The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 1/28/2010 F ''P'"`E ' V DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY ' �,a Town of Oro Valley ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL) PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING # 14 Np E N ENVIRONMENTALLY LANLS January 28, 2010 4- 6p HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM 11000 N. LA CANADA DR. PAC Members Present: Bill Adler Susan Simms Doug McKee Steve Solomon Philip Kline PAC Members Absent: Don Chatfield Steve Taillie Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present: David Williams Bayer Vella Karen Berchtold Joe Andrews 1. Meeting called to order at 4:02 p.m. New PAC member Susan Simms was introduced. 2. Landowner Meeting update Staff recapped basic themes from the meeting: • Developers seek clearer code language • Developers seek greater flexibility in meeting the requirements, yet want standards to be more clear Joe Andrews noted that applicants typically want code questions to be addressed at the staff level. Steve Solomon commented that the overall approach is one-sided, towards habitat but at expense of people. Property owners will not request a rezoning if it means providing two-thirds of the area as open space. Staff and consultant agreed. 3. Continued review and discussion of Section III.C.D., Open Space Requirements The group discussed concerns regarding ESL rezoning to open space. Due to potential takings issue, the applicant needs to be given a choice of options such as a "menu" approach suggested by Joe. This puts the ordinance in a better legal standing. 1 Steve noted that in addition to designating open space, the property owner must pay to maintain it. It would be best if the Town recommended language. The group discussed the advantages and disadvantages of various maintenance options: • Homeowners' Association: probably effective for smaller properties, but what about larger ones? • Town: Town would bear responsibility of maintaining and enforcing conditions. Consider including fee to applicant to cover maintenance costs. Steve suggested that the Town should come up with an enforcement plan. Bill stated there is no one way to insure protection of open space, but favors Town maintenance using possible revenue generating source. The group noted that the large, regional open space properties that provide linkages need to be differentiated from smaller, more isolated ones. Overall, the group felt that primary responsibility should be with the Town. For future discussion: uses allowed in open space. Doug: cost estimate of open space maintenance is needed. Bayer: it is feasible to do that. Steve: could likely enlist Town volunteers in maintenance efforts. The group discussed the criteria for open space selection. Phil stated he prefers using priority rankings; otherwise, everyone will be requesting an exception. 4. Discussion of Future Agenda Items For the next meeting, items will include continued discussion on open space section and introduction of the Design Requirements section, which addresses use and development standards. 5. Meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. Prepared by: Karen Berchtold Acting Principal Planner 2 C r:r 'I'AV; 3 is',; tktii'.4' 4111 ENVtatViMf MO, Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Meeting with Major Landowners Thursday, January 22, 2010 2-4 p.m. Hopi Conference Room Development Services Building 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Meeting Summary Present: Major Landowner representatives: Keri Silvyn (Lewis & Roca), Dick Maes (Vistoso Partners), Paul Oland (The WLB Group, Inc.) Town Staff. Mary Davis, Bayer Vella, Karen Berchtold Mary Davis provided project background and schedule updates. Staff anticipates Phase 1 will be complete in April 2010. Bayer Vella explained how the Pima County conservation categories were applied, and noted that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is still refining them, in particular the Multiple Use Management Area (MUMA). Dick Maes said that the draft has a lot of flowery language but the standards for developers are not clear. He does not foresee any new rezoning in the Rancho Vistoso area. Regarding Neighborhood 3, the Town's economic development (ED) area, a number of riparian areas are designated. The MUMA designation is applied to areas near the Canada del Oro wash that are already degraded. Bayer responded that the map is science-based and Town Council will have the flexibility to address such issues. Keri Silvyn expressed concerns about this approach: • Some communities "get it right" by balancing both economic development and environmental goals through the process. The community determines where ED areas should go and lifts regulations there, and also what areas need to be preserved • The map may designates areas for protection that are designated for ED in the general plan • The public will see the map and it may not be clear that it is not how the zoning would be implemented F:\Arinda\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\Landowner Meeting Summary 1-22-10 FINAL.doc 1 of 3 • Would be better for the Town to rectify this in the ESL map Keri stated that developers believe that Pima County should not be the model. Bayer responded the Town supports it as a model. Keri responded that the Town keeps creating these conflicting policies; these would be more easily resolved by creating standards. To just map ESL lands without dealing with other interests sets up very high expectations for neighbors. Paul Oland provided the following comments: • MUMA areas look like an inventory of vacant land • Land use planning needs to be injected — preserve areas by mountains & washes, but remove the areas that would not make good wildlife habitat • The new riparian map makes a lot of sense Bayer said the MUMA areas were done broadly, and the TAC and PAC are still refining its criteria to use in a GIS analysis. Possible criteria: • Must be porous for wildlife • Must be adjacent other open space areas • Must meet minimum size of feasible open space The MUMA designation would not apply if development rights already established, and ED aspect will be included. He asked for more feedback from the group on MUMA criteria. Paul provided the following: • MUMA should be conducive to fostering animal and plant species • Many of the designated areas appear disconnected and too broad-brush • Need to acknowledge entitled areas • Why not expand the designated green and blue areas (on the riparian map)? • Development could still be sensitively planned in the brown (MUMA) areas adjacent to the blue & green Keri expressed concern that the public will look at the map but not read the ordinance, and the map as depicted sets up unrealistic expectations. She stated that creating regulations that provide people with a sense of security is important. She added that designating MUMA areas where they really make sense should be a goal, and staff agreed. Her concerns fall into two major areas: 1. Mapping issues 2. Proposed regulatory scheme (66% preservation in MUMA areas too high) Paul suggested eliminating the brown (MUMA) areas and defining a new set of criteria for developing near ESL land that would apply to the whole Town. F:\Arinda\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\Landowner Meeting Summary 1-22-10 FINAL.doc 2 of 3 Dick said it does not seem like these regulations could be applied to Planned Area Developments (PADs), where environmental resource preservation is already defined. Bayer said that there is great variety among the Town's 13 PADs. Staff wants major landowners' feedback on possible exception/exemption criteria, as well as useful incentives. Keri noted Pima County's CR1 Cluster zoning as a potential model. It includes expedited process through the Design Review Committee. The Fairfield Development at the southwest corner of Sunrise and Kolb was cited as a good cluster model. Items for clarification: • Is the bonus for intensity or density? • Is it possible to create density with 66% open space preservation? • How do you address neighborhood opposition to density? Paul noted that Rancho Vistoso is essentially cluster development. Dick reiterated additional concerns: • The larger the property, the more flexibility that developers need • Rancho Vistoso would not meet rock outcrop criteria as defined • 50 cfs as standard for riparian is too restrictive to define the starting point for the start of a wash. Rancho Vistoso used 200 cfs as the definition of a significant wash. • Definition of"2. Core Resource Area" on p. 15 and text on p. 18 which indicates it includes unmapped areas Keri suggested that once the draft is finalized, the project should be reviewed for conflicts between map and ordinance. A reviewer who has not been on the project team could provide a fresh perspective. F:\Arinda\Projects for COMMUNICATIONS\ESL\ESL PAC\Landowner Meeting Summary 1-22-10 FINAL.doc 3 of 3