Michael Spaeth, Senior Planner, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- Location Map
- Site Map
- Review Criteria
- General Plan, Land Use Compatibility
- General Plan, Road Widening
- General Plan and Zoning, Environment
- Conservation Subdivision Design
- Flexible Design Options
- Public Participation
- Summary and Recommendation
Commissioner Hurt recommended that all general notes shown in exhibit R be cleaned up.
Commissioner Hurt asked if there has been any contact with Pima County and or Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) regarding the flooding issues.
David Laws, Planning Manager, responded that back in 2011 the Town completed improvements to the Lamas del Oro wash immediately south of this project. As a result the Town also proposed a LOMAR (letter of map revisions) process. Many properties were affected by the FEMA flood plain. As a result of that, property owners with a secured loan for a home were required to get flood insurance.
Back in 2015, the Town did get the LOMAR process approved through FEMA and the result was the removal of a significant portion of those properties from FEMA flood plain. Moving forward with this project, should it be successful for the rezoning, the developer of the project will be required to go through a similar process for their own property if it includes work in the flood plain.
As currently proposed, work is being done close to those areas. Property owners would be required to go through the LOMAR process to get those maps revised. Otherwise they are going to have issues with securing insurance. The portion between this property and where the Town ended improvement is the questionable part.
Commissioner Hurt questioned whether the drainage analysis done by G. E. Fuller includes all washes ? His concern is the drainage analysis appears to only involve one wash.
David Laws, responded that an analysis was done for the three areas and focus was the main wash. As we move forward through the development process, should this be a successful rezoning, a very detailed analysis will need to be completed on each of the washes, including encroachments into those areas with proposed improvements.
Commissioner Hurt commented that the property just north of Lambert Lane is undeveloped at this point. Two of the washes that go through the subject property also go through the undeveloped area. When that undeveloped property north of Lambert is developed, it will have an impact on those washes as well as downstream. His concern is the downstream issue and the property to the north.
David Laws, responded as the property to the north is developed, the developer will be required to analyze the impact of drainage standalone. It is the downstream areas that is actually making them go beyond what would typically be required. For the property to the north they will have to do an analysis of existing conditions and evaluate upstream and downstream conditions and incorporate a design that basically offsets the excess stormwater that is created from parking lots or rooftops, sidewalks to make sure that this is captured and held in place and slowly released to basically mimic existing conditions. Ultimately the drainage criteria requires that there is no downstream impact. So what you see today is what you're going to see a month later or a year later once that development is constructed. So there should be no impact.
Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the applicant, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Updated Plan Changes
- Where we are at now
- Downstream impacts
- Summary
Commissioner Barrett questioned the applicant on the portion of the property that is undevelopable.
Mr. Oland responded, the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (ESLO) is meant to protect the most sensitive areas of the property. It allows a way to pursue cluster development which is encouraged by Town code so you can achieve densities planned by the General Plan without disturbing or going into the sensitive areas.
Vice-Chair Leedy opened the public hearing.
Dennis Swena, Oro Valley resident, stated he owns the property south of the proposed project. He has seen erosion of the embankment below his home. During the planning phase of the FEMA/Lomas del Oro Wash Flood Control Project he was approached by a Town employee by the name of Dave Parker and asked to sign a waiver allowing construction equipment on his property. At that time Mr. Swena pointed out the erosion of the embankment and raised concerns about it. The engineer agreed that his worries were alignment and proposed a remedy which was drawn into the plans. The waiver was signed, fully expecting that the Town would perform on it commitment. As it turns out the erosion protection promise for the embankment was pulled out of the plans without notification and was never constructed. Further substantial erosion was suffered from the flood of 2012, his property is bisected in half by the Loma del Oro Wash. The engineering changes eluded to the general outlines of this project will have a real impact on increasing the flow rate across his embankment that has been mentioned by Mr. Spaeth and the developer. Currently most of the runoff from the ridge north of the his property becomes channeled and drains into the wash downstream from the embankment. Together with this vague and underlying changes to the Lamas del Oro Wash upstream from his property is cause for great concern. This proposed development together with other developments upstream is having a very real and substantial impact on property owners like himself. The plan before the Commission shows dotted lines along the wash as it traverses his property, but what do those lines even mean and how exactly will they be designed and constructed? How will it allow access to the north half of his property and impact the value and usefulness of his property. The developer has made some vague commitments in this regard but refuses to provide the detailed information in order for Mr. Swena to make an informed decision. This developer has promised substantial construction on his property but has not been willing to provide the detailed information that he needs in a form he can have reviewed by a professional and hold them accountable for their commitment. It would be irresponsible for him to agree to these terms, as well as irresponsible of this Commission to recommend approval of this project with so many questions left unanswered.
Karen Stratman, Oro Valley resident, stated where the neighbors left off is not where Mr. Oland left off. This property including the corner lot which has been excluded from this rezoning is currently R1-144, which means that they are 3 plus acre lots. It remains to define as low density residential in the current and newly revised version of the General Plan. The subject property has been discussed extensively in regards to the washes. Eventually this land will be developed and we are willing to work with Mr. Oland and Town staff to make this project. The neighbors have met and believe there is compatibility with the surrounding property owners, however the drainage is still not agreed upon by many property owners and is a pretty big problem. As stated earlier by the Town, we have put a lot of effort into extensive concessions and meetings by both sides and we believe there is some win, win between the neighbors and the Town and developer. There was disagreement about the two-story homes and what she was told was those rows of homes that have no red dots would have two two-story homes maximum in a row. Ms. Stratman would like to recommend this proposed project be approved with stipulations that the modified review process be denied and the conditions asked for by the neighbors for the special use policies for the conditions be added as well as including property owners to the south in any drainage design.
Liz Rulto, Oro Valley resident, stated she lives east of the proposed project and has been involved in this process with Mr. Oland for over a year. This has been the most confusing process that she has ever been involved in. Her main concern is the water drainage from the north, a lot of the culvert systems that are in place have been breached because of the intensity in which the water is moving from the north down the washes to this property. The developer stated he can help people out of the floodplain is a false statement. There is a huge process with FEMA. The modified review process was never discussed in the last year of community meetings. Ms. Rulto recommends that staff does not allow the modified review process.
Deanna Rex, Oro Valley resident, stated there was never a meeting after the new development was designed. The last meeting was hosted by a retired WLB hydrologist who stated the plan in place would not work. Placing the drainage downstream would take her out of the floodplain. The promise now is to place these retaining basins in that a retired hydrologist stated would not work. This new plan was mailed to us but never was discussed as a group.
Jonathon Kearns, Oro Valley resident, stated he lives on the west side of La Cholla where the other entrance will be located. This entrance is a very dangerous place to pull out. Should the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) not do what they need to do prior to this development, it will become increasingly more dangerous.
Vice-Chair Leedy closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Swope
and seconded by Commissioner
Gribb
to Table the item tonight in lieu of additional drainage analysis and maybe one more public meeting with the neighborhood.
7:39 Councilmember Joe Hornat showed up
MOTION failed, 2-4 with Commissioner Barrett, Commissioner Hitt, Commissioner Hurt, and Vice-Chair Leedy opposed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Hitt
and seconded by Vice-Chair
Leedy
to Recomend Approval of the proposed rezoning from R1-144 to R1-43 and use of the requested Flexible Design Options including minimum lot size, building height and modified review process based on the findings in the staff report, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1.
Commissioner Swope offered a friendly amendment that the modified review process not be included in the recommended approval.
Commissioner Hitt and Vice-Chair Leedy accepted the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Barrett offered a friendly amendment which states that the lots be confined to their developable area and still meet the 10,000 square foot minimum lot requirement.
Commissioner Hitt and Vice-Chair Leedy did not accept the friendly amendment.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
Elisa Hambin, Long-Range Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included the following:
- What are Oro Valley Main Streets?
- What are we trying to accomplish?
- Where did this idea come from?
- How can we make it happen?
- Where do we start?
- Can this really happen in Oro Valley?
- What's next?
Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, stated he supports the Main Streets but has some concerns. It's been stated that this a strategic plan from Town Council, but where did Town Council get their authorization. There is nothing in the current code or general plan that talks about Main Streets, the only comment is in reference to the art district. There is another development district which is neighborhoods that talk about recreational trails and so on. Mr. Bristow's second concern is the new Your Voice, Our Future that hasn't been approved by the citizens yet. You're signaling the public that you're not interested in the public approval of the Your Voice, Our Future. This concept is rated as a medium level within the new general plan. As far as he is concerned he is asking the Commission to table this concept until the Your Voice, Our Future can be approved.
Commissioner Barrett nominated Commissioner Drazgowski to serve as a representative to the Main Streets Design Focus Group. Commissioner Drazgowski is not present at the meeting, staff will wait to hear from Commissioner Drazgowski and if he is willing or unable to participate in the focus group.
Vice-Chair Leedy nominated Commissioner Barrett as an alternate should Commissioner Drazgowski be unable to participate.
Rosevelt Arellano, Senior Planner, provided a presentation that included the following:
- Purpose
- What is a Conditional Use Permit?
- Existing CUP Evaluation Criteria
- Methodology
- Proposed Code Amendment
- Proposed Code Amendment Language
- Summary and Recommendation
Vice-Chair Leedy opened the public hearing.
Don Bristow declined to comment.
Vice-Chair Leedy closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Hurt
and seconded by Commissioner
Swope
to Recomend Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment in Attachment 1 related to the Conditional Use Permit review criteria, based on the finding that the request would improve the effectiveness of the Conditional Use Permit review criteria.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Swope
to elect Vice-Chair Leedy as Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair
Leedy
and seconded by Commissioner
Hurt
to elect Commissioner Bob Swope as Vice-Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Barrett
and seconded by Commissioner
Hitt
to elect Commissioner Charlie Hurt as Vice-Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MOTION failed, 3-3 with Commissioner Barrett, Commissioner Hitt, and Commissioner Hurt opposed.
MOTION failed, 3-3 with Commissioner Swope, Commissioner Gribb, and Vice-Chair Leedy opposed.
Commissioner Swope withdrew his nomination for Vice-Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion to elect Commissioner Hurt as Vice-Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission passed 6-0.
Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided the following Planning updates:
-Town Council February 3rd Meeting
-Town Council February 17th Meeting has been cancelled
-Planning and Zoning Commission, March 1st Meeting
-No upcoming neighborhood meetings
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner
Swope
and seconded by Commissioner
Barrett
to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:20 PM.