Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had requested an amendment to the PAD to add a new special area policy to clarify that multi-family residential (apartments) were permitted on Parcel 7-I.
The owner of the project was Venture West, the applicant was the WLB Group and the intended developer was HSL Properties.
Mr. Williams clarified that the parcel was not zoned for open space but was planned and zoned since 1987 as C-1. He outlined the following background information:
-Parcel 7-I was designated C-1 Community Commercial in the Rancho Vistoso P.A.D.
-C-1 Community Commercial purpose statement indicated that the district "may include uses associated with the central business district" (i.e. Town Center)
-Multi-family residential was an allowed use within the Town Center
-Staff required the PAD amendment to clarify C-1 uses in Rancho Vistoso PAD
The Planning and Zoning Commission determined compliance with applicable general plan policies.
Applicable policies addressed:
-High density located near arterial streets
-Mitigate impacts on adjacent lower density uses
-Retain area for commercial development at appropriate locations
Mr. Williams stated that the multi-family residential was designed in accordance with Rancho Vistoso High Density Residential Development and Design Standards and that the commercial was designed in accordance with Rancho Vistoso Community Commercial Development and Design Standards.
The C-1 zoning that was currently permitted, allowed:
-Three stories in height with a maximum height of 34 feet
-Requires 10% of site to be open space
-Examples of possible uses include: Retail, Child Care Center, Hotel, Restaurant, Gasoline Service Station, Grocery Store, Offices, Hardware Store, Fitness Center, etc.
Mr. Williams outlined the High Density Residential Key Development Standards:
-Density: 8-17 RAC
-Building Height: 3 stories, not to exceed 34 feet
-Open Space: 20% proposed
Mr. Williams discussed the Rancho Vistoso Design Guidelines and stated that all buildings within Rancho Vistoso must be approved by the Architectural Review Committee.
Mr. Williams explained that Rancho Vistoso was specifically exempted from the Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) but that they must demonstrate compliance with applicable TRCOD requirements at conceptual and final design stages.
Neighborhood meetings were held on March 24th and August 4th and the major questions/issues from residents consisted of:
-Access onto Tangerine Road
-Access onto Woodburne Avenue
-Traffic impacts
-View impacts
-Nuisance impacts of multi-family
Opposition consisted of:
-20 emails
-102 form letters
-70 signatures on petition
Mr. Williams said that the last line in a form letter in opposition to the proposed amendment was misstated. He clarified that the 23 acres of land was vacant land zoned Commercial C-1 and was not considered open space.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the requested PAD amendment. Residents were concerned about the following:
-Inadequacy of notice
-Rental rates
-What would happen if the project was denied?
-School capacity
-Preferred no access onto Woodburne Avenue
-Who proposed the amendment?
-Vacancy rates for apartments
Staff recommended the following new conditions:
-The project would be served by the "F" zone water main in Woodburne Ave. Upgrades to the existing water system may be necessary to supply the required fire flow.
-The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable Tangerine Road Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) requirements including a view preservation plan during the Conceptual and Final Design process.
-The project shall demonstrate compliance with Addendum A Design Standards during the Conceptual and Final Design process.
-Any additional conditions as specified by Council
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval subject to the conditions in Attachment #1 - Exhibit B.
Discussion ensued regarding notice requirements.
Councilmember Garner asked what the required amount of open space was for high density.
Principal Planner Chad Daines stated that the required amount of open space in the PAD for High Density Residential (HDR) was 30%.
Discussion ensued regarding the process for PAD amendments and the process for rezonings.
Councilmember Solomon asked if the developers would have legal access off of Woodburne Avenue no matter what was built there.
Interim Development and Infrastructure Services Director Paul Keesler said that the Town could not deny access to public thoroughfares for any property owner.
Discussion ensued regarding traffic issues at the intersection of Woodburne Avenue and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard.
Applicant Paul Oland with the WBL group gave an overview of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Oland said that C-1 properties "May include uses associated with the (CBD) central business district" and that the general definition of a CDB included residences as one of the allowed uses.
Mr. Oland felt that the language in the PAD was clear that by using the word "may" opened the door for the Planning Director or the Town Council to make the determination that what they proposed was appropriate.
The apartments were proposed for the site for the following reasons:
1. No commercial demand
2. High apartment demand
The applicant proposed a mixed-use approach while preserving the viable commercial land to the east of the wash.
Major employers said that apartments would be extremely helpful to help ease expansion efforts.
Mr. Oland had contacted the Amphitheater School District and determined that there was capacity at the nearby schools for the additional children that would be generated by the development.
He clarified that they were not proposing access onto Woodburne Avenue.
The PAD High Density Residential (HDR) required 30% open space, the current property was at 10% and 20% open space was being proposed.
The proposed development would include two-story buildings located near the residents to the north and the central area and three-story buildings near the Fire Station and Tangerine Road as well as near the wash offset from Tangerine Road.
ADOT had given a preliminary green light to pursue two access points off of Tangerine Road.
Mr. Oland stated that most rents would be over $1,000.
Councilmember Waters said that residents were concerned about crime.
Mike Censky said that HSL had won a national award for developing crime free projects. He clarified that every applicant must go through a background check.
Vice Mayor Snider asked for clarification regarding the open space requirements.
Principal Planner Chad Daines said that the PAD under HDR required 30% open space and that commercial required 10%. He stated that a typical open space requirement for this type of development would be closer to 25%.
Councilmember Solomon asked Interim Development and Infrastructure Services Director Paul Keesler to expand on the Woodburne Avenue access issue.
Mr. Keesler said that staff was concerned about western access onto Tangerine Road. Until a traffic study was completed, staff would not know if a signal would be needed. He said that Woodburne Avenue was designed to have the capacity of not only a commercial site but an entire apartment complex to the north.
Mr. Keesler stated that most of the congestion problem on Woodburne Avenue was due to the configuration of the intersection.
Mr. Oland said that a traffic impact analysis study had been completed and submitted to ADOT. The study concluded that the level of service on Tangerine Road and Woodburne Avenue would be acceptable with the project and that a signal was not warranted on Tangerine Road.
Mayor Hiremath recessed the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Mayor Hiremath reconvened the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to item #1.
Oro Valley resident John Musolf
Oro Valley resident Shirl Lamonna
Oro Valley resident Brad Louis
Oro Valley resident Freeda Wohletz
Oro Valley resident George Millen
Oro Valley resident Barbara Evans
Oro Valley resident Tom Meade
Oro Valley resident Glen Singleton
Oro Valley resident Robin Davis
Oro Valley resident Norma Ancora
Oro Valley resident Bill Adler
Oro Valley resident Carolyn Rashti
Oro Valley resident Brian Clark
Oro Valley resident Priscilla Saxer
Oro Valley resident Brenda Kenfield
Oro Valley resident Lisa Ferko
Oro Valley resident Jeri Mott
Oro Valley resident Marjorie Sovey
The following individuals supported item #1.
Richard Maes
Oro Valley resident Mike Carlier
The following individual was undecided.
Oro Valley resident Gil Alexander
Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.
Mr. Williams clarified that the number of proposed apartment units was 240.
Mr. Keesler said that previous developers had constructed Woodburne Avenue based upon the needs at that time. Once a traffic analysis was completed, staff could better determine the need for improvements to Woodburne Avenue. He clarified that the placement of signal lights was determined only after extensive analysis.
Mr. Williams clarified that Parcel F was zoned for apartments but the applicant was the one who proposed Neighborhood 7.
Mr. Keesler clarified that the distance from the proposed eastern driveway to the intersection of Tangerine Road was approximately 400 feet.
Mr. Williams stated that the maximum allowed height of Splendido was 34 feet.
Councilmember Garner asked for clarification regarding Rancho Vistoso PAD wording regarding non-residential.
Mr. Williams stated that there was a policy in the Rancho Vistoso PAD that clarified what commercial meant.
Neil Simon, owner of Venture West, said that apartment housing was recommended by the business industry to meet the needs of workers transferring from other states and to provide housing for medical workers.
He said that when selecting parcel 7I, he had looked carefully at the Zoning Code, checked with the developer of Rancho Vistoso and went forward assuming that apartments could be built on the parcel as one of the allowed uses. Mr. Simon felt that the parcel was ideally suited for apartments because of its close proximity to Innovation Park and its location on a major roadway.
Councilmember Waters was concerned about what the original intent was for the PAD.
Richard Maes, Rancho Vistoso Developer, said that the original intent of the PAD was to add flexibility into the language due to unforeseen things that could take place over time. He felt that the Master Plan turned out extremely well. Language was included to allow apartments in commercial zones. High density developments were designed to be built along Rancho Vistoso Boulevard to keep traffic on the main arterial streets that could support the traffic.
Councilmember Hornat stated that apartments paid property taxes based on the value of the property. If the project was approved, he was concerned with how the Council could guarantee that what was built was what was promised.
Councilmember Solomon said that the property was privately owned and zoned for commercial use ever since Rancho Vistoso was created in 1987. Council would have more control on what would be built through the rezoning process because conditions could be applied.
Vice Mayor Snider said that if a property was zoned for an approved use, Council couldn't block that use. If apartments were considered an approved use, they would be built.
Councilmember Garner was concerned about whether or not he had accurate information to make a decision. The applicant had the ability to develop a private school, college or government structure, community service, library or museum, playground, hospital, clinic, club, childcare center etc. He was concerned that the C-1 zoned property sat vacant since 1987 and was never developed. He also felt that there was a current market for apartments.
Mayor Hiremath stated that the height limit would remain at thirty-four feet no matter what was built there. Traffic would be an issue with any kind of development on the property and traffic analysis reports would be completed to determine the best ways to alleviate congestion. The Council needed to balance what residents wanted vs. what businesses needed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Councilmember Waters to continue item one (1) to the November 16th regular Council meeting and hold an executive session regarding the same.
MOTION carried, 6-0.