Chairman Swope recessed the meeting at 7:11 PM. The meeting resumed at 7:16 PM.
Matt Michels, Senior Planner, provided an overview of the project.
- Location Map
- General Plan Land Use
- Proposed General Plan Land Use
- Application Description
- General Plan Amendment Evaluation
- General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria
- October 1st Planning and Zoning Commission - Discussion Points
- Reasons to Retain Commercial
- New Residential Development
- Map of Commercial Parcels Located North of Naranja Drive
- Factors For
- Factors Against
- Recommendation
Steve Hagedorn, The Planning Center, representing the applicant presented the following:
- Location Map
- Existing General Plan
- Proposed General Plan
- New Residential Projects
- Map of Commercial Parcels Located North of Naranja Drive
Chairman Swope opened the Public Hearing.
Patrick Straney, Oro Valley Resident, voiced his concerns on the proposal. Similar to the Olson property discussion, the buildable footprint in far less than 14 acres. Mr. Straney foresees density problems and a healthy community needs diversity. There has been an awful lot of development in Rancho Vistoso within the last five years, with a vast majority is closer to 5 du/ac. People like to work, play and live in a close by area. Mr. Straney requested that density be closer to the Vistoso Highlands development immediately adjacent on the west.
Roy Huff, Oro Valley Resident, states he agrees with Mr. Straney's assessment with Rancho Vistoso being one of the most impressive streets as you enter Vistoso Highland Drive. The monument sign as you enter gives an impression and hopes the Town gets to retain the sign. Mr. Huff is asking for less than three homes per acre and single story homes.
Jim Bands, Oro Valley Resident, states he is urging the Commission to deny this request. This proposed amendment is inconsistent with the master plan, neighborhoods to the north and the west differs from the density proposed which is significantly higher.
Ron Locker, Oro Valley Resident, urges the Commission to change the designation from commercial to residential for the following reasons. 1). The parcel has been zoned commercial since 1988 and still vacant. 2). On the six mile stretch of Rancho Vistoso, from Tangerine to Oracle there are the four shopping centers and office park. As of three days ago Mr. Locker counted 21 vacant and available commercial spaces. With that many spaces available there is no need for any more commercial in the area.
Lawrence Effken, Oro Valley Resident, stated as a master plan community the Rancho Vistoso area has provided for a range of housing possibilities. These neighborhoods were built to offer a variety of living styles and prices to buyers. It is extremely important that we continue to provide for the type of housing that demonstrates the foresight in this plan. Any new homes must be in the style, character and concept of those already here. As this property is an abutting property to an established neighborhood, Mr. Effken feels the homes must be stand alone, single story, single family of a density of approximately 2.1 per acre.
John Bross, Oro Valley Resident, stated he is not opposed to change, but the density of houses is his largest concern. He is also asking for the 2.1 homes per acre. This is a wonderful area and he would not want to see it change to a higher density homes.
Gwen Parr, Oro Valley Resident, states she is in favor of changing parcel 10J from commercial to residential. Ms. Parr is in favor of change but would urge the developer to be more in tune with the neighborhoods that borders the parcel which have detached single story, single family homes on lot sizes of less than 3 dwellings per acre.
Mike Parr, Oro Valley Resident, states he is in favor of the amendment but if two story homes are to be built anywhere nearby he would have to seek architecture control permission and built an eight foot privacy wall.
Carol Surowiec, Oro Valley Resident, states there have been struggles in the past eight years regarding some approved projects which have had an adverse effect on neighborhoods rather than enhancing them. This land use change as requested by the current owners of this parcel will have the potential to allow as many as five homes per acre as well as two story homes and townhouses. The land use as requested would allow this development on the parcel which would not be compatible with the adjacent properties on the north and west. Ms. Suroviec requests a change that would allow no more than three single story homes per acre.
Bob Spieal, Oro Valley Resident, states should the Commission decide to change the designation from neighborhood commercial office to medium density residential, he trusts that in making that decision you maintain the integrity and continuity of the community of existing homes on Vistoso Highlands Drive. Mr. Spieal request no two story homes, the development would be a gated community and the density will be no greater than 3 homes per acre.
Dick Surowiec, Oro Valley Resident, states we don't need $200,000 homes in the area. Mr. Surowiec supports a designation change if the density level is 2.1 single family and no two story homes. Mr. Surowiec submitted a letter from Helene and Fred Mittleman.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley Resident, states as with the Olson property his interest is in seeking compliance and consistency with policies and the General Plan. Market demand does not necessary or automatically lead to community acceptance which is required by the evaluation criteria.
Chairman Swope closed the Public Hearing.
David Willams, Planning Manager, commented on the questions asked during the public hearing including the monument sign entering Rancho Vistoso.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Buette
and seconded by Vice Chair
Cox
to Recomend Approval of the requested amendment provided that the dwelling units be limited to 2.1 du/ac.
Discussion ensued amongst the Commission regarding the justification for changing the General Plan, and approving a General Plan Amendment to a density that may not work for the property owner.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Buette
and seconded by Vice Chair
Cox
to Amend the previous motion to recommend appoval of the requested amendment without the density limitation.
MOTION failed, 3-4 with Chair Swope, Commissioner Caine, Commissioner Rodman, and Commissioner Drzazgowski opposed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Rodman
and seconded by Commissioner
Caine
to Recommend Denial of the requested amendment based on a finding that it does not meet the amendment evaluation criteria as identified in the staff report.
Discussion ensued amongst the Commission regarding the amendment not being warranted based on changes in the community and the premature nature of the request.
MOTION carried, 4-3 with Vice Chair Cox, Commissioner Buette, and Commissioner Leedy opposed.
Chairman Swope recessed the meeting at 8:48 PM. The meeting resumed at 8:53 PM.
David Williams, Planning Manager, presented an the following:
- Location Map
- General Plan Land Use
- Proposed General Plan Land Use
- Application Description
- Urban Services Boundary
- General Plan Amendment Evaluation
- General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria
- October 1st Planning and Zoning Commission Issues
- Previous Applications
- Factors For
- Factors Against
- Recommendation
Stacey Weaks, Norris Design, representing the applicant, presented the following:
- Entitlement Timeline
- Approved Development Plan
- General Plan Application
- Planning Area
- Development Patterns
- Development Transition
- General Plan Elements
Chairman Swopes opened the Public Hearing.
Scott Christy, Oro Valley Resident, asked what is transition and has seen transition in the two previous proposals on how density change. Mr. Christy cannot understand why so many houses are needed.
Pat McGowan, Oro Valley Resident, states it is hard to imagine without seeing the structures and how it will affect the neighbors and the quality of life. Mr. McGowan's main concern is the proposal does not fit with the consistency of the General Plan.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley Resident, states that none of the three applicants have used specific policies in the General Plan to support their positions. The General Plan is intended to reflect the balance between public and private rights. Mr. Adler would favor trying to come up with a square footage for the lots rather than this arbitrary designation of two or three acres per acre. Mr. Adler is suggesting 13,000 square foot lots adjacent to the border.
Chairman Swope closed the Public Hearing.
David Willams, responded to the suggestion of the square footage vs. density reference.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Buette
and seconded by Commissioner
Rodman
Recommend Denial of OV1113-03 based on a finding that the application fails to meet the amendment criteria and policies as identified in the staff report.
Discussion ensured amongst the Commission regarding if the proposed change is necessary and what was agreed to previously.
MOTION carried, 5-2 with Commissioner Caine and Commissioner Drzazgowski opposed.
David Williams, Planning Manager, presented the following:
- Narajna Park Improvements
Future Agenda Items for December 3rd
- Parcel 10T PAD Amendment
- Public Art Amendment
- Your Voice Survey Results
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Rodman
and seconded by Vice Chair
Cox
to Adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 9:47 PM