MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
February 6, 2018
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CA√ĎADA DRIVE
 
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Hurt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT:
Charlie Hurt, Chair
Melanie Barrett, Vice Chair
Tom Drzazgowski, Commissioner
Thomas Gribb, Commissioner
Bob Swope, Commissioner
Don Cox, Commissioner
Nathan Basken, Commissioner

OTHER STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Manager Bayer Vella
Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Joe Andrews
Council Member Bill Rodman

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chair Hurt led the audience and Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual commission members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.

There were no speaker requests.

COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS

Council Liaison Bill Rodman spoke on the following:

- Reappointment of various Board and Commission members
- Council approved the final plat for Rancho Vistoso Parcel 10J
- Council approved the Commission's recommendation on small cell wireless
- Council approved the protest law in conformance with State law
- Cleanup is needed for the potential annexation of Tangerine State Land property

REGULAR SESSION AGENDA

1.

THANK YOU TO FORMER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER GREG HITT FOR HIS SERVICE AND WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONER NATHAN BASKEN


Council Liaison Rodman and several Commission members said words of gratitude to former Commissioner Hitt. They also welcomed Commissioner Basken and commented on his previous service with the Conceptual Design Review Board.

2.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 9, 2018 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES


1-9-18 Draft Minutes

MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Cox and seconded by Vice Chair Barrett to approve the January 9, 2018 meeting minutes as written.

MOTION carried, 6-0. with Tom Drzazgowski, Commissioner abstained.
 
3.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROPOSED COMMUNICATION FACILITY TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CELL TOWER, LOCATED IN THE TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER SUBSTATION AT 55 EAST TANGERINE ROAD, OV1703061


ATTACHMENT 1- LOCATION MAP

ATTACHMENT 2- APPLICATION

ATTACHMENT 3- PHOTO SIMULATIONS

Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following:

- Purpose
- Location
- Modifications
- Stealth Applications
- General Plan Compliance
- Summary and Recommendation

Key questions raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:

- Clarification that the Commission must approve, but they do have discretion with regard to aesthetics?
- Commissioner Drzazgowski stated for the record that he had met the applicants in his office earlier today for a Pima County project, but they did not discuss this case.
- What aesthetics were considered or what other options are possible?
- Will the pole be painted the same color as the other poles in the area?
- How many single family residences were notified and how many comments/concerns have been received?
- Can you share what the resident concerns were?

Patricia Ramsey with Smartlink representing the applicant, Sprint, spoke on the following:

- Current carriers at the site
- The view from Tangerine
- The view from Jarren Canyon Way
- Purpose of the modification
- Service need for emergency calls by cell phones as landlines are decreasing
- Importance of updated equipment
- Summary of the modification
- Stealth design of the tower
- The ground equipment will remain behind the wall
- Reviewed the Federal Law Section 6409

Additional questions raised by the Commission and addressed by the applicant:

- Are these poles in other jurisdictions and is it the standard size?
- Why is it difficult to move the panels in closer? Are they in as tight as possible?

Shirl Lamonna, Oro Valley resident, spoke on behalf of her neighbors and as undecided on Item #3. She asked several questions which were addressed by the applicant. She also commented on the placement of one of the notice signs on the property.

MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Drzazgowski and seconded by Vice Chair Barrett to approve the request to modify the existing cell tower, finding it meets the applicable zoning provisions and the General Plan and matches what was submitted.

MOTION carried, 7-0.
 
4.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL HOME ARCHITECTURE FOR THE VILLAGES AT SILVERHAWKE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF FIRST AVENUE NORTH OF PALISADES ROAD, OV1703039


Attachment 1 Conditions of Approval

Attachment 2 Applicants Submittal

Attachment 3 Location Map

Attachment 4 Surrounding Homes

Senior Planning Technician Patty Hayes gave a presentation that included the following:

- Purpose
- Location
- Site Plan
- Design Standards and Principles
- Four Sided Architecture
- Materials
- Colors
- Compatibility
- Summary and Recommendation

Key questions raised by Commission and addressed by staff:

- Some of the 2-story elevations lack design elements.
- Are there additional pictures of the elevations?
- Windows on the sides of the 2-story elevations can affect privacy.

Applicants Jeff Grobstein and Dana Petty with Meritage Homes spoke on the following:

- Villages at Silverhawke Plan Matrix
- Community is similar to the Estates at Capella
- Site and floorplans

Key questions raised by Commission and addressed by the applicants and staff:

- Which home style is the most popular design?
- The dominant feature is the garage door on some of the smaller homes.
- Asked for clarification regarding the side yard being five feet.
- The side plans on the two-story homes only have one window; it should have more windows or design features.
- What is the setback from the street?
- Do these models meet the design standards of Oro Valley?
- The homes meet the design standards, but do not go beyond the baseline.
- Adding extra features will only increase the price of the home.
- The color of garage doors emphasize the garage size in relation to the house.
- Asked for additional guidance regarding the design standards.
- Asked for clarification on the conditions of approval.
- What do the colored dots signify on the subdivision layout?

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Barrett to deny because several of the models have almost no facade articulation on the right-hand side based on Section 22.9.D.5.b.iii of the Oro Valley Zoning Code.

MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Drzazgowski and seconded by Commissioner Cox to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for the proposed eight (8) model homes for the Villages at Silverhawke with the building height conditions provided in Attachment 1, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code.

MOTION carried, 6-1 with Vice Chair Barrett opposed.
 
PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)

Planning Manager Bayer Vella spoke on the following:

- Reviewed the agenda items for the next Commission meeting on March 6, 2018
- Upcoming neighborhood meeting on February 22, 2018

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Vice Chair Barrett requested discussion on the possibility of a code amendment to favor the congregation of acreage for recreation.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Hurt adjourned the meeting at 7:31 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 6th day of February, 2018. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.