Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 4/29/2010 4 �^} pnmeeesMeee�ebeeeeeeeazseefese»v 4n. ate. F�?• ;4R�iiCfx.�tS6-{,r°°•: >,£' Agenda Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Thursday, April 29, 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 15 • April22 3. Discussion of Section G. Hillside Regulations • Recap of Discussion from the April 22 Meeting • Proposed Section G. Hillside Regulations ✓ Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities ✓ Other 4. Discussion of Section E. Cultural Resources Category • Overview ✓ The Big Picture ✓ Relationship with Recent Cultural Resource Inventory • Key Issues ✓ Review Process ✓ Determination of Significance ✓ National and Local Criteria ✓ Treatment Plan ✓ Relationship with other ESOS 5. Miscellaneous • "Section G: Hillside. Distribution of Re-draft for PAC Written Comments • Parking Lot Issues to Date: 1) ESOS Responsibility 2) Transitional Density • Next ESL Chapters to Review: 1) View sheds 2) ESL Maps Posted: 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." a y DRAFT pyP` Y , MEETING SUMMARY Town of Oro Valley f C4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL) PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING # 26 TALLY April 29, 2010 ... 4-6p HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM 11000 N. LA CANADA DR. PAC Members Present: Bill Adler Doug McKee Steve Solomon Don Chatfield Steve Taillie 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 4:05 pm 2. Approval of PAC Meeting Summaries: The April 15 and April 22 meeting summaries were accepted. 3. Discussion of Section G. Hillside Regulations Bayer Vella stated he will be distributing revised draft for this section; written comments may be forwarded to staff by next Thursday. Bayer Vella and David Williams said they are proposing an approach requiring public dedication of significant areas of community importance and permit HOA or Lot ownership for areas of less value. Bayer asked the group for feedback: Doug McKee noted a strategy that preserves slopes at top of hill, which are most visible, is desired. F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-29-10 draft meeting summary.doc 1 i The group discussed how this strategy would affect maintenance of sloped areas. Paul Keesler commented that in terms of maintenance, steep slopes are among the most difficult areas to maintain. If slopes on individual lots are adding value to the lot, the Town does not want to responsibility of maintaining them. Steve Solomon stated that he found if engineered properly, generally not a problem. Paul noted that conditions change, particularly due to drainage. Joe Andrews noted that if the developer caused the issue, it should be picked up by them. Don Chatfield noted that there may be a hierarchy: hillside could be seen as slightly less important than ESL land; therefore, he is less inclined that it be protected through an HOA by an individual lot owner. Bayer asked the group to vote to indicate acceptance of the strategy proposed by Don Chatfield: VOTE: The group unanimously supported the approach proposed by Don Chatfield. 4. Discussion of Section E. Cultural Resources Category Bayer Vella and Karen Berchtold presented a draft Cultural Resource Category. Bayer provided an overview of the process. Staff has been working with a Historic Preservation Commission workgroup on the section. Once a draft is finalized, it will be circulated to outside agencies for comment. Karen summarized key components: • The Big Picture The draft will replace the existing cultural resources section. For all applications, Cultural Resources will now be one of the resources evaluated in the Environmentally Sensitive Lands system. The "cultural resource professional" hired to review survey and evaluate resource. The Town maintains list of cultural resource professionals, much like current process to hire riparian specialists. - Steve Solomon asked how bids are evaluated. Staff responded that an RFP would be developed; respondents that met criteria would be included in list. F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-29-10 draft meeting summary.doc 2 He also asked if developer has completed a survey prior to initiating the review process, can that be utilized. Staff responded that the cultural resource professional could review and accept it. He also asked for clarification of process: if resources are discovered, must an applicant go through the process again. Bayer Vella responded by saying yes— if it is an accidental discovery not covered in the initial evaluations. Steve Solomon expressed concern about the high level of uncertainty for a developer. The group discussed the role of Town Council in the review process, and whether it makes sense for the Council to be able to review Treatment Plans. There was general consensus that Council should not review and the Planning and Zoning Administrator should make determinations. Town Council should be in the position to hear appeals or review decisions when warranted on a case by case basis. Don Chatfield stated that the intent is not doing an end run around Council, but to shield them from undue involvement. Bayer suggested that the group clarify their support for an approach. VOTE: The group voted 4-2 to support an approach in which the Planning and Zoning Administrator makes a determination on a Treatment Plan, and Town Council will serve as an appeal body. • Relationship with Recent Cultural Resource Inventory Karen noted that now that the HPC has commissioned a cultural resource inventory, that document can provide data for evaluating resources based on local values. • Review Process Karen walked the group through the review process. It is essentially similar to the existing one; however, the steps are being clarified for benefit of both staff and applicant. The process is driven by federal requirements and criteria. Once a site is researched, a survey must be undertaken, unless certain criteria are met. If the resource is determined to be significant, a Treatment Plan must be prepared. • National and Local Criteria Karen noted that National Register criteria are defined at the federal level. They are broad to address a wide spectrum of resources. These same criteria are currently used; they are now referenced more explicitly in the ordinance. Staff worked with the HPC workgroup to develop a set of local criteria. Karen noted that the City of Scottsdale also uses local criteria. The group offered some feedback on the local criteria: • Language needs to better convey that one of the criteria must be met F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-29-10 draft meeting summary.doc 3 • t • They are far too subjective • They do not address whether a resource is worthy of preservation; for instance, they could include a structure such as the "gold dome" • They seem more applicable to archaeological resources, and more problematic for evaluating structures • Concern criteria could be utilized by neighbors to halt projects • Cultural resource inventory provides information that could be used to specify structural types deemed worthy of preservation, such as ranch structures Bayer reminded the group this is a subjective issue— and we cannot change the national criteria. Doug asked whether bringing cultural resources into the ESL evaluation process makes sense. Bill Adler affirmed the benefit of designing such regulations comprehensively. The group discussed the applicability section and treatment of custom home applications. Joe Andrews noted that staff needs to discuss legal considerations further regarding the applicability section. Bill Adler provided some observations and ideas: • Staff should run ideas by HPC first, before making draft revisions • PAC role is to look at how code language works • Draft may undersell the importance of the cultural resource professional function Don agreed with the last point, and observed that the HPC would have an excessive deal of latitude in applying local criteria. 5. Miscellaneous For the next agenda, the group will resume discussion of Cultural Resources, and begin review of view shed protection. The group adjourned at 5:59 pm. Prepared by: Karen Berchtold Acting Principal Planner F:\SR OFFICE SPEC\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\ESL PAC 04-29-10 draft meeting summary.doc 4