Joseph Watson, 11879 N. Potos Point Drive, Oro Valley, said the area south of Tangerine and west of Monterra Vista is a small area and he doesn't feel it warrants the zoning of Technology Park. There are severe sloping and a beautiful wash there. He would like the area to continue its current zoning and maybe the Town could consider absorbing the area into the Town Park. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 8:10 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue consideration of OV9-03-29 to the next meeting in January of the Commission. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Anning said he would like to see graphics for this project at that meeting. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. December 2, 2063 APPROVED Minutes, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 10 4. PUBLIC HEARING:- OV9-03-28, STAFF REQUESTS A ZONING OVERLAY MAP AMENDMENT TO REMOVE 39 PARCELS FROM THE TOWN'S RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IN AN AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CANADA DEL ORO WASH AND WEST OF ORACLE ROAD. Mr. Nodine said this project had been noticed, and working with Staff, realized that this would not be ready as more research should be done. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to continue this item to the next meeting in January. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Motion carved with 6 yes, 0 no vote. 5. OV7-03-01, REQUEST TO EXPAND THE INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 12 (SIGNS) TO INCLUDE CHAPTERS 3 (PROCEDURES) Mr. Nodine said that Staff had been working the amendment to the sign code to address sign packages for developments and realized that Chapter 3 had to be done at the same time. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to expand the initiation of amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 12, signs to include Chapter 3, Procedures. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. 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. Nodine said that Commissioner Krenkowitz would like to add some changes to what has been provided, so Staff is recommending a continuance. MOTION: Commissioner Bistany MOVED to continue this item. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. PLANNING UPDATE No update at this time. ADJOURN REGULAR SESSION MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Manross seconded. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 42C;frL)2— Diane Chapman, Recor ng Secretary I 110 0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 6, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Conant, Planner II SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — OV9-03-29, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) EXTENDING, REMOVING OR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT; OR (2) CAUSING THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO ITS FORMER ZONING CLASSIFICATION (R1-144 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE, PARCEL 224-018-270 BACKGROUND: On December 21, 1993, the Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 1993-182 rezoning the property south of Tangerine Road and north of Naranja Drive to PAD. The Town of Oro Valley annexed the area in November 1994 (Ordinance 94-29) and zoned the property PAD in June 1995 (Ordinance 95-46). Subject to the original PAD conditions adopted by Pima County. SUMMARY: On September 18, 1997, New World Homes recorded a plat for the area known as Monterra Knolls including a block plat for the subject property. Our research indicates that the recordation of the plat was sufficient to lock in place the PAD zoning. No action is required by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pla g d Zoning ministrator Contact Larry Schubart, Esq. Fax (520) 882-3909 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Page 2 September 2, 2004 Larry Leung New World Homes 3550 North First Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 Re: Zoning on a Portion of Monterra Hills, OV9-03-29 and OV 12-03-26 Dear Mr. Leung: This is to confirm the information in the attached Planning and Zoning Commission Report dated January 6, 2004. Namely, that the recordation of the block plat for the area has hardened the PAD zoning on the referenced property. There is no expiration date. Please call me or the project manager, Bob Conant, at the above number if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator attch: Planning and Zoning Commission Report of January 6, 2004 c: Bob Conant Chuck Sweet file APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 6, 2004 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:02 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Bill Moody Vice Chair Don Cox Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Pete Bistany Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning OTHERS PRESENT: Werner Wolff, Council Member Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Bryant Nodine, AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Conny Culver, Development Review Board Bill Adler, Board of Adjustments Lyra Done, Budget and Bond Committee CALL TO THE AUDIENCE 6:05 PM Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, was at the joint study session with Council and watched as the subject of forums was terminated without any substitute format being agreed upon. He thinks that engaging the public in how decisions are arrived at is essential. The public wants to know and needs to understand how you arrive at your decisions and why. He does not think public service means voting the way the public wants you to, but explaining how you arrive at your votes and why is essential. He gave an example of Rooney Ranch, Exhibit A, and passing it on to Town Council without explaining why the conditions in Exhibit A were acceptable to the Commission. People left without understanding how you arrived at your decision and why. People come before the Commission offering suggestions and there is never any reaction. The Commission should react and respond to the public as well as the applicants. It isn't any wonder why many of the residents in Oro Valley general perception is that the scales are tipped, not in the interest of the public will, but in the political will. He thinks the Commission should take a new look at responding to the needs and interests of the public. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE CLOSED AT 6:06 PM MINUTES January 6, 2004 APPRuvtD MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission 2 MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to approve the December 2, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting minutes as written. Commissioner Bistany seconded the motion. Motion carried with 7 yes, 0 no vote. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-03-29, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY WILL CONSIDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) EXTENDING, REMOVING OR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT; OR (2) CAUSING THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO ITS FORMER ZONING CLASSIFICATION (R1-144 RESIDENTAL DISTRICT), CONCERNING THAT PORTION OF THE MONTERRA HILLS PAD, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD WEST OF MONTERRA VISTA DRIVE; PARCEL 224-018-270 Mr. Nodine stated that this is an area that is part of an existing development that was block platted about 1995. Staff's first thought on this was that the zoning conditions had not been met and official action was needed to have the zoning revert to R1-144. There was a plat filed in the County but it was a block plat. Research shows that the County considers that recordation of the block plat to be sufficient to hard zone the property. Staff is recommending no action at this point and will reflect that PAD zoning on the zoning map. No action was taken on this item; the zoning is PAD. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: OV9-03-28, TOWN STAFF REQUESTS A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO THE RIPARIAN HABITAT PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO REMOVE 36 PARCELS FROM THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN AN AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CANADA DEL ORO WASH AND WEST OF ORACLE ROAD. Mr. Nodine gave a presentation showing the area in question. He explained how an area gets included in a riparian area. Aerial photographs are used to examine the type and density of vegetation and compare to known riparian areas. By the time Staff receives the aerial photo, they are nearly two years old and factors may have changed in that time period. Field checks are necessary to determine if an area meets the definition of riparian area, such as availability of a water source and composition, size and density of vegetation. Staff hired a consultant, Harris Environmental, to do a field check to make that determination. Harris Environmental's report says this area does not qualify as a riparian area. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 6:20 PM. NO SPEAKERS Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Kinared that he felt there is not any possibility of restoring the area to riparian status. Currently control of the levies is under the jurisdiction of Pima County. When there is any development around any wash with over 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), the County gets that land dedicated as a flood control measure. This has been County policy for years. This area is designated as community commercial zoning in the current General Plan. January 6, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission 3 Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that there are a couple of areas that have been developed in the property in question. The aerial photo indicated that it might be a riparian area and it was included in the map because of that, but it was questionable whether or not it was riparian. Staff relied upon information in the previous riparian map that the area was non-riparian when the development was approved. MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Council approval of OV9-03-28, amending the Riparian Habitat Overlay District zoning map to exclude the 36 parcels identified in Exhibit A to the ordinance, for the reason that the habitat on the parcels no longer meets the criteria of Chapter 2 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with 7 yes, 0 no vote. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: OV7-03-01, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 3, PROCEDURES AND CHAPTER 12, SIGNS. Mr. Nodine presented background on the sign code. In early 2003 the sign code was revised and has been used for about 8 months. Staff has found there are some areas that need to be fixed. The biggest issue is that Staff did not have a mechanism to require multi-tenant developments to come in as a whole package. Staff has been using an interpretation for the last 2-3 months. A mechanism needs to be created whereby Staff came take a development that comes in and make sure it is treated comprehensively in terms of sign packages. Other associated changes attached to the Staff Report were discussed. Chapter 3 is the procedures for development review by the Development Review Board (DRB). Everything was geared toward review of architecture and had no guideline for review of signs. Staff wants to make it more general to include signs. Chapter 12 needed to be cleaned up to say that if the development meets code and sign criteria or sign program then it can be administratively approved. DRB will review sign packages, deviations from code, and take the permitting of individual properties that meet the criteria and make sure they can be approved administratively as long as they are in compliance. Section 12-202 has some major changes saying that rather than just being a comprehensive sign program, which is where someone requests to deviate from the code, there is also the requirement for any multi-tenant development. This section also addresses Sign Criteria, Master Sign Program (previously called the Comprehensive Sign Program), and Review Criteria. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Manross regarding Sec. 12-202A, ¶2, that it is easier to follow an existing sign program because you don't have to go through the process of getting a new one approved. To get a new one approved it has to go to DRB and there are criteria DRB looks at in terms of compatibility with the existing sign program. This gives incentive for someone to follow what is already there, but also gives the January 6, 2004 APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission 4 opportunity to develop an additional sign type as necessary by going through public review and amending the existing one Mr. Nodine replied to Commissioner Bistany regarding Sec. 12-201 B, that the designee for the Planning and Zoning Administrator is the person who reviews the signs for zoning enforcement. The word "authorize" could be removed. Colors, special events and exempted sign changes were also discussed. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Manross' questions as follows: • 12-302A, LED lights are usually seen on banks, etc. and cannot be animated, but can be changeable. • 12-302B, there is no variance regarding this prohibited lighting. Commissioner Krenkowitz was concerned about the criteria standards in Sec. 3-302, such as words like "cognizance" and "indigenous built environment", etc. He doesn't understand how this can be applied to buildings. He also felt that the word "solely" in Sec. 2-201 B should be removed. Mr. Nodine said that Staff is not trying to wholesale change the sign code, but simply move it one more step toward allowing the DRB to evaluate signs. This item was only noticed to deal with the sign issues. This could be brought back to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Nodine responded to Commissioner Bistany that garage sale signs are illegal and are either tagged or picked up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:53 PM Conny Culver, 10503 N. Fairway Vista Lane, Oro Valley, limited her comments to Article 3-3 Development Review. She has concerns on Section C. It seems that these are determinations that are made by a citizen's advisory board, and such as benefit to the Town whether or not it is controversial or consistent. These are things that should be determined by a citizen's advisory board and not Staff. That is one of the reasons we have the DRB. In 3-302,B and C, the words "development" are struck out and the word "design" was inserted. This section is about development review, it is not about design review. F- "architectural" is struck out and "character" inserted. One of the primary purposes of the DRB is to review architecture. Character is factored in, but architecture is a key word. It seems inappropriate to strike that. She is hopeful that these things are oversights and not intentional revisions to bypass a citizen's board. She asked that the Commission review them very carefully, taking more time if needed, but if you are going to revise this document, she thinks it is important that we get it right. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, asked if his written comments had been distributed. In summary he opposes diminishing citizen oversight in favor of increasing administrative oversight. He does not agree with the recent administrative actions regarding signs, and in his written comments he specified Farmer's Market, ATA January 6, 2004 APPRUvtD MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission 5 Black Belt Academy, and Safeway. Those were signs that were administratively supported. Had they been reviewed by citizens they probably would not have been. In fact, the Safeway sign was not approved. He feels deferring to administration review and authorization is not in the interests of why we have an appointed review board. He opposes LED. He understands that the A. G. Edward sign is LED and he thinks LED may be acceptable when the set back is 50 yards or more from the thoroughfare, but when it is 2-3 yards from the thoroughfare it is in violation of the General Plan language that the Commission approved, having to do with the least intrusive possible signage. An LED 2-3 yards from the thoroughfare is definitely intrusive and is much more signage than is appropriate and necessary. Regarding Master Sign programs, I indicated that adjustments to standards should be limited. We should not allow carte blanch adjustments to standards and he suggests that the adjustments be limited to location and number, and not to color, illumination, size, height or material, because then we loose the compatibility, consistence and comparability that elsewhere the code says is important. In the design guidelines it says these things would be compatible with signs in the area, so if we allow adjustments to standards across the board, we loose what we say is one of the important criteria that is to be judged. I think LED is the wrong of illumination for signs that are very close, within 5-10 feet of the right of way. Finally, regarding special event signs, we are apparently okay with allowing commercial advertising in the public right of way. He is against that. The sign code doesn't allow it. He suggests adding two words to the special event sign code, non- profit, so there is no misunderstanding over the words, civic, public, religious, philanthropic. To him those words suggest non-commercial, non-profit, but the Farmer's Market sign put up in the public right of way on First Avenue is clearly a commercial enterprise. Add non-profit, non-commercial words to the description of special event signs so there is no confusion David Sarando, 5810 S. Hopdown Lane, Pima County, works for Trader Joes and is here on their behalf. We have just been annexed by Oro Valley on Magee and Oracle and he wants to say that the old codes may not work as you annex older developed areas of the County around you. It is very important that you get input from the people or business that you annexed before you finish this kind of a process. This will help them find out what Oro Valley wants from the business annex as you grow as well as help Oro Valley understand what the business needs are as you grow into other parts of Pima County. We would like to ask the Commission to hold off in changing the signage criteria until there can be some sort of commission with citizens, business owners and members of Staff to go over theses things and find out what works well for the businesses, what the citizens of our new town wants from us and well as what Oro Valley wants from us. We don't think making a lot of changes like these before you have the opportunity to hear what is wanted from each of these parties is a good thing to do quickly. Take the time and talk to the business that are in your town, let the citizens let us know what they want and what Oro Valley wants before you make changes to the code. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:00 P.M. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Krenkowitz that the minor common sense changes are only with respect to architecture and landscape and do not include signage. Special January 6, 2004 APPRUvcD MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission 6 event signs 12-6-G, are all on private property and are not allowed in the public right of way. What Mr. Adler referred to was Sec. 12-701 C and he suggested that it include the description non-profit and non-commercial. Sec. 12-701 was not included in this item because we did not see it as an issue. We were looking at special events only from the point of view of business special events. Mr. Nodine replied to Chair Moody regarding Mrs. Culver's comments in the public hearing relating to the wording, that Staff was not trying to take away architectural, but to broaden it to include signs. He would be glad to work with Mrs. Culver to make sure it is clear what Staff is trying to do. It is development, architecture, and signage, everything that we want to include in the criteria. Mr. Nodine also said that Staff cannot approve any deviations from the sign code. The only way that a deviation from the sign code can be approved is either through the Board of Adjustment in a variance or through a Master Sign program through DRB and the Council. Mr. Nodine responded the Commissioner Kinared regarding LED's that they are allowed in the current code, as long as they are not animated. In the development review process, the size, placement, etc., would be considered. It must meet the criteria in Chapter 3 and 16. Mr. Nodine stated that regarding the concern of diminishing citizen input, these changes to the code do not address that. Previous changes approved by the Town Council did state that individual signs, per code, that used to go to a DRB subcommittee for approval, now go through administrative approval. Mr. Nodine told Commissioner Kinared that regarding Mr. Sarando's comments on annexed properties, that the existing signage becomes legal non-conforming use, if it is legal in the County. Staff is also looking for ways to work with the annexed area businesses using the Master Sign program approach, recognizing that it is a different area of Town, to come up with criteria specifically related to that area and developments. If Staff was looking at major changes to the code, then there should be participation with the citizens. Mr. Nodine told Vice Chair Cox that the plan will be to bring the criteria in Sec. 3.3 before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the DRB. MOTION: Vice Chair Cox MOVED to forward the attached amendments to Article 3- 3, Development Review, and Chapter 12, Signs, to the Town Council recommending approval. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with 7 yes, 0 no vote. Commission Anning was excused from the meeting. 4. ANNOUNCEMENT AND REVIEW OF THE 2004 CITIZEN PLANNING INSTITUTE CONTINUING EDUCATION SERIES January 6, 2004 APPRvvcD MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission 7 The Citizen Planning Institute Continuing Education series start on February 12, 2004 and are open for anyone to attend. The classes cover Transportation Planning, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Finance, Water Resources and School Planning. The classes have been moved to the Council Chambers because of the number of applications. Announcement only. No action. PLANNING UPDATE ADJOURN MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Vice Chair Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with 6 yes, 0 no vote. Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Chapman, Recording Secretary TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 4, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Conant, Planner II SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING — OV9-03-25, PLANNING RESOURCES, REPRESENTING DEVELOPMENT SITES LTD., REQUESTS A REZONING FROM R1-144 (RESIDENTIAL WITH 144,000 S.F. LOT MINIMUM) TO R1-36 (RESIDENTIAL WITH 36,000 S.F. LOT MIMUMUM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD NEAR COMINO DEL PLATA AND JUST NORTH OF THE WILSON SCHOOL, PARCEL 224-110-190 PORTION OWNERSHIP: Rick Sathre, President Development Sites LTD. 10260 N. Krauswood Lane Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 AGENT; Carl Winters, Principal Planning Resources 270 N. Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Fax 628-7637 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED USE AND STATED REASON FOR THE REQUEST: The applicant states that the rezoning would allow the development of 20 single-family lots on the 17.57 acres consistent with the General Plan. BACKGROUND: Currently, the property is undisturbed desert with a wash traversing the site north to south. The topography of the site is relatively flat with and average cross slope of 3.02%. Vegetation on the site includes Mesquite, Saguaros, Palo Verde and Barrel Cactus. The vegetation within the project area is representative of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sororan Desert. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Zoning Land Use North R1-144 Vacant Residential South R1-144 Wilson School East R1-144 Residential West R1-144 Vacant Residential TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 2 SCHOOL IMPACTS: Correspondence from Amphi School District indicates the following as related to this rezoning: Students Generated Capacity Cumulative Enrollment By this Rezoning with this proposal Wilson School K-5 9 750 661 Wilson School 6-8 4 800 782 Ironwood H S 4 2250 1657 The information generated above is from the Amphi School District. TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The Tentative Development Plan (TDP) submitted for the site is in conformance with the requirements of the Riparian Habitat Overlay District, the Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD), Design Guidelines and other provisions of the OVZCR. Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District: The project lies within the Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District and as such is subject to a fifty (50') foot setback from Tangerine Road as a natural buffer and a thirty(30') foot setback to the house. The TDP conforms to the provisions of the overlay district. Riparian Habitat Overlay District: The TDP for the project respects the riparian habitat as a conservation easement to be maintained and protected by the homeowners association. The lots are platted into the riparian area. Staff has added a condition to ensure that the riparian area is protected as follows: Permanent, wildlife-friendly fences shall be installed along the fifteen (15') foot riparian apron, except where wash access is provided in common areas. Topography Impacts: The site is relatively flat with an average cross slope of 3.02%. Each lot will be custom graded within the project in order to preserve vegetation on the lots and the goal will be to maintain 30% of the site as open space. Wildlife and Vegetation Impacts: Currently, Arizona Fish and Game has indicated that cactus ferruginous pygmy owls have been documented as occurring in the project area (3-mile buffer). The USFWS indicates that a single male owl does live near, but not on the project site. The developer (applicant) has agreed to abide by the recommendation of the USFWS which include: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 3 • Site disturbance less than 30% • Protection of vegetation along watercourses • Preservation of existing vegetation throughout the project in continuous swathes rather than isolated patches, The above are recommended as conditions of approval for this rezoning. Bufferyard and Viewshed Impacts: The bufferyard shown along Tangerine Road is in conformance with the requirements of the zoning code. No other bufferyards are required. Traffic Impacts: Access to the proposed subdivision would be thru a single local street intersecting with Tangerine Road. Increase traffic created by the proposed subdivision would be incorporated into the area highway network by installing a westbound left turn lane and an east bound deceleration lane at the intersection of the local road and Tangerine. An additional 100-foot dedication of right-of-way will be required for the future Tangerine Road expansion. Grading Impacts: A type 2 grading permit is required to construct streets, utilities and drainage improvements. Each custom graded lot will require a type one grading permit to grade the buildable area of the lot. Drainage Impacts: Existing drainage from the north to south will be maintained. Onsite drainage will be conveyed to the existing wash by street flow and sidewalk scuppers that will discharge to constructed drainage channels. Detention will be provided so that post development runoff rates will not exceed the pre-development runoff. Recreation and Trails Impacts: The OVZCR requires the applicant to provide one acre of recreation area per 85 dwelling units. The applicant has agreed, because of the number of lots that an in-lieu fee would be paid for recreation area. The in-lieu fee is provided for in the OVZCR Section 4-305 F 5. Police: The Police Department has reviewed the Tentative Development Plan and expressed concern that there be adequate barriers to the school site south of the project and that they have access through the gate at the entrance. A key pad with a code for the Police and Fire Departments will be provided. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 4 Water Impacts: The Oro Valley Water Utility will serve the project and information on water impacts has been included in the site analysis. The average daily demand will be 137 gallons per person per day and the total demand will be 8,220 gallons per day. The developer will be required to pay for the infrastructure improvements, which will consist of the extension of a 12-inch main from the Assembly of God Church property on the north side of Tangerine Road to the project site. Sewer Impacts: The site will be served by public sewer and connection will be made to an existing 8-inch main in Clover Road. The applicant is currently in negotiation with the Amphi School District to obtain an easement across the Wilson School property to the project site for sewer purposes. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE: Staff has evaluated this rezoning proposal against the General Plan Land Use Plan and Policies, and finds that overall the proposal conforms to the General Plan based on the following: Land Use: The General Plan land use map designates this property as Low Density Residential 1.3 to 2.0 dwellings per gross acre. The proposal is for a density of 1.1 dwelling unit per gross acre. Natural Resources: The goal of this policy is to protect the Planning Area's natural attributes. Policy 8.1G states that "indigenous (native desert) vegetation and riparian habitats should be maintained and enhanced where possible." The proposed project protects the sensitive riparian area by preserving most of the significant vegetation. The developer is integrating natural open space within the development to promote openness. Circulation/Transportation: General Plan Policy 2.1E "bike, vehicle and pedestrian conflicts are to be minimized through appropriate design standards." The design of the street includes sufficient width to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclist. Economic Development: Policy 3.1F, to "maintain and enhance [the Town's] residential/recreation character" is promoted by this residential subdivision. Public Facilities and Services: The proposed plan complies with the goal to "ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided when needed." The major service providers have no objection to this rezoning. Parks, Open Space and Recreation: In regard to the goal "to develop a comprehensive and connected parks, open space and trails systems", this plan is not adjacent to designated Pima County or Oro Valley parks and trails. Policy 6.2B states that "open space preservation shall be used as a criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals." This proposal preserves 2.9 acres of undisturbed open space consisting of riparian habitat which is the wash traversing the area. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 5 Cultural and Historic Resources: Policy 10.2A requires "cultural resources surveys for all new developments where evidence of cultural/archaeological resources is found." The site The site has not been surveyed; however, based on inspections conducted by the University of Arizona in 1981 and 1987, archeological sites are know to exist on the property and the Arizona State Museum indicates "the probability for additional site s on this property is high." The museum recommends a professional archaeological surface inspection of the entire property to assess the condition of the known sites. Staff is recommending a condition that such a survey be completed and approved by the Arizona State Museum prior to any ground modification. If any archaeological resource is found during grading all work will stop and the appropriate agencies will be contacted. NOTIFICATION: All property owners within 600 feet have been notified of the proposed rezoning. Furthermore, the property was posted in accordance with State Statute and the OVZCR. Neighborhood meetings were held on October 28, 2003 and February 10, 2004. Eight neighbors were present on October 28 and 11 were present on February 10. The neighbors concerns were maintaining Vista del Sol to the west as a private street. That there are sufficient setbacks from the properties to the east. Sufficient setbacks will be maintained to the east. Research has found that Vista del Sol from Tangerine Road to the southern property line of this property is a public right-of-way easement. The portion of this property adjacent to Vista del Sol is not part of this rezoning request. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Town Council approve OV9-03-25, rezoning 17.57 acres located on the south side of Tangerine Road near Camino Del Plata and just north of the Wilson School from R1-144 to R1-36, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to recommend approval to the Town Council of OV9-03-25, rezoning 17.57 acres located on the south side of Tangerine Road near Camino Del Plata from R1-144 to R1-36 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A attached, herewith. OR I move to recommend approval to the Town Council of OV9-03-25, rezoning 17.57 acres located on the south side of Tangerine Road near Camino Del Plata from R1-144 to R1-36 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A attached herewith and the following added conditions: . OR I move to recommend denial to the Town Council of OV9=03-25, rezoning 17.57 acres located on the south side of Tangerine Road near Camino Del Plata from R1-144 to R1-36 finding that: . TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 6 Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Site Analysis 3. Tentative Development Plan Planning and Zoning Administrator Contact: Planning Resources Carl Winters Fax 628-7637