carried, 5-0.
Current Planning Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location of subject property
- The applications are for a planning boundary change and master planned community
- Key points: applications are to amend the General Plan and does not connotate annexation in any way; the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) is required by state law to find the highest and best use for State Trust Land; and, the property will be developed in the future
- Background on the General Plan for Oro Valley
- Benefit of Master Planned Community Use Designation
- Regardless of development, the land will still be owned by ASLD
- Special Area Policies
- Existing Development Rights
- General Plan Conformance
- Amendment Criteria
- Summary
Issues/questions raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:
- Clarification that the General Plan was approved by Town Council and voted on by Oro Valley residents.
- The developer putting in infrastructure is at no cost to the Town?
- Regarding the public outreach program, many wanted to keep as natural open space, could that still happen?
- The Town of Marana has this property in their master plan?
Chair Hurt opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke and were opposed to Item #3:
Deb Childers
Diana Barnes
Darryl Landau
Robin Davis
The following individuals spoke and were undecided:
Sister Pelagia
Alyssa Page
Rich Hyatt
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Staff addressed some of the concerns raised by the speakers:
- When annexations occur, incorporated streets are included by state mandate.
- It was repeated that this application is only for a General Plan Amendment and not annexation or rezoning. The zoning component is down the road and will include neighborhood meetings.
- Since the properties are adjacent to the Town boundaries, we have a vested interest in how it is developed, regardless of jurisdiction.
- It was explained that annexation is a very formal and separate process that is mandated by the state. The first step (which has not occurred) is receipt of a property owner petition for annexation.
Additional issues/questions raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:
- How does the balancing act work with State Land versus neighbors' wishes and the Town in the middle?
- Regarding the planning boundaries for Pima County & Marana General Plans, do we have any knowledge about meetings they've held?
- What do you know about the Arizona Preserve Initiative (API)?
Chair Hurt reopened the public hearing.
Sister Mikela spoke as undecided on this item.
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Meeting was recessed at 7:16 p.m. and reconvened at 7:22 p.m.
Senior Planner Rosevelt Arellano provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Key point is that currently the site can be developed with 241 homes, commercial uses, as well as golf resort. The applicant's proposal improves the design by shrinking the development areas and better respects the existing floodplain and adjacent uses.
- Location
- General Plan Amendment
- Compatibility
- Community Fit
- Amendment Criteria
- General Plan Conformance
- Rezoning
- Tentative Development Plan
- Proposed Open Space
- Neighborhood Meeting Concerns
- Rezoning Condition
- Concept Plan for the Big Wash Trailhead
- Neighborhood Compatibility
- Key Factors
- Summary
Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the property owner, provided a presentation that highlighted the following:
- The proposal reduces effect on the environment and is a cluster design.
- Since the 1980s, 421 homes have been allowed. This proposal reduces the density of homes to 400.
- The plan for Moore Road Loop is not new. It has been planned since 1987; however, the plan to continue Moore Road across Big Wash was eliminated several years ago.
- This proposal reduces impacts to many areas.
Issues/questions raised by Commission and addressed by staff and Mr. Oland:
- Did we assume existing Pima County zoning when this area annexed into Oro Valley?
- The building height is indicated at 30 feet and two-story?
- Regarding the floodplain designation in washes, is it to the Town's benefit to have in Pima County?
- Some of the property will be dedicated to Pima County?
- What is a sewer lift station? What is our experience, and who maintains and pays for it?
- Understood the HOAs were not responsible for lift stations?
- How much will the lift station cost residents?
- What if the application is denied? What will happen to the land?
- Will Arrowsmith Road will be two or four lanes?
- Current zoning versus proposed zoning; how much recreation space will there be?
- The park is significantly uphill; what kind of access will residents have to the park?
- Will there be pocket parks?
- Minimum lot size is 6000 square feet; is there variety or all the lots the same size?
- If the rezoning is approved, will the lot size be set in stone?
Chair Hurt opened public hearing.
The following individuals spoke and were opposed to Item 4:
- Oro Valley resident Brett Sadovnick
- Oro Valley resident Will Medlicott
- Oro Valley resident Shirley Pruett
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Issues/questions raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:
- Regarding traffic, is Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at or close to traffic capacity?
- Do we have a figure that shows the floodplain boundary?
- A promise was made for a golf course; have you considered taking photos looking down from the ridge line to understand what the views would look like?
Meeting was recessed at 8:24 p.m. and reconvened at 8:32 p.m.
Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location
- General Plan Amendment Request
- Amendment Criteria
- Public Participation Meetings and Concerns
- Rezoning Request
- Tentative Development Plan
- Flexible Design Options
- Key Factors
- Additional Conditions of Approval
Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the property owner, spoke on the following:
- This is a transitonal property and significant open spaces are proposed.
- There is a single-story height limit as well as significant setbacks.
- The visual impact from Shannon Road is reduced.
- There are design restrictions on the property entry gate.
- Additional turn lanes on Shannon Road will be installed.
- Addressing and improving current flooding issues.
Issues/questions raised by Commission and addressed by staff and Mr. Oland:
- Residents do not wish to extend sewer line. Can we add this as a condition to the motion?
- Can you explain in further detail what the native preservation waiver entails?
- What is happening with the multi-use path along Shannon Road?
- What plans does the Town have to improve Shannon Road to accommodate a bicycle lane?
- Does the island on Sahuaro Divide include the saguaro to be preserved?
- Is there a map available of unmitigable saguaros?
- Have any walking paths been considered?
- What assurances are there that the conservation easement will never change in the future?
- When will a full hydrological study be done?
- Have some neighbors changed their minds and are now in favor of this?
Chair Hurt opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke and were opposed to Agenda Item 5:
Oro Valley resident Sandy Wilson
Agnes Klein
Eric Klein
Larry Stepp
Brad Wood
Diana Wood
Neil Chiarello
Peter Mack, completed a blue card as opposed to item, but did not speak.
The following individual spoke as undecided:
Oro Valley resident Mike Redhair
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Issues raised by the Commission and addressed by staff and Mr. Oland:
- This is the third rezoning request; on the two previous applications, were there more than 80 homes?
- Was there ever going to be a southbound turn lane onto Owl Vista?
- Why hasn't this property ever been developed at the current zoning?
- If this property were to stay at R1-144, what impact would the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance have on the development?
- How does this compare to the density at Capella?
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Cox
and seconded by Vice Chair
Barrett
to recommend approval of the Shannon Road General Plan Amendment from Rural Low Density Residential to Rural Low Density 1, based on the finding the request complies with the amendment criteria and General Plan with the additional condition that the saguaro be maintained and the entry gate to the proposed development be located no further than 75 feet from the rear property line of Lot 1.
Commissioner Cox stated that he has heard several previous applications and by far, this is the best proposal that has come forward. The high school has changed the neighborhood immensely as schools are a magnet for homes. R1-144 zoning has not seen a proposal come forward. This has a good buffer to the south and is pleased with the increased lot size to the west. The watershed drainage issue will be much better.
Commissioner Gribb stated he has struggled with this one and must applaud the developer for patience and mitigation, as well as the neighbors. He empathizes with residents to the west and south. Will vote no tonight, but is still struggling. Commissioner Swope stated he understands, but Commissioner Cox does have a point and development will occur.
MOTION carried, 4-1 with Commissioner Gribb opposed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Cox
and seconded by Commissioner
Swope
to recommend approval of the Shannon Road Rezoning request form R1-144 to R1-36, including the ESL Flexible Design Options and subject to the conditions in Attachment 6, based on the finding the request complies with Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code and the General Plan.
Planning Manager Bayer Vella pointed out that the rezoning motion must contain the same additional conditions as the general plan amendment motion.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Cox
and seconded by Commissioner
Swope
to Amend with the same conditions regarding saguaro and gate movement in Item A.
Vice Chair Barrett stated she hopes that with adding the conditions, moving forward, the Town will protect other saguaros and ironwoods.
Town Engineer Paul Kessler stated that he supports a left turn lane into Owl Vista.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Cox
and seconded by Commissioner
Swope
to Amend and add additional condition of left turn lane into Owl Vista.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Cox
and seconded by Commissioner
Swope
to recommend approval of the Shannon Road Rezoning request form R1-144 to R1-36, including the ESL Flexible Design Options and subject to the conditions in Attachment 6, based on the finding the request complies with Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code and the General Plan, as well as the additional conditions of maintaining the saguaro, the entry gate located no further than 75 feet from the rear property line of Lot 1 and adding a left turn lane into Owl Vista.
MOTION carried, 4-1 with Commissioner Gribb opposed.
Meeting was recessed at 9:59 p.m. and reconvened at 10:07 p.m.
Long Range Principal Planner Elisa Hamblin provided a presentation that included the following:
Purpose
Property Location
Commerce Office Park Land Use Designations
Amendment Criteria
Key Factors
Summary
Mike Carlier, representing the property owner, spoke on the following:
- He disagrees with many of the comments made in the presentation.
- He was instrumental on the annexation of the Rancho Vistoso neighborhood.
- He helped bring Ventana Medical Systems to Oro Valley.
- This proposal provides the needed housing for employees in the area.
- Most neighbors would rather have a housing community behind their homes.
Issues/questions raised by Commission and addressed by staff:
- If the application is denied, what kind of buffering is in place?
Chair Hurt opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke as undecided on Item #6:
Oro Valley resident Darlene Summers
Oro Valley resident Camille McKeaver
Oro Valley resident Mark Stickroth completed a blue card, but did not speak.
Chair Hurt closed the public hearing.
Mr. Carlier stated the homes are across the street and doesn't feel this will cause any issues with the current employers at Innovation Park. The proposal is a very responsible development. This will be 64 more homes for employees. It is an appropriate use of land and has the support of neighbors. Diana Dessey, who works for the applicant, stated this is in harmony with existing use of the adjacent residential area. Even a small development will help the suffering retailers. Homes sales will be in the $350,000 - $400,000 price range.
Issues/questions raised by the Commission and addressed by staff:
- Can you elaborate on the history of proposals for the property?
- What other uses other than an industrial type building for Commerce/Office Park are allowed?
- What other uses would be allowed that would not have the same visual impact as the applicant's slide shown?
Mr. Carlier stated that the current zoning allows for a building just like the one we are in right now. A house at 30 feet (at its peak) is different from an industrial building at 35 feet (straight across).
Planning Manager Bayer Vella stated that due to the late hour, the Planning update will be given at the next meeting.
Chair Hurt adjourned the meeting at 10:47 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 3rd day of October, 2017. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.