MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA
November 6, 2008
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE
 
1.

Call to Order at 5:34 p.m. 


2.

Roll Call


PRESENT:
Chair Teree Bergman
Vice Chair Clark Reddin
Commissioner Bill Adler
Commissioner Joe Hornat
Commissioner Doug McKee
Commissioner Scott Merry
Commissioner James Loughney

Also present:
Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director
Paul Keesler, Public Works, Development Review Manager
Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy, Town Attorney 

Executive Session at or after 5:30 p.m.

Resume Special Session at or after 6:00 p.m.

1.

Call to Order


2.

Roll Call

PRESENT:
Chair Teree Bergman
Vice Chair Clark Reddin
Commissioner Bill Adler
Commissioner Joe Hornat
Commissioner Doug McKee
Commissioner Scott Merry
Commissioner James Loughney


4.

Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes for October 7, 2008, and October 13, 2008.


MOTION:  Vice Chair Reddin MOVED to approve the October 7, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes as written.  Commissioner Hornat seconded the motion.  
Discussion:  Commissioner McKee corrected spelling of the word oversight on page 10. 
Motion carried with above correction, 7:0.

Commissioner Adler pointed out on page 7 of the October 13 minutes, the word working should be changed to wording.

Commissioner Merry said on page 5 under Comments and statements that in his comments, there was wording that should be added. 

MOTION:  Vice Chair Reddin MOVED to approve the October 13, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes as corrected and to check addiitonal wording of Commissioner Merry’s on page 5.  Commissioner Adler seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 7:0.

5.

Continued Public Hearing: Hawk Holdings LLC., represented by The WLB Group, requests approval of a Major General Plan Amendment and change to the Town Urban Growth Boundary  for a 127 acre area located west of Kingair Drive and south of West Tortolita Circle and Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 to potentially develop Phase 9 of the Stone Canyon Subdivision, OV11-07-02.


Paul Oland, the WLB Group, gave a PowerPoint presentation, limiting his comments to what has changed since the last hearing.
- Revised site plan was presented with two significant changes:  the buffer on south and west lots bordering on County land would be a minimum of 2 acres, and on the east end a portion was removed near the airpark, so only 3.3 acres lots remain. 

- The trailhead will accommodate the design the Town has asked for on the number of parking and equestrian spaces.  The wash and hill would buffer from surrounding lands.  They have worked with staff to identifiy an alternate location.  The parcel is not defined, but conditions for it are defined.  That would be a condition of rezoning.

- Access to north will be for pedestrian and equestrian, and from the south it needs to be public.  A title agency has done a search into the configuration of access easements to the south.  There are a collection of easements not all listed as public, but as non-exclusive ingress/egress easements for the benefit of the property owners.  Access up to the trailhead is unmaintained County roads put there to serve property owners.  Conditions currently place the requirement on the applicant that they procure access from the south, which they are incapable of doing.  The applicant has not cut off access from Tortolita Mountain Park.  The Rancho Vistoso Master Plan shows 3 trail alignments exiting Rancho Vistoso into the State land to the north, which are Honey Bee, Wapa Line and Big Wash trails.

Questions from Commissioners and response:
- Is the applicant proposing a 2 acre swap of the triangular piece of land and one to be named in Area 5?
Response:  Per staff’s suggestion, we are proposing an equivalent swap on site. We are proposing designating in NH5 a rec area along the Moore Loop road and putting an equestrian trail there.
- Would the triangle piece of land become part of developer’s land?
Response:  Ideally, but there would be an equal land swap.

- Regarding the requirement to provide access from Como Drive, where is that?
Response: See Planning condition 2C, which implys the applicant is to provide public access. 
-  Neighboring lots are clearly larger than those in the proposed amendment.  How does it achieve the compatibility mentioned in the GP?
Response:  The lot sizes to the south are 4-10 acres and are zoned for 3.3 acres.  The 2-3 acre lots on the west edge are a good transition. 
-  Condition 2C does not that say public access needs to be required from Como Dr.  There are other opportunities for access from there. 
Response:  Access cannot be provided through Stone Canyon. It is a gated community.  It is not feasible.
- We are not talking about a flood of people, so not feasible is not correct.
Response: It would open the floodgates of litigation. 

- How is this area different from other gated communities where there is a private golf course and people are allowed to go through the gate to get to the golf course? 
Response:  They are allow through the gate with permission and they pay to get on the golf course.  There is a difference getting into a community that has a private golf course for the purpose of using that amenity, and simply passing through a gated community to get to a public resource.
- How many of the easements from Como Road are already public?
Response: Two that Mr. Oland was aware of.  
- How high would the cost of easements be?
Response:  Mr. Oland had no idea.  Financially, the cost would be high, but the neighborhood does not want access to go through there.
- Regarding the Airpark, where is a center line of the runway?
Response:  TMr. Oland said the center line is somewhere over here.  He pointed out the edge on the map. 

Mr. Oland said that Planning condition #4 says that all sensitive areas defined by the environmental reports that are required should be as common open space, and that does not work.  The way it is written says all those areas have to be common area and not be counted as part of the lot, which would have a significant impact on the developability of this.  It should say preserved as conservation easement instead of common open space.

Attorney Andrews suggested adding "as proposed by developer".

Oro Valley Water would be extended through the corner area that is cut off through the Urban Services Boundary (USB) area.

Ms. More, Planning and Zoning Director, gave the staff report.

Questions from Commissioners and staff’s response:
- Has staff looked at an optional location for the trailhead?
Response:  It has been talked about conceptually, and it may be a decent interum solution until this site can be secured, improved and access achieved. 
- Is an equestrian trailhead in the middle of Rancho Vistoso is an appropriate use?
Response:  She likes the use of trucks on paved vs unpaved roads, but it isn’t as "horsey" of an area. 
- USB is being changed by this amendment to include this area.  When development occurs in this area that will not be in the USB, what will have to be done at that time to bring that area into it and shouldn’t that be done now?
Response:  Yes.  Regarding the density, the plan amendment for land use from Rural Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential, you would recommend that not be supported in that area, but support the USB extension.
- Are the lots 2 acres in the portion of property on the western side where there are heavier slopes and vegetation?
Response:  Yes,  2 and 2.5 acres. 
- Regardless of the size, at the rezoning stage required environmental studies will bear on what the lot sizes will be.  It is not a determination critical at this point.  
Response: Correct. The Commission could add a condition or finding that sensitivity should be addressed on that edge.
- The inclination is to broaden to include Rural Low Density depending upon the findings from the studies. There should be some flexibility so as not to be tied into a specific size lot and building pad. 
Response:  As a part of rezoning it is anticipated this area would become part of the Rancho Vistoso and Stone Canyon PAD.  The PAD is what limited the size, but it could be modified at the rezoning stage. 
- Should it be called out or assumed?
Response:  There isn’t any place in the General Plan where it is designated as more than one size for a site, but density ranges are maximum.
- Is there anything wrong with providing more flexibility in lot size and building pad size now?
Response: No.
- Is there another way to get from NH5 to Tortolita Mountain Park?
Response from Ainsley Legner, Parks and Recreation Director:  Oro Valley has no easy access today. You could go up through Honey Bee Canyon or Marana has trail access.
- If the trailhead is moved to NH5, there is no other way to get to Tortolita Mountain Park.
Response:  There are ways from Honey Bee, but it is far and is not an approved trail.

- Doesn’t trail 33 intersect Moore Rd?
Response from Ms. Legner:  It does.  There may be some areas of trail 33 from the south that are not accessible. 
- Can the triangular parcel that is now the trailhead be added to this proposal as shown on Exhibit 5-1 without having to readvertise, etc., as it is not part of the proposal?
Response from Ms. More:  Staff did consult with the Town Attorney and they indicated that because of the Town ownership, we could do it.
- Clarify staff’s intent on Exhibit A Condition 2C.  The developer reads that as the Town requiring the developer to come up with acceptable public access to the trailhead.  Is that correct?
Response:  Yes, that was what staff meant, that the applicant secure that access.
- No matter where the alternate trailhead is relocated, would we have the appropriate easements for trails from the edge of the property through to the trailhead?
Response:  That is addressed by the conditions, and the applicant is willing to do that. 

PUBLIC HEARING opened at 7:00

Gale Alexander, VP La Cholla Airpark.  Gave a PowerPoint presentation.  See handout.

Sue Clark, Pima Trails Association representative, said putting a trailhead in Neighborhood 5 is too far away.  Six to eight miles round trip would be added.  People using the trails want to park near where they are going.  The trailhead needs to be near Tortolita Mountain Park.

Howard Richmond, Oro Valley resident, was opposed to the amendment.  Why do we have a GP?  As a tax payer and citizen he thinks the GP is a placeholder for developers.  Access to Tortolita Park is an issue.  Consider rejecting this plan application and keep the integrity in the GP process.  Nothing has changed to mandate an amendment.

Conrad Kunig, Oro Valley resident, said safety is an issue for pilots and people on the ground.  To the south is 3.3 acres lots.  It would be inconsistent on the north end.  Going north is uphill and a mountain range, which creates a safety issue when pilots must take off that way. 

John Guiterraz, La Cholla Airpark resident, serves on Airpark board.  This amendment is not for the community’s benefit.  Safety is an issue. 

Barbara Abrams, Oro Valley resident, said this is a major change to the General Plan.  It is too drastic, too much, and an assault to the desert.  Rural zoning is most appropriate.

Sarah Ozols, Oro Valley resident.  She has not heard the developer state the benefit of the change.  There is a need for trails, however, access through the gated community should not happen.  Stone Canyon residents will not be getting the clubhouse, so why should we support extension of the neighborhood when the developer cannot finish his prior commitment. 

Nancy Mielinis, Oro Valley resident, has not heard anything from Mr. Oland that the proposed zoning is good.

Ron Wiener, La Cholla Airpark resident.  Safety is an issue.  Wind causes problems taking off to the south.  Lighter aircraft has problems and it puts them too close to homes.

PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:28 p.m.

Comments from Commissioners: 
Commissioner McKee commented on the situation at AZ National.  He has played there without invitations.  He would also like clarification on the alternate location for the trailhead.
Chair Bergman said staff said it was a temporary solution.

Commissioner Adler took exception to the comment that the GP is a place holder for developers.  There have been several GP amendments that have been denied, but there has not been one that has been approved without conditions.  Changing a GP that has been ratified appears to be indefensible. People need to read the conditions and be fully informed.  Integrity of GP is being maintained. Tortolita Mountain Park is for regional use and public access is a requirement to be able to have a public trail. We need to defer how access is going to be solved to the Town Council rather than decide at this level.  Density and compatibility with the community has been a concern. He has problems waiting for the hydrological and biological studies to determine the appropriate density.

Commissioner Hornat said there were two GP amendments withdrawn.  The GP is a general plan and like any good document has ways to amendment itself. The Airpark does not abut this GP Amendment property, but has an area that is affected.  The developer has kept lot size to 3.3 acres and has withdrawn that part affected.

Commissioner Loughney said trailhead access problems have been identified and mitigated at this time by identifying another area.  He agrees with Commissioner Hornat regarding the Airpark issues as acreage was cut off to accommodate their concerns.  Hydrology issues and wash crossing have been addressed.  Lots will be zoned around natural barriers. This would be the best use for the land. 

Commissioner Merry said he read the 9/10 letter from Mr. Alexander.  The 25 acre area of concern that falls within the CUCZ zone was taken out.  The applicant has done everything Mr. Alexander asked, yet more was asked for tonight. Buffer areas have been added on the southern and western sides.  The proposed road does line up with the runway and would be nice to have.  He thanked Commissioners Adler and Hornat for their comments.  The Commission takes this very seriously.  Housing sales are down, but this GP amendment is needed and is appropriate because change is coming.

Vice Chair Reddin thanked everyone for their comments.  He said the only thing outstanding is the trailhead.  Even if the GP Amendment goes through, the trailhead is still a problem.  A motion should be made that the Council look at this and come up with a solution. 

Chair Bergman said she is sensitive to comments of staff that there are environmental advantages to having this developed.  Property will be developed on public sewers and  water, and with requirements sensitive to steep slopes and other environmental constraints on the property.  If developed without constraints damage to the property may be much greater than if it is developed with the amendment.  Any motion should ask staff to clarify condition 2C to indicate the intent is the applicant and the Town will work together to resolve the issue of the trailhead, and it is not necessary the developer acquire easement over property they do not own.  Add to 8th condition to the Planning list, that lot sizes adjoining the unincorporate area on the west side should be a minimum of 2 acres and lot sizes may be increased if environmental studies indicate that larger lots are needed in that section for environmental protection.

Commissioner McKee thanked the Airpark people for their time.  He shared their concerns about safety.  The developer has responded to those concerns.  Flight patterns will still be over low density.  The property in neighborhood 9 was sold with the understanding that roads would be limited to owners and vendors, etc.  Also, there was a promise of a golf course which is proposed to be taken out; he questioned that.  Access through the gate does have exceptions made.  Advantages mentioned: Oro Valley water and sewer systems.  The biggest impact is to the developer’s pocketbook.  There have probably not been enough changes to the community to justify a change to the GP.  Benefits have not been documented enough.  He will vote to deny this amendment.

Commissioner Adler prefaced making a motion stating that he agreed with Mr. Alexander, that not all adoption criteria are met near 100%. As Mr. Conrad pointed out, safety is a primary concern but there are no circumstances where there are zero risks.  There is no way the Planning Commission can deal with development to zero out risk.  Not all adoption criteria are met absolutely, but the decision is made on a question of balance.

MOTION:  Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend to the Town Council approval of this General Plan Amendment (OV11-07-02), changing the land use designation from Rural Low Density to a combination of Rural Low Density and Low Density residential, with the exact densities to be determined based upon the results from the biological and hydrological studies required at rezoning. Further, that no greater density than .4 dwelling units per acre be applied to lots adjacent to the larger lots in unincorporated Pima County.  The Urban Service Boundary is to follow the original application boundaries.   Exhibit A Condition 2C be modified to state that the applicant will work with the Town Council on public trailhead access.  Exhibit A Condition 4, the words "common open space" will be replaced with "conservation easement as proposed by the developer".  The existing trailhead site is being added into the Urban Services Boundary.  Commissioner Merry seconded the motion. 

Discussion:
Commissioner Hornat said he shared Mr. Adler’s concern about the applicant not meeting all four criteria.  There are things that offset that and he intends to support this motion.

Chair Bergman believed it meets the criteria.  The change that has occurred is the change of ownership, which offers the opportunity to add it to an existing developed area, to be developed in a similar way and offer environmental advantages to the Town. 

MOTION:  Carried 6 yes, 1 no.  Commissioner McKee voting no for reasons stated above.

6.

Public Hearing, OV7-08-08, The Town of Oro Valley Planning & Zoning Department’s request to amend the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 28, Signs.  The purpose of the amendment is to allow the use of human signs, in accordance with recently enacted Arizona legislation.  The proposed use of human signs will have time, place and manner restrictions.  The proposed amendment would also allow an increase in the size of temporary sign zones, and provide clarification to some prohibited signs.


Attorney Andrews stated the State law says we can no longer prohibit walking type signs.  There have been a number of complaints in the past that the temporary sign zones are not large enough to accomodate all the political signs per election.  One change should be made in section G limiting the number of permits.  He suggested adding the wording "another permit shall not be issued for 90 days."  This would prohibit individuals from coming in every three days for a new permit. 

Ms. More gave the staff report. 

Attorney Andrews said we are allowed to put reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on sign walker/human sign code; however, the more restrictions, the more we are open to challenge.

Comments:

- The suggestion that the sign must be held relatively still is subjective and there are no monitors.  
- Complaints are brought to the attention of staff.  Ms. Widero, Zoning Program Supervisor, would send out someone to check.  A notice of violation would be issued and if continued, it is taken to court. 
- The person carrying the sign should be fully clothed.
- Avoid costumes to draw attention because they create a safety issue.
- Expanding temporary zones is also a problem.  Encourage candidates to seek private property permission to put their signs up. 

- Minimum size is distracting and hard to read.  
- Drop minimum size because in many places there isn’t enough room to be able to put a sign.
- The owner has control on private property.
- A human sign on private property is a temporary sign.
- Political signs on private property is not regulated. 
- Human signs can be prohibited in row.
- A human political sign could be in the sign zone.
- T-shirts with advertising constituting a sign would be a judgement call.
- Town Hall complex was not changed because it has never been filled up.
- Prohibited close to Town parks to not crowd entrance.

MOTION:  Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve with conditions, OV7-08-08, proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Chapter 28, Signs, without the enlargement of the temporary sign zone in the public right of way and adding a reference to proper attire on the human sign, and a reference prohibiting the human sign using a costume to attract attention. The 3 day permits should have a 90 day waiting period between permits. (Accepted Friendly Amendment made by Commissioner Merry):  The daylight hours be changed to 8:00 a.m to 5 p.m. Commissioner Hornat seconded the motion.

Friendly Amendments not accepted:
Commissioner Merry asked that human signs not be within the Town of Oro Valley ROW, but in any case must be at least 10 feet from the paved road.

Commissioner McKee asked that the 90 day waiting period be changed to 30 days.

Discussion: 

Paul Keesler pointed out that most of the back of the sidewalks within the Town are roughly 9 feet.  The 10 feet restriction would put you on the opposite side of the sidewalk.  

Commissioner McKee asked if the temporary sign space was being increased, to which Commissioner Adler responded it was to stay at 300 square feet.

Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no.  Commissioner McKee voting no.

7.

Planning and Zoning Commission Appointment to the CIP Technical Advisory Committee.


Commissioner Merry volunteered to serve on the Capital Improvement Plan Technical Advisory Committee.

8.

Adjourn Special Session


MOTION:  Commissioner Merry MOVED to adjourn the November 6, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.  Commissioner McKee seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5:1.