HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1357) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 STEERING COMMITTEE OPEN HOUSE AND STUDY SESSION MAY 20, 2002 5:30 PM ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE OPEN HOUSE —AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM OPEN HOUSE/VISIT LAND USE ALTERNATIVE STATIONS STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PRESENTATION OF THE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES AND GENERAL PLAN PROCESS TO DATE ADJOURN STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS RAFFLE DRAWING BY MAYOR LOOMIS OPEN HOUSE ADJOURNED INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. Ify ou wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. stepforward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the Please agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. Please state your name and address for the record. 2. Speak onlyon the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please p p our organizeyour speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During "Call to Audience" you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). p If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700. Posted: 05/16/02 4:30 p.m. Ih O'Z'Ora GENERAL PLAN U PDA TE 2020 ?rt,'5ohyvvr. AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, and GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 STEERING COMMITTEE OPEN HOUSE AND STUDY SESSION MAY 20, 2002 5:30 PM ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE OPEN HOUSE—AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM OPEN HOUSE/VISIT LAND USE ALTERNATIVE STATIONS STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PRESENTATION OF THE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES, THE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS TO DATE AND FOR THE FUTURE ADJOURN STUDY SESSION RAFFLE DRAWING BY MAYOR LOOMIS The Town of complies Oro Valley with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person with ads disability i abili needs anytype of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700. Posted: 05/16/02 4:30 p.m. Ih " *� ....� OPEN HOUSE #1, MAY 20, 2002 O� ra -�' ION '���`���;��z Q z a �-�.�`�*,, �� LAND USE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION COMMENT FORM STEP 1:• VISIT EACH LAND USE ALTERNATIVE STATION AND COMPLETE THE BOXES BELOW FOR EACH OF THE LAND USE MAP ALTERNATIVES. Base Case: Current General Plan Alternative 1: Cluster/Mixed Use ■ What do you ou like about this alternative and why? • What do you like about this alternative and why? ■ What do you ou not like about this alternative and why? • What do you not like about this alternative and why? ■ What wouldY ou change? ■ What would you change? Alternative 2: Fiscal Services Alternative 3: Environmental Preservation • What doY ou like about this alternative and why? • What do you like about this alternative and why? • What doY ou not like about this alternative and why? • What do you not like about this alternative and why? • What would you change? • What would you change? STEP 2: RANK THE ALTERNATIVES FROM 1-4, WITH #1 BEING YOUR MOST PREFERRED AND #4 YOUR LEAST PREFERRED. Base Case Alternative: Current General Plan Alternative 2: Fiscal Services Alternative 1: Cluster/Mixed Use Alternative 3: Environmental Preservation STEP 3: LABEL SPECIFIC CHANGES TO YOUR PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE MAP ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM. (Optional) Name: Address: Phone: E-Mail: How did you hear about the Open House? Did you attend the Focus Group Meetings? PLEASE LEAVE THIS FORM IN THE COMMENT BOX BEFORE YOU LEAVE! ,, ,,_ ,-, ... .. , „.., ._ ., .,1_,.,,:„_-_-,:-i--_-_-, - f ., , , : :r1.,. • _ _ ---,1 1 1 .4, _ -. -_ .,_ ,_ , - _ . :, -;= _i, _,, _, _ . , „ 1 1 .,. ..:_:., .. .,,_: , : ,. . , _. -, 1 , , , . • , „,, ..„ . -, --__-- 1 - „, 4 ,:_:: :,,,__„_. _ _ _ , ,_ _ _,, . __:, . II •- r_,...t4 '- ,1 — '- i • 1 ---1 r „ ,,t.A! ' 1:-"'s' IL < voi., ,P,V4 DIO;',-.- S: : .0(c _, -; - - - A ,,„, j Aft -- , 1 -_:,,,- ,-_9 , . . Z 7 'il \Z D ' 1 Y t C'. * : I D3 0 CO 0 1 33 o L �O 1 0 • :('‘ j 7 W MOORE A AFRD it ir ;Ik r ir VI II i',, iip r qi ma ii_ I tile!,INN "E"kintitirm:11/Cilib, . -7111” wc11111111 go um I IN w.ri _ �i ta> 1 • 'ji111111r1 IF mil 1 1.11 Amp., PP- IFNJAD.R!1PA ITE4 111.4‘111 rilljj, iiiiigr _. ill." tf, i Lau P°' 0,r'ir ,,,,,,,filirM • IIrr 11L � Piart k. ,,•-• 1 -- rr-- ' — mak A - W LIND•VISTA ,'n !, — : o10 I. Z )11 - 1'dLe1rl�:�t: G © ■.` S3 CALI;CtaJ'DiIA', is .I- _ HARDY•�D , . 4�111111111141611111 oro r, , JW Land Use � W� •GEE RD w� �f"t`;, Alternatives .&,_,.. m Comment Map PA/ t ��° Legend filly I 1 Fr �� 1:31 Variable Areas 'y- :- hi -�—�1996 Urban Growth Boundary �� Transmission Line rig 10111 W INA RDIT '., ' RD La Cholla Airpark Planning Area p Major Street General Plan Update Planning Area Oro Valley Limits Special Resource Area Results of Focus Groups are Used to Create Alternatives GOALS ALTERNATIVES (Preserve the Environment Current Plan [Revenues for Sustainability Clean Water [Protect Views Mix of Quality Development ) Bedroom Community Safe,Not Crowded Roads Environment Maintain Public Services] mu* Cluster/Mixed Use [Emphasize Culture/Arts, A Safe Place to Live[t Access to Trails Fiscal/Services Jobs for Residents ,[ Parks for All Ages J CREATION F MAP ALTERNATIVES A set of Land Use Alternatives should present "reasonably plausible but structurally different futures." Kees van der Heiden The Art of Strategic Conversation(1996) Knowing what you want,what do you think might happen? PROCESS FOR CREATING ALTERNATIVES • Identify Areas with the Potential for Change • Use Community Goals to Create a Range of Alternatives for these Areas • Hold a Public Workshop(Focus Group#5) to Refine the Alternatives • Combine the Common Elements from the Public Workshop to Create 3 Alternatives 1 Areas with Potential for Change • ed eloped as 3-acre lot residentia Not developed with or developed adjacent vacant land and 144 • Zoned as R1- or • Interest in changing the zoning A Range of Alternatives are Created from CommuniGoa ty ls GOALS ALTERNATIVES Preserve the Environment) Current Plan (Revenues far Sustainability) Clean Water) (Protect Views) Mix of Quality Development ) Bedroom Community (Safe,Not Crowded Roads, i—j> Environment (Maintain Public Services) [Emphasize Culture�Artsj ClusteNNlixed Use (A Safe Place to Live)( Access to Trails ) Fiscal/Seryices .lobs for Resider" L Parks for All , Focus Group #5 Refines theAlternatives ay -7 "-1",:.:, ''..7 t311 i :. ,::-.,., _t y: Current Plan ., ,.,,,, „, �., i1.4.1:11-: :: t .-- : ..:„.,..J _;• 4.,- 14 'i."r.i „.,;-;--io. ......i. : i':::f.,:-' Bedroom Community Environment r:: Cluster/Mixed Use :c'i r..-A. 1' , P.!r•—T„,.0,,-.„, i.,.., ,i , , ,?...74:;‘,1:-.:f:,;,' 1''': . ' ..,_,. 07.. Fiscal/Services '. -,s. litt:t: 2 Focus Group#5: Community Design Results Cluster/Mixed Use is the Preferred Scenario with modifications: °s r Reduced some residential densities :; Increased commercial at 44-'1 some intersections. r Changed Master Planned •{ Community to Mixed Use r Changed Mixed Use to ,' ! allow a maximum of 5 homes per acre Combine the 8 Alternatives Into 3 Criteria for Combining t • Group by base map used o T-, • Use land uses common to most maps • Where land uses differ: Environment — use focus group goals — use votes in Focus Group Cluster/Mixed Use #5 Fiscal/Services RESULTS • Three Alternatives —From community goals —Only potential change areas affected —Represent a realistic range scenarios 3 --4.°1.11.11141001.111111614..—.. Town of Oro Valley General Plan Update 2020 Open House#1 May 20,2002 ......0.11°11111141111"11111,... PROCESS OVERVIEW Started with Growing Smarter/Plus • Content Changes •Five New Elements Required •Modifications to Existing Elements •Major Amendment Criteria •Zoning and General Plan Decisions in Conformity • Procedural Changes •Written Public Involvement Plan •General Plan Adopted via Voter Approval(51-1-%) •Additional Jurisdictional Notification •Readoption Every 10 Years \— 1 Update Also Addresses • Changes in Oro Valley since 1996 — Grown from just under to 20,000 to over 30,000 residents — Increased from 26 square miles to 31.7 — Significant new commercial and residential development • Updates to policies regarding growth&development. • Implementation of the Public Participation Action Plan. • Sustainability as framework. Sustainability • Environmental • Economic • Social "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Our Common Future;Brundtland Commission,UNCED 1987. Planning Process & Status of Update 2020 • Information Gathering,Analysis&Visioning — Future Search Conference(October,2001) — Draft Scenarios(March,2002) — 5 Topic Focus Groups(February to March,2002) • Alternatives Evaluation — 3 Alternatives and analysis(May,2002) —Open House/Study Session(May,2002) — Draft General Plan Preparation • Council&Public Approval 2 Future Search Conference Values -- • Environment,ViewsOpen Space and lifestyle • Cultural Resource (music,art,theatre • Development Principles • Public Service &Safety • Better Transportation • Demographic Diversity =� Future Search Conference Issues _ • Natural Resources&Environment • Circulation&Public Services • Parks, Recreation&Culture • Land Use&Development • Community Design • Future Search Issues explored further in 5 Topic Focus Groups ~�=- Focus Group One _ • Open Space,Natural Resources& Environment —Open Space — Biological Resources —Water Resources —Visual Resources 3 Focus Group Two • Circulation&Public Services —Streets&Roads —Transit Services — Public Facilities,Services&Safety Focus Group Three • Parks,Recreation&Culture — Parks&Recreation —Trails&Open Space —Cultural Resources Focus Group Four • Land Use,Housing&Economic Development — Economic Development — Housing — Land Use 4 ALTERNATIVES CREATION Focus Group Results Used to Create Alternatives GOALS ALTERNATIVES Preserve the Environment Current Plan Revenues for Sustainability aeon Water Protect Views Mb.of Quality Development Bedroom Community Safe,Nat Crowded Roads milik Environment Maintain Public Services Cluster/Mixed Use' Emphasixe CultureArt, A Safe Place to Live Atte.to Trails fiscalServices I Jobs far Residents Parks for All Ages Creation of Map Alternatives • A set of Land Use Alternatives should present "reasonably plausible but structurally different futures." Kees van der Heijden The Art of Strategic Conversation(1996) • Knowing what you want,what do you think might happen? 5 Process for Creating Alternatives • Identify Areas with the Potential for Change • Use Community Goals to Create a Range of Alternatives for these Areas • Hold a Public Workshop(Focus Group#5)to Refine the Alternatives • Combine the Common Elements from the Public Workshop to Create 3 Alternatives Areas with Potential for Change • Not developed or developed as 3-acre lot residential with adjacent vacant land and • Zoned as R1-144 or • Interest in changing the zoning Alternatives Created from Community Goals GOALS ALTERNATIVES Presume the Environment Current Plan Revenues for Sustainability Clean Water Protect Views Mix of Quality Development Bedroom Community Safe,Not Crowded Roads Environment Maintain Public Services MI* Cluster/Mixed Else Emphasize CutturetArts A Safe Place to live Access to Traits Fiscal/Services Jobs far Residents Parks for All Ages 6 Focus Group#5 Refines the Alternatives Current Plan ^F►..; l `s. " £ _ Bedroom Community • ` } Environment Cluster/Mixed 11sc� AI' Fi caliServices „� ([{ Focus Group#5: Community Design Results � lt:3k.�S'hsm't5/.:Y�ZSib3 .w�%vEs IGS�:�N�ri Cluster/Mixed Use is the ,,, a„ ,r Preferred Scenario r. 11161 with modifications: Reduced some residential densities f Increased commercial at .N � • some intersections ' •. Changed Master Planned Community to Mixed User ;.� t<' i-Changed Mixed Use to allow a maximum of 5 ��'homes per acre Combine the 8 Alternatives Into 3 Criteria for Combining 1-1 • Group by base map used • Use land uses common ,� to most maps • Where land uses differ: Environment - use focus group goals - use votes in Focus Group Cluster/Mixed Ilse #5 Fiscal/Services 7 Results • Three Alternatives — From community goals —Only potential change areas affected — Represent a realistic range scenarios { ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Evaluation Criteria • Derived from Previous Outreach Efforts — Future Search — Survey Results — Town Stakeholder Interviews • Track Focus Group Subjects — Open Space Natural Resources and Environment — Circulation and Public Services — Parks,Recreation,and Culture — Land Use and Development • Comparative Emphasis on Variable Areas — Quantitative,Qualitative,Spatial(Three Areas) • Documentation Underway 8 Open Space, Natural Resources, Environment • Natural Open Space — Protect,Preserve,Acquire,Maintain • Biological Resources(Plant and Wildlife) — Protection of Habitat • Water Resources — Protect Quality and Supply,Conserve Groundwater • Visual Resources — Protect Scenic Resources,Maintain Viewsheds Circulation and Public Services • Streets and Roads —Avoid Congestion,Maintain Safety • Transit Services — Enhance Feasibility and Viability • Public Facilities,Services,and Safety —Maintain Levels of Service and Safety; Infrastructure Efficiency Parks, Recreation, and Culture • Parks and Recreation — Facilities for All Ages and Abilities,Funding Sources • Trails&Open Space — Provide Access;Preserve,Protect,and Acquire • Cultural Resources — Identify and Protect Cultural and Visual Identity; Emphasize and Enhance the Arts 9 Land Use and Development ment • Fiscal/Economic Development — Provide Employment Opportunities for Town Residents;Provide Revenues for Community Economic Sustainability • Housing — Provide a Broad Mix of High Quality Housing • Land Use — Preserve Sonoran Desert;Maintain Low Density Character; Balance Development with Revenue Enhancement err^�&lb.�Y•- `..... Base Case: Current General Man • Current Plan Adopted in 1997 • Basis for Comparison Alternative 1: Cluster/Mixed-Use • Diversity of residential development types; • Increase recreation/open space; • Increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of public infrastructure/services; • Appropriate variable areas designated for clustered residential use and mixed-use neighborhoods. 10 Alternative I: Key Findings • Clustering emphasis will encourage retention of natural open areas. • High level of preservation through SRA designation(.3,300 acres) • High level of habitat protection through clustering and SRA designation. • Clustering would provide opportunity to avoid sensitive groundwater recharge areas. • Relatively high amount of impervious surface with potential for runoff. • Development of open areas north of Town would diminish scenic views. • Intensive development at key intersections(e.g.,Tangerine and La Cholla)could affect viewsheds from adjacent roadways. Alternative 1: Key Findings(cont.) • Development of State Land property north of Town will require significant investment in access across Big Wash. • Planned roadway network in La Cholla and Oracle Corridors should accommodate growth under this alternative. • Proposed mixed-use clusters are well-suited to transit-supportive development. • New development along La Cholla could merit consideration of a Sun Tran connection. • Service to areas north of Town would be difficult to serve without provision of satellite services. • Concentrated,higher-density development could generate greater demand for services,particularly law enforcement,but could enhance efficiency. Alternative 1: Key Findings(cont.) • Parks and recreation services would be provided based'on fees and dedications associated with new development at a service level established by the Town. • Clustering principles would promote retention of open space in otherwise developed areas,which could provide opportunities to ensure trail connectivity. • Historical and archaeological resources would be protected from development by Town policy. • Diminishing Town revenues available to support arts activities. • Would result in the greatest diversity of housing types among the alternatives,as well as the greatest number of units. 11 Alternative 2: Fiscal/Services • Maximize retail sales tax revenues; • Maximize provision of services; • Appropriate variable areas designated for commercial use. - Alternative 2: Key Findinas • Lowest level of direct preservation(only 350 acres designated SRA). • Highest potential for using Town funds to secure protected open space areas. • Lowest level of habitat protection as result of higher density development and associated habitat disruption through subdivision. • High amount of impervious surface associated with commercial development.,which would require collection and potentially treatment of runoff. • Development of open areas north of Town would diminish scenic views. • Intensive development at key intersections(e.g.,Tangerine and La Cholla,Lambert and La Cholla.First and Oracle)could affect viewsheds from adjacent roadways. Alternative 2: Key Findings(cont.) • Development of State Land property north of Town will require significant investment in access across Big Wash,as well as expanded collector network. • Level of development in La Cholla and Oracle Corridors roughly equivalent to Current GP,so planned roadway capacity sufficient. • Proposed commercial and office development at major intersections would be supportive of transit,including extension of Sun Tran service to the La Cholla corridor. • General fund revenues could be available to support expanded transit service. • Would expand service needs to the north of the current Town limits,which could require satellite facilities to provide adequate service. • Would generate revenues to support continued high level of services for Town provided services. 12 Alternative 2: Key Findings(cant.) • Parks and recreation services would be provided based on fees and dedications associated with new development at a service level established by the Town. • Positive Town General Fund revenue flow could result in funding availability for parks beyond that of other alternatives. • Retention of open space could be difficult to accomplish due to concentrated,higher-density development patterns.This could also make development of a continuous trail network difficult. • General fund revenues could be available to support acquisition of open space areas. • Historical and archaeological resources would be protected from development by Town policy. • Town General Fund revenues could be available to support arts activities. • Would result in increased diversity of housing types. Alternative 3: Environmental Preservation • Maximize retail sales tax revenues; • Maximize provision of services; • Appropriate variable areas designated for commercial use. Alternative 3: Key Findings • Highest level of preservation through SRA designation(almost 5,000 acres) • Large lot residential emphasis increases likelihood of high-quality open space on private,subdivided land. • Highest level of habitat protection resulting from SRA designation and low density,large-lot subdivisions that will allow for maintenance of habitat on privately-owned property. • Highest level of water resource protection as a result of open space preservation and very low density residential development pattern. • Would preserve greatest amount of open area through SRA designation and very low intensity development,thus would have least effect on scenic resources. 13 Alternative 3: Key Findings(cont.) • No new roadways required to serve development north of Town. • Significantly decreased development in La Cholla and Oracle Corridors might require change in improvement plans to reduce capacity. • Low-density development pattern would generally diminish viability of transit. • Low service demand generation,and accordingly low revenue generation to support services. • Dispersed,low-density development pattern could be inefficient to serve. Alternative 3: Key Findings(cont.) • Minimal expansion of park and recreation services due to low levels of new development. • Low-density,dispersed development pattern would retain private open space,but acquisition of open space for public use would be unlikely given diminished Town revenues. • Historical and archaeological resources would be protected from development by Town policy. • Diminishing Town revenues available to support arts activities. • Would result in the least diversity of housing types among the alternatives. r4if el 1 FISCAL MODEL OVERVIEW 14 Background • Purpose/Rationale — Estimate public revenues and expenditures —May examine annexation,new development,and/or redevelopment —Tool for comparing alternative development patterns Background nd • Function of... —Current revenues and expenditures —Current service levels —Changes in... •Land Use/Development •Population/Dwelling Units •Employment/Commercial(square feet) Background • Limitations —Monetary revenues/costs only—ignores non- monetary impacts —Consideration of direct impacts only —Attention to local jurisdiction only miumew Background • Average vs.Marginal Cost Analysis —Average cost analysis •Costs/revenues for all current and future population • Long-term view —Marginal cost analysis •Costs/revenues for only next increment of population •Short-term view Background • Types of Fiscal Impact Analysis — Per capita multiplier(average cost—most common) —Case study(average cost) —Service standard(average cost) —Comparable city(average cost) — Proportional valuation(marginal cost) — Employment anticipation(marginal cost) Background • Per Capita Multiplier — Identify available revenue/expenditure data and categorize — Estimate revenues/expenditures per person(may be a function of service levels) — Estimate future revenues/expenditures based on forecast population 16 Methodology • Major Steps To Date - Determine three land use alternatives(compare with Current General Plan) - Interview major department heads - Review and expand existing annexation models - Release preliminary drafts for review and comment by department heads Methodology • Major Assumptions -Geography(3 variable areas,4 others) - Development timing -Model components(per geographic area) - Revenue/expenditure assumptions Methodology • Geography -Oracle Corridor(developing) - La Cholla Corridor(developing) - North of Town(annexed/developing) -TOV Developed(no change) -TOV Entitled(developing) -Outside TOV Developed(to be annexed) -Outside TOV Entitled(to be annexed) 17 Methodology • Model Components Per Geographic Area — Buildout/Annexation — Development — Population and Jobs — Revenues — Expenditures —Summary Methodology • Buildout/Annexation —Acres per land use category developed annually • Development —Conversion of gross acres to net acres — Density/intensity calculations •Dwelling units •Square feet commercial Methodology • Population — Persons per household —Occupancy rate • Jobs —Square feet per jobs —Commercial vacancy rate 18 Methodology • Revenues (ongoing) — Retail sales tax — Hotel sales and bed taxes —Cable franchise fees —State shared revenues — Business license fee —Transit fare box Methodology • Revenues (one-time) — Roadway improvements — Residential construction sales tax —Commercial construction sales tax — Building permits -- Methodology • Expenditures — Police —Magistrate court — Public works — Public transit 19 Methodology • Expenditures — Development services — Library services — Parks and recreation — Hotel bed tax transfer/rebate —Other Methodology • Results — Revenues less expenditures(surplus/deficit) —Summary •5 year increments •Major indicators — By geographic area •Annually •Detailed revenues/expenditures Summary • Purpose/Rationale — Estimate public revenues and expenditures —May examine annexation,new development,and/or redevelopment —Tool for comparing alternative development patterns —May be adapted in future for changes in service levels 20 FOR THE FUTURE For the Future • Information Gathering,Analysis&Visioning • Alternatives Evaluation - Develop preferred map alternative-May - Public hearings on preferred map-June • Draft General Plan Preparation - Public hearings on draft plan-July - 60 day review period-July to September - Implementation Plan-July to September • Council&Public Approval - Public hearings on final plan-Oct to Nov - Ratification-2003 21