HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1129) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
APRIL 26, 2004
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION: AT OR AFTER 4:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020: AREAS TO CONSIDER FOR CHANGES TO THE
PROPOSED PLAN
2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE (OV7-02-05): UPDATE
ADJOURNMENT
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with
a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700
POSTED: 04/21/04
4:30 p.m.
lh
•
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: April 26, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020: AREAS TO CONSIDER FOR CHANGES TO
THE PROPOSED PLAN
BACKGROUND
On March 17, the Council considered the results of the telephone and internet surveys and the public
meetings. They directed staff to use these results to specifically identify areas within the proposed General
Plan that may need to be changed. This report is a presentation of those areas.
On March 17, staff also presented the Council with a suggested process, a tentative schedule for the
March 2005 election, and the projected costs of this approach. These are as follows:
Recap of the Suggested Process from the March 17 Communication
The intent of the update to the General Plan is to address changing conditions in the Town as well as the
legal requirements of the Growing Smarter Legislation. Although the 1996 Plan is an excellent plan, at a
minimum, it must be revised to meet the State's legal requirements.
Revise the Plan. As a first step, staff would prepare a set of written revisions to the Plan using the
following principles as guideposts:
1. The update is a reconfirmation of the 1996 Plan with improvements that are noted and
carefully considered throughout the update process.
2. Include revisions to meet the State's Growing Smarter requirements.
3. Remove items that are no longer relevant or goals and objectives that have been met since the
adoption of the 1996 Plan.
4. Address the known issues on the new land use map that was approved by the Town Council as
part of the most recent Plan that was submitted to the voters.
5. Remove or revise elements of the Plan that created concerns as expressed in feedback we
received from the community outreach efforts (surveys and meetings).
Present the Revisions for Review. The proposed revisions would then be presented to a reviewing body
as designated by the Council. A small, diverse committee is recommended.
Citizen Support. Ensure, through participation, out-reach and education, that there is a core group of
citizens who are well-versed in the revisions and ready to support the revised plan.
Media Campaign. Provide information to the public throughout the process to correct misconceptions and
respond to concerns expressed in the surveys.
Recap of the March 2005 Election Schedule
May Revisions complete
June Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council review of the draft Plan
July Begin 60-day review period
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2
August/September End of 60-day Review
September Two Commission public hearings in separate locations
October Council Hearing
November 3 Council adopts Plan and declares election
March 8 Election
Recap of the Projected Fiscal Impact
Public Information $ 15,000
Plan Publication/Distribution 6,000
Facilitator 20,000
Election (mail) 62,000
Total $ 103,000
AREAS TO CONSIDER FOR CHANGES
As summarized in the previous report the primary concerns expressed in the survey are:
• specificity/flexibility(this is directly tied to trust in the Town's government)
• Mixed-use Neighborhoods and high density development
• growth control and open space preservation
• taxes
• the Plan amendment and adoption process (more evident in the results from the meetings and the
web survey)
The following areas within the Plan should be considered to address each of those issues. They are
presented in the order of where they appear in the plan and not by importance.
General Policy Changes
The 1996 General Plan included 132 policies of which 10%were stated as "shall" statements. Early in the
process of revising the 1996 Plan, the policy statements were all redrafted to begin with: "The Town
shall..." Later, the Council directed staff to review all of the policies to start the sentences with an active
verb so that the policies are still very directive, only using the verbiage "the Town shall" where the
policies are:
• mandated by the Town Code or State or Federal law;
• partially implemented by Code;
• already being accomplished even though not required by law; and/or,
• are strongly supported by the community
As a result 12% of the 220 policies in the proposed plan are stated as "shalls" and the remaining policies
are clearly directive. However, the perception in the community is that the policy content of the plan was
weakened from the 1996 plan. Accordingly, the Council may wish to reconsider and apply "shalls" to a
greater number of the policies.
Amending the Plan (p. 10)
The Town has provided a definition of Major Amendment that makes the proposed plan one of the most
difficult to amend of any of the general or comprehensive plans that the staff has reviewed in the State.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3
The requirement for a super-majority vote of the Council to approve a Major Amendment means that the
qo
ability to amend the plan became more difficult (as compared to the 1996 Plan) in 90% of our plan area
the only exceptionbeing the "Growth Areas." Regardless, there was significant concern in the community
that amending the proposed plan would be easier than amending the 1996 Plan. This concern could be
addressed by considering changes to the following two items.
Definition of Minor Amendment(p. 11)
There was some concern related to criterion #2, which allows increases in intensity within growth areas to
be classified as "minor amendments".
Adoption of Amendment("Findings", p. 13)
In the 1996 Plan, there were four findings required in order to amend the Plan. In the proposed plan, one
findingwas removed and the remaining findings were reworded. Though a majority of the Steering
Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission supported these changes, the opposition stated that
the findings in the 1996 Plan were superior, and this then became a factor in the election.
Definition of Policy (p. 16 and p. 86)
The two (not identical, but similar) definitions of policy were used by the opposition to illustrate
inconsistency in the plan. The definition on page 16 is the definition approved by the Steering Committee.
Policy 1.5.3 (p. 21)
This policy is in place as a method of achieving better air quality. It encourages "mixed use development
with amenities such as day care facilities, bicycle and pedestrian access, employment and housing". After
the deletion of the Mixed-use Neighborhood (MUN) designation, this was left in the proposed Plan to
refer to the variety of uses allowed under the Master Planned Community(MPC) designation, and what is
already allowed in the zoning districts or PADs. It may helpful to change the term "mixed use
development"to "development with a variety of uses," or some similar term, thus avoiding any confusion.
Land Use Standards (p. 22)
The 1996 Plan and the proposed plan both provide ranges of densities for each land use designation. They
treat these ranges as the overall densities of parcels and allow densities to vary within the parcel as long as
they do not vary from the description in the land use designation (e.g. "single-family, detached"). The
proposed plan provides additional restrictions on this variation in density. Though the proposed plan is
more restrictive than the 1996 Plan, this became an issue in the election. The community preference is
that the density ranges establish the upper limit of density allowed in any portion of a parcel.
Significant Resource Area (p. 25)
Those areas designated as Open Space on the map are only those areas where open space has currently
been preserved through the development process. If any other areas are designated as open space, per
State Law, they must have a one-unit-per-acre, "back-up" designation. Areas that the Town wants to see
as open space in the future (25% of the whole planning area) are now designated as Significant Resource
Area (SRA) with underlying land use designations that are typically less than one unit per acre. The SRA
designation includes riparian areas, ironwood areas, archeological sites and other environmentally
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4
sensitive lands. The concern in the community is that there could be even a little development in these
areas or that a land owner may get"credit" for transferring densities out of these areas.
Policy 3.1.7 (p. 38)
This policy states "[c]onsider alternative revenue sources, such as a property tax and..." to ensure the
Town's economic stability. Though the addition of the term "property tax" was proposed by one of the
key opponents of the plan, it became one of the primary issues opponents used to defeat the plan.
Policy 7.2.3 (p. 58)
This policy was created to meet the goal of providing a range of housing opportunities by encouraging "the
mixing of various residential densities and the integration of commercial uses through high-quality
neighborhoods and master planned communities." Though this policy refers to the Land Use Map, which
does not include MUN, and it specifically mentions MPCs, the community concern was that this
mentioned MUNs.
Strategic Implementation Plan Item LU.8 (p. 3 of the SIP)
Item LU.8 in the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) directs staff to develop a MUN zoning district with
regulations and standards for that type of development. While the inclusion of this does not automatically
create a MUN use in the Town (zoning code standards must be created, then a General Plan amendment,
and finally a rezoning), it did create concern in the community that the Town would, in the future,
encourage mixed-use developments.
SUMMARY
The areas delineated above are areas that should be considered by the Town to be changed in the proposed
plan. If we are to meet the March 2005 schedule, staff will need direction on these items (and any other
items) and on the process that the Council would like to use to institute these changes as soon as possible.
Plann. a d Z 'n dministrator
Corn.- • ; it Develop, ent Director
i
Town Manager
F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Post Election\StaffReports\Areas to Consider for Change to TC 042604.doc
2
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: April 26, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE (0V7-02-05): UPDATE
PURPOSE
Thep �u ose of the ESL project is to assess critical open space and visual resources; and to identify,
maintain, and enhance these environmentally sensitive lands. The project includes four components:
1. map and assess critical resource areas (Phase I);
2. develop policies related to protection of these resources (Phase I);
3. develop an ordinance to implement the policies (Phase II); and,
4. educate and involve the public (Phase I and II).
BACKGROUND
On October 6, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated the Environmentally Sensitive Lands
(ESL) Project. The Project was organized into phases with Phase I encompassing project definition, a
resource inventory, and the development of policies along with a public participation component. Phase II
is the development of a zoning code ordinance to implement the policies developed in Phase I.
From October 1999 to October 2000 the ESL Public Advisory Committee(PAC)met and public
workshops were held. The PAC created a draft a set of policies related to environmentally sensitive lands and most of the mapping and assessment was completed. In late 2000, the project was put on hold due to
problems with the contractor and staff shortages (emphasis was shifted to the General Plan update).
In January 2002, the Town began to incorporate the policies developed by the ESL PAC into the General
Plan Update. In February, the ESL PAC was provided the policies as they had been included in the
General Plan and they were invited to participate in the General Plan Focus Group Meetings. In June and
July of 2002, members of the PAC met with a facilitator to review and comment on the General Plan
elements related to ESLs. They provided recommendations to the General Plan Steering Committee.
Thus the following elements of the ESL were completed:
1. All critical resources areas have been mapped except that the visually sensitive area map needs
further refinement. Also staff has mapped all dedicated open space areas including easements and
recreation areas.
2. A comprehensive set of ESL polices are in the draft General Plan.
3. Some recommendations have been compiled related to ordinance requirements necessary for
protection of ESLs.
4. The bulk of the public participation program is complete.
From April to July of 2003, to prepare for the next phase, staff developed a scope of work (attached) and
p
consultant contract, advertised for consultants, and interviewed the two consultant teams that applied.
FUTURE ACTIONS
The next step is development of the ordinance. As the policies have already been developed, staff
anticipates that this phase will be more technical with a smaller, more focused public participation
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2
element. The attached ESLO Project Scope of Work generally outlines the tasks involved. The areas that
need specific attention are:
• buffers adjacent to protected areas (buffers for riparian areas are currently 15 feet);
• development in and around other biologically sensitive areas (ironwood and saguaro communities,
and rock outcrops); and,
• development in visually sensitive areas including a better assessment of these areas.
The open space acquisition plan is currenity not included in this project though they are related: It is
anticipated that any open space acquisition plan would be modified as a result of this project to reflect
areas that are protected by regulation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Scope of Work anticipates the use of a consultant with $30,000 requested for the next fiscal year
budget.
Attachment
ESLO Project Scope of Work 4c,____,i. /AL)4E.._:._
Plannin: a,d Zoni : Ad 'nistrator
/ 4 .
Co - ni Devel•,ment Director
/
I - ' d
Town Manager
F:\OV\OV7\2002\07-02-05\Ordinance Development\ESL Update to TC 042604.doc
•
Town of Oro Valley,Arizona
Environmentally-Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) Project
Scope of Work
Work Objectives
The Ordinance objectives include:
1. Establishment of regulations, standards and procedures for effective protection,
preservation and, when necessary, of salvage and mitigation of the Town's sensitive lands
and natural resources;
2. Consolidation and simplification of existing regulations and review procedures; and
3. Consolidation and simplification of monitoring and enforcement procedures and
regulations.
Work Tasks
1. Review existing ordinances for completeness and internal consistency and update, as
necessary, to incorporate experienced-based improvements.
The Town has a number of existing ordinances to be reviewed by the consultant and updated
as necessary. These include (and can be found on the Town's web site):
• Riparian Habitat Protection Overlay District (Article 10-7)
• Hillside Development Zone (Article 10-1)
• Cultural Resources Preservation (Article 10-8)
• ViewshedNiew Corridor Protection, includinc serine Road Corridor Overlay District
(Article 10-001) and Oracle Road Scenic G.fidicfaDverlay District (Article 10-4)
2. Incorporate by reference newly-established Thayn ordinances into the composite ESLO and
update, as necessary, to ensure internaonsisericy in standards and procedures.
The Town has a number of ordinances'A'a have been recently updated and we believe can
be incorporated by reference into ltie composite ESLO:
• Native Plant Preservatj5iL h Salvage (Article 14.1)
• Grading Article (Article .1 '
• Flood Control Article (neaycomplete)
• Outdoor Lighting (Article 17-101)
3. Create new regulations and procedures.
The Town anticipates that the consultant will create regulations, standards, guidelines,
procedures and monitoring and enforcement structures for the environmentally-sensitive
resources such as:
• Wildlife Habitat
• Rock Outcroppings
• Visually Sensitive Areas
Project Report
1. The consultant will prepare a draft report describing the proposed ordinances and any
amendments to procedures and standards.
2. The consultant will prepare a draft of any ordinances or code texts in a format approved by the
Town Attorney. These will include, at a minimum, the following elements:
2.1 Ordinances/Ordinance Revisions to include:
Regulations
Standards
2
Definitions
Guidelines
2.2 Interpretations of regulations, as necessary
2.3 Administration procedures and responsibilties including:
a. Application submittal requirements and procedures
b. Monitoring and enforcement procedures (optional)
c. Development Review Procedures
2.4 Description of the proposed revisions in relationship to existing Codes; underline and
strike-through text as appropriate
2.5 Final Report Publication: The consultant will provide ten (10) copies of the final report and
ordinance(s), bound in loose-leaf binders, one (1) reproducible master, and one (1)digital
copy in a Word compatible format
3. Monthly Reports (Consultant)
Monthly reports should include progress made in terms of specific activities that were completed,
information generated, contacts made, summary of task reports, and percentage of study completed,
costs incurred and the next month's planned activities. The monthly progress report may include an
invoice; all invoices must be attached to a monthly report.
4. Ordinance Review and Adoption
Presentation at public hearings before the Planning and Zon �ommission and Town Council (five
anticipated).
47:vi"'"""A".
Alit
,w sw sv
*OA AAP
‘t:',4001.11"
sn wwr•wwM,.
wr ,w.
WM. 10
w+sw
3