The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 7/9/2009 (2) Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Public Advisory Committee Meeting #2 . ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS 1� Thurs.,July 9, 2009 4—6 p.m. Kachina Conference Room 11000 N. La Canada Dr. 1. Review and Approval of June 11, 2009 Meeting Minutes 2. Legal Framework: Prop 207 3. Overview of Oro Valley Zone Code sections relevant to ESL 4. Approaches to E S L 5. Update from Stakeholders meeting on June 23 6. Next Steps 7. Future Agenda items 8. Call to Public C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 BE\PAC agenda for 7-09- 09 FINAL(2).doc ESL Public Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 7 6 (Please sign in next to your name. Add inyourphone number i you want it included and it's not already listed) Signa tA,- i ,��Is Name Email Phone Address A tr 4( Adler, Bill StFatha@aol.com 297-3730 1072-o Al th-GL I L c1£ Pz- g5-7 3 7 Andrews, Joseph jandrewsorova1leyaz.gov / Berchtold, Karen kberchtold@orovalleyaz.go 1 I I/'� ,410t ��!;aeroq g ,tfield, Don DChatfield@sonoraninstitute.org 797-9713 '�: , AO 1 II.vis, Mary mdavis@orovalleyaz.gov Ztg- q/f7 "- -4.• ; ' Kelsie khanson@orovalleyaz.gov _ Kline, Philip pgeorgekline@yahoo.com 670-6150 x 224 im tJ 'io-t-D,J o►tr-+--f'D Dal u-c, 'z.„.„--t --- 1 4as7.CS- McKee, Doug dmckee@gmail.com 575-6500 9 'I // Oldakowski, Chet oldak@comcast.net 797-7161 Popelka, Paul ppopelka@orovalleyaz.gov 9'(.e/ ' Solomon, Steve canadavistas@comcast.net 297-4151 ft--r-' Taillie, Steve steveandjudyt@msn.com 825-8804 ,,� �/�� Vella, Bayer bvella@orovalleyaz.gov 4 /C'' Williams, David dwillliams@wildan.com Qo''I'LEY ''`k>o MINUTES O Ati til ORO VALLEY '410) ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL) lorPUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE #2 �OVNDED" JULY 9, 2009 SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTALLY LANDS KACHINA CONFERENCE ROOM M 11000 N. LA CANADA DR. Meeting called to order at 4:04 p.m. PAC Members Present: Bill Adler Don Chatfield (introduced himself to the PAC) Philip Kline Doug McKee Chet Oldakowski Steve Solomon Steve Taillie David Williams, Consultant, Willdan Engineering Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present: Joe Andrews Arinda Asper Karen Berchtold Mary Davis Bayer Vella 1. June 11, 2009 Meeting Minutes approved with no changes 2. Legal Framework: Prop 207 Joe Andrews gave a presentation on Proposition 207 and answered questions. Member comments: ➢ Bill Adler said that one of the things ESL needs to do is define "clustering." ➢ Bayer Vella said that Prop 207 has a 2-year window of liability, and explained the three approaches to Prop 207 issues: 1) exempt problems and move forward; 2) look to General Plan Amendments and rezonings as tools; and 3) look at what plans are in place and create an incentive trigger mechanism to get developers to use the new code. ➢ David Williams said he believes PAC can make recommendations to amend the codes to help with Prop 207 issues. 3. Overview of Oro Valley Zone Code sections relevant to ESL Karen Berchtold gave an overview of the following zones and overlay districts and displayed the corresponding physical maps. Karen also distributed written materials (see "Oro Valley Zoning Code (OVZCR) Sections Relevant to the ESL Project"). • Oro Valley base zoning map • Riparian Habitat Protection Overlay District 1 I i. Goal is to protect riparian zones ii. Includes provisions for encroachment, utilities and roads iii. Well-mapped and has worked well for the Town iv. Maps need to be routinely updated v. PAC may want to look at the potential problems caused by offering incentives to develop clustering (which sometimes creates clustering up against the riparian areas). This process would allow for evaluation and refinement of Town codes. Member Comments: > Bayer Vella said that reviewing the existing ordinances, under the ESL umbrella, would be an opportunity to evaluate and improve, ideally to create synergy. > Bill Adler said that the problem with overlay zones/districts is that their protection and preservation require enforcement (both before and after development) but the lack of resources may not allow for enforcement. He added that "enhancement" of properties is also a part of the responsibility of protecting and preserving. • Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District (ORSCOD) i. Applies to Oracle Road on a parcel by parcel basis. ii. Town's most intensive commercial zone; a State highway. iii. Some already developed properties annexed by the Town and not in compliance were exempted from the district requirements upon annexation. iv. One provision that works well is the requirement to maintain 100 feet of significant desert vegetation. v. Other provisions include density requirements and view corridors, as well as provisions for architecture, site design, and compatibility. vi. Will possibly be doing some revisions to address the weaknesses, primarily for scenic issues. vii. One possible improvement would be to determine what is needed in order to do a view corridor analysis. Member Comments: > Bayer Vella said that the current method to determine whether or not a parcel is or isn't a view corridor is very subjective, so a more consistent method to make this determination is needed. • Tangerine Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) i. Precisely measured area along Oracle Road west to Town limits. ii. One key provision is that "frontage tracts" must remain as natural open space and setbacks are measured beyond that. iii. Other provisions address height limits, building bulk, access, and preservation of view corridors. iv. Would benefit from clarification of language and terms. Member Comments: > Bill Adler asked if there were legal consequences to Town Council for making exceptions to zoning. Joe Andrews said that consequences are always 2 f possible, but for a resident to sue based on a zoning issue, the resident would have to have an action based on an actual loss. • Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan i. No map associated with this plan, applied on a site-by-site basis ii. Requires preservation and protection of native plants/vegetation iii. When a site is developed, a site vegetation inventory is required iv. Significant to ESL because plan would benefit from clarification of terms, such as "mature" vegetation • Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) i. No map associated with this zone ii. This is a "floating" overlay zone that is applied to a site once the slopes are analyzed in accordance with two parameters: 1) average cross slope of 15% or greater, and 2) sloped areas of 25% or greater. iii. Encourages development outside of the steeply sloped areas Member Comments: > Bayer Vella said this ordinance's strength is that it is adaptable to every property. Its weakness is that it is based on a dated County model and hasn't had much impact on Oro Valley development. The definition is vague, making enforcement difficult. > Don Chatfield said that too much leeway, based on political will, is given regarding exemptions. > Mary Davis said that regardless of the exemptions issues being attributed to political will or economic impact, perhaps this needs to be addressed at the Stakeholders portion of this discussion. • Cultural Resource Preservation i. This "General Development Standard" is applied to all development. ii. The map is purposely non-specific so that sensitive areas remain protected. iii. There is a good system in place to identify and preserve cultural resources; it has all the necessary elements but could use some refinement. • Definitions Karen provided a list of definitions that could be updated, revised or replaced. Member Comments: > Don Chatfield asked if the golf course overlay district is still applied to golf courses. Bayer Vella said that it does apply to new golf courses. 4. Approaches to ESL David Williams presented the findings of a comparison study he conducted on different communities' approaches to ESL. He found that a comprehensive approach does not exist, so Oro Valley's plan would likely be a "first." (See "Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities— Regulatory Approach" materials) There are three general approaches: 1) most restrictive —the most restrictive provisions control the amount of conservation; 2) cumulative —each provision becomes a requirement, which means the requirements stack up; 3) categories— lands are placed in categories 3 based on environmental values or physical features. Most jurisdictions do their own identification and do not allow property owners to do it. Scottsdale is the best example in Arizona. Scottsdale falls into the most restrictive category, uses landform classes with distinct intensities: • Requirement to preserve 50% of features, not 50% of site. • Plan adopted 20 years ago, prior to Prop 207. • Makes use of the following incentives: density transfer, open space, cluster option, transfer options of development. Member Comments: > Don Chatfield said he is interested in knowing whether Scottsdale's incentives have worked. David Williams offered the following highlights of his research from various communities: • San Diego uses a cumulative approach. • McHenry County, IL— If a critical feature is found on site, it provides the trigger for conservation design standards. • King County, WA- relies on buffers. • St. Cloud, MN — have criteria to identify what feature is, as well as an annexation component • Vancouver, WA— identifies resources using criteria • Santa Cruz County, CA— only resource-dependent uses are permitted in habitat areas • Jackson Hole, WY— mapped by City and updated by applicant. Includes definition of habitat. • Redmond, WA— mapped by City, buffers required • Park City, UT— applicant identifies resources, very hilly terrain • Ogden, UT— City maps sensitive areas, applicant maps slopes; have slope density requirements • Pima County— uses category approach (95% preservation of Important Riparian Area, 80% Biological Core, 80% Special Species, 66.6% Multiple Use), and systems approach (using large integrated areas instead of individual features being mapped) ; meant to be consistent with Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. County maps cannot be challenged. Member Comments: > Bayer Vella said that the work that this committee produces will be measured and evaluated relative to what Pima County has developed. 5. Update on Stakeholders meeting on June 23 Mary Davis reported on the June 23rd Stakeholder meeting. Fourteen land owners were notified and invited; nine land owners attended. The attendees displayed a lot of skepticism, with comments such as "it is already very difficult to develop in Oro Valley." Some attendees said they were glad that the project will result in more consistency in the evaluation of sensitive resources. Arizona State Land Department attended the meeting and expressed a number of concerns and a somewhat defensive attitude. Their view is that State land is different, they will not cater to municipalities, but will continue the relationship and dialogue. 4 Mary reported that the stakeholders want to make their comments known to the ESL PAC. At the Stakeholders meeting, Bill Adler proposed the idea of a joint meeting with the PAC and the stakeholders. Bill Adler commented that before that joint meeting takes place, it would be good to arrive at a definition of"sensitivity" so that they understand this only applies to "environmentally sensitive land," and not simply to "land." Mr. Adler added that PAC needs to defuse the "us" versus "them" feelings or concepts. Don Chatfield agreed with the need to define "sensitivity" but cautioned that will take some time. He suggested that we have the stakeholders offer their concerns. Mary hasn't yet followed up with stakeholders; however, they are welcome to attend the PAC meetings. The July 23rd Open House has been postponed. Doug McKee said there is a need to identify what is "sensitive" and why it is sensitive, and it may take more than one meeting. Bill Adler pointed out the notion that this process will "add value" to the property and adjacent lands. Bayer Vella agreed that we might want to add two additional meetings to the series, but reiterated the Town's goal to get this project done in one year and under budget. David Williams' consultant team will draft the ordinance document and it will be reviewed with stakeholders. The TAC will provide the science, and the PAC will review and edit the document. The draft document is scheduled to be introduced to the PAC on or about August 20, 2009. 6. Next Steps Next meeting is on July 23, 2009, at 4 p.m. in the Hopi Conference Room. The joint meeting with the PAC and the stakeholders will take place after the PAC is comfortable with the definitions of"sensitive." A tentative date of August 11th was mentioned as a possibility for the joint PAC/Stakeholders meeting. (Upon checking for conference room availability, it was determined that the joint meeting would be tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, August 12, 2009, at 4 p.m. in the Hopi Conference Room.) Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m. Pr--:red by: i - ff Arinda Asper Senior Office Specialist 5 KilLUt I VISCU JIdLLJLCS HI II IULCILCU L.UI I CI III IUSS Title Courts and Civil Proceedings "9 unapter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Propert} R�Article 2.1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs & Anpos) ■►§ 12-1131. Property may be taken only for public use consistent with this article Eminent domain may be exercised only if the use of eminent domain is authorized by this state, whether by statute or otherwise, and for a public use as defined by this article. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in Arizona after the Private Property Rights Protection Act. Jeffrey L. Sparks, 51 Ariz.L.i3ev. 211 LSpring 20091. A. R. S. § 12-1131, AZ ST § 12-1131 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works. MR,ZUTI ""'VlSCU JLdLULCS H1 111th-di-CU LW 1 CI ILI 1055 Title Courts and Civil Proceedings 'gyp crnapter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Propert, Rp Article 2.1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs a Anrlos) *§ 12-1132. Burden of proof A. In all eminent domain actions the judiciary shall comply with the state constitution's mandate that whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public. B. In any eminent domain action for the purpose of slum clearance and redevelopment, this state or a political subdivision of this state shall establish by clear and convincing evidence that each parcel is necessary to eliminate a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition, including the removal of structures that are beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use, or to acquire abandoned property and that no reasonable alternative to condemnation exists. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in Arizona after,thb Privat Property Rights Protection Act. Jefey_Sp ,__5_ Ariz.L,.Rev. 211 (Spring 2009). A. R. S. § 12-1132, AZ ST § 12-1132 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. • Aram- ivise° statutes Annotate° currentness TitiE Courts and Civil Proceedings '`ta Chapter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Property '`El Article 2.1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs &Annos) ■+§ 12-1133. Just compensation; slum clearance and redevelopment In any eminent domain action for the purpose of slum clearance and redevelopment, if private property consisting of an individual's principal residence is taken, the occupants shall be provided a comparable replacement dwelling that is decent, safe, and sanitary as defined in the state and federal relocation laws, § 11-961 et seri and 42 USC 4601 et seri, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. At the owner's election, if monetary compensation is desired in lieu of a replacement dwelling, the amount of just compensation that is made and determined for that taking shall not be less than the sum of money that would be necessary to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling that is decent, safe, and sanitary as defined in the state and federal relocation laws and regulations. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in Arizona after the Private Property Rights Protection Act. Jeffrey L. Sparks, _51 Ariz.L.Rev. 211 (Spring 2009). A. R. S. § 12-1133, AZ ST § 12-1133 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig.Us Gov.Works. H1 1LUI'^ Rt-:1/1=U . LaLULCS (1111 lULCILeU LUI I CI ILI'ebb Title Courts and Civil Proceedings Rg _,—pter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Property KRALtide 2.1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs 0. Annos) v+§ 12-1134. Diminution in value; just compensation A. If the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced by the enactment or applicability of any land use law enacted after the date the property is transferred to the owner and such action reduces the fair market value of the property the owner is entitled to just compensation from this state or the political subdivision of this state that enacted the land use law. B. This section does not apply to land use laws that: 1. Limit or prohibit a use or division of real property for the protection of the public's health and safety, including rules and regulations relating to fire and building codes, health and sanitation, transportation or traffic control, solid or hazardous waste, and pollution control; 2. Limit or prohibit the use or division of real property commonly and historically recognized as a public nuisance under common law; 3. Are required by federal law; 4. Limit or prohibit the use or division of a property for the purpose of housing sex offenders, selling illegal drugs, liquor control, or pornography, obscenity, nude or topless dancing, and other adult oriented businesses if the land use laws are consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States; 5. Establish locations for utility facilities; C. Do not directly regulate an owner's land; or 7. Were enacted before the effective date of this section. C. This state or the political subdivision of this state that enacted the land use law has the burden of demonstrating that the land use law is exempt pursuant to subsection B. D. The owner shall not be required to first submit a land use application to remove, modify, vary or otherwise alter the application of the land use law to the owner's property as a prerequisite to demanding or receiving just compensation pursuant to this section. E. If a land use law continues to apply to private real property more than ninety days after the owner of the property makes a written demand in a specific amount for just compensation to this state or the political subdivision of this state that enacted the land use law, the owner has a cause of action for just compensation in a court in the county in which the property is located, unless this state or political subdivision of this state and the owner reach an agreement on the amount of just compensation to be paid, or unless this state or political subdivision of this state amends, repeals, or issues to the landowner a binding waiver of enforcement of the land use law on the owner's specific parcel. 1 F. Any demand for landowner relief or any waiver that is granted in lieu of compensation runs with I and o tution of this state or the United States and is not intended codify or replace any other remec , I. Nothing in this section prohibits this state or any political subdivision of this state from reaching an agreement with a private property owner to waive a claim for diminution in value regarding any proposed action by this state or a political subdivision of this state or action requested by the property owner. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in Arizona after the Private Property Rights Protection Act. Jeffrey L. Sparks, 51 Ariz.L.Rev. 211 (Spring 2009). RESEARCH REFERENCES Treatises and Practice Aids 11 Arizona Practice A.R.S. 12-1135, Attorney Fees And Costs, NOTES OF DECISIONS Pollution control 1 1. Pollution control The enforcement of ordinances or other laws that A.R.S. §§ 9-500.04(A)(7) and 49-474.01(A)(6) requires would not result in a taking of property under either the Arizona or United States constitutions or under A.R.S. § 12-1134, as long as such ordinances or other laws did not deprive a landowner of virtually all beneficial or economic use of the land. Op.Atty.Gen. No. 108-011, 2008 WL 5261675. A. R. S. § 12-1134, AZ ST § 12-1134 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works. tM ILUI' ISCU 3ldLULCS MI lI lUIdLCU LUI I CI ILI IC35 TitlE Courts and Civil Proceedings R& pter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Propert, 'D Article 2.1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (R, efs & Anno_sl in1§ 12-1135. Attorney fees and costs A. A property owner is not liable to this state or any political subdivision of this state for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action or in any action for diminution in value. B. A property owner shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses in every eminent domain action In which the taking is found to be not for a public use. C. In any eminent domain action for the purpose of slum clearance and redevelopment, a property owner shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees in every case in which the final amount offered by the municipality was less than the amount ascertained by a jury or the court If a jury is waived by the property owner. D. A prevailing plaintiff in an action for just compensation that is based on diminution in value pursuant to § 12-1134 may be awarded costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in AELzo a air the Priv e P ope LE ghts Protection Act. Jeffrey L. Sparks, 51, Ariz.L.Rev. 211 (Spring 20091. A. R. S. § 12-1135, AZ ST § 12-1135 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works. • Iy&ILUI I :vi cu JIOIUI.C, h1 I11ULGLCU t..UI I CI ILI ICbb Title Courts and Civil Proceedings Lpopter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Property " _article 2 i. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs & Anrlo$) M§ 12-1136. Definitions In this article, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Fair market value" means the most likely price estimated in terms of money which the land would bring if exposed for sale in the open market, with reasonable time allowed in which to find a purchaser, buying with knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which it is adapted and for which it is capable. 2. "lust compensation" for purposes of an action for diminution in value means the sum of money that is equal to the reduction in fair market value of the property resulting from the enactment of the land use law as of the date of enactment of the land use law. 3. "Land use law" means any statute, rule, ordinance, resolution or law enacted by this state or a political subdivision of this state that regulates the use or division of land or any interest in land or that regulates accepted farming or forestry practices. 4. "Owner" means the holder of fee title to the subject real property. 5. "Public use": (a) means any of the following: (I) the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by public agencies; (ii) the use of land for the creation or functioning of utilities; (iii) the acquisition of property to eliminate a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition, including the removal of a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use; or (iv) the acquisition of abandoned property. (b) does not include the public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment or general economic health. 6. "Taken" and "taking" mean the transfer of ownership or use from a private property owner to this state or a political subdivision of this state or to any person other than this state or a political subdivision of this state. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Land i egulation in_ArizoJ1a a_f er the Private PrQ y__Rights1CQt s .fie. Y.._. 'ks, 51 Ariz.L..___. 211 (Spring 2009). A. R. S. § 12-1136, AZ ST § 12-1136 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig.US Gov.Works. 1-‘41,1LUl 1 VISeU JLdLULCS HI II IULdLCU LUI I ti ILI ICSS Title Courts and Civil Proceedings c.,r�apte r 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Property IciD Article 2,1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs & Annos) Pk§ 12-1137. Applicability If a conflict between this article and any other law arises, this article controls. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in Arizona after the Private Property Rights Protection Act. Jeffrey L. Sparks, 51 Ariz.L.Rev, 211 (Sprinct 2009). A. R. S. § 12-1137, AZ ST § 12-1137 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works. . to ILUI I VIbeU JLCILULCS /1I II IUWLCU k..U1 I C1 IU IC55 Title Courts and Civil Proceedings Lnapter 8. Special Actions and Proceedings Relating to Property '`11 Article 2.1. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Refs ec Arinos) § 12-1138. Severability If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid that invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. CREDIT(S) Added by Proposition 207, sec. 3, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES Proposition 207, based on an Initiative Measure, proposing amendment to ARSA in Title 12, Ch. 8, by addition of Art. 2.1, relating to private property rights protection, was approved by the electors at the November 7, 2006 general election, as proclaimed by the Governor on December 7, 2006. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Land use regulation in_Arizona after the Private._Property Rights Protection Act. Jeffrey L. Spa., ks 51 Ariz,t..Rev. 211 (Spring 2009). A. R. S. § 12-1138, AZ ST § 12-1138 Current through the end of the Forty-Ninth Legislature, First Special Session, and legislation effective June 16, 2009 of the First Regular Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature (2009) (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters/West END OF DOCUMENT (c)2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised (OVZCR) Sections Relevant to the ESL "How they really work" (from a planner's perspective) project: Purpose: This document is intended to provide a general introduction to the group's discussion; it is not meant to provide a complete analysis. For complete zoning code: http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Town_Government/Planning_Zoning/Zoning_Code.htm. Some basic zoning terms: Overlay zone: This zone is applied over the existing zoning district to "provide an additional layer of development standards to address land use needs."1 Examples include: hillside development zone, historic preservation district, or floodplain zone. Standard: A regulatory requirement that must be met, such as a setback or maximum density requirement. Guidelines: One definition: "a standard or principle by which to make a judgment or determine a policy or course of action."2 This establishes that guidelines allow for some interpretation and flexibility. They are secondary to zoning requirements and other standards. Specific Plan: Per Arizona State Statutes, a specific plan means a detailed element of the general plan adopted after notice and public hearing. It includes text, maps and illustrations specifying all of the following: distribution, location and extent of land uses, including open space; infrastructure improvements; standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources; statement that the plan is consistent with the general plan; and any other matters necessary to implement the specific zoning plan. General Plan: A community's "blue print" for land use and development. The plan is comprised of text and maps that delineate the goals and policies for preservation and development, and encompasses such areas as: land use,transportation, economic development, open space and environment, and housing and social goals. In relation to the ESL project,the plan includes goals and policies that support and define the project and goals and parameters. Zoning: The most widely used tool for regulating the use and development of land. It includes both a zoning code and a map. The OV zoning code includes: Zoning Map, Table of Uses, Table of Dimensional Requirements, and Property Development Standards for Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential,Non-residential, and Planned Districts. Riparian Habitat Protection Overlay District (Section 24.7) Description: The riparian habitat protection district is a mapped, overlay zoning district. The mapped areas are based on the existence of riparian vegetation, and divided into 3 categories, from most to least valuable: hydroriparian, mesoriparian, and xeroriparian. The riparian habitat protection district applies to all new development—essentially any development submittal - that occurs on a site. When an applicant submits a development proposal,they must apply the Town's mapped Geographic Information System (GIS) riparian layer to the site. The Practice of Local Government Planning,3rd Edition. 2 Dictionary.com C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 BE\OV relevanant code sections to ESL(2)(2).doc Page 1 of 6 The section states that"Riparian areas are to be protected from development." In addition, a 15' "apron"must be defined around the mapped habitat area on a site, and construction activity is allowed in the apron area, but it must then be restored. If a riparian area is proposed to be disturbed, the applicant must submit a Riparian Habitat Study and Mitigation Plan that is subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. There is a provision for a variance from the Board of Adjustment. In some cases, if riparian area is preserved residential lots may be reduced in size equivalent to the total amount of preserved riparian area held as common open space. The minimum lot sizes allowed under this provision are defined in a table. Strengths: • Areas for preservation are clearly delineated upfront. • Requirements are clearly delineated in terms of preservation objective. • Definitions for hydroriparian, mesoriparian, and xeroriparian are contained in OVZCR Chapter 31. • Updated mapping of riparian areas should minimize instances of"dueling biologists" (applicant contends map is not consistent with observances in field, requests map change.) • Resulted in preservation of riparian areas throughout Town and prevented fragmentation of corridors. • Approach has proven legally sound. Weaknesses: • Riparian vegetation can change over time, so will not completely eliminate instances for map updates. • The standard for encroaching into a riparian area is essentially "whether encroachment will, or must, occur within it." This is not a very clear standard. • Larger lots (zoning of R1-20 or larger) may be platted to include riparian areas, which has raised concern as to whether these riparian areas on private property are appropriately maintained. Other riparian areas must be maintained as common open space. • A reduction in residential lot size may be allowed when riparian area is preserved. This is an important tool; however, the smaller/more dense lots are often located adjacent to riparian areas, which may negatively impact habitat value, so that should be addressed. • Update requirements for Riparian Mitigation Standards. • Clarify provisions for Town enforcement of violations to riparian areas. Oracle Road Scenic Corridor District(ORSCOD) (Section 24.5) Description: ORSCOD is an overlay zoning district adopted as consistent with the Oracle Road Specific Plan (according to the definition above, this means it is implementing the plan). The map is based on parcels with frontage on Oracle Road. The parcels are of varied shape, so the district boundary is irregular. Some properties on Oracle Road south of Hardy Road were annexed from Pima County are not included in the district. The district applies to "development in the area shown on the ORSCOD Map." Essentially,this means it applies to all development. The district includes a wide range of requirements. The view corridor requirement is one of the most notable provisions. The extent of requirements that apply C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 BE\OV relevanant code sections to ESL(2)(2).doc Page 2 of 6 generally depends on the size of the property: for larger development projects, most requirements are applicable; whereas for smaller proposals, applicability is more limited. There are some exceptions to the requirements for some provisions of some of the Town's Planned Area Development areas. Key Features: The requirements generally fall under into 3 categories: • Landscape Standards and Guidelines • District Use standards: (defined by land use type for Residential, Resort, and Commercial Development) o Access requirements to Oracle Road (requirements for minimum spacing of direct access) o Setbacks o Density/Bulk o Landscaping Treatments (different from above section in that these are standards) o View Corridors o Freestanding Building Pads (for commercial only) • Design Guidelines o General for all architecture o Site master planning and building/structural treatments Strengths: • Preservation of significant vegetation along Oracle Road. • Regulates building height in accordance with view shed prominence. • Effectively regulates timing of development to insure that drive-through uses, etc. are only built as part of shopping centers. • Requires use of native trees to maintain consistent"look" along corridor. Weaknesses: • Some of the design guidelines repeat items that are already addressed under the zoning code Addendum A Design Guidelines or they are zoning requirements, such as setbacks and height. • This complex section takes substantial amount of time for staff to apply and applicant to interpret, making application difficult and often inconsistent. • Need a definition of"view corridor" and what a"view corridor analysis" should entail. Tangerine Corridor Overlay District (TRCOD) (Section 24.1) This overlay district is intended to implement the Tangerine Corridor Specific Plan. The zone is mapped by measurement: the"Target Area" is quarter mile from the centerline of Tangerine Road, and the "Peripheral Area" is an additional three-quarter of a mile beyond, comprising a total corridor of one mile. Goal: Preserve the value of lands possessing unique Sonoran Desert characteristics through development standards and guidelines. Emphasis is on the preservation of views from Tangerine Road and the desert character of frontage tracts, and limiting access to Tangerine Road so as to preserve roadway function. C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 BE\OV relevanant code sections to ESL(2)(2).doc Page 3 of 6 Other key features: • Strong access management provisions through"frontage tracts" on private parcels abutting Tangerine and arterials, within which access to the road is prohibited excess by approval. The location of new access is also limited by minimum distance from other direct access and arterials. • Landscape standards for frontages. • District use provisions (development standards) are defined for each of 3 land uses: residential, commercial, and office/employment, and address such elements as: o Walls required for sound attenuation and screening of parking o Height limits for within 100 feet of right-of-way o Required zoning setbacks is added onto frontage tract o Any direct roadway access onto Tangerine requires approval of Town and ADOT(frontage roads emphasized). Access alternatives are required o Building bulk: additional Floor Area Ratio provisions for commercial and employment/ institutional o Encourage smaller lots/higher density in core of site, away from road frontage o Visual analysis and View Preservation Plan (except residential) • District Design Guidelines: o Apply to Target Area, optional to peripheral areas o Includes site master planning and architectural style guidelines Strengths: • This section contains diverse elements that can be used to enhance corridor development. • Requirements for conducting a view shed analysis are clear. Weaknesses: • Some of the language and terms could be clarified • The architectural design guidelines (24.1.F.2.) are fairly vague • The section includes strong access management provisions for Tangerine Road. Staff should ascertain whether these requirements are still consistent with long range transportation plans for the corridor. Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Requirements (Section 27.4) This section provides standards for identifying, preserving and salvaging significant vegetation and rare and endangered species. It requires "preserving and protecting the existing Sonoran Desert landscape, including riparian areas, organic and inorganic materials, rock outcroppings, and associated vegetation." It is relevant to ESL because definitions for some of these features will be developed in the project. The section includes a definition for Significant Vegetation, and criteria for identifying SV in the field. Description: • The applicant must conduct a Site Resource Inventory (SRI)to inventory all plants by locating them on a map, and provide data on type/size/condition. • Applicant must submit a Preservation, Salvage & Mitigation Plan that shows plants that are being salvaged, removed from site, or destroyed. • Preservation incentive of reduced lot size/increased FAR for SV preserved in place. • Requirements for replanting removed SV. C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 BE\OV relevanant code sections to ESL(2)(2).doc Page 4 of 6 Strengths: • This ordinance that establishes preservation of significant vegetation as a major priority, provides flexibility, and is consistent with other NPPOs in the region. Staff made significant improvements to the ordinance several years ago. Weaknesses: • SV definition is vague, making enforcement difficult. The ESLO project will result in new definitions for significant vegetation. • Concern has been expressed that plant mitigation ratios are too high. Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) (Section 24.2) Description: The HDZ is a"floating" overlay zone that is applied to a site once the property's slopes are analyzed in accordance with two parameters: 1. "Average Cross Slope of 15%or greater" (ACS) and 2. Sloped areas of 25% or greater. Average Cross Slope is based on a formula("Slope Analysis Standard"). OV GIS has a data layer that shows slopes over 15% and 25% which is a helpful guide, but not quite consistent with the HDZ criteria. HDZ is usually applied with a development plan or plat submittal. The section includes separate provisions for three development types: single-family residential (plats), multi-family residential and non-residential development. The requirements vary for each category, but all reference a"Slope Density Requirements"table. In general, the requirements to encourage the applicant to: • Locate buildable area outside of steeply sloped areas • Designate natural open space in areas of steep slopes, which helps reduce the ACS value The table requirements essentially work like this: as the ACS value of the site increases over 15%, the minimum area required per dwelling unit increases (even beyond zoning requirements) and the percentage of steep area that may be graded decreases. This encourages the applicant to design the site to reduce impacts to steep slopes. There are some additional provisions, such a requirement to match the colors of roofs, walls, and other structures in the district, to the color of the surrounding area. Weaknesses: • Ordinance has had very little impact on development in the Town. • Ordinance needs to be reviewed against more state-of-the-art examples. Cultural Resource Preservation (Section 27.2) Description: This section is a"General Development Standard"that applies to all development. There is no map so these sensitive sites may remain protected. When an applicant submits an application and plan, they must include a letter report from the Arizona State Museum, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), a qualified archaeologist, or a professional architect that reviews all available information for the site. If cultural resources were found, a Cultural Resources Mitigation plan is required. The Town may request outside expertise to C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 BE\OV relevanant code sections to ESL(2)(2).doc Page 5 of 6 review the plan. Also, if any archaeological sites are unearthed during construction, work must cease and a professional archaeologist must be retained to document the site. An applicant for a rezoning must complete a site analysis, which includes some specific requirements for a records check, mapping and description of sites, and, if necessary, a field survey. Strengths: • The section seems to have all the necessary, basic items. • Related definitions are contained in Section 31. Weaknesses: • The section refers reader to Section 22.9 for specifics on the Mitigation Plan. However, those sections do not seem to contain any guidance on the Plan. • Lack of specific criteria for evaluating cultural resources. Chapter 31, Definitions Chapter 31 of the zoning code contains definitions that pertain to all code sections. As part of the ESL project, some of these definitions may be updated, revised, or replaced. Existing definitions relevant to ESL include: • Archaeological Site • Cultural or Historic Resource • Environmentally Sensitive Lands: "Shall mean lands that have been found to contribute to the unique aesthetic character of the immediate area, such as unique or heavy plant, tree or cacti growth or species, including, but not limited to those lands restricted by additional overlay districts." • Habitat • Hillside Conservation Area • Hillside District • Monitoring, Archaeological • Native Vegetation • Open Space • Riparian habitats: hydroriparian, mesoriparian, and xeroriparian. • Significant vegetation: incorporates definitions for plant community, unique plant occurrence and unique plant • Testing, Archaeological C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1BE\OV relevanant code sections to ESL(2)(2).doc Page 6 of 6 Page 1 of 1 From: StFatha@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:49 AM To: Vella, Bayer; Berchtold, Karen; dwilliams@willdan.com Subject: ESL topics There are a couple of matters that have been subjects for my public testimony in the past, but maybe belong in the ESLO. One, is allowing platting into riparian areas. Since conservation easements aren't enforced by HOAs or the Town, I have never felt buyers into a residential neighborhood should be permitted buy space that is required to be left alone. I've always felt this simply gave the developer the ability to market larger lots than are really available for living. Second, is transitional density. This was big in the Arroyo Grande special area policies, but isn't in any code or General Plan policy. I tried to incorporate transitional density into both the NH 5 and Stone Canyon Plan Amendments to no avail. Third, development in flood plains. NH 5 Amendment at first proposed removing a designated golf course in a flood plain, and then revised the amendment to reintroduce it. Town staff supported both the removal and the revision to allow massive destruction in a flood plain, which I never could figure out. Fourth, our hillside ordinance allows development rather than preserving hillsides. Our 15% slope exclusion has been given waivers and exceptions, and is superceded by the Rancho Vistoso PAD that allows grading up to and over 25% slopes. There needs to be conformity, if that is possible. Fifth, one thing the ESLO could do is to establish once and for all Town policy on net or gross density calculations. This was debated during the General Plan of 2003 and the revision of 2005, but nothing got into the Plan or our code. Finally, trades. Allowing destruction in one area in exchange for allowing Open Space in another has never seemed to me to gain the need for preservation of sensitive lands uniformly, which was one of the expressed needs by citizens during the General Plan update in 2003, but trades remain. Thanks, Bill An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! file://C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1 BE\... 7/6/2009 AN INITIATIVE MEASURE AMENDING TITLE 12,CHAPTER 8,ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,BY ADDING ARTICLE 2.1; RELATING TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona: Section 1.Short title This act may be cited as the"Private Property Rights Protection Act". Sec.2.Findings and declarations A.The people of Arizona find and declare: 1.Article 2,section 17 of our State Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that private property shall not be taken for private use. 2.Our Constitution further provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 3.Finally,our Constitution does not permit property to be taken or damaged without just compensation having first been made. 4.Notwithstanding these clear constitutional rights,the state and municipal governments of Arizona consistently encroach on the rights of private citizens to own and use their property,requiring the people of this State to seek redress in our state and federal courts which have not always adequately protected private property rights as demanded by the State and Federal Constitutions. For example: (a)A recent United States Supreme Court ruling,Kelo v.City of New London,allowed a city to exercise its power of eminent domain to take a citizen's home for the purpose of transferring control of the land to a private commercial developer. (b)The City of Mesa used eminent domain to acquire and bulldoze homes for a redevelopment project that included a hotel and water park. After the developer's financing fell through the project was abandoned and the property left vacant. (c)The City of Mesa filed condemnation actions against Randy Bailey,to take his family-owned brake shop,and Patrick Dennis,to take his auto-body shop,so that local business owners could relocate and expand a hardware store and an appliance store. (d)The City of Tempe instituted an eminent domain action to condemn the home of Kenneth and Mary Ann Pillow in order to transfer their property to a private developer who planned to build upscale townhomes. (e)The City of Chandler filed a condemnation action against a fast food restaurant in order to replace the fast-food restaurant with upscale dining and retail uses. (f)In the wake of the Kelo ruling,the City of Tempe recently sought to condemn property in an industrial park in order to make way for an enormous retail shopping mall. (g)The City of Tempe told the owners of an Apache Boulevard bowling alley that the City intended to condemn their property and specifically instructed them not to make further improvements to the land. Heeding Tempe's advice,the owners made no further improvements and ultimately lost bowling league contracts and went out of business. The Arizona Court of Appeals refused the owners' request for just compensation. (h)Courts have also allowed state and local governments to impose significant prohibitions and restrictions on the use of private property without compensating the owner for the economic loss of value to that property. 5.For home owners in designated slum or blighted areas,the compensation received when a primary residence is seized is not truly just as required by our state constitution. 6.Furthermore,even when property is taken for a valid public use,the judicial processes available to property owners to obtain just compensation are burdensome,costly and unfair. B.Having made the above findings,the people of Arizona declare that all property rights are fundamental rights and that all people have inalienable rights including the right to acquire,possess,control and protect property. Therefore the citizens of the State of Arizona hereby adopt the Private Property Rights Protection Act to ensure that Arizona citizens do not lose their home or property or lose the value of their home or property without just compensation.Whenever state and local governments take or diminish the value of private property,it is the intent of this act that the owner will receive just compensation,either by negotiation or by an efficient and fair judicial process. Sec.3.Title 12,chapter 8,Arizona Revised Statutes,is amended by adding article 2.1,to read: Article 2.1.PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT 12-1131.PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ARTICLE EMINENT DOMAIN MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS STATE,WHETHER BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE,AND FOR A PUBLIC USE AS DEFINED BY THIS ARTICLE. 12-1132.BURDEN OF PROOF A.IN ALL EMINENT DOMAIN ACTIONS THE JUDICIARY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION'S MANDATE THAT WHENEVER AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A USE ALLEGED TO BE PUBLIC,THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED USE BE REALLY PUBLIC SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION,AND DETERMINED AS SUCH WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY LEGISLATIVE ASSERTION THAT THE USE IS PUBLIC. B.IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT,THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT EACH PARCEL IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION,INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE,OR TO ACQUIRE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND THAT NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONDEMNATION EXISTS. 12-1133.JUST COMPENSATION;SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT,IF PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE IS TAKEN,THE OCCUPANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS DECENT,SAFE,AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS,SECTION 11-961 ET SEQ.AND 42 USC 4601 ET SEQ.,AND THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER. AT THE OWNER'S ELECTION,IF MONETARY COMPENSATION IS DESIRED IN LIEU OF A REPLACEMENT DWELLING,THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS MADE AND DETERMINED FOR THAT TAKING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF MONEY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT DWELLING THAT IS DECENT,SAFE,AND SANITARY AS DEFINED IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL RELOCATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 12-1134.DIMINUTION IN VALUE;JUST COMPENSATION A.IF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE,DIVIDE,SELL OR POSSESS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY ARE REDUCED BY THE ENACTMENT OR APPLICABILITY OF ANY LAND USE LAW ENACTED AFTER THE DATE THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE OWNER AND SUCH ACTION REDUCES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO JUST COMPENSATION FROM THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW. B.THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND USE LAWS THAT: 1.LIMIT OR PROHIBIT A USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY,INCLUDING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO FIRE AND BUILDING CODES,HEALTH AND SANITATION,TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC CONTROL, SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE,AND POLLUTION CONTROL; 2.LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY AND HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE UNDER COMMON LAW; 3.ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW; 4.LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS,SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS,LIQUOR CONTROL,OR PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY,NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING,AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES IF THE LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE UNITED STATES; 5.ESTABLISH LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY FACILITIES; 6.DO NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE AN OWNER'S LAND;OR 7.WERE ENACTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. C.THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE LAND USE LAW IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B. D.THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FIRST SUBMIT A LAND USE APPLICATION TO REMOVE,MODIFY,VARY OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND USE LAW TO THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMANDING OR RECEIVING JUST COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. E. IF A LAND USE LAW CONTINUES TO APPLY TO PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY MORE THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MAKES A WRITTEN DEMAND IN A SPECIFIC AMOUNT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THIS STATE OR THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ENACTED THE LAND USE LAW,THE OWNER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION IN A COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED,UNLESS THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AND THE OWNER REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID,OR UNLESS THIS STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE AMENDS,REPEALS,OR ISSUES TO THE LANDOWNER A BINDING WAIVER OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW ON THE OWNER'S SPECIFIC PARCEL. F.ANY DEMAND FOR LANDOWNER RELIEF OR ANY WAIVER THAT IS GRANTED IN LIEU OF COMPENSATION RUNS WITH THE LAND. G.AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE MUST BE MADE OR FOREVER BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAND USE LAW,OR OF THE FIRST DATE THE REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO USE,DIVIDE,SELL OR POSSESS PROPERTY APPLIES TO THE OWNER'S PARCEL,WHICHEVER IS LATER. H.THE REMEDY CREATED BY THIS SECTION IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED STATES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY OR REPLACE ANY OTHER REMEDY. I.NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE FROM REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO WAIVE A CLAIM FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACTION BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR ACTION REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. 12-1135.ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS A.A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO THIS STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE FOR ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION OR IN ANY ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE. B.A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES,COSTS AND EXPENSES IN EVERY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION IN WHICH THE TAKING IS FOUND TO BE NOT FOR A PUBLIC USE. C.IN ANY EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLUM CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT,A PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE FINAL AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ASCERTAINED BY A JURY OR THE COURT IF A JURY IS WAIVED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. D.A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION THAT IS BASED ON DIMINUTION IN VALUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-1134 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS,EXPENSES AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES. 12-1136.DEFINITIONS IN THIS ARTICLE,UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: 1."FAIR MARKET VALUE"MEANS THE MOST LIKELY PRICE ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF MONEY WHICH THE LAND WOULD BRING IF EXPOSED FOR SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET,WITH REASONABLE TIME ALLOWED IN WHICH TO FIND A PURCHASER,BUYING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE USES AND PURPOSES TO WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND FOR WHICH IT IS CAPABLE. 2."JUST COMPENSATION"FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACTION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE MEANS THE SUM OF MONEY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE REDUCTION IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW AS OF THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE LAW. 3."LAND USE LAW"MEANS ANY STATUTE,RULE,ORDINANCE,RESOLUTION OR LAW ENACTED BY THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT REGULATES THE USE OR DIVISION OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST IN LAND OR THAT REGULATES ACCEPTED FARMING OR FORESTRY PRACTICES. 4."OWNER"MEANS THE HOLDER OF FEE TITLE TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY. 5."PUBLIC USE": (a)MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: (i)THE POSSESSION,OCCUPATION,AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC,OR BY PUBLIC AGENCIES; (ii)THE USE OF LAND FOR THE CREATION OR FUNCTIONING OF UTILITIES; (iii)THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY CAUSED BY THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION,INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION OR USE;OR (iv)THE ACQUISITION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY. (b)DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,INCLUDING AN INCREASE IN TAX BASE,TAX REVENUES,EMPLOYMENT OR GENERAL ECONOMIC HEALTH. 6."TAKEN"AND"TAKING"MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR USE FROM A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE OR TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THIS STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. 12-1137.APPLICABILITY IF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS ARTICLE AND ANY OTHER LAW ARISES,THIS ARTICLE CONTROLS. 12-1138. SEVERABILITY IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE IS HELD INVALID THAT INVALIDITY DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS OF THE ACT THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR APPLICATION,AND TO THIS END THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach A number of approaches to regulating environmentally sensitive lands in the western United States have been researched (a few from the Midwest). Three distinct approaches were observed as described below. The table following broadly summarizes each ESL ordinance or plan. General Approaches Observed Most Restrictive (3) Cumulative (6) Categories (4) Redmond, WA Santa Barbara St. Cloud, MN Park City, UT Jackson Hole, WY King Co, WA Ogden, UT McHenry Co, ILL Pima Co. Vancouver, WA Scottsdale (sort of) Santa Cruz Co, CA San Diego Most Restrictive: The most restrictive of the provisions in the ESL controls the amount of conservation. If hillside requirements are the most restrictive requirements, then that criterion is applied to site development. Cumulative: Each provision for each ESL feature (slope, habitat, wetland, for example) becomes a requirement. The conservation requirements essentially stack up. Categories: Lands are placed in categories based on environmental values or physical features. Conservation guidelines or requirements are distinct for each category. Place Title Approach Notes - Uses landform classes w distinct intensities - Regulates intensities and open space -intensity regulated in hillside class only; then it is slope based -Most restrictive applies in hillside area when more that one feature This is a zoning code- - Natural Open Space (NOS) is% of area based approach that Environmentally with features only, remainder then has provides for variances Scottsdale, Sensitive Lands slope based density limits applied: to allow relief to the 1 AZ Ordinance Regulates uses above 25 slope regulations. Cumulative approach, each feature Environmentally regulated'separately. San Diego, Sensitive Lands -Disturbance is allowed; mitigation Strong focus on 2 CA Regulations required mitigation. 0-* Draft 7.1.9 1 Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach Automatic (critical features)triggers for conservation desi n:standards Cumulat ve'triggers multiple lesser features -County maps maps resources Conservation Priority assigned in o/s, most valuable Design put in open space Priorities established McHenry Standards & -o/s requirements in conservation areas and emphasized in 3 County, IL Procedures based on zoning districts conservation methods. Resource areas established including buffers. •A Group-allows disturbance B Group-very limited disturbance with table of conditions King Critical Areas Cumulative approach, when multiple Uses categories and 4 County, WA Ordinance resources impacted,` all:conditons apply cumulative approach. -Includes criteria to identify features -City maps resources -Annexations addressed -Incentives for conservation -ESAs prioritized -100' aria ri (=)mpact Balances p s ct complex areas (buffer� Pzones)have more than one environmental and Environmentally feature)g:et highest priority for protection economic goals; St. Cloud, Sensitive Areas -categories: Hih avoid; Med-minor includes criteria for 5 MN Ordinance encroachmentfi L.ow-cornpatiOledesi9 n identifying resources. -City identifies resources including 'locally important habitats' using criteria -Mitigation table -Reasonable Use exception -Buffer table Vancouver, Critical Areas Resources are individually regulated Buffering and 6 WA Protection Critical areas and buffers avoided mitigation emphasized Environmentally . Sensitive -County identifies resources Habitat Area Only resource-dependent uses permitted (ESH) Overlay - 'in habitat areas,full mitigation in adjacent - Natural areas EnvironmentalRqu eirements are m ,cuulative Areas Overlay -Mapped resource changes require GP Employs buffers; rigid Santa Cruz District Amend map amendment 7 County Ordinance -Buffer established for riparian.areas procedure. it-74 Draft 7.1.9 2 Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach Environmental Santa Policy & -Each feature regulated separately Barbara, Construction -Vegetation, archaeology, views Particular emphasis 8 CA Regs. addressed on tree preservation. -Resources mapped by City to be updated by applicant -NRO protects habitat, 2-1 mitigation Natural required Resources -Definitions of habitat included, Overlay (NRO) -Allows density transfer Strong design & Scenic SRO controls location, design, & emphasis, viewshed Jackson Resources landscaping protection thru 9 Hole, WY Overlay (SRO) -Regulated separately ridgeline preservation -Resources mapped by City; modified by applicant -Most restrictive applies when multiple resources impacted -Impact allowed; mitigation required -Buffers required 1 Redmond, Critical Areas -Reasonable use provision 0 WA Ordinance -Includes criteria to identify resources -Applicant identifies resources -Most restrictive applies when multiple features overlap -No development on slopes>40% -75% o/son slopes 15-40% Sensitive Area -Habitat values must be preserved but Overlay Zone development allowed 1 Park City, (SAO) -Features regulated independently when No encroachment in 1 UT Regulations separate streams, wetlands -Sensitive Areas mapped by City -Applicant maps slopes -When multiple requirements, most restrictive requirement applies -Slope density requirements -No limit on amount of disturbance -Restrictions on grading and vegetation 1 Sensitive Area removal apply only to 30% slopes and Primarily targeted at 2 Ogden, UT Overlay Zone above. slope conservation Open Space Acquisition & -No new science applied to ID areas Shows open space 1 Pinal Preservation -based on existing identified resources preserves in the 3 County, AZ Plan -non regulatory Tortolita area. Draft 7.1.9 3 ►. �,� � . Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach Guidelines are intended to be -Category approach includin Irportant consistent with the Riparian Area (95% preservation) conservation goals of Biological Core(80%0),:Special Species the Sonoran Desert (80%), Multiple le Jse 6 0 0 Conservation Plan. -NOS minimum for each category Hallmark purpose: -Only applied to rezonings, specific plan "Open space will be requests, conditional use permits, configured to include modifications of conditions, etc. on-site conservation -Systems approach using large, values (features) and integrated areas (riparian or habitat preserve the areas) instead of individual features being movement of native mapped such as specific sites, fauna and the specimens, or occurrences pollination of native -Mapping done by County, changes flora across and 1 Pima Conservation through comprehensive plan amendment through the 4 County, AZ Lands System but strongly discouraged. landscape." Prepared by Willdan Contact: David Williams, AICP dwilliams@willdan.com 520-360-5790 Draft 7.1.9 4 � "�`'� �;�` Page 1 of 1 From: StFatha@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:49 AM To:Vella, Bayer; Berchtold, Karen; dwilliams@willdan.com Subject: ESL topics There are a couple of matters that have been subjects for my public testimony in the past, but maybe belong in the ESLO. One, is allowing platting into riparian areas. Since conservation easements aren't enforced by HOAs or the Town, I have never felt buyers into a residential neighborhood should be permitted buy space that is required to be left alone. I've always felt this simply gave the developer the ability to market larger lots than are really available for living. Second, is transitional density. This was big in the Arroyo Grande special area policies, but isn't in any code or General Plan policy. I tried to incorporate transitional density into both the NH 5 and Stone Canyon Plan Amendments to no avail. Third, development in flood plains. NH 5 Amendment at first proposed removing a designated golf course in a flood plain, and then revised the amendment to reintroduce it. Town staff supported both the removal and the revision to allow massive destruction in a flood plain, which I never could figure out. Fourth, our hillside ordinance allows development rather than preserving hillsides. Our 15% slope exclusion has been given waivers and exceptions, and is superceded by the Rancho Vistoso PAD that allows grading up to and over 25% slopes. There needs to be conformity, if that is possible. Fifth, one thing the ESLO could do is to establish once and for all Town policy on net or gross density calculations. This was debated during the General Plan of 2003 and the revision of 2005, but nothing got into the Plan or our code. Finally, trades. Allowing destruction in one area in exchange for allowing Open Space in another has never seemed to me to gain the need for preservation of sensitive lands uniformly, which was one of the expressed needs by citizens during the General Plan update in 2003, but trades remain. Thanks, Bill An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! file://C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1BE\... 7/6/2009 Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities-Regulatory Approach A number of approaches to regulating environmentally sensitive lands in the western United States have been researched(a few from the Midwest). Three distinct approaches were observed as described below. The table following broadly summarizes each ESL ordinance or plan. General Approaches Observed Most Restrictive (3) Cumulative (6) Categories (4) Redmond, WA Santa Barbara St. Cloud, MN Park City, UT Jackson Hole, WY King Co, WA Ogden, UT McHenry Co, ILL Pima Co. Vancouver, WA Scottsdale (sort of) Santa Cruz Co, CA San Diego Most Restrictive: The most restrictive of the provisions in the ESL controls the amount of conservation. If hillside requirements are the most restrictive requirements, then that criterion is applied to site development. Cumulative: Each provision for each ESL feature (slope,habitat, wetland, for example) becomes a requirement. The conservation requirements essentially stack up. Categories: Lands are placed in categories based on environmental values or physical features. Conservation guidelines or requirements are distinct for each category. .............. .. .. . ........ ... ...... ............... . ....... .. .. . Place Title Approach Notes - Uses landform classes w distinct intensities Regulates intensities and open space -intensity regulated in hillside class only; then it is slope based - Most restrictive applies in hillside area when more that one feature This is a zoning code- - Natural Open Space (NOS) is% of area based approach that Environmentally with features only, remainder then has provides for variances Scottsdale, Sensitive Lands slope based density limits applied. to allow relief to the 1 AZ Ordinance - Regulates uses above 25 slope regulations. -Cumulative approach, each feature Environmentally regulated separately. San Diego, Sensitive Lands -Disturbance is allowed; mitigation Strong focus on 2 CA Regulations required mitigation. #14 Draft 7.1.9 1 r2 filk7It'g Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach -Automatic(critical features)triggers for conservation design standards -Cumulative triggers-multiple lesser features impacted -County maps resources Conservation -Priority assigned in o/s, most valuable Design put in open space Priorities established McHenry Standards & -o/s requirements in conservation areas and emphasized in 3 County, IL Procedures based on zoning districts conservation methods. Resource areas established including buffers. A Group-allows disturbance B Group-very limited disturbance with table of conditions King Critical Areas Cumulative approach,when multiple Uses categories and 4 County, WA Ordinance resources impacted, all conditions apply. cumulative approach. -Includes criteria to identify features -City maps resources -Annexations addressed -Incentives for conservation -ESAs prioritized -100' riparian buffer(=impact zones) Balances -complex areas (have more than one environmental and Environmentally feature)get highest priority for protection economic goals; St. Cloud, Sensitive Areas -categories: High-avoid; Med-minor includes criteria for 5 MN Ordinance encroachment; Low-compatible design identifying resources. -City identifies resources including 'locally important habitats' using criteria -Mitigation table -Reasonable Use exception -Buffer table Vancouver, Critical Areas -Resources are individually regulated Buffering and 6 WA Protection -Critical areas and buffers avoided mitigation emphasized Environmentally Sensitive -County identifies resources Habitat Area -Only resource-dependent uses permitted (ESH) Overlay- in habitat areas, full mitigation in adjacent - Natural areas Environmental -Requirements are cumulative Areas Overlay -Mapped resource changes require GP Employs buffers; rigid Santa Cruz District Amend. map amendment 7 County Ordinance -Buffer established for riparian areas procedure. Draft 7.1.9 2 Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach Environmental Santa Policy & -Each feature regulated separately Barbara, Construction -Vegetation, archaeology, views Particular emphasis 8 CA Regs. addressed on tree preservation. -Resources mapped by City to be updated by applicant -NRO protects habitat, 2-1 mitigation Natural required Resources -Definitions of habitat included, Overlay (NRO) -Allows density transfer Strong design & Scenic SRO controls location, design, & emphasis, viewshed Jackson Resources landscaping protection thru 9 Hole, WY Overlay (SRO) -Regulated separately ridgeline preservation -Resources mapped by City; modified by applicant -Most restrictive applies when multiple resources impacted -Impact allowed; mitigation required -Buffers required 1 Redmond, Critical Areas -Reasonable use provision 0 WA Ordinance -Includes criteria to identify resources -Applicant identifies resources -Most restrictive applies when multiple features overlap -No development on slopes >40% -75% o/s on slopes 15-40% Sensitive Area -Habitat values must be preserved but Overlay Zone development allowed 1 Park City, (SAO) -Features regulated independently when No encroachment in 1 UT Regulations separate streams, wetlands -Sensitive Areas mapped by City -Applicant maps slopes -When multiple requirements, most restrictive requirement applies -Slope density requirements -No limit on amount of disturbance -Restrictions on grading and vegetation 1 Sensitive Area removal apply only to 30% slopes and Primarily targeted at 2 Ogden, UT Overlay Zone above. slope conservation Open Space Acquisition & -No new science applied to ID areas Shows open space 1 Pinal Preservation -based on existing identified resources preserves in the 3 County, AZ Plan -non regulatory Tortolita area. Draft 7.1.9 3 Environmentally Sensitive Lands Comparison Communities- Regulatory Approach Guidelines are intended to be -Category approach including: Important consistent with the Riparian Area (95% preservation) conservation goals of Biological Core(80%), Special Species the Sonoran Desert (80%), Multiple Use(66.6%) Conservation Plan. -NOS minimum for each category Hallmark purpose: -Only applied to rezonings, specific plan "Open space will be requests, conditional use permits, configured to include modifications of conditions, etc. on-site conservation -Systems approach using large, values(features)and integrated areas (riparian or habitat preserve the areas) instead of individual features being movement of native mapped such as specific sites, fauna and the specimens, or occurrences. pollination of native -Mapping done by County, changes flora across and 1 Pima Conservation through comprehensive plan amendment through the 4 County, AZ Lands System but strongly discouraged. landscape." Prepared by W i l ldan Contact: David Williams,AICP dwilliams@willdan.com 520-360-5790 tA Draft 7.1.9 4Yr1"11ti PAD Overview Table 1 F. r� ',i,.; ,a,.'^ .r ,+,>. '!L S.TJ i }it.,3 1 Y(, t tl is,,;9 , :I4V,„,,.,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„: 'd l! :,.tio P�'■f1■ _(y�1�yl i d 6 I Z 1 f� "i t��,�,y��:�i+ 1 J f 1 1, ,P 4� ��.p �i�1�'E t°,7� .t��:.�..t" �1�x:.:R !! � 1 t 1 I �p i's� ,w� . .i A.D ,` ^.�,,,,,�,T.e- �e. •.�.*e aendf. ek.A.•t,'rc. v. Xi:. - /b'=,`,?'�* . ;.T,+Ar. �„ 4` .`' 1. ��' '"9!4''v 1� E;+.a:,-�^S`a�,..1t1 h"i,. �.,. :. .�` �' ,'9°R.,1 ! >, c , ,W.,' ` i1 Y '�� r:. r�y v ,....".�.1C"�. �• .M �.... �. •./`va r:Yt ,i,n'. 4u ....T 4r"�' y S'1 S4:}4. li.... •� `�....�.. :..' a ,:, L•�i° b.- ,�^�:.va n',� �t....... '' x, "!'d tl k.,. 4,.. wA,�.•'�r4 b. d _.S. •`:� ti.;:•.� 4., : �T� .,. F' {.7,.r .,. �* .`a rY r xt•L� �$I". ,." ..ii.!: r ,:.: „3.. :L �7 �+f^�h�+/y, 'r-r',i ^•1r ,.,.::t`.. ;..... ��...i, �.y". ..e .. :...r,3. ��". ,.�' •tn..�. 5ti",�H } 4Pr.. py 'ah'r� l, 1.,:tti }`,. Yr 1 i C. „1'� i•: ,r k �°a .r. r r. .3' a �,*.. ."a:1 ��.i'e" !'rae.r;' :.. ...-...:, .t .....,.. t,)A' w.1 1 y►.a :a r' .:k -',t'.. ,i ..x 3 a'. r. g "�{ k z, r sF a S r. +KY tn`! S „4 '�,"At it s;,b3�e{^ t 4 i. k4x S a'.. s� } V e4,' '1?. d a:+.. r•�a ir,��.,aC i';S. .,ri'^,�,r.s. �..,� r,a. >.t� 4 y: '�^h. ,;P. .t'. t .e"x' n eke,�'ttif'?�.w`1� 6. .:��..i,-.T"�,..,•`fir`.:�i+ty,.,'.,k ..( •.i #':7y'K.�.. R' S -J! r- t. d'-"'Tvr's' r3[.',r '.a,i t:v x, ,"„•? t '^ t .v tl. '"4':"�1, `fi. M1. s •>i•.-. k 5r V4✓, aY �-•':,ate ..,�;k r ,4 y ;,, ,...• 9e >w'� : ,,�y,..' �,d.@ '1' r.�,1- F,o.--,,,,4, I..r�� {{��1 rr tat:.t.- fi..',{ Vit:. rY'. y�` ` -1 _.s,y. .x.i:...F ,�� s ''''f.: . <'.,',--:.-.'.'''''',f . , '..,.....U,, -5.. T, ..4.F'Yq 3. �,It{ Pe+.�t�' f 'F/. 7 4' J' ,�1 .:i',:. :. .....m'S Yr.. .. ,a.rl, '1180°../0 �:. +,10. :,,:x:t.•.a. •_ t• v-;t.iF,, ..,+,EU'ad..-.{. r5 t.M M •r, .r�,+��yy �,':Mi + � .rv.-ry.;,•':r.5 w .>SDI f'1•,•,�t'r�. ..: .:�.PF .,..',..: t�:-,':cam,:t..,F1 f ��.! ,� i '�,,�r,i �".�' ,A.,,,,,'-v,..„_, ,'bey ? cl hr r';4 v.,Sa v p ` SaF•.��PI� .�s' .P'" �`..,'��f 1'`�v�i�� y .....�.. ,..:,1..:.. ....... ..._.:.....-.1..r1.:a. . ..s. : .. � 3-� 1 e?tl•�ix.A.t .;lei"' Y',F w .._ '�4.t^`.,<. .. _. ., ri riy$1 ,�..isS::;r'{ Rancho V stoso 80% There are numerous references to Amendments: The approved -y, r� OVZCR standards. Many Rancho Vistoso P.A.D.may be specifications are"in addition to amended from time to time, OVCR standards." The established Proposed amendments shall be `' practice is where PAD is silent,the submitted by the owners of a OVZCR applies. development area to the Planning Commission and Post PAD adoption overlay districts Town Council as outlined in `° apply to the PAD(Tangerine,Oracle Article 3-1 of the Oro Valley z Road,and Riparian Overlays) Zoning Code Revised, The M • Rancho Vistoso Architectural ”` and Landscape Review Committee and the Sun City T° Vistoso Architectural Review Committee shall be notified prior to such proposed ° `' `:' r r amendment. Oro Valley t{ r 0% All development plans and submittals All significant changes to the TownlCen-16-.'t,.-.rshall conform to the standards PAD shall be submitted to the Rooiiey' ch ` contained in Oro Valley Zoning Planning Commission and the �T' t' .rf Codes in effect at the time of that Mayor and Council as '` l ` � submittal which are not specifically amendments to the PAD. Any 1` =5yr.`.-x�'` modified by the provisions of the proposed changes to the PAD r' `r' PAD. shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, who shall review the item and ' ascertain whether or not the ' r t _',";, r change is significant based on the following criteria. t A significant change shall include: 1)any change, modifrcation, :;',.:',.'.:-..:,..,':::,i4. 1;: : .i or deletion to an roved , r �,y PAD policy, jt 2)any increase in appthe density, theight,or floor or T> i= permitarea ratioed; 3)any change in permitted land uses;and t ::'. >'''.1.''''''''' �:w 4)any decrease in the amount of setbacks or open space a required by this document. " Changes which are not deemed "significant'; by this definition, may be approved administratively,subject to review by the Development Review Board and Town ` Council during development plan or platting stages," La'Reserve 95% None. Entirely independent May not be amended by the document. Town Rooney•::Ranch 85%-The There are numerous references to Does not address remainder of OVZCR standards. Many the area has specifications are in addition—or platted for provide exceptions to the OVZCR . r residential standards. The established practice is purposes. where PAD is silent,the OVZCR applies. Oracle Overlay District(app After PAD)applies in a limited roved fashion. PAD Overview Table N ... ........ .. t....t.. < <. '. . ..�.... 2(<.. t H:". R.« .ft > ,5214;kw .)e' >. ..>. N."5' C..< >..i.. '�:' ,v..,:..... ,:,....,n :.:.k>,.. o .... ... S.r'YS .'@4.. is S.,i ..r..: [ ,<. .ft.,.....: K... smio � .S. .: ,. .>. _-:,>, „o,:::, ... ....... t,"a. ,. ... .s:..... :.<.. .. .. :9,.�t.fir.M: .33..3?.,5'f....,..,<£ ...,... €..,,F.t..a<. ,:f':'e. .. .3.... ..,o..F2fF:�'„t:i� :� _: :':,.:i 3'Y 'k -aa''' ,:�Ei'S3F'., �.. ..:.::. > ..... .....,: ..:. ....:. :..., >.w.::.Y... :�iP`.:...:. ..,. i ">afi'' i „<SF u. .�£:., z> 's"€'/ ,�,. i "A>t° ' ,,:,, ,. ..,.. ..8}'..- :-. ,,.mss' > (Y �., a. S> ::. -. :. .,.' t.. .ab ';).:,,` ..... ,. ,. ,.:.:. :.�..... .: ....�' ...t._7 �. <. ..... �<<t ,.�<.c.:�3. ... <_.- r .ir. 2 :.n K ,�tf,: ��3�_ k.- .Z.. .....„,..r.: �,;».... ,...,:. ..air: i.zt:....r...w .. �<.:,..�'.�...... >....>�:u?. .":d- d. ,.'fis<. .r., f: '.s.: ;c 3a. ,�_s :z:fir.: � <�:�a. s�<... ts$! a `y i �. ::a'..... :i:,....>.:r ',. .. ...:::..>Y,..'::":. d..d. .:. . ...a Y.�r Y°"g.. / j Y: "k'. h: C,'; .�.5. 1i >:>.., .,.:....a.:.............:...:.. .... :..a,..,., .. .:' ,,..... ,:,ti.� ,.t... .>C..:: >.y Sf>. .,�.i5.:.. .f .5... N Ls, �t>� t. tj s°lr ,tet, :E. a...,..'£.... .;.k...,.....h..z\'*..:.:F......., k...- ..:.:.Y....t ...£a <t[. ....... t F< ;.C., .°3. ..�. ��"i'... aa. e, ..F?x.. .:i... _..e _� ..__..,._.. :_ ... ..♦... air ., .. �,y .s<.., .:,'E"'f. ,. 'f.. ..a... ......<.,........2.,..�:.,'�.,n h..,........,., ...../ ,1....,a. /t _....�1....,.. :..., z.,,,., ..4.'�F>•"ES:,"s.:_.,.... 3.,.. ,r r...a.. ,�,�”:. 'e<... .x.a..xt .,.,.,°. ..<. .... .. ...... �. .... ... .. .a...... .... .... a ,. ,..... ....k.z< .aY'A.. ,� ;: .,. ...>�.... ...... •....�..�:.....,ai._.:-r.iS° ,.,•�3.... ......... ...,,>..., .. __ s ,,,, ��: �>s ,.3,.'zE.v .Sa ,,r;>'T$t' i..a5 Iva ,..0 .>~..,�'", ..... r....... ..........:. ...:......... .:....... ........... :.._. R fin. .- ,:. ,,. ..a .. °�, �[ �.. .... ,., ..........:..... ..>...zE',w.> :..:..Fg.ry ....r.3...s. .a..... s..... .. v.R<._, ,. s. t........ 3. :.,�`... f,5:., ::'s.i::' � 3,r. arc.` .R.....:.,...Z!!:;.i................,.. .. .....:...a.a ,i... "5........ a....... 1... ..>.,...-r..E. .:YF'..< a k'.... ")-: >:>`2' £ .................f Y. , .r _....::......:...._,. 6:_..i.:.r<�.t.<...: ::. .�::.:.[_. ...<,:<r .:.,..,�..L�',a.,<. ,l... ....lY>.... ...aa.:.<i21...° :.�. ....,..- ..: ...,..._...,:r...::x.:,,:. ....a :.,.. n'i> .. .'�` ra.,,,,:., 2 _,.,,.r...> a ...;�� .�. .::>.:> A '.kia.. :..,�,•:::;., .... .................. .............. ....... ,,....&........,.. .. ,.., :fii..,d� ., -t^7»v S o .3 F<i 3., v.•. n I S r S o3 .:% .X z.. S:....'�< a. .... • ... :-.. .........: ...,...,.yi. t�.+. 2 ...,f, ,. •.::.� .t. t�F.,,yy h. »i;-<v r°p ,75�, zc �'¢ . : ::...n.........:...,.:...,.n,: s-.,.,.. ....,..,..,. .„., .v,. .<.-. .... ..,f%r ,. .s.,..... „ ..... ru». ..: §iso .at?-% )h A>:, .,k.. ...... °... ....... .......... ..... ..... .... .: : .>.,. .W...,.. �..�'•. :.. � .. < /. .. 3:,:.�,' SE°`afS,..;.,�. .;yk ;!4r, ..>°: .�,. fF..�f'n.`�ry�.g;:a”YS x E, ,. � $ ..tea,, 'F.....f .. �'.. 2 .<. .,.r,....,: E „&�5..... ..: t�....... ;'.. .a.F<.......... u....... 2.9.k°'�....'�.,k.E°F'� k\„. �z. .... ...... ... z ... ..« n. .:: .,.: .. ,. S 'a'i < a"'£Y ... � ... .......,.<. .. t:.w.t.ai:or.Z �.. ,s 3.. ..x;4 ..... t.... ...... a ... a° ... �3 3 ,. ....af:: .::: ........ ..... v,.:,..,, :.,., ........ ... .<,:rx< ;:...:` .:�:.5)` .a. ;� > aka ,,..,... .,g� ..�., << ,.3r..5 ,. YG •..s�:,�: f yg �5• aa\v ..... .4.... ..... ....... 5 ....n :....fi, a..::... ......., X<.F Y>f.��:.:>. ....'Ew�'i5x>�.C.::.: � ., gd ud T... .Y. :.(� K,. G 2 5, �o ) .\A ....:::. 4.. .......,: ..,... .... .... ..,. s3t> E� .. �.. a,. t.:U>. 9.:.... Ex... .. a :,Ek �. .,...a ..:>.:::. .:.:.- ,<.,. .:r>: .,: ,.. .:... .,... ;:..... 3s::,:mt..,_. ,.a ..a .�. �'' :tfiSs.z» ,a'� ..„e�Y. ask � .. ..rZ« .. ....... '<. .. ::.....,......,... .... .....«:..' ..,</.... .<.... y... A''lE.. ...<,. .. ::: ar. i >o i£.< ..3. n� :..\�: :...,, ..... _:.,,.>...............x. : >.>w .. �t .,.w. ...>Y.s...t ,t!`.. -s, N .:A. A, d ,:k.2*', `.3 :.s ......... ...,..E ,...... 4. .<. .. .. .. :...., €. .. ..' ...[. .. a,i.: .`R.k ....... ..L �`<.° �.€.. .t ..,,i Fta. .. ,.<.. ...... a . ,. ..\<.., ,..,. . .. >,:..v >. :5.. � .£v 5 fi',.,�.... .., ..::; :3�.�..n Yi.». .,ate: ,,R. .,s ....... .. ..... ....',.. ..�, ........ .. -::..: ..r.>�<.. E�. a Y ?v .. � ... fit' ,�a;. 'a Yns,.. ::ro' as:. ?'k. ....r. . .. .ar. :.,�{�... f a t. .k`. .. :... .t :. ,d. t- nt,: �,:,'°'.w 3- . ,^Fa£'t... ... .... .... 'PX .. .. ..� . .../ , .. :f.. .,,k-v 5.. ,. ,. '�5�..,G' a. ....a< T ....,.9. -FnE�.. M�>. .,.`'S..,w'W--� a��.3-��.: ... .,t.... :. .... ...,f��w....nR 2T+ ,< T ,:,.k .. .. ..... ':,.a. .:3 ,.., 3,.-...F .,.3'.... n..,k< ,D` .,b,. �... ..... .... ... «...... :z..:. aea v- .. ...... ..3..4: ., s ..4v .3G.. 3>».. ,\aN ....a 3. ^Ea•'. 3.....r�....... ..3 a:N:.<.s::....r..a........,. ,N`k",..,...a�>.4.,,`?�t.fib..�, zx....5.<v�'L_s,.o� �<�.`t-:.�Fa'�ac..£u�� ft°�':.a�`.�,�..:.-�t.3.......,a..k.?n.,>,�{sk[<`,..u"r,:t>..,.�2.�4'd4..:,a....$3.r.....t>, �'r'�.t<...a:.w,.:,��F°'.f:.b..x.:.s.t�.�:. �.k+_.,>T'�>a:..tz<??ka?,t°:�,:f2�`t:�'3».... „.... .3i\. .. :l'\-:,:''..,.:'...„,--,::.':'; ;:ti:j.; ,,,,l,:':..,:.: 80% There are numerous references to Amendments: The approved k i ) S,i}» a» ak OVZCR standards. Many Rancho Vistoso P.A.D. may be s £i �' y specifications are"in addition to amended from time to time. - 2 >. )'c a$r � OVCR standards." The established Pro osed amendments shall be < t p iktxx E iJ 3 practice • is where PAD is silent,the submitted by the owners of a OVZCR a lies. k pp development area to the } s Planning Commission and Post PAD adoption overlay districts Town Council as outlined in k ZE 2 4 �22 a s a a apply to the PAD(Tangerine, Oracle Article 3-1 of the Oro Valley t - a xr t'x y ,� and Riparian Overlays) Zonin Code Revised. The i i � Road, p y ) g is Ya\ y Rancho Vistoso Architectural = a`i� and Landscape Review a Committee and the Sun City X 3 a t a Y a z a a Vistoso Architectural Review i Z: i � \x ♦' 3 C a k)Z xz< Committee shall be not/sed $CE �iy.a V� i i S `iigitilooli tisitazi prito h proposed i i k a . �1 g a"111111111111 amenordmentsuc. `a, �•a3 as �� 0% All development plans and submittals All signs scant changes to the ''`ik i$,tk aza Yi a i,i w4:3 itt Townz� �.''+i<a,a �ashall conform to the standards PAD shall be submitted to the i`l?fi:a',ht.tgtit\- in zc k 2r; J °�g� i `�� contained in Oro Valley Zoning Planning Commission and the k.s A i1 i {k`Gx ik Z`(i PQ\ ♦ :.Ck 2: a k S'tae iF;< a c ,t ak` ``' '; "a i Codes in effect at the time of that Mayor and Council as >.a e:)V�i��2 �:< Ekx'.z\ <s:Z�sk.a �.< x '`v ; a a £ submittal which are not specifically amendments to the PAD. Any a` ,.., ': \------,-------..:::.—.•...,—„..„ ia, 2��CY ii�� ext SG a a ' ° x A modified by the provisions of the proposed changes to the PAD £a`Y''< C`k tEZ E sA r a k s?: z PAD. shall be submitted to the a�,E 'L A i ( i A k 3 r Y \ )>C�iY k � 43. t�i x ft ♦i CZ ` \ 2 S X r; , Zoning Administrator who iiiis rk, a ka,�Jaa <>�\!t ra i s„,i 'k `, ,'3Y 2,i„,k. shall review the item and r x ,. < 3 }k; x k a ascertain whether or not the h'f E < _:. XYZ .: �i va3 A Via, change is significant based on � � . .aY -. the following criteria. � Y�E♦i z i y a a ><e �Z Aiinscilgnudi e: cant change hange shall a t Z . ` ak a Ck x2s e modification,1Po)rAadDneyplecothiloiacnnyg,toe,amn io : i.s a \�36 ,,',',•,-A,,,-,s,' ` a r �t ,,> 2) any increase in the density, permitted height, or floor ,\ A ti k : . o x¢\�a€ 3y P area ratio• Zt a!' k lfilat t, >r: a 3) any change in permitted a xi H -X t ' land uses; and k 4 an decrease in the amount V� \ �i3 Z �' L. /1 V a''�`cekci)\4�2ia,x�,.k�J v \ / ./ Z 3. \i '`? i Nov i sa3 A ♦ ! .':.a z z at y >x t': t of setbacks or open space ¢ c ° • required by this document. = i' ya a£ a f\�e Changes which are not deemed { ft "signs scant'; by this definition, 1111111.11,filitiiiiiillitillillg': i maybeapproved \Y 3 \ C rk administratively, subject to Fa ) 3 `\f review by the Development limz ♦ Review Board and Town -•---------•••..::::.:.,.,:.„..,„:::,:,„...„..„..„=a xz N ak Council during development P.1.1111111114.100111111111111111:111111�g£'�a S �.a� sr = 1 ' plan or platting stages.” ,S' z:! >z�`� J �°♦t pis.r;a,�"+, k k ra is tig a 95% •None. Entirely •independent May not be amended by the � document. Town 'Ca FkK ,,k k aLk Q �; 85% -The There are numerous references to Does not address k \�, rY a�az is'�.a,�s:,. �� k: a. >Z \k: \ <;to [t a� i Y.s�C�''��\Y k'x� f4: 3 aria a` remainder of OVZCR standards. Many. )A 1 f% \ k »a,..,:,,,..,.,,,,.::.,.,: Y '� a :::::::: the area has specifications are in addition-or ,:::,"...:,:: a platted for provide exceptions to the OVZCR >. - ••-i •. ,ndards. The established practice is