HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 4/22/2010 i
_ , $,„, .4
4,7,,,,.h... ittl
„,„,,, k''';.*Z4.:,Ir.
A
t.NVt OEH .i€:NTA€LY
r.,
Agenda
4„ , ,,_
Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)
Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
Thursday, April 22, 2010
4 p.m.
Hopi Conference Room
Development Services Building
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
1. Call to Order at or after 4pm
2. Approval of the following PAC Meeting Summaries:
• April 1
• April8
3. Discussion of Section G. Hillside Regulations
s\,,,,,„,„ • Recap of Discussion from the April 15 Meeting
• Proposed Section G. Hillside Regulations
✓ New Design Flexibility Elements
✓ Ridgeline: Definition and Requirements
✓ Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities
✓ Other
4. Miscellaneous
• "Section D: Design” Written PAC Comments are Due
• Parking Lot Issues to Date: 1) ESOS Responsibility 2) Transitional
Density
• Next ESL Chapters to Review
Posted: 04 21 10 9:00 a.m. cp
The Town of Oro Valley complies with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the
Clerk's office at 229-4700.
"Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council: In accordance
with Arizona Open Meeting Law A.R.S. X38-431 et seq, a majority of the Town
Council may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience
only."
•
DRAFT
MEETING SUMMARY
y # x t Town of Oro Valley
IVE (ESL)ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSIT LANDS
2 S L i f
}
PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING # 24
.,waudNbweeoR<µo2•r a1- ,}x Vf RO fy MEypLI
April
' , 2010
4-6p
HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM
11000 N. LA CANADA DR.
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler
Doug McKee
Steve Solomon
Don Chatfield
Steve Ta i l l i e
Philip Kline
Don Chatfield
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
David Williams
Bayer Vella
Joe Andrews
Paul Keesler
Karen Berchtold
1. Call to Order -
Meeting called to order at 4:06 pm
2. Approval of PAC Meeting Summaries:
The April 1 and April 8 meeting summaries were accepted.
3. Discussion of Section G. Hillside Regulations
Bayer Vella reviewed a basic premise of the section: that staff is moving away
from using the average cross slope calculation. He reminded the group that they
accepted the proposed slope density and disturbance categories at the last
meeting.
Key issues to cover today:
1. Extent of conservation
2. Design Flexibility
3. Ridgeline
4. Ownership/Maintenance
F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-22-10 draft meeting summary.doc 1
Bill Adler reiterated that he is willing to be flexible on area of disturbance, but not
on building design.
Bayer explained the concept behind the flexible design standards: they provide
incentives to build in area not visible from public roads.
Philip Kline asked if this makes sense, given that public safety is one of the
bases for slope regulation.
Paul Keesler noted that cost and difficulty of construction go up with the slope.
Bayer asked if the group is still interested in heading in this direction: they
confirmed they are.
Don Chatfield said that makes sense: the general public doesn't have a choice
as to what they view, but they do have a choice when purchasing a lot.
Bayer reviewed the standards.
The group discussed the definition of"view conservation area." The reviewed the
standard for preservation of 15% or greater in areas visible from public roads.
95% of the view shed area would be conserved. Steve Solomon suggested that
95% may be high; the group agreed on 85%.
Bayer said that staff would conduct a visual analysis of the Pepper Viner site
model, and suggest an appropriate level of preservation.
Philip Kline asked how this standard applies to ridgelines. Bayer suggested that
the group come back to that topic. He asked for feedback on the review
standards under the "Flexible Development Standards" section, page 3 of the
draft.
Steve Solomon noted that regarding criteria c), it appears a neighborhood could
easily claim a detrimental impact.
Don Chatfield suggested that perhaps the review should be subject to an
administrative approval. Cities across the nation authorize administrative
approvals for key policy directives. Bayer said that in that case, review criteria a)
through d) would not be included because they are too subjective to ask staff to
apply.
Bayer asked the group to confirm their opinion through a vote.
VOTE: The group voted 5-2 to support administrative approval of flexible
development standards. Doug McKee and Bill Adler did not support the concept.
The group turned to the topic of Ridgelines, and began by reviewing its definition
in the draft.
F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-22-10 draft meeting summary.doc 2
rA . M
Philip Kline noted there should be a requirement for no building within fifty feet of
slopes along a ridge.
Joe Andrews stated there are two more issues for staff to address:
1. Cliff dwellings issue (how to prevent homes from being built into side of steep
slope) and
2. How to define term ridgeline
David Williams noted that a ridgeline is a crest of a hill. Definition is an important
consideration because we are allowing some development on them. Would a
fourteen foot height above a ridgeline be acceptable? The requirement can be
supplemented by "lot positioning requirements."
The ridge is the area near top of hill where the slope decreases to less than 15%.
Steve Solomon stated a fourteen foot height is not enough. The group discussed
height requirements and accepted sixteen feet.
The group turned to the final topic: Ownership/Maintenance.
David Williams noted two options:
1. Slopes 25% or greater may be Environmentally Sensitive Open Space, with
25-15% slopes allowed within lots
2. Or alternatively, steep slopes could be included in lots
Staff proposed that steep slopes not be maintained by the Town; that HOA
maintenance would be more appropriate.
Bill disagreed, stating that seems inconsistent with maintenance of other open
space areas.
At the next meeting, the group will resume discussion of maintenance/ownership.
4. Adjournment - Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Prepared by:
Karen Berchtold
Acting Principal Planner
F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-22-10 draft meeting summary.doc 3