Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1211) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 6, 2003 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 11, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING - OV11-01-04, DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 3. TOWN COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO TOWN STAFF REGARDING CHANGES TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 12/28/02 3:30 p.m. rg TOWN OF ORO VALLEY T COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETIN-G DATE: January 6, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-01-04, DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020: SUBJECT: ADDENDUM BACKGROUND: This report provides additional information for the Council's consideration. p SUMMARY: win sections highlight and address the discussions comments and observations of the Council The following members at the December 2nd Council StudySession and the December 11th Council Hearing. Staff recommendations (in italics) are included within this section. Draft Land Use Map Comparison to Zoning_ There are some undeveloped areas where the existing zoning provides more intense uses than the land use designations in the General Plan (Plan) Land Use Map (Map). Staff recalls these designations specific decisions by the members of the 1996 General Plan Steering Committee and � as p Sector Boards. In general, the discussion at the time was that the Map was a policy document and should not necessarily match the underlying zoning if the Town's preference was for a less intense land use in the area. The attached map shows these areas. The call outs are the Plan land use designation that would match the existing zonin Staff recommends leaving these as proposed in the Map. In this manner the zoning. Sta Mapserves its purpose as a policy to support moving the future land uses on these properties closer to the p p land uses preferred by the Town. Includingthe ZoningMap. As noted in the previous report, Staff recommends leaving the zoning map out the ofthe plan. Thefollowingnotice added to the Map may help to ensure that the public does not confuse Map designations with the zoning on the property: The land use designations on this map are policy recommendations only. The designations may not represent the actual zoning on properties. No decisions regarding land use purchases or .future construction should be based solely on these designations. For information regarding the zoning entitlements on a property, refer to the official Zoning Map and the Zoning Code. These are available at www.townoforovalley.com or from the Planning and Zoning Division at 229- 4800. Strategic Implementation Program, p. 13 ARS 9-461.07.A.3 (attached to the previous report) requires an annual report to the Council on the status of the plan. The following should be added to the Plan to address this requirement: Arizona Revised Statutes (Section 9-461.07-A.2) require that, once the plan is adopted and ratified, the Town through its planning agency annually prepare and provide a report to the Town Council on the status of the plan and progress in its application. In addition to this annual report, the Town has developed a strategic program to implement the plan which, as described below, would include a periodic and more complex review of the plan. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 At the end ofthefirstparagraph in this section, add a sentence as follows: "The biennial review will also A serve as the annual report required by state statute in the years in which it is performed." Staffalso recommends thefollowingchange to the Strategic Implementation Program document on page 2 afterthe four bullets under "Overriding Implementation Action Item": .f For they ears in which it is required, this review will serve as the annual report required under ARS 9-471.07-A.2. Definition of Policy, p. 14 and p. 16 There are two slightly different definitions of"policy" in the plan. The correct definition of policy is on g y page 16. Mixed Use Neighborhood, p.26 This approach to development was first proposed in the 1980s as a return to more traditional forms of pp p (they develo ment are often called Traditional Neighborhood Developments) with neighborhoods that are p connected to each other and to the commercial centers, schools, and public areas that serve them. Pedestrian connections are favored. To be successful in this approach, they need to be denser to provide enough housingwith easy pedestrian access to support the commercial services. Some examples of this g approach are listed below: Kierland Commons, Scottsdale, Arizona h.ttp://www.k:ierlandco.mm.ons.com/ Civano, Tucson, Arizona http://www.civano.cor/ Bradburn Village, Westminster, Colorado http://vwwv.b.rad:bumvillage.coml Belle Creek, Denver, Colorado http://bellecreek.com/ Kierland Commons is the best example of the approach envisioned by this Plan. In this case, the neighborhood fits into an existing community and the emphasis is more on commercial to serve both the planned residential as well as the existing, outlying residential areas. School Site Dedications and Related Policies, p. 75 The following sections provide a more detailed discussion than the previous report as well as specific responses to the Amphitheater School District letter dated December 19, 2002 (attached) which was received after the previous report was written. Policy6.1.2. The Planning and Zoning Commission changed the Steering Committee recommendation on this policy to delete the specific reference to schools and roads among the candidates for evaluating new development; instead referring to all public facilities (presumably including schools and roads). The School District suggests that schools be specifically mentioned and that the impact on them be a heavily weighted criterion. Staff supports either the Steering Committee or the Planning Commission language, as inp ractice, all infrastructure, including the impact on schools and roads would be evaluated. Staff can not support weighting school impacts more heavily than other impacts as the relative importance of the various impacts change on a case-by-case basis. Policy 6.2.1. The Planning and Zoning Commission made significant changes to the Steering Committee recommendation, deleting certain proactive Town-School District relationship policies namely: (1) requirements for reservations of school sites by very large developments; and (2) encouragements for donations from smaller developments. The School District has requested that the Town require developers to enter into discussions with the District regarding financial donations toward land purchases or facility TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 3 Improvements. It is also concerned that it is a developer's choice as to whether cash or land is provided. in its report to the Town Councilfor the January 6, 2003 public hearing, recommends the Staff, as noted p original Steering Committee languagefor this policy with the following revision to the third bulleted shown below. Thefinal hrase was added to that paragraph to ensure that there is no conflict paragraph p with state law relative to the work of the School Facilities Board. The Town encourages the petitioners of smaller developments to discuss with the school district g possible donations (land or cash); such donations will be used to offset school construction costs within Town limits to the extent allowed by Arizona state law. The additional language suggested by the School District unfortunately goes beyond the scope of what the Town can .f a developer o requiredlo er or any other party. Reserving school sites for future purchase or lease p and encouraging donations of land or money is acceptable; effectively requiring donations is not. g g Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends deletion of Policy 6.2.3 which addressed evaluation of school faculties at the time of rezoning. They also modified Policy 6.2.4 to delete the reference to school planning issues such as access, and to address student safety at development review instead of at the time of rezoning. The School District supports returning to the Steering Committee language, and notes again that school issues should be a heavily weighted criterion. Staff agrees with returning to the Steering Committee recommendation on these policies. Staff comments on weighting of criteria, however, remain the same as noted above. "The Town shall..." and the Costs of Implementation One of the concerns expressed by the Council was the costs, and therefore the feasibility, of implementing . thepolicies in the plan. Staff has completed an analysis of the cost of implementing the short-term items andp resents this as an attachment to this report. The costs for the first two years, as summarized on the last page of that attachment, are: One-time Staff Costs $ 205,000 Annual Staff Costs $ 175,000 Consultant Costs $ 195,000 Material Costs $ 35,000 Land Costs $ 200,000 Total Town Costs $ 810,000 RECOMMENDATIONS: As presented above and in the previous report. Attachments: 1. Land Use Map Designations Compared to Zoning (Map) 2. Amphitheater School District Letter dated December 19, 2002 Plann 1: ,nd Z i g dministrator Implementation Tables With 3. Short-term/Annual Imp ► o Estimated Costs Commu Development Director —� F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Staff ReP orts\Public Hearing staff report#2 to TC.doc Town Manager N. ,, 1 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: January 6, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator PUBLIC HEARING, OV11-01-04, DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: The Steering Committee recommended a draft plan and land use map in October. This was subsequently presentedZoning to the Planningand Commission in three public hearings, two study sessions, and one The Commission unanimously recommended the draft General Plan Update 2020 and the public meeting. Implementation Program, both as amended by a series of motions. The Commission also voted Strategic p gr unanimously to commend and thank the Steering Committee for their efforts. recommendations of the Commission are shown as changes to the Steering Committee The th recommendation in the draft plan and land use map provided as a part of the December 11 packet. The rationale for the Commission changes were presented at the Council's December 2nd study session. They detail, for the ma in the minutes for the November 12th Commission meeting are available in morep, th (provided in the December 11th packet) and, for the text of the plan, in the minutes of the November 19 Commission meeting (attached). The Council held ap ublic hearing on December 11th. Most, though certainly not all, of the public comments related to the land uses on the Kai property. This and the other discussions by the Council are addressed in the following section. On December 16th Staff met with the Steering Committee to provide them an update on the status of the plan review. Theydiscussed some of the changes proposed by the Commission and their comments will bep rovided to the Council when the draft minutes from that meeting are available. Their comments were helpful to Staff in drafting responses to the Council concerns for this packet. SUMMARY: The followingsections highlight and address the discussions comments and observations of the Council members at the December 2nd Council Study Session and the December 11th Council Hearing. Staff recommendations (in italics) are included within this section. Draft Land Use Map Discussion on the draft land use map related to the land use designations compared to the underlying zoning and the designations on the Kai property and Kelly Ranch. Comparison to Zoning. The Council asked for information on designations in the proposed land use map p designations that do not match the underlying zoning. In all cases for developed land, Staff made adjustments to the 1996 land use map to show the existing land use. For most undeveloped land, where gn the land use designation was different from the zoning and adjacent designations matched the zoning, staff adjusted the designation to match the current zoning. However, there are some undeveloped areas where the land use designation does not match the current zoning; and Staff recalls these as specific decisions by the members of the 1996 General Plan Steering Committee and Sector Boards. These were not changed. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 7 (A map is being developed to show these areas and will be presented prior to the hearing). Staff recommends leaving these as proposed to support the moving the zoning toward the land use designations if the landowner decides to rezone the properties. Kai Property. This is an area that was discussed and debated by both the Steering Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The specifics of each proposal are summarized in the following table (based on the maximum density in each land use designation). Option/Uses Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering Planning & Zoning Request Committee Commission Commercial none Minor Resort (13 NCO (25 acres) NCO (10 NCO (10 acres) Uses acres) and Golf acres) Residential R1-144 MPC (2 du/ac MPC (281 acres) RLDR(296 LDR1 (296 acres, Uses overall; 8 du/ac max (original was HDR, acres) with 100 acres of MDR, &LDR) SRA)) Housing 100 500-540 Unknown (original 100 300 Units had over 1200 units) Other key facts are: o The area has the basic infrastructure to support the growth proposed by the applicant; though specific improvements would be need to be provided by the applicant. o The area is an infill project with surrounding gross densities ranging from .2 to 3 units per acre. o As an infill project, the land uses are very controversial. Most of the neighbors who have spoken out on the issue have indicated a desire to see no more than the current zoning would allow. At the December 11th hearing, Frank Bangs, representing the Kai's,presented their request to designate the area as a Master Planned Community. As noted above, this is existing General Plan designation, except that the existing designation includes maximum gross and net densities of 2 units per acre and 8 units per acre respectively. Mr. Bangs did not propose any density maximums. Staff supports the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation. Kelly Ranch. Both the Steering Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission saw this as an important area for the Town due to its proximity to Catalina State Park. While they were aware of the underlying zoning on the property, they recommended keeping it at a low density and working with other agencies to purchase it as open space. At the December 11`" hearing, Steve Rennacker, representing the owners, presented an alternative to their original request. This is shown on the revised tile of maps (attached) and the table below. (Note: The 1996 Plan designation for the whole property was resort) Staff recommends the landowners' request to reflect the current zoning, with an SRA overlay throughout to reflect the desire of the Town to preserve it as open space to the greatest extent possible, especially for those areas bordering the park. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 7 Option/Uses Zoning1996 Plan Landowner Steering Planning & Request Committee Zoning Commission Commercial RVC (22 acres) Resort (all) NCO (35 acres) None None Uses Resort (42 acres) Resort (42 acres) Residential SR (48 acres) LDR1 (35 acres) LDR1 (back up RLDR with Uses required for SRA overlay on open space) all Housing 16 0 40 110 0-37 Units Zoning Map The Council discussed including the current zoning map in the plan. Staff recommends leaving the zoning map out of the plan because it changes relatively more often than the General Plan and there is already confusion between the General Plan land use designations and the zoning. We researched this with the Department ofCommerce to determine if any other General Plans included zoning maps they did p (DOC) not. DOC recommended against the practice. Adoption of Amendment, p. 12 The Council expressed concerns related to the Commission's wording which directs the Commission to approve and the Council to adopt amendments if they make the listed conclusions. To address this concern, Staff recommends that the Council use the wording in the first paragraph as recommended by the Steering Committee deleting the words "of fact" at the end. There are two other items that need to be addressed: 1. Theq ualifier "substantially" in the second criterion should be considered as it may `water down' the criterion. "[C]onsistent" implies an absence of disagreement with the elements of thep lan. The Commission's concern was that, given the large number of policies and the fact that some could be interpreted to conflict with each other(internal inconsistency); it may not be possible for there to be absolute agreement. Therefore, they recommended that "substantially"be added as a qualifier. Leave the wording of this criterion as recommended by the Steering Committee deleting "substantially." The Town has been effectively using the criterion without "substantially" since the 1996 General Plan was adopted. Internal inconsistencies, if any, can continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 2. The third criterion as recommended by the Commission may tend to defer consideration of mitigation measures to a later point in the development process. This is an acceptable approach because a General Plan amendment does not provide any entitlements and because the Town has, in the past, clearly identified key conditions of General Plan amendments to direct the rezoning process and ensure that mitigation measures are in place. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 7 No Amendment Required for MUN or PSP from HDR, p. 13 The paragraph starting with "Proposals for..." conflicts with the amendment matrix. Delete this paragraph. Strategic Implementation Program, p. 13 ARS 9-461.07.A.3 (attached) requires an annual report to the Council on the status of the plan. Add this to the Strategic Implementation Program section (specific wording to be provided separately). The Strategic Implementation Plan as edited by the Commission was provided to the Council at the December 11th hearing. At the study session, the Council requested additional information regarding the resources necessary to implement the SIP and the biennial review of the SIP. Staff estimates that each review will take about 4 months of part-time work and will consume approximately $5,000 of resources. This review process would occur once in between plan updates and once at the start of the next update, in which case its cost would be part of the update. Thus the additional cost of this review is $5,000. Staff recommends keeping this as proposed in the plan. Definition of Policy, p. 14 and p. 16 There are two slightly different definitions of"policy" in the plan. Staff will ensure that all definitions of "policy"match the definition on this page. Mixed Use Neighborhood, p.26 One of the concerns with the MUN designation is the potential for High Density Residential (HDR) in the designation. The draft plan limits the density within the residential portion of the MUN area to no more than 15 units per acre net. This equates to low-density apartments similar to the Golf Villas to the south of Town Hall (14 units per acre). Staff recommends leaving this as recommended by the Steering Committee and Commission to provide appropriate densities to support the transit elements of the MUN and the General Plan, to provide a mix and choice of housing for the growing employment base and aging population in the Town, to provide a disposable income base to support the commercial portions of the MUN and to meet the intent of the growth area element required in State statute. Another concern expressed by both the Steering Committee and the Commission is the need for standards in the MUN policies. The Steering Committee was, and is, adamant that specific standards are needed in the policies to guide drafting of the Zoning Code amendment for the MUN use. The Commission felt that the policies should be worded as guidelines and the specific standards should be developed when the code is drafted. Staff supports the Commission recommendation, and the Steering Committee standards should be made part of the record of deliberations when the Code is drafted. Master Plans, p. 28 The Commission proposed a new policy to require a master plan for the mixed use neighborhood areas around the La Cholla-Tangerine intersection (Policy 1.4.9; see also Policy 1.4.1). Vice Mayor Johnson suggested that this should be expanded to include other areas. The following revisions to Policy 1.4.9 would meet that intent and the policy would need to be moved to the next section "General Land Use"as Policy 1.5.10. The Town shall establish procedures to ensure the coordinated development of large vacant areas, such as the La Cholla-Tangerine intersection, by requiring the development of master plans for those areas. These master plans must consider the impact of development in the area on adjoining, developed properties. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 7 Land Use Map Section, pp. 29-34 The draft lan presented to the Council on December 11th, did not include all of the text changes p recommended by the Commission for the Land Use Map Section (attached). The changes were also presented to the SteeringCommittee (by e-mail in October) and are generally supported by them as well. The only concern bysome members of the Committee is the use of"gross" versus "net" to determine the allowable residential densities. The use of "net" acreage to calculate the allowable density was used to take out areas that would be dedicated for roads, open space, etc. and to ensure that residential densities in any area do not exceed those designated on the land use map. However, using the "net" approach may discourage dedications and may work against clustering to protect open space. The disadvantage of using "gross" is that densities on any portion of the site may exceed the maximum. However, this will only affect residential areas and the descriptions for types of residential (single-family, etc.) and the clustering policies to keep peripheral areas at a lower density would still control the development. The "gross" approach is the one used in the previous plan and is most common in general plans in Arizona. Staff supports orts the language as presented in the attached Land Use Map Section. If the Council is concerned about the use of"net, " Staff could support the following additional limitations to the maximum density: (1) the maximum net density for any area within a designation may not be more than twice the allowable gross density; and (2), the peripheral density may be no more than that allowed in the land use designation. Note: For consistency, all references to "Special Resource Area" will be changed to "Significant Resource Area". High Density Residential, p. 31 The Highlands Neighborhood expressed concerns that mobile or manufactured housing is not allowed uses within the HDR area that includes their neighborhood. Also, the last sentence of this section includes a reference that conflicts with the Amendment Matrix. The section should be revised as follows: This land use designation denotes areas where single-family attached, townhouse, patio home, condominium, and apartment development is appropriate. (Within the existing Highlands subdivision, mobile or manufactured housing is also allowed.) These areas should be located close to arterial access and shopping and employment opportunities. High traffic volume impacts on local, lower density residential streets are discouraged. Public/Seiiii Public uses and Mixed = •I: •I I I •� . Electric Vehicles, p. 60 The General Plan proposes, and the Town is undertaking, a number of actions to support alternative modes of transportation. In particular, Goal 5.6, Policy 5.1.8, and action item CT.8 address electric vehicles. School Site Dedications and Related Policies, p. 75 The Commission recommended deleting the first three bullets in Policy 6.2.1, which required the reservation of school sites for large developments and encouraged the donation of money or land for school facilities. They also recommended deleting Policy 6.2.3 and significantly modifying Policy 6.2.4. The Steering Committee recommendation and the letter from Amphitheater School District (provided in the December 11th packet) should be considered in the deliberation of this policy. As indicated previously, TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 6 of 7 only areas where the dedication provisions could apply is the Kai property(though not at the current or the o y proposed, recommended land use designations) and the State Land property north of Town. The Planning Commission was concerned and believed that, in part due to the decision in the Apache Junction school impact fee case, that the town has no role in school planning beyond what the town needs to do its own pgstaff's opinion. It is that the use of the term's "reserve" and"encourage" meet legal requirements applicant because theyallow the a licant and the school district to reach an agreement on locations and monetary matters. Staff recommends the Steering Committee's wording. County API Application Staff recommends inserting the following to address the County's API application: As of November 7, 2002, the state land department has under review two petitions from Pima County for reclassification o lands as suitablefor conservation: one constitutes the Tortolita Mountain Park and the .f other the eastern biological corridor proposed to help create a connection between the Tortolitas and the Catalinas. The latterP etition, covering lands adjacent to the town, has been on hold, however the state is moving forward with reclassification of the generally higher elevation Tortolita Mountain Park lands. At thispoint it is not possible to say more. As the State administration is undergoing a shift, it is not possible to know what will become of these in the immediate future. (Note: The petition for conservation is noted on page 23 of the draft plan and the issue is addressed, in part, in Policy 11.5.12 although there is no direct reference to the Pima County API petition. Use of"The Town shall..." The spreadsheet (SHALLANALYSIS.XLS) in the December 11thpacket contains a first-pass Th p presentedpolicies analysis of the in terms of how directive they are and whom they direct. In doing this, there were manyjudgment calls. Regardless, it provides a rough indication of the directive nature of the plan and it allows the Council to isolate those policies that are more directive toward the Town and toward others, including the development community. For additional information, Staff has completed an analysis of the cost of implementing the short-term items and will present this in an addendum to this report. Sites for Fire Stations (new SIP action item) Thepolicies in the proposed General Plan regarding fire service are 6.1.3, 6.1.5, 6.4.6. Rural Metro Fire p p prepared has a letter (attached) responding to these suggesting that the action items that currently support these are not enough to meet response standards. Staff recommends that an additional action item be added to the strategic implementation program and tied to the aforementioned plan policies as follows: PFS.17 Create a specific plan identifying the best locales for fire stations and develop a program, including Zoning Code amendments as needed and as authorized by ARS 9- 463.01.D, to ensure that there are available sites for emergency response services.--Fire Marshall--Short Term RECOMMENDATIONS: As presented above. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 7 of 7 Attachments: 1. Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 11/19/02 2. Revised Land Use Map for Kelly Ranch 3. Annual Report (ARS 9-461.07) 4. Revised Land Use Map Section 5. Letter Dated 11/14/2002 from Fred Roof, Rural/Metro i 4),L__. Pla 'g ./4riitdi d Zo g 4dminist ator alA) t Comm-dry Development I. e or 13)tj-1,_:.._ , Town Manager ,--1 F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Staff Reports\Public Hearing staff report#2 to TC.doc November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 NORTH LA CANADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Bill Moody Vice-Chair Don Cox Commissioner Ken Kinared Commissioner Don Manross Commissioner Robert Krenkowitz Commissioner John Anning EXCUSED: Commissioner Bill Matsukado ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Loomis Bill Adler, Board of Adjustment Bryant Nodine,AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Arlan Colten, Project Manager Diane Chapman, Secretary III 1. OV11-01-04 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020—REPORT #6 1andpolicies, and administration of the plan. The Commission is The hearing will focus on the goa s expected to provide a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Nodine pointed out items in the packet for the benefit of the Commissioners and the audience. is a list of all the remaining issues with the Staff recommended motion. Included are most of Staff report. Bill Adler's comments are included and fully annotated even the comments within the p though they are not included in the report. One map included is the result of the Commission's recommendation, takingSteering the Committee Map and adding the P&Z Commission's it. The other mapis the Growth Areas and Urban Service Boundary recommendations on top oft map which shows the original Urban Service Boundary and the recommended revision, which is 1 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting was recommended based on the Land thatUseMapby the Commission. The Growth Areas have laces, based on the decisions on land uses within those growth areas. been pulled back in p This meeting is a continuation of the last meeting, although anything acted upon in the last finalized and the onlywayit could be brought back would be through meeting is reconsideration. Althoughmeeting this was not noticed as a public hearing, the Commission could decide to allow the public to speak if desired. MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED to allow public input. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with 4 yes, 2 no. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:10 P.M. Bill Adler, There is an additional io nal word in F ind ing of Fact#2, "substantial". There is no such thing a being "substantially consistent", you are either consistent or inconsistent. He feels this is an attempt by the Town to avoid meetingthe requirement that all finding must be met. #2,the proposed change must be consistent with the goals and policies, he would like the word "substantially"removed. He has offered some language regarding policy. There is an obvious contradiction in the language in the Plan between what the Steering Committee adopted as a way of defining policy and the way it is defined elsewhere. That contradiction needs to be resolved, preferably in favor of the SteeringCommittee. The Steering Committee considered this comment action. He feels the Steering did not take Committee never discussed and went over the fact #3, which he suggests be added. These findings are important. If we are going to findings of gg approve an amendment, we need to have findings which are understandable, are defensible, and that the Land Use Map is justified and substantially defended. He does not feel there has been enough publicinput for in ut nor consideration of their comments. He does not feel the process reflects the concerns ofthe citizens of Oro Valley. He has tried to outline as thoroughly as possible what he feels is in the public interest. He hopes the Commission will give some serious thought to fact and definitions of policyin particular. He wants the public to have a clear the findings o f . in of what kind of important the Commission is going to attach to this document. understanding p words, guarantee,Moody said if too many like etc., are put in the plan, there can be no change. Things do change. changes may Zoningnot quite meet the findings of fact,but need to be done in the cities s best interest. If the wording is so severe, nothing can be done. When we recommend in the way of change to the Mayor and Council, the Commission and Council both make the right decision for the community. Mr. Adler said that the SteeringCommittee recommended, is that they want the plan to be followed and consistently applied. pp He supports that language. Take the findings of fact, overlaying them on top of the proposalthey and see if match. If they don't match, then you explain you position. Consistentlyapplying does not mean that you are constrained to that language. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:15 P.M. The following motions/recommendations relate to the draft General Plan Update 2020 recommended by the SteeringCommittee on October 8, 2002. All approved motions will be into the plan by the final motion approving the General Plan. incorporated 2 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Oro Valley's Vision for the Future (p. i) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. End of First Paragraph (p. 10) Commissioners agreed to Staff'sshould be recommendation that "UPDATING THE PLAN" the header for the next paragraph. Major Amendment (p. 11) considered a major Policy change would not be amendment. An Update would follow State law,which requires all the aspects of a major amendment. ' z MOVED that the amendment he previously proposed MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowit ed to the Commission November 12th, be adopted. ("The in the materials that were circulated define a Amendment as `a substantial alteration of the Arizona Revised Statutes major use or balance as established in the existing general plan land municipality's land use mixture to the Land Town of Oro Valley, a Major Amendment shall be any change element." In the Y Use Map that meets one or more of the following criteria: Any amendment beyond the Urban Service Boundary. Any amendment that decreases the intensity inside a designated Growth Area. land use designation Any amendment that changes the from residential, master planned g community, or mixed use neighborhood to a non-residential designation; and major Amendment on Table 1, the General Plan Amendment Any amendment shown as a ma Matrix.) Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Discussion. This could be handled in the Matrix by changing it to reflect item #3. It does not have to be stated separatey. Steering 1 . The Committee found in the Future Search, phone pp survey and focus groups,very little support for medium to high density housing in this area. There was support for commercial to a limited extent. They felt that if they had to have medium to high density,they he wanted to make it relatively easy to do and not a major amendment to move from high densityresidential to something in a commercial use. • Laurel decision could be applied to Oro Valley There was discussion whether the Mount . • - • Mount Laurel was a supreme court decision that essentially resident's desires for low density. • use zoning, planningor police powers to exclude segment of stated that no municipality could the community and that there must be spaceincome allocated in the community to locate low or affordable housing. Motion failed with a vote of 3 yes,3 no. Commissioner Matsukado's suggestion regarding major amendments. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Amendment Matrix (p. 12) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 3 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Amendment Process (p. 13) Commissioners agreed to Staff's recommendation that the last line in the Minor Amendment Procedure should be changed to read: "They must include..." Findings of Fact (p. 14) Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to adopt the following revision: Adoption of Amendment. PlanningZoning and Commission shall approve and the Town Council shall adopt an amendment to the General Plan if they conclude from the facts and materials presented that: The amendment, in its entirety, constitutes a benefit to the Town; AND, The amendment mendment is substantiallyconsistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan; AND, , , Anyadverse impact on the Town or adjacent land uses can be mitigated in an acceptable p manner through the subsequent zoning and development process. The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting facts and other materials to support these conclusions by clear and convincing proof. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Matsukado's recommendation to add "benefit" to the glossary of terms. Commissioners agreed to Commissioner Matsukado's recommendation that "benefit" be added to the glossary of terms. Rezoning Conformance (p. 15) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Slope Development, Policy 1.1.2 (p. 31) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Gateways, Policy 1.2.3 (p. 32) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Activity Centers, Policy 1.3.1 (p. 32) MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to add the phrase "compatible with residential uses" following "activity centers." Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Distribution of Commercial Areas Policy,Policy 1.3.3 (p.33) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Non-motorized Access, Policy 1.3.6 (p. 33) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Mixed Use Neighborhood (p. 33) MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED that changes to Policy 1.4.3 be approved as follows: Change"Approximately roximately one third of the area will be designated as open space..." to "A significant portion of the area will be designated as open space..." 4 November 19, 2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Change "At least 10 percent of the area shall be dedicated to public spaces..." to "The development shall provide public spaces..." Change "The remainingarea shall be approximately equally divided between residential and non-residential uses" to "The remaining area shall include a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Commercial uses shall not predominate except as supported byresidential uses in the surrounding community." PP Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Bullet #3, Policy 1.4.5 should require restoration. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Appropriateness ro riateness of smaller properties for the MUN designation Commissioner AnningMOVED to recommend the following additional policy: MOTION: Policy 1.4.9 Due to the number of land owners and the relatively small properties within the La Cholla-Tangerine ine MUN area the Town shall require that the first developer to apply for a rezoning in that area work with the other landowners to submit a development master plan for the area in accordance with Section 4-204.D and 4-205. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Residential Design Features (p. 34) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. General Land Use (p. 36) MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED to recommend the following additional policies: Policy 1.5.6 The Town shall ensure that approval of higher densities approved for high densityresidential projects is based on reducing the negative impacts on adjacent lower density residential projects and providing additional landscaping, open space, and other amenities. Policy 1.5.7 The Town shall require adequate buffering of commercial and employment adjacent ment uses from adjacent neighborhoods,with special consideration being given to placing office uses adjacent to the residential areas. Policy 1.5.8 The Town shall require that Commerce/Office Park uses locate lower intensity uses alongarterial streets with adequate setbacks to reduce the visibility of larger, more intense uses. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Land Use Map Section (p. 37) MOTION: Commissioner AnningMOVED to recommend the attached revisions to the Land Use Map Section with the followingchanges: (Note the Commission already voted to use the gross definition of density.) Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Land Use Compatibility Analysis (new) MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend a new policy and action item as follows: 5 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Policy 1.5.6 "The Town shall provide other jurisdictions an opportunity to comment on allP lan amendments within, or within one-quarter mile of, the planning areas of those jurisdictions." Action Item LU.19 "Revise transmittal procedures to ensure that all amendments to theP lan within, or within one-quarter mile of, the planning areas of other jurisdiction are sent to those jurisdictions for comment—Planning and Zoning—Short Term." Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Mr. NodineP ointed out to the Commission that because this is a change to the P Implementation Plan that was approved at the last meeting, there would have to be a motion to reconsider the Implementation Plan. Make whatever changes and then readopt the Implementation Plan with any amendments made at this meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to table the above motion. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to reconsider the Implementation Plan. Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to table the reconsideration of the Implementation Plan. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. Discussion: It is required by law that intrajurisdictational communication cooperation be provided, but heed the adjacent jurisdictions comments or wishes. It is a coordinating role. In the public participation plan, it is required by the State. It addresses coordinating with P P jurisdictions,adJjacent both with the General Plan and also for any major plan amendments that come through. It is required that word is sent out to them and allows them to have feedbacli, but you can still do what you want to do. There is no process to solve conflicts between jurisdictions. Chair Moody called for a vote on the original motion. Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. Growth Areas and Urban Service Boundary (Figure 4, Land Use Map) MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend incorporation of the Growth Areas and the Urban Service Boundary as shown in the map titled Growth Areas and Urban Services Map into the General Plan Land Use Map dated November 19th. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Discussion: There was a question if it was inconsistent for long term planning to have a different Urban Service Boundary from the Growth Area. Mr. Nodine displayed the map on the overhead screen showing the Commission's recommendation for the General Land Use Plan,turning everything eve thing but the Growth Area. He explained the change areas and why they were proposed. The Urban Service Boundary does not follow the planning areas, but the areas that are designated anything but RLDR. Should Urban Services be consistent with the plansaying area? Staff is not sa in service providers should not plan using the planning area and 6 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting the designation thein general plan, but that for the plan is amended, the policy is to recommend no extension of urban services into those areas. Motion carried by a vote of 4 Yes,2 No. Land Use Element Map (Figure 4) Cox MOVED to identify Commissioner and label Figure 4 Map as "Planned Land Use-2020 General Plan. Commissioner Anningseconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. New Figure: Commercial and Employment Uses Map No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Five Sided Architecture,Policy 2.1.6, (p. 51) MOTION: Commis Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to add "all sides including the roof of the building." Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Community Economic Development Strategy (p. 52) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. CommunityEconomic Development Strategy Policy (p. 55) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Economic Impact Analysis, Policy 3.1.5 (p. 55) MOTION: Commissioner AnningMOVED to add "employment, mixed use neighborhoods, or multifamily..."l ..." to Policy3.1.5. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. Annexation Policy (new) MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED to recommend a new policy and action item as follows: Policy 3.1.9 Recognizing Reco nizin the Town's interest in annexing areas within the planning positiveanalysis and the fiscal of the planning area as a whole, the Town shall annexationpolicies and procedures to expedite annexations within the planning revise area. Action Item ED.5 Revise the annexation policies and procedures to expedite annexations within the planning area—Town Manager— Short Term". Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. Return to top of page 8, LU.19 Action Commissioner AnningMOVED to adopt Action Item LU.19—"Revise transmittal MOTION: procedures to ensure that all amendments to the plan within, or within one-quarter mile of, the planning areas ofjurisdiction other are set to those jurisdictions for comment—Planning and Zoning—Short term. Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. 7 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Costs of Development Policies (p. 59) MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend that Policy 4.1.1 be revised to read, "The long-termimpacts fiscal im acts (NET) to the Town..." and the following be added to the end of Policy4.1.4: "The fair share requirement will recognize the fiscal benefits of the development as well as the costs." Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to amend the motion so the sentence reads "The long-term fiscal aspect, both cost and revenue generation to the Town." Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Amendment to the motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Chair Moody called for a vote on the original motion. Motion carried with 6-0 vote. Consideration of a real estate transfer fee as a mechanism for funding service. MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED to recommend a new policy and action item as follows: Policy The Town shall pursue additional funding mechanisms to provide public services. Action Item Pursue a change to State law to enable new funding mechanisms such as a real estate transfer tax—Town Manager—Medium Term. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Discussion: It was felt that this was not germane to Planning and Zoning. This may be something that is brought to the attention of the Council with a call to the audience. Motion failed with a 1 Yes,5 No vote. MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED that the Commission reconsider the above motion with the Action Item stating Pursue a change to State law to enable new funding mechanisms. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion failed with a 3 Yes, 3 No vote. Recess 7:20—7:30 p.m. Funding Mechanisms (p. 61) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element, General Power, gas and communication—underground utilities No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Ambulance service and medical care facilities. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Geological discussion No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 8 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Flooding potential— 100-year flood No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Renewable water Strategies (p. 88) • the Town has adopted some of the items from the renewable Mr. Nodine stated he believed p water resources report. Alternative supplies are included in the General Plan policies. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Existing & Future Water Infrastructure (p. 92) MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to direct staff to update text as follows: Bullet point 2 on page 92 addresses the use of reclaimed water on turf facilities, however the paragraph in question will be updated based on the Water Utility's current policy,which indicatedwill pursue the use of raw CPA water for turf irrigation and a blend that the Town AP and groundwater to meet potable demands. In addition, of conventionally treated C water the Town willP ursue the use of reclaimed water for turf irrigation. Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Pima County Wastewater(p. 93) MOTION. Commissioner Manross MOVED to direct staff to add the following text to the Wastewater section onP g a es 92-93: "The Pima County Wastewater Management Departmentprovidespublic collection, treatment, and disposal services for sanitary sewage (only) throughout Pima county, includingOro Valley, under a specific grant of legislative the State of Arizona (ARS § 11-264). This legislation broadly authorizes Pima authority from County to operate a wastewater system and to charge fees to recover costs. Additionally, p Pima County is empowered to issue sanitary sewer revenue bonds for the construction, acquisition, and improvement of the public sanitary sewerage system. "Forplanningpurposes, the Town assumes that Pima County will continue provide p p � wastewater treatment for Oro Valley residents, both existing g and future. Also, it should be noted that the build out population o ulation associated with development under the updated General Plan will likely fall considerablybelow the 125,000 stated in the paragraph cited. This number should be updated based on actual estimates produced as part of the General Plan Update." Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Discussion: The question was asked if Pima County has signed a memorandum of andira to support the growth of Oro Valley and accept sewage. For the life understanding pp the General Plan,which is 5 years, if Oro Valley is not operating under the expectancy of 5 CountyWastewater management system, there isn't an alternative. If during the Pima g years the communityis dissatisfied with the service and wants to set up their own wastewater management system that can be pursued. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to amend the motion stating that in addition Staff be directed to cite the agreements or regulations that confirm that we will have the service. Commissioner Anning seconded the amendment to the motion. Amendment to the motion carried with a 6-0 vote. 9 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Chair Moody called for a vote on the original motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Fire Protection and Building Safety(p. 94) MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to recommend staff be directed to add the following text as the end of the section: "The Insurance Services Office (ISO) is a private company that publishes information related to property and liability risk. One of ISO's P Y services is the Public Protection Classification (PPC) Program,which is used to help establish appropriate ro riate fire insurance premiums for residential and commercial properties. For PPC, ISO collects information on a community's public fire protection and analyzes the date using our Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). Based on this information, ISO assigns a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents the best public protection, and Class 10 indicates less than the minimum recognized protection. This classification system is widelyrecognized by communities throughout the United States as an objective, Y countrywide standard that helps fire departments in planning and budgeting for facilities, equipment, and training. And by securing lower fire insurance premiums for communities g with betterP ublic protection, the PPC program provides incentives and rewards for communities that choose to improve their firefighting services. ISO has extensive information on more than 43,000 fire-response jurisdictions. "FireP rotection in Oro Valley is provided by two agencies: Golder Ranch Fire District and Rural Metro. Golder Ranch has an ISO rating of 4,while Rural Metro applies individual ratings for specific properties rather than blanket classification. Rural Metro assigns a Class P 6 rating to subscribing properties within 5 miles of a fire station and a Class 9 to subscribing properties beyond 5 miles. Properties within rural Metro's service area that are not subscribed receive a Class 10 rating." Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Discussion: There is no policy to encourage Rural Metro and Golder Fire Stations to not have fire stations adjacent to each other. Policy 6.1.3 states the Town shall ensure the provision of emergencies.t and efficientThe public safety services to prevent respondo It is not specific. Council may need to review whether the Town has the leverage to start their own service if the other entities are not operating efficiently. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Public Facilities (p. 99) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Public Facilities: School Impacts and Site Dedications (p. 99 & 100) Discussion: The Town currently sends the local school districts transmittals for rezonings, development plans, plats, etc. Their comments, if received, are taken into consideration. Two P or threeY ears ago information was exchanged before they lost their school planner, but has not resumed until recently. "Donations" to schools was also discussed regarding whether the Town should have any business sayto developers encouraging them to donate money. The Commission agreed that it was not the Town's 's place to get involved with the schools requests as far as donations are 10 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting concerned. That instead they should concentrate on good communication from Planning to the schools so that the schools can in turn do the planning necessary to provide the schools with whatever is need for the children. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend revisions to policies as shown below: Policy 6.1.2 The Town shall require that all new developments be evaluated to determine impacts on all PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE TOWN. Such impacts will be used as criteria in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. Policy 6.2.1 The Town shall continue to work with local school districts to ensure coordinatedp lanning of school facilities and exchange of information concerning the development and planning-related issues. Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to amend the motion to include the last two bullets under Policy 6.2.1, • The School district will have the opportunity to determine whether a site, if one is proposed by the developer, is suitable and acceptable for development as a school site. • The Town shall encourage park/school combination dedications. • And,to delete Policy 6.2.3 and renumber Policies 6.2.5,6.2.6, and 6.2.7. Revise Policy 6.2.4 to read: "The Town shall consider student safety at the time of development review." Commissioner Manross seconded the amendment to the motion. Discussion: With Policy 6.2.4, student safety becomes an element in the consideration of the Development Review Board. The area would need to have structures and lighting in the area, keep trees and shrubs away from the student corridors. Schools should not be part of the decision of whether or not a general plan amendment or a rezoning is allowed. Amendment to the motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Chair Moody called for a vote on the original motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. School Sites, Policy 6.2.1 (p. 100) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Evacuation Routes,Policy 6.4.7 (p. 102) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Housing Forecasts (p. 103) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 11 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Neighborhood Quality (p. 105) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Parks for Visitors (p. 108) • geared to providingprimarily for the community and the suggestion Discussion: The Town is is that parks will help create tourism. Staff says that it is the area, resorts, etc., that create tourism, not parks. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Parks for Visitors (p. 109,second bullet) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Parks for Visitors Goal 8.3 (p. 116 MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED that goal 8.3 be revised by removing reference to "facilities for the visualperforming and erformin arts" but not to add "and visitors." Commissioner Manross seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Art Commerce (p. 120) MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to add "businesses" after"educational PARTNERSHIPS on page 120. Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. institutions" under P g Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. Art to Attract Visitors (p. 120) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Arts Districts, Policy 9.1.6 (p. 121) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Archeological & Historic Resources Element, General. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Mass Grading, Policy 11.2.17 (p. 143) MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend the following change to Policy Commis shallprohibit mass grading for all residential developments WITHIN 11.2.17: The Town LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE and less dense and SHALL strongly discourage it throughout the community. Commissioner Manross seconded g the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Water Resources Element, General. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Alternative Water Supplies (p. 153) Discussion: Reclaimed 1 imed water should not be used for human consumption. It must be processed which eliminates bacteria that can create problems is residential areas next to golf 12 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting courses. There is a State statute that is required on the processing of reclaimed water, as well as how it is used and applied. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to recommend a new policy and action item as follows: Policy 12.2.6 The Town shall meet all State & Federal regulations regarding the treatment, quality, and monitoring required with the use of reclaimed water to assure that its use does not pose health dangers. Action Item WR.9 Set up procedures to meet all State and Federal regulations regarding the treatment, quality, and monitoring required for the use of reclaimed water— Water Director—Long Term. Motion died for a lack of a second. Discussion: There was a question as to whether the Policy and Action Item can be passed together,which is acceptable. MOTION: Commission Kinared MOVED to redo the same motion. Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Environmental Planning Tenses (p. 158, second paragraph) MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED to have Staff correct the verb tenses in lines 3, 4, 6, and 7 from future tense to past. Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. 03 Levels (p. 159, second paragraph, line 2) MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to have Staff modify text as follows: "03 has not exceeded standards but has maintained at 85-90% of the standard, primarily due to favorable weather conditions and vehicle fleet turnover." Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Definition of Goal(p. 162) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Supplemental Reports (p. 165) MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to have Staff include a listing of all reports mentioned in the text of the General Plan, including the date of the report and location where it may be found. Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. General Comments to Economic Growth Identify "office uses" (first part) No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Graduate/Post Graduate Programs (second part) Discussion: The two parts say that the Town needs to go beyond K-12 into secondary education, and going into other programs such as an extension campus. If we expect to attract clean industries, the Town needs to have a plan to do so and also an environment that 13 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting attracts and sustains its employees. 6.2.7 addressedgetting Pima College and the University of Arizona to bring branch campuses to our area. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. ED that the following language be added to Policy MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOV ace "The Town shall acquire/encourage a fee in 11.1.2 regarding «fee in lieu op for opens space, lieuro ram for the acquisition of open space." P g stated. The purpose of the fee in lieu program is for Discussion: Policy 11.1.1 and 11.1.2 were st . • open space right there; you can provide a fee that will when you can't provide appropriate p g a that it does need. The allow the Town to acquire open spaceCommission could add statement that says the acquisition of open the Town shall acquire a fee in lieu program for space. Motion died from lack of a second. MR. BILL ADLER'S COMMENTS: A.a. Establish consistent language n pertainingto the purpose of the General Plan. g • providesgeneralguidance and there appears to be nothing Discussion: The General Plan inconsistent about the statement.tement. The General Plan and guidance should not be too defined MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED,that on page 5 of the General Plan ned General Nature, to delete the word "general", so the documents, paragraph captioned"As thesuggest,reads name su est,the General Plan provides guidance for the future..." Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. A.b. Establish consistentlanguage lan a with regard to the term, "Policy". g on Page 19 what changed was the addition to the last sentence. Discussion: Policy definition • • of limited Both statements are commitment statements, but recognizes that prioritization implementGeneral Planimpact the timeliness of implementation of resources to the may • word shall, but recognize that it cannot always be achieved. specific policies. Keep the • MOVED that on page 17 of the General Plan, paragraph MOTION: Commissioner Kinared P g • word "shall", so the sentence reads "A course of action that captioned Policies, to delete the the Town "intends" to take..."ake..." Commissioner Anning seconded the motion. Motion failed with a 3 Yes, 3 No vote. Krenkowitz MOVED that the last sentence under Commissioner the headingubstitute • "Implicit in the word `shall' is a..." be deleted. In place thereof s Policy on page 19, Implicit to "Not withstandingthe foregoing, prioritization of limited resources the following: No specific policies." implement the General Plan may impact the timeliness of implementation of p Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried by a 6-0 vote. A.c.i. Findings of Fact No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 14 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting A.c.ii. Findings of Fact No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. A.c.iii. Findings of Fact No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. A.d.i and ii. Strategic Implementation Plan Discussion: The Work Plan includes implementation, implementing ordinances, etc. There are items that include consistencywith the General Plan in development review, not just in regalready processes. There are in place to accomplish Mr. Adler's intentions. It was discussed whether the SteeringCommittee should be used in the two year review, and whether the Commission should forward comments to the Council to that effect. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. Break 8:55—9:05 p.m. Discussion: question The was asked if the Steering Committee had actually addressed all the issues. If there were issues that were not reviewed by the Steering Committee Commissioner Cox agreed to advise the Commission. B.a.i. Market Demand Discussion: Chapter 3 will be brought at a later date. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. B.b Equitable Access Discussion: Private recreational areas are defined in the Code. Where it says opportunities for residents, it was meant for residents within that community being served by that private recreation. people Whydo the that live there need to have permission to use space? This is meant to avoid the recreational areas where it is thrown on the"giveaway" land at the outskirts of the property. Access is by negotiation No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. B.c. View Protection No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. B.d. Densities No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.a. 1.2.3 - Define Gateway Characteristics. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 15 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting C.b. 1.3.1 No support su ort for locating residential neighborhoods close to activity centers. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.c. Mixed Use Neighborhood. Discussion: Theresupportpublic was not for transit because it is for a limited number of residents. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.d. Addition to 2.1.4. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED that the following language be added to Policy 2.1.4: "...minimize impacts on views from adjacent properties and streets, and from �� and streets internal to the proposed project...". Commissioner Krenkowitz seconded properties the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. C.e. 6.4.5—Change wording. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.f. 8.5.1 —Remove wording. Discussion: The Oro Valley Task Force Trails plan has been accepted. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to make the policy changes as shown in CAPS below. 8.4.1 The Town shall encourage and support the development of regional trails and other trails, PER THE TRAILS TASK FORCE REPORT, that provide for public access to large natural resource areas in the vicinity of the Town. 8.5.1 The Town shall encourage and participate in the development of a multiple-use trail system IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRAILS TASK FORCE REPORT, to ultimately,where possible, connect to public preserves and the regional trail network per the applicable Town trails plan, and the pedestrian and bicycle plan. Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. C.g. 9.1.3—Add: GOVAC... Discussion: GOVAC does not publicize or post their meetings. It is a private organization. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.h. 11.1.12 Add wording. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.i. 11.2.17 —Mass grading. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 16 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting C.j. 11.5.1 Advisory Committee—ESL Committee Discussion: This committee is an advisory committee only. The Steering Committee addressed at length whether they should use an independent commission and they chose to use the advisory committee method. It impact of a change in 11.5.1 would changes in other policies as well. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.k. 11.5.6 Land swaps/trades. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.l. Add New Policy re: neighborhood design. Discussion: The Town has design guidelines, and this is also addressed in the standards in the code. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.m. Add New Policy re: "cookie-cutter" residential design. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.n. New Policy re: Recreational space. Discussion: The current standard is 1 acre for every 85 units of single family for recreational space. For multi-family, it is an acreage requirement based on the size of the site. There is also a policy whereby the developer can dedicate land to the Town. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.o. New Policy re: Recreational Facility. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.p. New Policy re: Annexation of residential areas. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.q. New Policy re: Attracting Major Employment Centers. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.r. New Policy re: Transit Development Plan. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.s. New Policy re: Privately funded Commercial Transit System. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. C.t. New Policy re: Development projects impact upon groundwater. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 17 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting IMPLEMENTATION STEPS PROPOSED Goal 2.1 Policies 2.1.4, 4 and 7 must be implemented. ADD CD.2. No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. LU.1 does not implement Policies 1.1.3 and 4 No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. LU.8 Reinstate to support Policy 1.2.1 No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. 0510 must support Policy 11.3.3 No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. LU.13 must include solicited public comment No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. LU.15 must result in ordinance No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. LU.14 must support Policy 1.3.4 No motion; leave as recommended by Steering Committee. PFS.12 Add "Work with Planning and Zoning..." the Police Discussion: PFS.12 simply saysDepartment needs to put together a CIPTD program for development review. This takes it a step further and puts it in the Code. Kinared MOVED to add the following to PFS.12, "Work with MOTION: Commissioner Kina Planning and Zoning to add theseg as Design Guidelines in the Code." Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. PR.7 Amend Action Item. MOTION: Commissioner Kinared MOVED to amend the Action Item PR.7 as follows: "Initiate a phased Trail Location,Acquisition,uisition and Development Program INCLUDING THE ANNUAL ACTION ITEMS IN THE TRAILS TASK FORCE REPORT. Parks & Rec. Short Term." Commissioner g Annie seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. RETURN TO PAGE 19 OF THE STAFF REPORT. Draft General Plan Policy Document AnningMOVED to recommend approval of OV11-01-04 Draft MOTION: Commissioner General Plan Policy Document of October 8, 2002 as recommended by the Steering • byprevious motions. Commissioner Kinared seconded the Committee and as amended Motion. 18 November 19,2002 DRAFT Minutes Planning Commission Meeting AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Krenkowitz MOVED to amend the motion so as to conform it to the Statute so it reads as recommended by the Steering Committee and as amended by previous motions and that the Draft General Plan Policy Document be transmitted to the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley with the recommendation that it be adopted. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Chair Moody called for a vote on the original motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Implementation Plan MOTION: Commissioner Manross MOVED to bring the Implementation Plan back for action recommending approval as amended by previous motions. Commissioner Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. MOTION: Commissioner Anning MOVED to adopt a motion commending the Steering Committee for their tireless efforts on this product and to thank them. Chair Moody seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Cox MOVED that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Kinared seconded the motion. Motion carried with a 6-0 vote. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted fldif , _.•a Diane Chapman, Recgirding Secretary 19 r 0 7:) 0 0 r (T, F.ii r- r- . . _.... . k .',' • ,,,,, ,,,.... --.- -------7 'Py, -Vp� A 1F . ry 6 ml '. i c. 4wr •. ... tlti,-- �" ,r. �bt.,,,...4.i.... ...\ -I.-----\--‘ �- e I •—.it, _.., v � A ' ? - 15,3 .-• v.cr... to in. ..„,4;_ir, . , ,...,4,,,,i-,.. _. ......;., ."4 --,,,,, ....,,L... ..iii.. .E7..1(71,14 ` i: Ano O a_ y * -->tt~� P .:a�,i#`�r"IeK r i iii „�,;o _ ;' .7,1'. ----., ,. 4 r. K to O i i� irk, z r , `* ( i(rj oi=' '` cs sn. ,.4e , 0 ,,,,, it z6 �jd 1N C w 0 ...apt, ,.. - w� es."�__�� v�o4 ..i -moi°r �,-._ ritt vt C 6) H -0 ,*,.;-'...„ ' *"...j.,,,-.--'--- '' ..' i .-.-- 3s,,,..--' ..„..-- . '.1 . . ,...- ,‘,VV.-- . 1 J.4370 ' 3-. ...4 o, , , ,,, li• ' ) '1,k....044,fr' Irkt: -e .g ,a .9, ." ' t , _1.....„,,,, - .. eir., • ...,.... , ,,, ., . ,, , . ..,,,,....t _ 'f" A ' a '- 4 .II'••• .&:/190`C-- ,' ,,,, ,1500. /^'3 r Z. l ` - R.. r . Y T !2- 2 N • ,- • rR • 4 ` , air ` u *• Ma► ..toma.• .�- \ r r y cr- o 1 N N O-, 3 (D O a) ., v D { n—Nca'n SI (1) (.):) °:a) O ,.- Ill C - 1 O 0 n o.< 0 0 Z fD (i} .0.. 7.1 to 1 (D O -,O -. 1 F i N n N !y i n '. — 0 1y ,fir to v C R = a} O -N O 1� I z z 12 N a a a) j 0 O ii i (D N 5 Cl 8 N mri EiT Oem I tl? Vr.Af....--7.1 'N :., i _ di 0 co -R-H�Zo 0 C7 . --I,o cD m m (D o N Ota n ' o s' o �:Q (D 0 ' m x O Q) a_o ,,,/ o -VQ co a) O C S -- p- _ rtn q O(DD N((D O 18 g sv '-r im lv•, �U3 z'-f 71 �� m tD _ 7.(7(D C , ' \:11111N .. , , -------,......_ .3 I _(D r. /moi 1?i a+ �. o Ota (D O w iii ...- 3O a (D O.tu-o ofNik..16.; .. • --,: • -'0;., ill 11 I ,,u) fliJ m ?a a O D, S z< N o °' CDG^ f a) ...Z Q. F -n 1C; r Ti N oi u) o _?.. = '41111111N `....,,, iii (D N. E o (o N \\\ , N-/ z> fD O �• I o to k tv `‘ Vs.. 0 o O 33. 1 9-461.07 - Administration of<b>general</b><b>plan</b> Page 1 of 1 9-461.07. Administration of general plan A. After the municipal legislative body has adopted a general plan, or amendment thereto, the planning agency shall undertake the following actions to encourage effectuation of the plan: 1. Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative body upon reasonable and practical means for putting into effect the general plan or part thereof in order that it will serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly growth and development of the municipality and as a basis for the efficient expenditure of its funds relating to the subjects of the general plan. The measures recommended may include plans, regulations, financial reports and capital budgets. 2. Render an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the plan and progress in its application. 3. Endeavor to promote public interest in and understanding of the general plan and regulations relating to it. 4. Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional and other organizations and citizens generally with relation to carrying out the general plan. B. Upon adoption of a general plan or part thereof, each municipal officer, department, board or commission, and each governmental body, commission or board whose jurisdiction lies entirely or partially within the municipality, whose functions include recommending, preparing plans for or constructing major public works, shall submit to an agency, as designated by the respective municipal legislative body, a list of the proposed public works located entirely or partially within the municipality recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the ensuing fiscal year. The agency shall list and classify all such recommendations and shall prepare a coordinated program of proposed public works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program shall be submitted to the municipal planning agency for review and report to such agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereof. C. No public real property may be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, no public real property may be disposed of, no public street may be vacated or abandoned and no public building or structure may be constructed or authorized, if an adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with such adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with such adopted general plan or part thereof within forty days after the matter was submitted to it. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to acquisitions or abandonments for street widening or alignment projects of a minor nature if the legislative body so provides by ordinance or resolution. Oro ValleyGeneral Plan Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) November 19,200 P&Z Recommendation: 1.5.6 The Town shall ensure that approval of higher densities approved for high density residentialpJ ro'ects is based on reducing the negative impacts on adjacent lower density residentialp rojects and providing additional landscaping, open space,and other amenities. 1.5.7 The Town shall require adequate buffering of commercial and employment uses from adjacent neighborhoods,with special consideration being given to placing office uses adjacent to the residential areas. 1.5.8 The Town shall require that Commerce/Office Park uses locate lower intensity uses along arterial streets with adequate setbacks to reduce the visibility of larger, more intense uses. 1.5.9 The Town shall provide other jurisdictions an opportunity to comment on all plan amendments within, or within one-quarter mile of,the planning areas of those jurisdictions. LAND USE AND AIR QUALITY 1.6 To Promote Land Use Planning Practices that Benefit the Air Quality of Oro Valley and the Region 1.6.1 The Town shall encourage high density development to concentrate along existing or planned transit corridors within growth areas. 1.6.2 The Town shall ensure connectivity of major arterial routes, bicycle routes and pedestrian routes. 1.6.3 The Town shall encourage mixed use development with amenities such as day care facilities, bicycle and pedestrian access, employment and housing. 1.6.4 The Town shall ensure predictable, significant enforcement levels for regulating construction and maintenance activities that may produce significant amounts of dust, particularly during high winds. 1.6.5 The Town shall ensure that areas appropriately zoned and planned for commercial use are developed. 1.6.6 The Town shall establish and maintain minimum density and intensity standards for development within planned activity centers and Mixed Use Neighborhoods, particularly for planned transit corridors. 1.6.7 The Town shall promote access management practices for significant roadways in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of future conflicts and multiple access points. 1.6.8 The Town shall prepare standards for evaluating developments of regional impact(regional traffic generators), including an analysis of other committed or planned development within a project's impact area. LAND USE MAP The Land Use Map for the General Plan depicts the proposed general uses of land within Oro Valley. It functions as official Town policy on the allocation and distribution of different land uses. This pattern of land uses is shown on the Land Use Map by means of various land use designations, each of which denotes specific types of land use. The boundary lines between land use designations are shown as preciselas possible, and generally follow propertylines, washes, and/or roads. The Town's 29 Land Use Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) Oro Valley General Plan P&Z Recommendation:November 19, 2002 Zoning Map implements the General Plan land use designations by ordinance at a much more detailed, parcel-specific level. LAND USE STANDARDS Following is a brief explanation of the Town's approach to stating land use intensity standards for the designations appearing on the Land Use Map, followed by descriptions of the usesp ermitted under and standards associated with each designation. In addition to characterizing land use designations according to types of allowable uses, the General Plan must, according to state law, specify for each land use designation standards ofpop ulation density and building intensity. Standards of building intensity for residential uses are stated in this General Plan in terms of the allowable range of dwelling units per net gross acre. Standards of population density for residential uses can be derived by multiplying the maximum number of dwellings per netross acre bythe g average number of persons per dwelling unit, which for purposes of this General Plan is assumed to be 2.41 persons (based on the average household size reported in the 2000 Census). Standards of building intensity for non-residential uses are stated in terms of maximum allowable floor-area Various Building Configurations ratios (FARs). A floor-area ratio is the ratio of the gross Representing an FAR of 1.00 building square footage permitted on a lot to the net square footage of the lot. For example, on a lot with /~ 10,000 net square feet of land area, an FAR of 1.00 will allow 10,000 square feet of gross square feet of building floor area to be built, regardless of the number of stories • in the building (e.g., 5,000 square feet per floor on two `--. -- floors or 10,000 square feet on one floor). On the same lot, an FAR of 0.50 would allow 5,000 square feet of floor area and FAR of 0.25 would allow 2,500 square feet. The diagram to the right illustrates how buildings of one and two stories could be developed on a given lot with an FAR of 1.00. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The Land Use Map of this General Plan uses 14 land use designations to types depict the of land uses p that will be allowed in Oro Valley. Following are brief descriptions of the intent of each of the land use designations appearing on the Land Use Map. Rural Low-Density Residential(R-LDR 0-0.3 DU/AC) This land use designation denotes areas of large lot single-family development in a rural environment. Rural low-density residential designation areas range up to 0.3 dwelling unitsp er acre. Areas of rural residential development are appropriate where there is a desire to retain a rural lifestyle or where protection of the natural environment is necessary. This category is primarilyY be and the Urban Growth Services Boundary . -: --' 4- 4- ----•--4 .- -- - - - • •-- land use patterns, nd r tura/ constraints. 4gtete:Ria `tom Land Use 30 Oro Valley General Plan Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) P&Z Recommendation: October Q '2002November 19,200 Low-Density Residential(LDR 0.4-1.2 DU/AC) The district denotes areas where single-family residential development is desirable, but only if it is at a density that will permit retention of a rural, open character. Low-density residential designation areas range up to 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Delineation of building envelopes on individual lots is also encouraged to clearly indicate which areas will be disturbed and which will not. Low-Density Residential(LDR 1.3-2.0 DU/AC) The district denotes areas where single-family residential development is desirable, but only if it is at a density that will permit retention of an rural, open character. Low-density residential designation areas range up to 2.0 dwelling units per acre. Delineation of building envelopes on individual lots is also encouraged to clearly indicate which areas will be disturbed and which will not. Medium-Density Residential(MDR 2.1-5.0 DU/AC) This designation is where single-family detached, townhouse, or patio home development is suitable, ranging from 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These areas should be located close to schools, shopping, and employment. High-Density Residential(HDR 5.1+ DU/AC) This land use designation denotes areas where single-family attached, mobile or manufactured housing, townhouse, patio home, condominium, and apartment development is appropriate. These areas should be located on the periphery of medium density residential areas and should capitalize on close to arterial access and adjacent shopping and employment opportunities. High traffic volume impacts on local, lower density residential streets are discouraged. Public/semi-public uses • Master Planned Community(MPC) This land use designation refers to areas where large multi-use developments should be planned and developed in a comprehensive manner. Density ranges will be determined at the time of rezoning by examining the development plan and development impact analysis. Any proposed master planned community designation requires the submittal of a concept plan. Mixed Use Neighborhood(MUN) This designation is intended to be a setting for compact, transportation-efficient land use patterns and • • . . . . . . . . . . . • - - -- •-• - - _. - -- • - •-- -- - •-- -- • Mixed Use Neighborhood may include a mix of housing types at a net density of not less than 5 to 15 dwelling units per acre. Supporting commercial and services uses may be developed at FARs defined in the appropriate zoning district as specified in Policy 1.4.8. Non-residential uses are encouraged to be included as part of a neighborhood center, including retail stores, convenience stores, personal and business services and offices, community facilities and other uses designed to primarily serve the needs of everyday living in the neighborhood. Supporting land uses, such as parks,—and recreation, shall be included, and public facilities, churches and schools, may be included. A full range of urban services and infrastructure is required. Any proposed mixed-use -:: -::: :- -. •:- -:.• t w: 31 Land Use Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) Oro Valley General Plan P&Z Recommendation:November 19, 2002 Resort and Golf Course (RGC) This designation denotes areas where resorts, country clubs and golf courses are appropriate. Resorts include hotel accommodations, restaurants, health clubs, and recreation facilities. Country clubs do not include hotel accommodations. Golf courses may be associated with a resort or club of may also include specific golf-related activities such as clubhouses, driving ranges, and storage yards. Neighborhood Commercial and Office (NCO) This designation denotes commercial and office areas located with good arterial access (i.e., at the intersections of arterial roadways or along Oracle Road) that are close to residential areas. Within these areas, uses such as grocery stores, drugstores, and offices tend to serve the surrounding neighborhoods and are integrated with those neighborhoods. Offices include professional offices, tourism-related businesses, and services. The recommended maximum FAR in the NCO designation is that of the C-1 zoning districtO.20. Community/Regional Commercial(CRC) This designation is for commercial areas at the intersections of principal arterials. Uses may include variety stores, small department stores, and large-scale commercial uses (such as major department stores) that can be sited to serve regions of the metropolitan area. The recommended maximum FAR in the CRC designation is that of the C-2 zoning district8 . Commerce/Office Park(COP) This designation denotes areas where commercial, office, and/or light manufacturing can occur. These uses can occur in a planned business park-type of environment with clustered buildings and inward focused activity. Commerce parks often include a mix of light industrial, professional office, office/showroom, office/warehouse, retail services, and related uses. The specific zoning district will be determined based upon site use, adjacent land use impact, and intensity of development. The recommended maximum FAR in the COP designation is that of the Technological Park zoning districtO 2 . Public/Semi-Public(PSP) This designation denotes acreage dedicated for public or semi-public uses which include churches, police/fire substations, and hospitals. The recommended maximum FAR in the PSP designation is that of the Technological Park zoning district. Schools (SCH) , and sSchools mare public or private places of general instruction. General instruction includes including public and charter schools where grades K-12 are taught, and junior and four-year colleges and universities. The recommended maximum FAR in the PSP designation is that of the Technological Park zoning district. Parks (PARK)749-S-) This designation denotes areas that arc to be precluded from development except for have been developed or set-aside as public/semi-public recreational facilities. Land Use 32 Oro Valley General Plan Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) P&Z Recommendation: November 19,200 Open Space (OS) These are areas that have been preserved through zoning, conservation easements, or public ownership - - -• -- - - - -- - -;•-_ : - - • - • Speeial- • Significant Resource Area (SRA) This designation denotes areas that contain natural, key historic or archeological sites or other environmentally sensitive lands. It is an overlay that includes areas that have been preserved and those that should be preserved through the methods listed in the Open Space Element. If these areas are not preserved, any development that takes place in them with characteristics that arc to be preserved. Where development occurs it should be blended with the natural landscape, promote preservation of scenic vistas, protect wildlife habitat, and preserve important archeological and historic sites by clustering and cultural heritage by developing very large parcels (1 unit for 3 or more}at the lowest density in the underlying designation. -- ; ; - = • •- ;; - = ,, bl is uti�+ty easements, arterial carr-id-ors, and other regional l-i-F-k ages that exist in the Planning Area. National Forest(NF) This designation is applied only to the Coronado National Forest, which is a wilderness area with limited recreational uses permitted (e.g., hiking). • . .. P . . .. . • • . . • • • .. . .. • Certain parcels i-n the planning area have been identified that carry on-e or more of the following • • lack of funding �r other factors. A general plan amendment is not rc uircd to ut-ltze a back-up designation but the primary land use designation will he considered when cva-kiatr-rrg a rezoning or per acre. - - - - - •- - - --- •-- -- --- • - - -• --•• .• . .• -• :•• - di - . • - While these agreements will be recognized during a rezoning application, the intent of the primary Speeial-Ceftditions S' of 33 Land Use rt 1 4 Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) Oro Valley General Plan P&Z Recommendation:November 19, 2002 GROWTH AREAS • -=•• - -- = - =•••- - - . , The Town has identified five "growth areas,:" As transportation and i n f racstr t cturrc expansion and i m p rove meots designed to support a planned • / I •• - • V • • . r . r--_-- • _ uses." These as follows: 1. Oracle Road/Tangerine Road: Southeast Rancho Vistoso commercial center, the campus industrial park in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3, and adjacent areas. 2. Oracle Road/First Avenue: The Target Center, Steam Pump Ranch, Honeywell, and adjacent areas. 3. Oracle Road/Magee Road: Westward Look and adjacent areas. 4. Foothills Mall Area: Bounded generally by La Cholla, Ina, Shannon, and Magee Roads. 5. La Cholla Road/Tangerine Road: The area encompassing the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners of the intersection of La Cholla and Tangerine. As defined in the State statutes, these are areas "that are particularly suitable for planned multi- modal transportation and infrastructure expansion and improvements designed to support a planned concentration of a variety of uses, such as residential, office, commercial, tourism and industrial uses." URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY Figure 4: Land Use MapFigxure 4: Land Use Map delineates an Urban Services Boundary (USB) around most of the Planning Area. The Town does not intend to provide urban infrastructure to areas outside of the USB. These indicates areas tel-should not receive any increase in density or land use intensity over what currently exists :- • • - • :.- •• • • . - -• -: . - =--- - , into these areas. Therefore, t is stro-ngly recommended that the Tom C jurisdictions consider and tutor- the existing resident's wishes to ma+ntain the rural character of the LAND USE MAP The Land Use Map designates land within the town according to the 14 designations described above and summarized in Table 3Table 3. These designations are depicted in Figure 4 . sZ3 Land Use 34 Oro Valley General Plan Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02)P&Z Recommendation: November 19, 200 Table 33: Planning Area Land Use Designations and Acreage Distribution Designation Label Acres % of Total Rural Low Density Residential RLDR 10,212.8 7,115.9 20.6%14.4% Low Density Residential (0.4 - 1.2) LDR 1 8,416.88,184.7 17.0%16.5° Low Density Residential (1.3 - 2.0) LDR 2 1,155.6853.0 2.3%1-7-74 n Medium Density Residential MDR 5,060.95,796.7 10.2%11.7% Hi h Density Residential HDR 1,552.3626.8 3.1%473-% ° Mixed Use Neighborhood ,MU N 4 431.0215.0 0.9%0744 Master Planned Community MPC 682.4- 1.4%07994 Resort/Golf Course R/GC 1,919.91,739.1 3.9%375-94 Neighborhood Commercial/Office NCO 879.41,173.1 1.8%274-94 � 1.0%8,9%Community/Regional Commercial CRC 511.7422.0 /0°08 Commerce/Office Park COP 741.0957.9 1.5%1 % Public/Semi-Public PSP 519.43 1.0%-1,6134 School SCH 442.9 0.9% Parks PARK 3,888.84,043.9 7.9%8 Open Space OS 8,009.1 16.2% P Special Resource Area � 12,540.7 25.3% l' National Forest NF 5,056.95,055.8 10.2% _Total 49480.949,535.3 100.0% Deleted Area(Catalina) DEL 163.3 Significant Resource Area(Overlay) SRA 13,573.9 r47- - S.` R 35 Land Use Draft General Plan Policy Document(Updated 12/16/02) Oro Valley General Plan P&Z Recommendation:November 19, 2002 Land Use 36 a A lir tro ura e Fire Department 50 Years of Serving Others November 12, 2002 NOV 1 4 2002 Bryant Nodine Planning and Zoning Administrator 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ. 85737 Dear Sir, I have reviewed the General Plan update and did not see any changes in this document that address the need for fire/rescue facilities. As I read the code and the plan, you are staying with an outdated plan allowing fire/rescue stations in zones C-1 and C-2 only, the most expensive zones, with a conditional use permit. This plan does not consider the health, safety and welfare of the Oro Valley businesses or residents. You are forcingfacilities into areas that may prolong life saving response times. It will also force the current fire providers, Golder Ranch and Rural/Metro, as well as the Town of Oro Valley's future fire department to have delayed response times, additional unnecessary stations and additional fire insurance premium costs due to the improper placement of these facilities. This will be a great expense to the residents of the Town. As I have pointed this out during plan review meetings and in correspondence sent to the review committee, this plan is creating a great safety and financial burden on the residents of Oro Valley. Neither the plan nor the code address the nationally recognized NFPA standards and the ISO rating service requirements for the placement of these facilities. Once again, I ask that you take the health, safety and welfare of your constituents into consideration. Sincerely, ct,s4\, Fred Roof Special Projects District Chief cc: Mayor Loomis Chief John Fink, Golder Ranch Fire District 490 West Magee Tucson,Arizona 85704 Phone(520)297-3600 Fax(520)797-1825 MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL 0 1,-,A FTSPECIAL SESSION DECEMBER 11, 2002 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS `y 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 7:02 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor(Arrived at 7:15 p.m_ Paula Abbott, Council Member Bart Rochman, Council Member43 Werner Wolff Council Member •'4 4014 Alf. Mayor Loomis explained to the members of thepublic that the purpose of tonight s y * special session is to hold apublic hearingon the Town's General Plan. He stated that the p Mayor and Council are here to listen to public input from the citizens and no decision to approve the General Plan will be made tonight. He announced that the current schedule, for the General Plan is to hold the second public hearing on January 6, 2003 with possible adoption of the General Plan on January 15, 2003. He stressed that this schedule is not i p "cast in stone." PUBLIC HEARING—OV11-01-04 -DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE"2020 Project Consultant Bob Lagomarsino from URS Corporation explained that a General Plan is a Policy Guide for future development and land use for the Town. He explained how a General Plan is used and gave a process overview. He explained that the Project Team consisted of the following groups: • Steering Committee 19 members Appointed by Town Council Broad cross-section of interests • P &Z Commission Advisory Responsibility • Town Staff Community Development Department Lead Other Department Heads (Support) • Technical Advisory Committee Town Staff External Agencies Other Technical Resources • Community Participants Residents Property Owners - Business Owners 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 2 • Town Council Legislative Authority Responsible for adoption of Plan and placement on ballot • Consultants Public Participation Action Plan included: • Future Search Conference • Three (3)Newsletters • Web Site (wti'vw.update2020.com) • Speakers Bureau • Project Displays • Two (2) Open Houses • Five (5) Focus Group Meetings • Eighteen (18)public meetings • Newspaper Coverage • Steering Committee • Technical Advisory Committee General Plan Update Process 1. Information gathering, Issue Identification, and Visioning. 2. Alternatives Preparation and Evaluation. 3. Draft General Plan Preparation. 4. Plan Adoption and Ratification. Alternatives Prep and Evaluation • 1996 General Plan was Point of Departure. F• Policy and Map Alternatives. • Focus Group Workshops: February and March 2002. Open Space,Natural Resources and Environment: 35 participants. Circulation and public services: 30 participants. - Parks, Recreation, and Culture: 30 participants. Land Use and Development: 40 participants. Community Land Use (Scenarios): 100 participants. • Public Open House May 20, 2002: 150 participants. Land Use Emphasis. • Steering Committee Review Draft General Plan Preparation • Basic structure and content of 1996 Plan retained. • Policy and map revisions reflect public input received during alternatives evaluation process. • Extensive review of draft content by Steering Committee. • 60 day Review Draft published on July 24, 2002. Mandated primarily to facilitate external agency review,but also open to public comments. 75 comment letters/e-mails/forms and 950 individual comments. Staff catalogued and summarized every comment. Steering Committee reviewed, deliberated, and developed recommendation for each comment. • Steering Committee Draft published October 8, 2002 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 3 Plan Adoption and Ratification • Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings - Study Sessions: October 22 and November 19, 2002. - Public Hearings, October 15,November 12 and 19, 2002 - Recommendation to Town Council • Town Council Hearings - Study Sessions: October 25,November 25 and December 2, 2002. - Public Hearings: December 11, 2002 and January 6, 2003 - Adoption by supermajority(2/3) - Placement on Ballot • Voter Ratification - Ratification Election Targeted for May 20, 2003. - Simple Majority for ratification (50%plus 1 vote) Mr. Lagomarsino reviewed the Elements in the Plan Update: 1. Land Use (includes Growth Area*) 2. Community Design 3. Economic Development 4. Cost of Development* 5. Transportation/Circulation (includes Transit) 6. Public Facilities, Services, Safety 7. Housing 8. Parks and Recreation 9. Arts and Culture 10. Archaeological and Historic Resources 11. Open Space* and Natural Resource Conservation 12. Water Resources* 13. Environmental Planning* * New Element. Element Contents • Statement of Intent • Growing Smarter/Plus Requirements • Background Setting/Existing Conditions • Key Policy Issues • Goals and Policies (including Maps and Standards) Administration of the Plan General Plan Updates • Update every 5 years • Process - Use current General Plan - Tie to a review of the Strategic Implementation Program - Evaluate effectiveness in meeting Community Goals • Follow Adopted Public Participation Plan 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 4 Amending the Plan • Major Amendments Outside the Urban Service Boundary Less intense land use in a Growth Area All others per Amendment Matrix • Minor Amendments 5 acres or less More intense land use in a Growth Area - All others per Amendment Matrix • Exceptions Scriveners' errors by administrative approval Other corrections are not amendments but must be approved by the Council Mr. Lagomarsino reviewed the Amendment Matrix and the Procedures for Plan Amendments. He explained the Project Conformance, stating that rezonings must match the Land Use Map and must conform to the Policies of the General Plan. He stated that the Development Review—conformance with the General Plan is a criterion and the Applicant submittals must evaluate conformance. Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine reviewed the Land Use Map: Land Use Map • Start with the 1996 Land Use Map • Correct the 1996 Land Use Map match land uses show open sp ac e show significant resource areas (treatment) • Identify Areas with potential for change workshop and community meeting steering committee deliberations and recommendation • Develop &Evaluate Alternative Scenarios • Select the Best Land Use Map Mr. Nodine explained the Land Use Scenario Process, Alternatives Created from Community Goals, Map Alternative Process and the Elements of the Land Use Map. Project Manager Arlan Colton reviewed the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) and its relationship to the General Plan Update. He pointed out that this is a separate supporting document from the General Plan. He stated that while the General Plan goes on the ballot,the SIP is a separate document and is not required to go to the voters. He explained that the intent is to utilize this document as a strategic plan. The implementation progress is reviewed every two years by a Review Committee and the action plan is updated as necessary. He pointed out that there are 133 action items in the Strategic Implementation Program and that every policy is addressed by at least one action item. Implementation of the 1996 Plan 3 progress reports to the Council - 94 Action Items 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 5 63 completed or ongoing (70%) 23 started and underway(24%) - 6 not started • Review Process Annual Report (required) Additional Review (optional) In answer to a question by Council Member Rochman, Mr. Nodine explained that there is one land use in the General Plan that is designated lower than the zoning currently allows. It is the Kelly Ranch property which has 2 pieces of commercial zoning along the east side of Oracle Road located at the intersection of Oracle Road and Tangerine Road. He stated that this property is located in Pima County and has county zoning of RBC. He stated that the piece of property located to the north, has a Resort designation. The current recommendation by the Planning &Zoning Commission is for this property to be Rural Low Density Residential. Council Member Rochman asked how that had transpired? Mr. Nodine stated that the Technical Advisory Committee saw the property as a potential key component of the Town's open space system and its tie to Catalina State Park. He stated that they did recognize it had Pima County zoning and yet they felt strongly that the Town should make every effort to look at ways that the Town could acquire the property. Mayor Loomis asked if the land use map had to reflect the zoning on the property. Mr. Nodine replied no, legally it does not. However, the Town's Zoning Code states that when someone comes in to rezone their property, it has to match the General Plan. He stated that it cannot have a higher intensity than what's designated on the General Plan. He stated that there is no legal requirement for the General Plan to reflect the zoning on the land. He explained that the reason is if the Town felt very strongly that there are areas they want to preserve or create a lower density on, that would give them a direction to do so. Mr. Nodine corrected his previous statement made to Council Member Rochman regarding areas in Rancho Vistoso where the designation in the current General Plan was not changed and has a lower designation than the zoning,particularly in the west area of Neighborhood 10. He stated that any developed area reflected the change on the General Plan,but those undeveloped areas do not reflect the change. Council Member Rochman pointed out that there are areas where there could be a potential conflict because the actual zoning and the General Plan would be different. In answer to a question by Council Member Abbott, Mr. Nodine stated that mixed use came about when looking at doing a PAD for Rooney Ranch and the cluster opportunities for higher density homes with services. Mr. Nodine stated that townhomes (8— 10 units per acre) and single use residential (5 — 15 units per acre) could be used in this category. Mayor Loomis stated that the Annual Report requirement should be added into the Strategic Implementation Plan document. 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 6 Mayor Loomis expressed concern that the new General Plan would be the new document and that the old General Plan becomes history. He identified that in many cases in the new document it refers to the "old plan." He commented that we should look at the new document from the standpoint that this is the Plan and it needs to stand by itself. It should not refer to the past plan or past implementation strategies. Mayor Loomis referred to the amendment matrix and expressed concern with mixed use neighborhood wording on page 13 of the General Plan document. He also referred to the General Plan conformance and how it relates to a development plan for a piece of property that already has zoning in place. Mayor Loomis called a recess at 7:55 p.m. Meeting resumed at 8:10 p.m. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Joel Abrams, 7521 N. Calle Cordebesa, Tucson. Mr. Abrams stated he represents and owns parts of 2 parcels at Tangerine Road between La Canada and La Cholla. He stated that he supports the Planning Commission's recommended LDR residential 2 use for these properties. Carl Winters, 270 N. Church. Mr. Winters stated that he represents the Felker/Polito property in Linda Vista Citrus Tracts and the recommendations proposed are fine. Carl Kuehn, 9215 N. Calle Loma Linda,resident and property owner in Oro Valley. Mr. Kuehn referred to the process of the General Plan and stressed the importance of the Town Council following this process correctly and to not allow properties to submit changes without going through the Steering Committee and the public process. The following residents of Oro Valley expressed support for the General Plan Steering Committee's recommendations and that the Kai property should remain low density. They opposed any change to the proposed designation: Joan Gallagher, 11816 N. Labyrinth, Catalina Shadows. Nancy Young, 11546 N. Civano Place,Palisades Point Estates. Craig Young, 11546 N. Civano Place, Palisades Point Estates. Alan Dankwerth, 11515 N. Flying Bird, Palisades. Marilyn Cook, 11570 N. Skywire Way, Palisades South HOA &Palisades Point property owner. Donna Johnson, 11530 N. Skywire Way Doug McKee, 11836 Cassiopeia. Helen Dankwerth, 11515 N. Flying Bird Drive, Palisades. Tom Coldren, 11340 Charoleau. Richard Bauer, 826 E. Palisades. Bob Durham, 11510 N. Copper Belle,Palisades Point. Barry DiSimone, 13 840 N. Como, Tortolita. Mr. DiSimone took issue with several elements in this process and stated that the people in Tortolita have no representation in Oro Valley government. He stated that the land use plan is the opposite of what the people want. 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 7 Rob Longaker, The WLB Group, 4444 E. Broadway. Mr. Longaker stated that he represents the Estes property, 88 acres located in the vicinity of Rancho Feliz Drive and La Canada Drive. He requested a designation of LDR 2, -1.3 —2.0 dwelling units per acre. He stated that this development will require: • Removal of the site from the floodplain • Address traffic issues • Address open space issues • Connectivity to the CDO Wash • Address the impact to the school system • Working with the neighbors. He stated that concerns expressed by neighbors include traffic issues, hydrology, protection of views,preservation of open space and connectivity to the CDO wash and maintaining their quality of life. Dino Sakellar, 100 E. Sixth Street, Tucson. Mr. Sakellar stated he represents Chuck Townsend who owns 2 parcels. Parcel 7—27 acres on the northeast corner of La Cholla and Tangerine. They concur with Planning &Zoning Commissions' recommendations but have some concerns with the access to the NCO portion of this property. Tangerine and La Cholla is designated to be a major intersection and they anticipate that they will have no access off of Tangerine Road. He pointed out that La Cholla will be realigned. They are asking for consideration to extend that NCO designation to go farther to the north to accommodate safe access to their property. Parcel 8— 13 acres on the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja. He expressed concern with the designation of low density residential since the south is designated as NCO and to the west it is currently zoned greater than 3 homes per acre. They are requesting NCO designation that would be Neighborhood Commercial. This designation would allow developing services to the neighborhood and to the 2 schools to the north and west of the property. This would reduce the amount of trips necessary. He stated that his client is interested in putting on architectural restrictions and designating that riparian, environmental area as a significant resource area. Steve Renneckar, 9751 N. Horizon Vista Place, resident of the Town and representing the property owner of Kelly Ranch, located at the intersection of Oracle Road and Tangerine Road. Mr. Renneckar expressed objections to the proposed designation of RLDR and SR and asked Council to consider Neighborhood Commercial and a resort designation. He stated that Oracle Road is already a major 4 lane divided highway and Tangerine Road is a major arterial with a regional shopping center planned across the street from his development, as well as a hospital. He pointed out that they already have existing hard zoning in Pima County—commercial to the south. He stated that the commercial zoning was lost in a referendum many years ago for that portion of land located directly at the intersection of Oracle Road and Tangerine Road. He stated that the resort designation they are asking for is the same as is in Pima County. They would like to annex into the Town but at a reasonable zoning that reflects what they have in Pima County. Mark Gilliland, P. O. Box 32011, Tucson. Owner and broker for Gilliland Realty and Investment Company. He spoke on behalf of Carl and Patricia White, owners of 8.4 acres near Tangerine Road and La Cholla. He stated that since this property has been on 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 8 the market, there have been many calls looking for 1/2 or 1 acre lots with all utilities included. Few callers seem to want 3.3 or 4.2 acres. His client strongly supports the Planning Commission's recommendation of LDR 2 for this property. Frank Bangs, One South Church, Tucson. Mr. Bangs stated that he represents the Capri Company, LLC which owns the property at the southeast corner of Tangerine and First Avenue known as the "Kai"property. He requested that the existing General Plan designation of Master Planned Community be maintained. They feel it offers the best guidance for the future development because it recognizes the previous commitments and investments by Capri for sewer infrastructure that supports this property. They think that MPC and PAD is a superior designation. Gerald Korte, 460 W. Linda Vista, Linda Vista Citrus Tracts and Oro Valley resident. Mr. Korte expressed his opposition to the designation of the change in land use for the Felker and Polito property. He objected to the request being submitted at the last minute without review by the Steering Committee or notification to the residents in the area. He stated that this area should remain 1 house per 5 acres or 1 house per 10 acres. Richard Maes, 955 W. Vistoso Highlands Drive,property owner,but not a resident of Oro Valley. He requested that the Town show on the General Plan map the areas that are being overlayed with zoning other than what the zoning is actually on the property. He pointed out that there are several parcels within Rancho Vistoso that are affected. He stated that it is important that the public understands that there is existing zoning on any property within Oro Valley other than what is shown on the General Plan. He addressed the special resource areas that are being identified on the Plan. This affects many parcels that should not be affected by special resource identity. The Plan should reflect one home per 36 acres if it is designated as special resource area. He stated that this is a mis- representation of what the zoning is. Charles Hulsey, 11361 N. Twin Spur Court, resident of Oro Valley. Mr. Hulsey asked to confirm that Rooney Ranch has the designation of MPC and the Rooney Ranch Parcels H &I—reflect a PAD. He referred to the other 3 parcels, 1) Kai property at La Cholla/Lambert Lane. He asked that everything on the east of the wash be designated as commercial uses and asked that the use be extended to the north. 2) Kai property at La ChollalNaranj a. They have a disagreement with staff over the low density residential designation located next to a high school. They are asking for medium residential density. 3) Rancho Vistoso—west portion of Neighborhood 10 zone as medium density residential. He referred to areas of inconsistencies and would like to see changes to reflect the zoning in the PAD and he asked that this be worked out so that those parcels get the correct designation placed on them. Patricia Maisch, 1471 W. Rancho Feliz Place, Pima County. Ms. Maisch objected to the requested designation by the Estes property owners and was told by Pima County that they thought the property would be developed into a linear park at sometime in the future. She referred to something she had heard that Estes had made a deal with Pima County many years ago not to request a zoning change on this property in return for developing Canyon Shadows. She asked that this be investigated. 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 9 Angela Kain, 16181 N. Oracle Road, Catalina. Ms. Kane stated she represents the Oracle Ford/Mercury Dealership in Catalina and opposes any annexation by Oro Valley. Bill Adler, 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Canada Hills property owner. He stated that he doesn't think this process could or would result in a document that was truly reflective of the citizen needs and interests. He objected to the designation of"mixed use neighborhood" and the fact that he has seen no noteworthy success in other cities and towns and it shouldn't be used in Oro Valley. Mike Arnold, 180 W. Linda Vista, resident Linda Vista Citrus Tracts. Mr. Arnold asked for a transition between 1/2 acre lots and the SR(R1-144)property and suggested 1 unit per acre between the 2 designations. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. Mayor Loomis called a recess at 9:20 p.m. Meeting resumed at 9:30 p.m. In response to a question by Council Member Abbott,regarding the mixed use neighborhood designation and why the Steering Committee was opposed to this designation. Mr. Nodine stated that the Steering Committee's concerns overall was that they didn't want this designation to turn into high density housing,but they did recognize the benefit of the commercial aspect of the designation. In response to a question by Mayor Loomis regarding including a current zoning map with the General Plan, Mr. Nodine stated that it was not considered at this time. Mayor Loomis asked for more thought to be put into whether or not there is an advantage or disadvantage of including a current zoning map as part of the document to try to eliminate some of the confusion that can occur when you look at a Land Use Map from a General Plan and compare it to the hard zoning map. He emphasized that this General Plan is the vision for the Town's future, in addition to land use, it includes a lot of other elements that are tied into that land use. He stated that it is an integrated product in that one Element influences another Element. He stated that we have heard a lot of concerns and the process we have followed is a good process. There have been opportunities throughout the process, and there will continue to be opportunities until this document gets through the Council for input. He stated that once that input is completed, than this Plan freezes for awhile. The ratification of the voters will take place. He stressed that this will continue to be a living document and a"moving target" for awhile. He stated that the basic part of the document is a good document, it started with the 1996 Plan and has been improved and brought up to date so that it now reflects the community of 2001/2002. He pointed out that we need to recognize that this is our"map" for the next 25 years. He stated that although people are saying you have to have "teeth"in this document and include a lot of"shalls,"there are a lot of other elements that will affect those "shalls". He pointed out that this document is a Guide and sets Goals for our community. He expressed appreciation for all of the participation and input in putting this document together. Vice Mayor Johnson addressed some of the comments made during the public hearing such as the"process is broken." He stated that we are in the middle of the process and 12/11/02 Minutes, Council Special Session 10 that it is premature to say that the process is broken. He assured the public that when the Council gets to the ultimate decision to put the document out to the voters, it will reflect listening to the citizens, property owners and taking into account the long term interests of Oro Valley as a whole,not a particular neighborhood or interest group. Vice Mayor Johnson addressed the concerns expressed with a master planned community vs. zoning. He addressed concerns expressed by residents in Catalina Shadows and Palisades that a master planned community means high density and commercial. He stated that by working with the neighbors, developers, and the Town to see what will be the best use for the 270 acre Kai property. He assured that the public would be part of the process. Mr. Nodine asked that anything the Council has, changes, additions, etc. should be given to him as soon as possible so it can be included for the January 6, 2003 public hearing. Mayor Loomis asked for staff to come up with a recommendation concerning including a current zoning map with the General Plan. Council Member Abbott expressed concerns with the following items: • Mixed use designation. • Apartments are not consistent with this community. • Most intense use for housing should be townhouses. • Use of"shalls." • School issue—include letter from Superintendent Balentine. • County's API and working with adding some verbiage that reflects the Towns thoughts. • Water issue—need a better definition of what fair means. • How incorporate electric vehicles in this document. Include electric scooters? Is it legal or not? Council Member Wolff stated that staff should look at the Kelly Ranch property that is located in Pima County and already has been rezoned. If we want some benefits out of the property it would behoove the Town to look at it again. He pointed out that out of a total of 28 speakers, 75% spoke about the Kai property. He would like to see some more participation as to how they feel about the General Plan as a whole. Council Member Rochman expressed appreciation to the members of the public for their participation. He pointed out that the Town Council also receives comments from the public by e-mail and by telephone and this totals around 200 people, however the Town has 35,000 residents. He stated that just what is heard at a public meeting is not the only information that is inputted into their process of making a decision. Mayor Loomis stated that the entire Town Council has been involved with the General Plan process and they have been receiving updates from day one. He highlighted that the Council is aware of the changes that have taken place and they will continue to stay up to date with it and they do listen to all the public comments. 12/11/02 Minutes,Council Special Session 11 Council Member Abbott thanked the public for attending and stressed that she takes everyone's comments to heart and encouraged the public to keep attending the public meetings. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to adjourn the special session at 9:50 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Wolff. Motion carried 5 —0. Respectfully submitted, Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC Town Clerk .4optil, Town of Oro, Valley General Plan Update 2020 Town Council Hearing January 6, 2003 joltab in*•:• • , KEY ISSUES IN STAFF REPORT Comparison with Zoning • Does the General Plan need to match the zoning? — No! • Suggestions for handling differences — Where areas have been developed it should because it provides an accurate picture of what is on the ground. — In undeveloped areas preference should be given to the existing zoning. — Where the Town clearly has a vision that is different from the zoning, follow that vision and look for oppportunities to bring the zoning/development closer to the vision. • Map of Areas where zoning is more intense than the General Plan Densities Based on "Net" or "Gross" 4. Example a, "Net" limits the maximum density. • "Gross" supports clustering to get dedications for roads and preserve open space. Maximum densities are controlled by the plan policies. • Current Plan uses "gross"—changing this would decrease existing clustering/dedication options throughout the Plan area 2 Mixed Use Neighborhoods • issues — Quantitative standards (Policy 1.4.3) • Steering Committee proposed specific requirements for open space, public spaces, and residential/non- residential mix • Planning Commission recognized importance of policies but wanted to use qualitative standards to guide the drafting of a zoning code amendment — Concern that densities could be too high in residential portion of Mixed Use sites M$XE.:;d. Us.e , • Where? — 6 locations • Why? — Housing Choice for growing employment base and segment of aging population — Disposable income base to support commercial without need to drive — Connectivity between neighborhoods and facilities/schools • Pima County history — Meet Growth Area Element requirement of state statute ce..H , 3 Mixed Use Neghorhood:s look like ? — WhatExado they Example 1 CarpenterCary,Village; N — Example 2 Kierland Commons; Scottsdale ,orth Carolina e Arizona _ Cary: Oro Valley Similar population growth to Raleigh, what is to Tucson community gnitpyrices ••• SLaimrgilearr ---- - '1Ns Mixed use Neighborhoods viztrri:iti. :,Atie !::.1-Ato • CawrbrpeuntearnVillage: Ne community -- r• :7;1',",.-Ai..4.,-.. -.- ..„:-.'iNiii acres, mixed use ..-tf-,E.,,,,i-:,,,-.:74,::,,,,,,-: c.,,,::;.,!•:, . Single lam!1 Y, townhc"es' apartments, recreation, .::':-.111P14!----; '1-1.-------- % space • 2c5oomx3mopeercniasip, -.4 -,...4.;;,,,,..-,.__ 4 Mixed Use Neighborhoods .:..„ .. • Town Core ,E,:::;j::' :,i;::•.,,,41‘,711,i..4.-,:;:,,77...i .k. .,. „ . ..,......:::!,,,..:!.,....:::.:,,,, :i..... :-.:.,:::: ...::::::',Lifi:11,1)...,11FP.:*/4!.t4i-iii ,!:-•::n:;::::;i'':;:l',T-;;4.'.':::•;Ell''.,:ri, ..,.,:jta',..i-:,. .,..i.,1;,]i.!!;aitrkprir.fi".iti:,:5::::7:.:1-,..,;;..,,,:7--:-.'r4:,,::.;ij.::!iiii:::'i it ::::;...-)!:4-;.ii,,,,:jsks,,,:irt,TE,Ill!e:74'.1,5 trICZMVS.'ir'rlii7,47,-te,,,Ii .,,,,: „,:0,:;.:„.i:,,i.,-.,5i:,--r",,,,:•.:,:::c.A,::.:i,,,iit-,..,-,,- V::: -TSti..4.,--dT...t*t,4:-.;:.••l'i-l-'4 --''':111:!1:?47;::':/.1:';::411111;"'V' ‘,,.,,•:..,:ti!!,*,--;.•-: •.•••....tf*:,::..--.,,. . '----- : - -'i•iii:::#. -iiitat7:-.,- -••-....,•:•,..., :in•E'.,:.:,,,:„ . jt"---- --*-"*'''''•,?,:s .•---,-;,4 i•;;',$:_grik'ZIe i,!:',4•::::•:,•:1;'4::-,1,,,jriiill:t:z: .I---.-.:"..;,r7i7N.:.i..:',',.tr,:::liiiiiat'.7.'if±1:1iiltliri4St#: 1:',,%.,.:: ',.,litt-::'.'•i.,!;.•;. !::_-- _.......,..•;"="-L---s.i7=7,71*.,'*;::4-,fr,i:V:1:.:41*,)61•0"!.:1:,;i:71VZ-V.*-:1'''':''''1.:** 1 tett • .7.77,;,.,;,74,:::.-4.:7:*...21:74 4'‘‘.10.1.,:;::,.17:110,,;i:-.!..7-..... .::::--,,11%**11 1._ L•;:x ,:l.:!:.4E:z.,:;,•,::,,i,,:• ;:.irl,.:,. _._.:,.,fH,„„.::,?,,,,ii ;',:::,,,t...i-::,•6i:,.•,,i,!;,:,„.:..,,i--,.;.i:;,.;444',R4ii,,4444itgi::1;" :--:',f'''!id :1!1,1 .-,.. .:::',:1,,1:::,::::.:..i::.:7:: .,...-:!?'H':;,:EA:'...., :.::•'.:.Vili!iiititi2igtelt4 /4,,,,,,':falni:..!.:':: ;f,;-, - .-4----- -,,.-,'------ , Mixed Use Neighborhoods - Apartments — 712 to 1779 square feet — $750-$1775/month 71[II. ..._, :. • Garages extra - I ..,..,, ..,,,,::::,_,.::. ..:.. . ,,,....,,..„., • .......,.....,„., :. • ..:. ,-,..„,:.„:„.,..,,,::::::.,..,..:.„:„......:.,, ,---.----- ..:•:.,.::.•.::..,..iiii•::.,.•.,-,,:,,,:::.-,..:.-„.::,•:.:...!:!!!..J,:.--;-,--:,, ,•---‘i•,:.:.;j,,,,,:ii,:*.,:;,,:ii,„„:„.,::::ii::.-..,,::. .,-„;,:::!E,,;,,.,i,E ifti14::„0a,::';::,,,I. ,,,..d!... ,,19:::..:,..:,.Qi.11..),,71g,:.,.;_, ;:741.,> Iliz.4.;- -i,-;;--,g.: •-- ..,..:„. .,, i ..;:i il. '',---,--.:'1 ...,:l.,„.1.,,,:,L:4.., _ r, -iriii,,,.),1, .,,t14,-,:',1.:,,, I''.i.:.,.•i.- ..,, •-4 ,,,------ 5 Neighborhoods Mixed Use • Kierland Commons • Staff Rec — Keep Steering Committee max density — Use Commission qualitative standards; use Steering Committee quantitative standards in the Code yam; / Sc;hc...'c..lP.0iI:cie:5; • General Public Facilities and ServIces 6.1 To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided when needed. 6.1.2 The Town shall require that all new developments be evaluated to determine impacts on all town infrastructure PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE TOWN, including but not limited to schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as criteria in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. Issue: "heavily weighted criterion„ 94.: 6 .:..drool Site Policies 6.2.1 • The Town shall require that new developments reserve one elementary school site of at least 10 buildable acres for every 500 elementary school level students forecasted to live within the development. • The Town shall require that new developments reserve one middle school site of at least 35 buildable acres for every 800 middle school level students forecasted to live within the development. • The Town encourages smaller developments to contribute donations (land or cash)to the school district;such donations will be used to offset school construction costs within Town limits. • The school district will have the opportunity to determine whether a site IF ONE IS PROPOSED BY A DEVELOPER, is suitable and acceptable for development as a school site. • The Town shall encourage park/school combination site dedications. Issue: Require discussions between developer and school district School Site Policies • 6.2.3 (Deleted by Planning and Zoning Commission): — The Town shall require an evaluation of the adequacy of school facilities as a finding for all residential land use requests before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of rezoning. • 6.2,4 (Modified by Commission): — The Town shall CONSIDER ensure that school planning issues, such as student safety and access, are evaluated at the time of rezoning and development review. • Issue: Request to return to Steering Committee language h 7 Costs of SJh.ort Term piementation GRANDTOTALS — One-time Staff Costs $205,000 — Annual Staff Costs $175,000 — Consultants $195,000 — Materials $ 35,000 — Land Costs $200,000 — TOTAL TOWN COSTS $810,000 — Grants $ 55,000 KEY IMPROVEMENTS 8 Improvements to the Plan • New Elements — Cost of Development — Arts and Culture — Open Space (as a separate element) — Water Resources — Environmental Planning • Add the ESL work (especially open space acquisition and management) • Definition of Major Amendment • All policies are addressed by an Action Item (130 actions in the Implementation Plan) Improvements to the Land USE1. Map • Over 3,000 acres corrected to match existing development/zoning • Over 7,000 acres changed to reflect changing conditions — Kelly Ranch—recognized as a significant resource — State Land—recognized the County application to preserve; created a wildlife corridor; allowed development in the north — Created Growth Areas to focus/cluster growth • La Cholla and Shannon—expansion of residential • Commercial node at La Cholla and Tangerine • respects areas with Ironwood trees — Kai Property—from over 500 units to 300 units • There are — Over 11,000 acres of Parks and Open Space(23%) — Over 12,000 acres of special resource area (25%) 9 r-• -may 1 1 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: January 6, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL - TOUs '.��s�s.;ss?s�X•}fit FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO TOWN STAFF REGARDING CHANGES TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 SUMMARY: On January 15th, the proposed schedule provides for consideration of adoption of the Plan and submittal of the Plan to the voters for a May election. To meet this schedule Staff will need to revise the plan in preparation for the January 15th meeting. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the Mayor and Council to vote to give direction to Town Staff following this evening's Public Hearing. Town Manager l F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Staff Reports\Public Hearing staff report#1 to TC.doc tkiN 1 1 I 1 I 4• ' v 1 1 • a • . 1 1 1 . 1 • l••_.•_.._......a1 1 i I1 MDR te e, 1 1 1 ..rrril 1 f: . i \ 7---- ---------1' \ 't•! 4v . MDR • f11:iia 0'f Cw/� ,.IQ. Z „ --' HDR ��� i r i �1_ 1► z y rn 1 +� ,fCo i ill MEI�� NCO 0 1 . 9 mi . . HDR .a,_. 1 I . ! 4 MOORS RD '`'73 ! • i HDR • i KN, � I ^ i : I 5 l.•. ,HDR; 1dP At 1 fi 0 IHDR T...; O GERINE RD ��I L.._.._.._t.i ERINE RD '� ,! �� i 46 f i RGC l 1 Fa i 4,2 ;s 1 :ANDA DR .�•. ti r' •ti •` IP •• i1 Oji► �...�s:.� . Z • (BERT LN = 1 • LiIJ! .. 1 Zi Legend TOWN OF ORO VALLEY General Plan Update 2020 General Plan Update New Designations Community Commercial/Office Land Use Designations f" Rural Low Density Residential(0-0.3 DU/AC) iry Regional Commercial Compared to Zoning Low Density Residential(0.4-1.2 DU/AC) Commerce/Office Park Low Density Residential(1.3-2.0 DU/AC) Public/Semi-Public Medium Density Residential(2.1-5 DU/AC) School Source:This map was made with data .........4114 . High Density Residential(5+DU/AC) National Forest from ESRI,Oro Valley,and Pima County. Moced Use Neighborhood Open Space Master Planned Community Park This map is for illustration purposes only; N Resort/Golf Course Special Resource Area official interpretations are available from 111115 Deleted From Planning Area Oro Valley Planning&Zoning staff. w-i_ ') Oro Valley GIS Services ® January 2,2003 LiDesignation 0 0.5 1 to MatchndUse Zoning IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Miles iLl OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Vicki Balentine,Ph.D. Superintendent • (520)696-5205 FAX(520)696-5015 ANIPHL oeA' ER` 701 W.Wetmore Road,Tucson,AZ 85705•(520)696-5000•FAX(520)696-5064•TDD(520)696-5055 sehoois GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS Kenneth J.Smith,Ed.D. Mary Schuh KentBarrabee,Ph.D. Mike Prout Nancy Young Wright President Vice President DEC 262002 December 19,2002 Chuck Sweet Town Manager Town of Oro Valley 11000 NT T a Canada Drive Oro Valley,AZ 85737 Re: Oro Valley General Plan Update Amphitheater Comments related to Planning&Zoning Recommendations Dear Chuck: Council support of our schools I appreciate the.Town pp by soliciting District comment to the ValleyGeneral Plan Update. As a result, I took the opportunity to comment to you, Oro p Town Council Members,and the General Plan Update Steering Committee Members this past regarding September din critical issues related to the District as this General Plan Update is p g g finalized. . understanding that the Planning& Zoning Commission has made several revisions to Itlsmyun g the draft General Plan Update as was approved by the General Plan Update Steering Committee Members. Several of these revisions weaken some of the District recommendations related to school issues. Since the Planning & Zoning recommendations will be studied at the Town Council meetingthis evening, it seems appropriate to again provide comments from the District's perspective related to school issues. POLICY 6.1.2 General Plan Update Steering Committee Recommendations 6.1.2 The Town shall require that all new developments be evaluated to determine impacts on all Town infrastructure, including but not limited to schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as criteria in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. Revised General Plan Recommendations from Planning&Zoning q 6.1.2 The Town shall require that all new developments be evaluated to determine impacts on allp ublic facilities within the town. Such impacts shall be used as criteria in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning proposals. Amphitheater Comment and Suggested Revision Amphitheater High•Canyon del Oro High•Ironwood Ridge High•Amphitheater Alternative Amphitheater Middle School•Coronado K-8 School•Cross Middle School•La Cima Middle School•Wilson K-8 School Copper Creek Elementary•Donaldson Elementary•Hudson Elementary•Holaway Elementary•Keeling Elementary Mesa Verde Elementary•Nash Elementary•Painted Sky Elementary•Prince Elementary•Rio Vista Elementary•Walker Elementary Rillito Center•El Hogar Page 2 December 19, 2002 We would again suggest that the impact upon infrastructure, and in particular upon schools that serve the Town,should be a heavily weighted criterion. POLICY 6.2.1 General Plan Update Steering Committee Recommendations 6.2.1 The Town shall continue to work with local school districts to ensure coordinated planning of school facilities and exchange of information concerning development and planning related issues. This should include defining both school service areas and associated school needs that can potentially be met through proactive implementation at the time of development review. The Town shall require that new developments reserve one elementary site of at least 10 acres for every 500 elementary school level students forecasted to live within the development. The Town shall require that new developments reserve one middle school site of at least 35 build able acres for every 800 middle school level students forecasted to live within the development. The Town encourages smaller developments to contribute donations (land or cash) to the school district; such donations will be used to offset school construction costs within Town limits. The school district will have the opportunity to determine whether a site is suitable and acceptable,for development as a school site. The Town shall encourage park/school combination site dedications. Revised General Plan Recommendations from Planning& Zoning 6.2.1 The Town shall continue to work with local school districts to ensure coordinated planning of school facilities and exchange of information concerning development and planning related issues. The school district will have the opportunity to determine whether a site,if one is proposed by the developer, is suitable and acceptable for development as a school site. The Town shall encourage park/school combination dedications. Amphitheater Comment and Suggested Revision We applaud the language that allows the District to determine whether a site is suitable and acceptable for development as a.school site. In addition, we very much like the benefits presented to students and the general public when parks and school playgrounds can be adjacent. However, we are concerned that the language suggested allows a developer to determine whether or not a school site or educational donation is proposed at all. We would again suggest, at a minimum, that all developers be required to enter into , Page 3 December 19, 2002 discussions with the District regarding donations of financial support toward District purchase of land and/or facilities improvement to address increased enrollment. POLICY 6.2.3 POLICY 6.2.4 General Plan Update Steering Committee Recommendations 6.2.3 The Town shall re uire an evaluation of the adequacy of school facilities as a finding q for all residential land use requests before the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of rezoning. 6.2.4 The Town shall ensure that school planning issues, such as student safety and access,. are evaluated at the time of rezoning and development review. Revised General Plan Recommendations from Planning&Zoning 6.2.3 DELETE POLICY 6.2.4 The Town shall consider student safety at the time of development review. Amphitheater Comment and Suggested Revision We would again suggest that the impact upon infrastructure, and in particular upon schools that serve the Town, should be a heavily weighted criterion. Safety and access are key concerns. This revised language appears to weaken the General Plan Steering Committee language. Your specific inclusion of those issues here is critical. I would recommend returning to the General Plan Update Steering Committee language above. In closing, again a ain wish to thank you and the Council Members for this opportunity to comment. As always, if you have any questions about my concerns or comments, please let me know. Best wishes on the completion of a General Plan Update that will benefit the entire community. Sincerely, z - // 7// ' - ir";)-- ,4,- ,/,/te ,k.- &1::, Vicki Balentine,Ph.D. Superintendent xc: Amphitheater Governing Board Members Oro Valley Town Council Members Oro Valley General Plan Update Steering Committee Members Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Members JA1 f7;72' cd IOU . Albert D. Schall/Dolores Anderson 01/04/03 10080 N. Quail Ln. Tucson,A.Z. 85742 Town of Oro Valley—Planning and Zoning 11000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,AZ 85737 RE: General Plan 2020 To whom it may concern, This letter is in regards to the Oro Valley General Plan 2020. Our family has owned property on Tangerine Rd.,west of La Cholla,for over 30 years,several years before Oro Valley became a town. Knowing how close our property was to Oro Valley,we became involved so we could provide input on our property as well as the future of Oro Valley in general. We have been attending Oro Valley public meetings and hearings for many years,and in 1996 we had the opportunity to request annexation of our property into the town of Oro Valley. Shortly into the process, issues arose that delayed the annexation proceedings. The process started again in 1997. Final annexation of our property occurred in March of 2002. Though we are not residents of Oro Valley,we are very close neighbors,and give much of our consumer business to the Town of Oro Valley. Our overall experience with the General Plan process has been positive. We consider ourselves successful concerning our requests to have our property re-evaluated in regards to what we believed made sense for us as well as for the Town of Oro Valley. We are pleased with the progress we have made concerning our property as shown on the latest Planning and Zoning Recommended Land Use Map. Not 100%of what we were hoping for,but are hopeful that the proposed land use on our property will be revisited once the"Ironwood Forest"labeling is re-evaluated and corrected. We are not anti-development, nor are we pro development. We are focused on what makes the most sense for the town,the property owners and the residents of the town. We consistently read citizen comments on the Oro Valley web site,as well as listen to countless citizens speaking at the public meetings. Unfortunately,the people most likely to attend these meetings or send in comments,are those who wish to speak negatively on what the General Plan is proposing. There have been some excellent issues brought up,and we feel the town has listened and looked into these issues. There have been some positive comments,however,they are far outweighed by negative comments,and at times going as far as demeaning the hard work that everyone has done in this process. Most comments are focused on just one of the many issues that the committees,council and staff are facing. Many of these individuals have a personal interest without understanding the overall interest of the community. The individuals that agree and support what the town is proposing, don't feel the need to have their voices heard. It would be ideal to find a way to let the citizens and property owners who agree with the proposed plans know how important it is to have their views heard as well. We believe the town is not getting a balanced representation from the citizens and property owners in the meetings or on the comment section of the town web site. The message we want to send to the Town of Oro Valley is that though we have not received the exact results we were looking for regarding our property,we think the overall process is working. The hard long hours we know each participant has put in to this plan are recognized and appreciated. Though we only own 32 acres of property,a very small piece in the big picture,EVERYONE we have dealt with in Oro Valley has treated us with respect and professionalism. Whenever we have requested an appointment to speak one on one with a staff member,we were given a timely appointment. Whether it is in person or over the phone,we have always felt an"open door"philosophy within the town's staff t r ) • Pg. 2-Schall As busy as everyone dealing with the General Plan has been,they always found time for us. We believe we are not an exception,rather the rule. We particularly want to thank Bryant Nodine,Tom Keiran,Jim Hossley and Melissa Shaw(though we understand she is no longer directly working for Oro Valley). These are a few of the key staff members that made our involvement a pleasant and very educational experience. We believe they went above and beyond to help us understand various points throughout the process,and to listen to our concerns. Sometimes the outcome was an explanation that helped us understand the issue the way the town was presenting it,and sometimes they looked at our points and agreed that the assessment on the town's behalf may have over looked some of the facts. We would like to express that we feel the process is working,and that to Town of Oro Valley has,and continues to do an outstanding job in this process. The system does work. The process is working. In summary,we understand that the out come of this general plan,or any general plan for any town or community will never result in everyone being happy. That does not mean that it is not the best plan for a growing community such as Oro Valley. We believe that our property changed on the latest proposed "Recommended Land Use Maps"because what we had to say made sense for the community and the overall plan. The town has shown that they DO listen as well as review what the property owners and residents are saying. Unfortunately, sometimes the property owners or residents do not get what they desire at all,or in our case,not 100%of what was desired. Regardless,we believe the staff is doing a great job. This has been a long and grueling process and we commend each and every staff member involved in this process. Again,thank you for your dedication not only to the Town of Oro Valley,but also your dedication to remaining professional and fair to every one. Sincerely, Albert D. Schall Dolores Anderson -a c z D D -, v-0 r r r c CT : C C C C — m h . (-Ti - .� r -, ccy o N cD D 3 CD N a o C t� N Cal C_a -A -A -A -A -A -A -A -A -A -A -A ,�_~ ^ 0 D al „ � „ � , 00 ; • rn cn G) \/ D co co b CJS CoJ N N N N -� -� -� C Ji • — flj V) 05. pW - � �1W — NpN F D o — co — n - • r+ .7_1�D c 3 3 �� _A _A- _A _A _A -0 -0 .- = t' C F.3 4 -A _a IV N -A : N N• W CD -1 c (7" ca Fl,. � NNCC) pN � � W � -- n ,, �_ N U CSD o � � � _a � � p � � Cl. n 4, NN - .- - -_ � Q (/) _ ON -, XI CD H D CI a 0 m DO (/) D = o CC o -0v CDCD (D CI (1%. cn g 7 10 — Cn v O o m3 n CD stQa. O Z C7 --' C = o_ o O CD g 5 � CD CD O CD CD v o o cn cnQ = m .i.=CD (1) D CD D N < O CD CD n n D) 13 N ,-+ r < � -0 ° - ncnCDrn rn ocin � O <. g -p CD nOo rn ? � co m-o n� D o CD — v * . v = 0 • D c� =a =< > Z _ 0_ a) < Cl v CO X rn cCn 5• �-°o ) 1'I ca a, o . n 5 co 0 o_ ',��s CD a cn 3EI) Q0 —I (0 --h < I o '. � mk Cn cn oCD CD 5• 01 CT) cn 3 — -I n o 0 �'' Ill o E CD N 0 E3 E CD CD 0 0 CO M *p a. O CD ca •-0 5 Cl) 0) a) (D-' D D 0 Cn CD a. a.(7 ,P. CD �� 0 /X o : cmn -11D NU = o = 0 31-Im ca � 0 ca � 00 � N o =i � 0 W IQ = 00- 0 0 ° E• om 0 H �.- m— 1 7373 CD r -- CD y 3 ° o o g g CC) D m z u) co n p cam- , Ln (71 O: v' op cn m Z r r r r r r r r r � a 0 0 C C C C C C C C C C g.v -1 co N H D (0 co 11 0) - W N _, CD o) O CD r -' o N a O N CD n E3 C) O (T) N Cagy (3) 61 CJ1 CA) W N W CO • co CJi N N C3) W r 0 n. CD N - _ 3 WW W W O S CD C D . (D _. a _ - m CD , W 7J C b N 0 o 3 V•, -! Q 3D H co 3 cD .. IP IP' a _ co o cn o � � 0Z o � D -0 70 7J � > moo (Sp -� cD CD O < C (0 3 -a Q < < N a 6 (0 � P C < CD ( r+ O o C (n Cn (!� 0C C Cp CD O O CD -� CD CD O C < 0 5' CD CD CD a o N - (D (n - .-+ CD a CD r* O - '-` C a cp o 3 O fs. r+ —• fl) CD - 53- D-CF 0)`< C C O CD CD 00N 00 CD' N j Q(0 "' 7) H CO o 5- K (fl 0 7 CD CD O CD 0 0 * `G - 0 0 O CD C-DD. r+ ca CD CD a)H 00 O 0 < o CD '{ o O O O C) v n 0 CD a CD CD CD V) O O CD O * -0 a) 3 0 n -a (Cn O CD -0 C n Z7 C CD CD 0 CD - vC 0a nCD � — n a � << 0 � 3 (OZ o D 0- -o cD o a �- -0 N v m s • � << 5m o (� opo M•U) CD 0 w � � C8- o- v �' O C/) CD � � 0 63 v(0 � 7 � � o o D O - v = CD o X � 0 N m -p () o 8 woo -+, O CD Cv -0 0 -0 0 0_ C (n (n ,--.- , CD n v 0 0 , a C. O (D CD 0_ C _C O T O CD O O O CD CD CD N C CD 0 r+ cn co N a O C CD a co D C co D CSD 000 O- CSD CD <. CD 0 D O U) CD O v 0 .•__. = v 3 :�o 3 < m Cn C a a' 0 . - CD D) C * CD t!) ^ cn CD C C C CD C c 0- C C! 0 D b- `< CD CD 0 0 — o X cnn CD m . v cD v _ < --I fl) H a (0 < N D r v -� O (D Q . o 0 COo cp (D CD o 5 o ? 0 C * � o v CD` cin S. :-..- o ca) a D- '{74: -0 C CT CD CD 0 0 CD C _ C) 0 O CD a) = < CD t_n C O - C D CD j V) O (0 O 0 * 0 D O N N 0 -0 CD Cl C 0 (n ,-_, Q (n 0 CD j a cn (n CD 5' 0) - COD N L) Q 0 v 0) �'O. C CD = O6 C ( Q ,-+ a - r+ -� Cl) -� '-+ O — Q o O ,-+ CD O< o CD O Q CD C C CD N V) ,_ 00 D ,-..=. 0 O CD 0 * C) cD cn 0 g (_o = C 0 CI) ,-+ 5 C D CD O a O CD CD CD '< CD_ Cr) 0 H -017) cD -0 -0 -0 -0 -v -0 'D cn 'p ET') v N = O Nv Na) Nv ND) ND) Nv ND) �° - (0 O C a 0 . 0 . 00 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 CD D 5- D C" C D D = = D D D D n D = D C Z s (n 5-(0 5' C' 5' -' 5- C- C- C- 5- C. 5- 5. 5' 5- cn D (0 o ,{O (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 n (0 (0 co 23 C C o O 90 90 90 90 20 20 90 r < N a ,G (n '< (I) CD U) (i) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) -I o — n 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 00- (0 - ) .n 0 0 CD C0 D- 5' CD-, H CD H H H CD D (n m g 0 (n --- SU C 0 0 (0 (0Z (0 ( (n 0 o• - r=r 0 = , I Cn co co co ° CO CO CO -� -1 N = a CT a CD CS & -a 0, 01 Cn V7 1 CD CD CD CD CD CD O W 0 —I Z ZO o _ D- —I mm m m m = w D- D o 3 w 0 o 0 0 0 3HT1 1— cr CD 0 co N o > 0) � 0 o Er cn - 0 Z N -i (n Z - N m ap 0 N cnc N E3 n E3 o — rn w w -P w w w o - - Z cQ. .,< .5.71:---i—,-! •Cfl N 01 4,-- — `G 13_ 'o -< O, cn NrC)CJl O WGJ .s -0 M a) 0 V3 . rn rn gyp' (n 5 2 CCD -CO 01 (p)� W CD cp- 0 CD M N C) Q v -�N) - N 7) 2- Q Z =t E AWN NN W CD g D a) o 3 .. .. Q. m 3 C0 g -0 —i CO -1 D 01 CD —1 3 6-A . - CD Z a - -0 73 3 6-5- ° G0 c C) �. v , 0 a) O O w n 0 CD-0 _-I CD CD O CJ1 0 < Qn0 0Q CJ1 O D o _D CD O-p CD CD Z <-0 CD CD CD 0 O co O_CD cn , N -6 cn 0 O N CDN O ? N X CD p Q Q CD ,ET CD N) Or 2 0 m O C% CO Or v o CO CD C CO O-a- co cnX N O—I O vQov a) D CD CD- D S a O � 0 - C N CCD -CDc (/) CD CD O •CD o - CD 2 m �< O CD 0) co 0) CD O CD CD 0 < Cv 5 V3 v Q ,CD D-0_ 0 CD m vC .. 0O -00Os � O 0C%� cvco0 0 * O cD ? n O CDCQ �. 0 x N)O --5 _ 0 CO CD O (De > O 5 7 Q o a) G ( •000 0 O, iZt O () CDn flo cn 0 cn CD � Q CD � OCmNCn C 3 ON Q O O -, � o O CD O 0 O w •(0•CD CD K O X Q Q CD n Q 0 Q C/) CD Q c C 3 C a0) Pov 0 . r. 0 0,o v m r 0 o o 0 0• oco 0 w (0 0 v .-}o - cn g '-' �-- 5-v O 0 CDD- CD �: 0 CD cn �, (o v � 0 � 0 <. 0 3 o 0- O CD .-+ v , o CD v C) 2•,--� 0. co 5 x ✓ a) D -0 N v o ` O n 0) O .-+ CD '+� a N) ? 0 CD a 0 cCD (n• VA CD 0 0. 5. 6 cD m a) 0 o a 2 < v. mo O m v 0 m �° o � � 2 -0 0 —cn C) 0 0 XI v m 3 K v o z R v co z R CQ 0_ 0) 0 CD CA D (0 2° Cn > (J)) p 2• v CD CD 03 , NCD 65 P3 w CD CD 2. ca O cp0 CI) Cl) Cl) cn U) -I o. —I D g —I —I —1 —1 g m -I g m c) c) o c) m o m 2 2 2 2 D 0 C/) (1) = N I Z I z co .� -a Cn m C O D _, cQ -I = O U a : 1 O cn I & ccnn O N — O v k< Z -T-0 CD • U) —I C) C) _ ET-0 0 O -H - O 0 0 0 3 E.,� --I C7 � "� N tD Cn N -H > co '! — -I > c�D O N Cf) 1- 0 CJS C i D O m O a) N — 0 �� w 0 < i" 3 rn � CD v? � 5 o Z � -� w- � n' r o•CD CD (z. CD CD �' N �_ ''' to ...1 _0_ - T �, CD cn CD I _ - O ¶o) 5 C) M - O p -I Q v r+ - CL (n 0 M CD -I I 5'0 CD CD 0 o 01 O 0,(n D CJi cn ( -o 3 Z C CD v -I k< O_ ' CD Cl) 0 CD`--- -0 a- c.o co CD CD Cf) Z CDVI -°- v v o r CL CCD 0 v (0 �. O -I cn Z CD-� CD CD O X � C) .�_ CD CD Cl.) 0-a O.O v D CD CD CD CD ES '-. O N N v CD N C 5 OD v •--« v 0 7) —° " 0 O 0 D C 0 D C O co v rc0 CD r+ CD+ CD O O C D (o N O r+cr CD O r+ r\..)•-_, 0CD CD (i, N �• ° CD 0 N O V� O< (p to cD v a) (T, ° ° CD mv� n0 70 CL �_ _ vE� 0-Q D ° CL U' CL TI r cn 0 r Ch (D C 0 E 0 0-=r o= X CO CD c° v * 0 � v � , . .s 0 0 0 C: cn v 0 0 CD c CD cr p 0 C. 0 =` CL C 0 CD CD r+ O r+ ov -, 5 r+ 95 CD CD CD CD CO -. —. 0 C _) 0C N N CL v CD m Cz -p a_ sa' 63m ,� cn X n D tn .1 m — ,v CD CO con 90 5. m cnD D -O (z/) X> N • 133 7 COD O 5 x _n n C -< C -1 CO (/) -< cn cn cn CD CD m m 0 CD m m a Cn o cn (� co CD C7 as W c.n (/) 0 n m CD o r* C 01 -- Z 07 �- O O -n -n -n -n -n T1 11 �. ' U) U) U) U) U) U) U) CT o -- __ _, 00 CO N) _, �D C ap o CDSr (xi -o. N � r 0_c) N p 0) 0) O C3) O Cf) O .... 'T'1 cn u5. p C3) • 1 :4, GJ 3 n n a) c-.3) 07 r o — w c� _ 3 ... ^, n o r+ o ' w a. m o 70 5 cD C m n sZ o — p > C7 m C) D Q < Di 0 o < om ro U) co �. oCD000 r-(1) 0 c� co o cn Cn �• �° mcD < 00 — z3 Qo � � �° � v � � � z� CD CD CI) CD _cD D - -n co Cn O O 0_ (n O CD D rn o �• o cD -o o ry r a 3 0 CD D v v ci CD 0 cp -0 () 5 DD ° < ,-.- (c) CD co CD -'• v sZ =3 `C O 3 - -�, CD ca. O sv CD Fii CD r- ( D a_( cQ Z Cn o CD Fr7 co CD CD O 0) CD N (D o v S'-- � cn D _T 3 (n spi E cn O0 �<-D• O (Q a-C/ Sv (n i3 a O c� CD co �' o o ?� v O. v o � m v vW a co 0_ m m o o_ 0 n N (/ 0Cn n Co (D "� O. 0 CD, ET D O 3 CCD a' E (� CD CD CD O V� 0 0 Co I n v n N oO 3 /� cD (n 5 N sv D- sv CD cQ .� 'T'1 ,-* —I cn' r D m O w �� o I-- CD 0 , CD C7 _-. cn :�' (0 3- m n• vi - 3 �-'• :� -0 n s= ° cD v D D CD 0 � M- con ay oi m9- CD�' O = cnco v �y G) CD C v - CD 3 < CD < cp -• - I C St- v m _. o sv C13 �.0 t) -1 D �'.co cQ O CD4. O 0 cn O CD O I O O ccoD v � �o 71 ND CT �CA ET m p (n cD co Cn N O v O i--5a.) Di Z CP C U) Cv m CD 5 co CD Wxi sZ cn c) = D- o 0 Cn Cn o OCD 0D CD CD CD CD CD cD 5 5 m m C7 U) 0 > G) 2) Cn = I Z P = cu m i C7 G) G7 o o n r� U) O �• � I I I I I I (E-• 7C) to I N I N co al CJl Cn Cr CJi 5- -, CD Cr cn ' C.7 I CA O O O s= 0 � � I CI) :S Co `.G O ............................ T C C 00 -I I C cD 'co W 01 `, H > 114 - 0_o X C N Cn Co CO CO 00 _,—oo D 0 --.1-.1 - g' 61 61 7N ( Z r:) •N•N _ ^Z co cn b) (11 -' N N CJS D `< V CD CD ° co "co co - _. 0 /v .vi W — rn (n W• m 0 n o'S a° to m CD CD■ ° • . • -I W CD Z ° c3. Cn �--c-3 °° - N ," Z H 3 Si CJ1 . _, 3 > CD " 0 0 -o _ D CO0 = --I 0 � 0 0 U1 61-�' CD Q C1 co C� c� cn .J Ca. z .< CD Q O Q Cl) CD (no= < V3 O-0 c CD � CC �0_-0 � • CD _+ 0 CO VOD- CC 01, CD -0 r+ (c 10 C1)no — CD D ED �'a nCD � CCD Oo (� cn C 0--s,_ a) = a) 5•� Q CD g - o cn - O ,, CD • - a) ,-+CD p ' .�. < CD 0� 2 � N n cn CDD N 0 a5CO a) D n v a) p CD - O 0.CD o O� CD D �. O Q H n 5" O CSD (n CCD (/) Q � CDSSD n r+ � CDCD OCn a) � QpCD CD �CD 5• o v � CCDDp D 0_003 • Q° � � �< cn a) O C-•�, CD Q= -, CD O c_2.CD -0 = = (n CO 5'g- CD -' = � r+< n 0 co CD" (Q a) 0 cn C a) a) D `<-0 CD CD cn CZD c v a da C0D Fn $ CD0 � p O O-CCDC O• —{ c CD CD CD D CD �' Oa) v 0' CD-(n r+ (na O cn cn cn •� pOOp Q ,{CD 0 C1 0 c CD D 0 ,-� - O CD D Z1 Off' C) CD - 5o to C1, -o CD CD CD O CD O - o -s CD o N CD o ( CD �_0' -p ? -,O -, o 3o CD CD -0N CD D- v5•� co r+ O Q a) CDo —0 CD � a) O 0) CD (n E °L.p OCD co CD (1, O CD CD CD ,< :O o O 0 O 0 0 CD CD 0 D CD O (1) Q CD CD , . a) — CO O Q Q bT). D -a -0 -0 m (n ET a) a) v a) to . � N x• N= X_ (0 N� Q o _n cn cn o _n cn O OD D. Z cn 5. Z 5 co co co co ci) cn T. XI 0) D CSD CCD (CD co F -� = r a. 9 9 0- 9 0 a. _- U) U) C!) Cr) Cl) < 00 - 0 0 0 0 0 Oo � o � v m 3 2 3 3 3▪ m (.0 cQ 3 . m r-.• m CD O n z a) (;1 Z p CD n o --- co O --' Cn n n n cn - — O �, O (6 N I D (0 _x 001 �. to a O N) 2 Ey W (I) p Q01 01 CD o a) CD O N r+ C-a -I > > p o -I > CO• o -i 1) . a 0 0 i i O C) 0 0 77 2.'' -i 7) XJ -I po (n N -i > w iv D -i r X H I N CD CO CO O o.C O -rn O 0 N N 5 cp N N n `< O O r IP `D0 `) o- '� p v 3 -D c v co (i) N U1 Q G) cn O cn N n C) 3 n c 01 o. o •o �• CD CD �• CD a cn r a Z N rn a Ti°' c w — > c 0 CD ° 3 3 Z 3 a o 3 g -0 —I O -0 0 H —I H cp O• 3 z B o to 'CD'. O 01 a< cn a n a) CD m v mm v o n rn n cn N) r o ci) cn o0 O o v 0 xj cn x. x. C co m o (0 -0 < �, g C) H H CD o CD 0 Q rn CD CD CD a c• Cl) B O cn a C �_ �cD -P ''-'i co D m-° v 0 CD O 0 cD (' N c. O a - o v 5 o O � v 0 Ca Z CD v cD • cn v CD CO n 6 cn o 0 O o v 0 cD 0 0 (0 o cn o a- cCD Q n co --CD D co CD a _. . .n O cn -. Q cn 3 -• 0) < 0 0 cn m0 o• C_ v) to D p ev cD H - v -n C• -� c c o -. o O o 5co co cD cn CD �- = m m- o CD cn cn Qcn cn co cn Cy O- 0) CD r+ r+ -, FS 0 a3 c o O N CS COD cpa 3B - — - 74, '< a)0 a ) o_ 0 0 c) o v < < Eli % X CD cD C/) m o o 11 ET v t v occ, 3 3 a) o = 0 co o: cn cD cD cn D. 5. Z C" �u) 5. co co co v Fa co v -4 : F : a = a o 0 E cn cn H -n os ;on _i CH > R H mc) m m cn C) D g o = cn cn - � �, CD n = z � aN m _ v o - o o O Qa) �• r cQ N a p � C 0) CD � 0N) CI I CD CM U)_.., ......................... ........................ Z . Cr) -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c -1 E 0cn Cn Cn Cn . 0 on N —I > co N) O N CD O a, o CD r a o : to Z N CD _ate �� _, — X00 _a _a_aCo 'Z^ • co co 01 C 1 C.J1 W N N Nc.n CJ1 O_ C�n CDSJ 6)•- W" - - .)" W --a- n. 0 p - O U1 co C3) •--a N)O m - - CD �, VIcn c" N — z �' N _, -- 3 v 0 — -I.-1 'a M Et-73, CD ° 3v, 0o N 3 -1 3 -0 H - -- CD c 3w �, CD M X D N O. r 0) o CI)" M CD � � vn � CD CD 7:3 D- ° D � � �� cn fl) Q� � CD o-0 < <.* < �.0 � o o < cD < 0 � � 00CD CD � cD � STN' (1) CD C co (/� Q� CD ?< O �CZ �.CZ CD Cep O 0 " �N. 0 0* = . -� O a) 73 N � � Q) X00 = vo o - �X �v rn co . cJ-h fl- SCD D O 0 _. -,,CD O OCD = 0- ,•+C0 (n < w ( C) < -' F/4-) + Cn O CD Q � 0 ,< -0_. 0 cDO OcnO < O < � < cn � 735 D c� 5 cn - =ca o3 a) 3 < N QN ,.�co _ O -- CC)) a) o-a) O o -' p p Z D-• Q 5— _— (i) u) CD < 'O O CD CD `G CO D CD O N OCD _�• O CD OCD ,{0 CD D CDr O. <•< (On -I p) O ( 0 0 > O -. V) CD CD (n fl) V) p �*' CD c 0 C) Q O Q p fl) Q Ct) "O -' n r+N -Q CD () O CD O Op ? CZo 0 flQm O (Q 3 p Op � O O (D <'Q = 5 fl) CS Q D 0 r+-0 !I) CD Cf) co o Do < CI< Op J3 O 3 D o Own - 0 * 0 a) v cn n 5' ° � X c � 7o' v C) 3 O o m co -o �o 5c �v -+, cp Q C) � OCp O� per. O (0 O N D = cn• CD R.O_F. cp <_ a) 0 cn p o CD CD v n-0CD ON � -^ CO 7:3 co r- o o C CD n CD - cn O a) p <•O CO O `< -a = Q �' - O — Q c w �• r+ `.< co cp co O m- X-ON OCZ cn � • � �' o CD a) _ CD CD cin O Q CD �. Cp O 3 O C) 0 -0 D -, < 3 (4 CD a) CD CCD = -0 CD O CD< CD -4, al ,-+ CZ cp 0 CO) cn -o 5+o 7 O o--al O n = to CD C 7:3 + CD ON(i) a) 03 OO-0 D a) `< CnO CD O- co Z CCDCT + D O cl) o 3 < v ° CD CD ,-+ m 1:3 a 3 0 O O CD 5' � CD • CD O C (O n < n O -- I _ Q m CD FL) X cv D oco ND N = Nn N = N Nn ND N O O O O D O = OD O = OD OD ." 5. 5 co 5'co 5 co —• 5.CCD 5'cm 5'(Q 5.co cn D co ci) co co ti) co co co co c� Oo P3 : = = n = = = r C? Q. 0- CZ Q CZ CZ Q -1 Cr) Cr) Cl) Cn Cn Cn Cn Cr) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'n -•I —I —I —I —I —1 -I m D a) a)CD CD CD CD CD CD CD m m O 5 = 5- 0 O a a C C/) m c c Z Z E 0 n CI c nCn Cccc) Cr) pC C I I '� r I Q cn _ _ 01 _ N = cri c.yiEY -c-itn CA c IQ c0 r, cp N cil Q v QJ O D n Z -I n 0. N C/) N Cr) r 0 v• - QJ •-• rn o � o CD O - 6 r •_" Q o v o7 ° N G -11 v Cl 3 3 c O fl) - 0 � Z oo C n. o. N C� �•� 0 CD N -o n © Q O 0 rn CD 0 no -0a gyp' g c� O N N n a — - Z o {f3 to -co9 {f3 �A b9 — N CD D CO N - -k N .c 3 � (Ji O O U7 CJS U1 O� v +' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. N a r, O • O O O O O O r-- - 3 O O O O O O O o D 610 CCD oH N N CD N d 8 -A 0 o o o CD 5 SD co O O DO co a. O -o 5 ET co 5• `° D D Q 0 r a. o D D v CO D 7 o D- 0 (1) 7- cn v m X m M 5' D 6 1J XI Q n. m 65. cn O Q z v CCD 63 CD F cn O rn m 7, -) D m o c z o -0 v jET U) CD O -• -1 CSD 0'CD /I A Y.ilk 14-gsc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL (pig>te.,1'NrFtPETITION WE THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, STATE OF ARIZONA, LOCATED IN THE LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS SUBDIVISION R1-144 ZONE DO HEREBY PROTEST INCLUDING IN THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE THE CHANGES REFLECTED ON MAP #6 FELKER- LOT #10 AND POLITC?- LOT #5 (15?) LINDA VISTA CITRUS TRACTS, SHOWN ON SAID MAP AS 6A AND 6B, LINDA VISTA TRACTS HAS DEVELOPED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF R1-144 ZONING AND RESIDENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION WERE NEVER NOTIFIED OF PROPOSED CHANGES. ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL PLAN THERE SHOULD BE ONE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING EARLY IN THE PROCESS. THAT MEETING HAS NEVER BEEN HELD. SAID CHANGES APPARENTLY WERE INTRODUCED LATE IN THE PROCESS AND EVEN THE STEERING COMMITTEE DID NOT REVIEW THE PROPOSED CHANGE AS IS REQUIRED. THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO REVIEW AS TO HOW OR WHY THE ABOVE DECISION WAS MADE. BOTH THE FELKERS AND POLITOS STATE THAT AT THIS TIME THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES SO THERE IS NO REASON TO RUSH THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS WITHOUT FOLLOWING ALL PROCEDURES. THE PROPERTY OWNERS BELOW STATE THAT THE ONLY OPTION THEY WOULD CONSIDER WOULD BE THE FOLLOWING: THE WEST PORTION OF THE POLITO PROPERTY (6B ON MAP #6) SHOULD BE ZONED RLDR TO MEET THEIR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT AND THE ZONING SHOULD REMAIN R1-144. THE EAST SIDE OF THE POLITO PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED LDR1 TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION OR BUFFER TO THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST OF DENSER DEVELOPMENT. TO ZONE THE FELKER PROPERTY (6A ON MAP #6) AS LDR2 MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. THE FELKER PROPERTY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS THE POLITO PROPERTY. THE WEST PORTION IN LINE WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE POLITO PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED AS RLDR R1-144 ZONING TO MEET THEIR RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT. THE EAST PORTION SHOULD BE ZONED AS LDR1. THIS WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE AS IT WOULD PROVIDE A TRANSITION OR BUFFER TO THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST AND NORTH OF DENSER DEVELOPMENT. THE FELKERS KNEW THAT THE ZONING WAS R1-144 WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND SHOULD ABIDE BY IT. IF NOT, THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION SHOULD BE REZONED FOR DENSER DEVELOPMENT. WHAT IS GOOD FOR ONE SHOULD BE GOOD FOR ALL. THERE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT ZONING - IT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED ONE LOT AT A TIME. THIS IS THE TIME TO DEVELOP A SENSIBLE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. /477AW.) #12-177(5 /-7( -NAME POST OFFICE ADDRESS SIGNATURE DA 1 2"Ill k 444-Ve I S‘ OtoLiv0401-571-4 1,41,1,1L4e./414.4.a13. 1 37,:),919/./.4/77<tee _I-Crt) c,e,t, hiA119)1 yr jrr f-1_03 ,vx -3 -03Pw(�Qn' o0 .6-"654.1 W- 1.1AMAds/R p!;____„,/,, 7 4 '-;6„ - . 1 i. / -, , i_ , /., ,---2). ,. /-S--(-)? eliz-K.- , _ / - yre -> v5 ��� / 9114) /L5/7i✓G,� Gam' a/4•61' J4C16i✓/' AMl�,/ ,/.6..0-,.5 p,.....7 JO> hadia 6 1 I/ 111 - �t�C�t�el ,J0 pie 3 �/777 /V, �� (,,,,za./ \,, 0n-2.o� /-G 'oj ?• 7�1u�'a��d l�, Jone .S Q717 /�� � IarY2 i�i 111174-77-L-4 ', �✓, Ft �O j 4-- ' _ 8 S %C'Pl�En/l� , l°/�7R,�++S 9.7/6 �V, K ,�� Z�/ :i ��/,� 9 //l/9RI�y� i , 1/1/74 kLuy 77/6 /1/, � tit-, Z011,4tieg._� 4 � d-3 rarer ail4 10 in ckili-71-4)(1-)'t licz- 951-, -(,,____GAILL orivilts1-4-- - v‘iry ---1 , - ' S. _ �..r., .1. ' x/5/03 12 / ti . .,/ , ‘,_,,,, ::/"... .o.c.7 ..-..ot?i, 9 3 eVo /-1. (2,,,Z,-,46 7 A , ez/z //Va.,' 1.•," 13,--,,,v -.„. U16,-yue.... Dal la i qc3 () 0. Cc-wt.6-uzi,it,V, _I;)) a4A-e-b tek-ty //s/e3 14 ,„ ,,) ,,J - 4: ...*. , , - 9‘3 .9' 2 e 6 t e e,11,4 4, il,,„\>(:',til a 1 i-- C.Ali-lt, //5) c 3 31ug-gl� � -P/cg: ovQ,cif7-eALA£ Ruga,�4I( / - elf/��r10l/5'/c3 -Levi1` A giAlaii0 92c0 N. C4UE Lc'M UNP ' f,4„fes (..„._,, /543 v 17 • �,'Vey� v (2,Ga mkERZSGN.C��ls �ow\ err , . :._!- — � t ' v � 18 ��� ����/' /7 " ' /1/a, 4_ l yi 7A..43 NAME POST OFFICE ADbRSS SIGNATURE DATE GN D • 1 ni-G--",e/L c rJ -L✓�tj 64..f V;sr77 ircl 1.07/z_46 ESE' O V _ �'1�����%/3 / 5/0 3 F 1-16L,,of'41 36o w LinieL 2 c) - 3 bfr-OLD kr.k n90-7-6 46°4r:4711184 //6/0 Xi/WVl� 1�c�k'� �kG� GC-? L/rY�Y} tits'�.i� L� � /112-2.- I A/0,.3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 Yahoo! Mail -hardalee22(ayahoo.com Page 1 of 2 1r AH001 Mail --1" Yahoo! - My Yahoo! - Help f F�,Win _ want n.sR.r' I v e , ,„, 14 lbs. GoeDi , _,se t_ met a free diet profile ,-2,, ll '''''.,. Click Here to Lose 10 lbs-START NOW! _ Mai -.-4.__C-17] Addresses - Calendar - z. Notepad hardalee22@yahoo.com [Sign Out] Check Mail Compose i Mail Upgrades -Search Mail - Mail Options Check Other Mail Previous I Next I Back to Messages Printable View- Full Headers [Edit] Delete i Reply Reply All Forward I as attachment Move to folder... OKI aol.com Folders [Add] as Unread Mark--- ------- This message is not flagged. [ Rag Message- M a ] Q. Inbox Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:41:18 -0800 (PST) R, Draft From: "Lee Hessler" <hardalee22@yahoo.com> I This is Spam I Add to Address Book r Sent Subject: Proposed Rezoning at Naranja and La Cholla 1--C3 hn n orovalle .net wwolff@orovalley.net, .net Bulk [Empty] To: pabbott@orovalley.net, r)o so @ y @ y , brochman@orovalley.net, ploomis@orovalley.net r- Trash CC: bnodine@orovalley.net Lj - � y [Em_M] We cannot believe that the Council would even listen to a request for commercial zoning Check Your at this intersection. H i redit In T A Seconds ***Two of the quadrants (SE & NE) already have residential housing directly abutting that } intersection. Would you place businesses on the same corner that already has houses? Find Top Realtors® I ***Does the masterlan call for commercial zoninghere? p FREE fax ...,number ***Do the kids at Ironwood High School need a convenence store where they can hang i`f= out? for your I Yahoo! Mail F ***What ever happened to the concept of buffer zones between houses and businesses? Free Remote koAccess ***Do we have a shortage of strip malls in OV? We don't think so. to Your PC Please respect the wishes of the many family residents already residing at or near that intersection. Mr/Mrs R. L. Hessler 11148 N Divot Drive a (Catalina at Canada Hills) Do you Yahoo!? http://us.f412.mail.yahoo.comlym/ShowLetter?MsgId=7278_669050_1444_704_755_0_67... 1/6/2003