Long Range Principal Planner Elisa Hamblin provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location of Subject Property
- General Plan Amendment
- Applicant Concept
- Key Topics raised from the October 3, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
- Economics of Land Uses
- Residential Encroachment
- Campus Park Industrial Zoning
- Site Conditions
- Example Buffers and Screening
- Design Styles of the Nearby Buildings
- General Plan Conformance
- Amendment Criteria #1a-1d
- Land Use Analysis and Patterns
- Amendment Criteria #2 and #3
- Key Factors
- Next Steps
- Summary and Recommendation
Applicant Rodger Ford of Anthem Equity Group, provided a presentation that included the following:
- The need to provide more rooftops in Oro Valley
- The need for changing land use to residential will "unorphan" this parcel
- Spoke about the change in retail stores in response to e-commerce
- Highlighted the past history of development plan
- Summarized the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ) overlay zone and Parcel 2E has become less desirable since it is not included in this zone
- Provided statistics to consider why retailers need customers
Diana Dessey, also of Anthem Equity Group, spoke on the following:
- Why the change in use meets the intent of Your Voice, Our Future
- This is a last chance opportunity to correct incompatible zoning
- Building heights of commercial versus residential
Mr. Ford continued:
- Read quote from staff report regarding building height and setbacks
- Demonstrated side views for both a 5-foot and 6-foot tall person of different building heights
Ms. Dessey then continued:
- Residential use would provide greater conformance with Your Voice, Our Future
- The better solution is to have a major street between homes and campus-park industrial properties
- Do not have enough residents in Rancho Vistoso to support any more office space
- Residential use would improve the local economy and is needed to attract employers
- Medium density resdiential would be a better fit and solution
Key topics raised by the Commission and addressed by both staff and the applicant:
- What is entitled on this property?
- What would they be allowed to do without Commission or Council approval?
- Is there another area in town where these types of uses are already allowed?
- If a business came in and needed to build 36 feet high, would that be permitted?
- This property would have to go through more processes than the properties on the other side of street?
- Why did Council deny the extension in 2009?
- Issues of concern regarding residential encroachment on industrial - can you elaborate?
- Can you elaborate on the concerns regarding residential encroachment on industrial?
- Please explain further the presentation slide showing the proposed design of the proposed neighborhood.
- How does the proposed development protect viewshed from future industrial?
- Is there a possbility this parcel could be included in the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ)?
- Difference in retail land versus employment land?
- Can this parcel have retail space?
- Regarding the presentation slide showing spend statistics, are those national or local numbers?
- The slope on the parcel would mitigate some of the height? The residential use would exacerbate the problem for those future residents regarding future build across the street?
- If the use is changed, would this take the properties across the street out of the EEZ process? In other words, the parcels across street could then be affected by the 600-foot rule and the EEZ process?
Chair Hurt opened the public hearing.
- Darlene Summers, Oro Valley resident, spoke in support of leaving the use designation as it is.
- Florence Scholl, Oro Valley resident, spoke in support of leaving the use designation as it is.
- Camille McKeever, Oro valley resident, spoke in support of changing to residential use, but limiting the height.
Chai Hurt closed the public hearing.
Ms. Hamblin addressed the question asked of allowed uses.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair
Barrett
and seconded by Commissioner
Gribb
to recommend denial of the Innovation Park Type 1 General Plan Amendment from Commerce/Office Park to Medium Density Residential, based on the finding that the application is not in conformance with the amendment criteria and intent of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan.
Commissioner Drzazgowski stressed the importance of making it fair for this parcel to be on the same playing field as the other parcels.
Vice Chair Barrett is sympathetic to the applicant's position with this property, but also to the neighbors. Feels this would be better addressed by incorporating into the Economic Expansion Zone (EEZ). Residential is in demand right now, but to be a complete community, we need to preserve employment space. We can't get opportunities back once land is built on.
Commissioner Gribb stated he agreed with Vice Chair Barrett. He inquired if we could add a condition that this piece be brought in to the EEZ.
Mr. Vella stated he has heard the concern, but it is unrelated relative to the specific agenda item, but will come to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the future.
Commissioner Drzazgowski stated that Mr. Vella heard the Commission's concerns; do not need to add to the motion.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Current Planning Principal Planner Michael Spaeth gave a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location of Subject Property
- General Plan Amendment
- Special Area Properties
- Key topics raised from the October 3, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
- Existing Development Rights
- Arizona State Land Department
- General Plan Conformance
- Amendment Criteria #1a-d
- Criteria #2 and 3
- Key Factors
- Next Steps
- Summary and Recommendation
Key topics raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:
- Do we have any idea from State Land as to when this will develop or any preference on jurisdiction?
- Can you address the numerous comments on amending this plan when it was just approved and explain why we amend the General Plan?
- Regarding the Arizona Preserve Initiative, the bottom line is that the Town of Oro Valley would need to pay full market price? There is no other option for preservation other than to buy at full market value?
- Tangerine Crossing was part of State Land at one point? Has anything like that happened in the Oro Valley boundary?
- What is the public process for auction?
- The decision tonight doesn't mean anything unless the property is annexed into the Town? If Marana annexes, nothing really makes a difference? We are just putting Oro Valley's position out there?
- Could the future owner determine annexation?
Chair Hurt opened the public hearing.
- Miriam Kirsten spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #3.
- Carolyn Campbell spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #3.
- Bryan Childers spoke as undecided on Agenda Item #3.
- Rich Hyatt spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #3.
- Alyssa Page spoke as undecided on Agenda Item #3.
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
An audience member asked to speak and Chair Hurt reopened the public hearing.
Jan Rowe spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #3.
Shirl Lamona, Oro Valley resident, spoke as opposed to Agenda Item #3.
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Additional topics raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:
- How did we arrive at the master planned community land use designation? Are we not interested in keep what exists today?
- We are going to need parkland development on that side of town if we do annex.
- Is it appropriate to state our particular concerns if the Commission approves this amendment?
- We don't often allow for low density residential and gear more toward clustering. Is there a possibility that this land could be low density and avoid the mass grading?
- Are there are any options to combine with other jurisdictions to look at greater preservation?
- Are there specific areas for commercial development?
- Since the washes need to be protected, the master planned community could be low density since there are not a lot of places to build?
- Can you explain the translational zoning process?
- Concerns about the master planned community designation and what assurances can we give?
- Is this the best way for Oro Valley to proceed? If this is not approved, does it mean Oro Valley will not have any say?
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Cox
and seconded by Commissioner
Drzazgowski
to recommend approval of the Tangerine-North Type 1 General Plan Amendment, subject to the Special Area Policies listed in Attachment 1, to extend the General Plan Planning Area Boundary to include the property and apply a land use designation of Master Planned Community, based on a finding that the Amendment is consistent with the amendment criteria and General Plan.
Vice Chair Barrett stated she will vote yes to add to our planning area boundary subject to the special area policies, but would like to note that she hopes if an annexation occurs, the issues of environmental conservation are addressed.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Meeting went into recess at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened at 8:49 p.m.
Senior Planner Rosevelt Arellano provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location of subject property
- General Plan and Rezoning
- Key topics raised from the October 3, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
- Project Conformance
- Rezoning and General Plan Amendments
- Amendment Criteria #1a-d
- Compatibility with Surrounding Neighborhoods
- Amendment Criteria #2 and 3
- Rezoning Condition - Access to Town Well
- Key Factors
- Next Steps
- Summary and Recommendation
Applicant Paul Oland of the WLB Group, representing the property owner, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Showed cross sections of elevation changes using various maps
- The current views versus proposed views from the Estates at High Mesa, Artifact Canyon, Hohokam Mesa, Vistoso Hills, and Bridal Veil Falls
- Has been working with town staff on traffic issues related to the school site and the water department regarding easements
Key topics raised by the Commission and addressed by staff and the applicant:
- Will there be a paved, multi-use path with access to the community park?
- Will you have power lines above ground?
- Will the homeowners have to pay extra for sewer fees?
- How much is the homeowners' association impacted by these private sewer lift station fees?
- Is it the size of the pumping station or the number that determines whether it is public or private?
- Could we work with Pima County so homeowners will not have to bear the costs?
- Will the homeowners be aware of the cost of the lift station?
- Can we make sure that residents who buy the homes are aware of the potential school site?
Chair Hurt opened the public hearing.
- Carolyn Campbell completed a blue card, but had already left the meeting.
- William Medlicott, Oro Valley resident, spoke as opposed to Item #4.
- Shirl Lamona, Oro Valley resident, spoke as opposed to Item #4.
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Community Development and Public Works Director Paul Keesler and Mr. Oland addressed the question raised during the public hearing regarding the watershed and wash flow.
Additional topics raised by the Commission and addressed by staff and the applicant:
- During the presentation, felt that the applicant's maps of views were compressed down and they were not realistic.
- Regarding the PAD amendment site analysis, can you explain the difference in numbers on the report?
- The Environmental Sensitive Lands (ESL) does not apply to this area? Why is that? Is there encroachment into ESL wildlife corridors?
- The Big Wash trailhead is coupled with this project? What happens to those improvements if this is not approved?
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Drzazgowski
and seconded by Commissioner
Hitt
to recommend approval of the Type 1 General Plan Amendment for the Big Wash residential development to remove a Resort/Golf Course land use designation and to reconfigure the remaining land use designations of Open Space, Park, and Medium Density Residential, based on the finding that the request complies with the amendment criteria and the General Plan (includes all the conditions proposed and recommended by staff).
MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Swope opposed.
Commissioner Swope indicated that he was opposing the proposed amendment because Parcel 5-I would fully encroach into the Major Wildlife Linkage Category designation of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, which requires 100% natural open space preservation.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Drzazgowski
and seconded by Commissioner
Hitt
to recommend approval of the Big Wash Planned Area Development Amendment, subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1, to remove the existing zoning designations of Commercial (C-1), Medium High Density Residential, and Recreation Area/Golf Course and to reconfigure the remaining zoning designations of Open Space and Medium Density Residential, based on the finding the request complies with Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development, Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code, and the General Plan (includes all the conditions proposed and recommended by staff).
MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Swope opposed.
Commissioner Swope indicated that he was opposing the proposed amendment because Parcel 5-I would fully encroach into the Major Wildlife Linkage Category designation of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, which requires 100% natural open space preservation.
Planning Manager Bayer Vella provides the following updates:
- Neighborhood meeting on November 29 for a proposed lot split
- Special Community Academy session on November 30 regarding the Main Streets project
- The next Planning and Zoning Commission will be December 5 and will include a zoning code amendment from Tucson Electric Power
- The Town Council meeting on December 6 will have all four (4) general plan amendments on the agenda
- Volunteer Appreciation reception will be December 14
- Next week, the 2018 proposed meeting schedule will be sent out to the Commission
Chair Hurt adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
Prepared by:
Jeanna Ancona
Senior Office Specialist
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the regular session Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 8th day of November, 2017. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.