As we noted in a previous post, the Oro Valley Council had their Study Session Jan. 14 on the issue of the Naranja Town site.
Here is a brief synopsis of the meeting----from my perspective.
The Parks & Recreation Director gave a presentation listing six (6) potential options as to what action to take on the park site.
They are:
1) Develop the parcel as a joint venture with another entity such as The Amphi School District
2) Develop the site in phases w/o a property tax with outside funding sources
3) Put the park as another ballot proposal in 2-4 years
4) Take no action. Leave the park as is with only the existing trails
5) Use the site for other town uses
6) Sell the parcel but with a value in excess of $500K, that would need voter approval.
Additionally, the P & R Director noted that P & R came up with two suggestions--- Build the park in phases over 16 years or take no action.
Briefly stated, Council Member Bill Garner presented the council & the citizens with another option, elaborating on the idea we noted in our earlier posting. Bill's idea, that we endorse is to lease the northern section of the parcel (approx. 100 acres) and rezone it for CPI (Hi tech businesses.)
Build the park on the southern portion, starting out with 4 ball fields & 2 soccer fields, using artificial turf which will eliminate the need for costly infrastructure to put in water for grass upkeep. The costs would be well below the $48.6 million, and would negate the need for a property tax.
After hearing from some speakers, Mayor Loomis had concerns as to where the funds, estimated at $5m would come from. The finance director did not give a definite answer
As it was a Study Session, no action was taken.
3 comments:
Where will the funds come from?
How about all that money that was supposed to be generated by the Vestar MarketPlace that was supposed to bring us in pots of gold!
If it were my decision I would leave the land as is for right now until economic conditions improve
We learned, well some of us learned, that bio-tech does not make a good neighbor to residential. That was the big issue with Ventana when Monterey Homes started to build right next to them. The Town ended up buying that piece of property for it's MOC.
So I suspect that two things would happen with the Garner plan:
1. There would not be a buyer for that type of zoning and,
2. The proposed change in zoning would be vehemently opposed by those in Copper Creek and Monterra subdivisions.
We need to figure out how to pursue the art museum and keep the property as a park without including any school uses.
I, having attended the 'hearing' relative to this subject last week, have concluded that NONE of those suggestions is truly a viable one. We must recognize that Staff is stuck in a rut; they seem to be still mired in the idea that the 'park' must be as it it WAS conceived or abandon it entirely. Bill, I believe, at least has come out of the box and is thinking about alternative 'mixing'. We must realize, however, that there is little foundation that some kind of hi-tech or bio-tech hub will continue to develop here. Yes, there are a few companies located within but a center for future growth in this arena is not realistic. Every municipality in this country, all of whom have 'lost' foundation businesses during our present economic situation, will, upon a regeneration of new growth, will be competing for a piece of the pie. I just read this morning that the Town of Chandler will be going after more of these types of businesses and Chandler, as an example, has many advantages for 'company growth' than we do. In addition, a community cannot develop orientation,physically, in the manner of a 'little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit everywhere'. Unfortunately, had Oro Valley had some responsible developmental vision, foresight, perhaps the 'park' area might have become a Town center, including a municipal operations center, along with park facilities, and should have left the Monterey Homes site for further 'tech' development as it is 'tech' that, as it exists now, that surrounds that parcel.
Now, as to the 'park', it is my conclusion that the 'composite' as it has been conceived and pushed, should be completely scrapped! There are features that are included that have no reason to be included (BMX - 1/10th of 1% of the country's population is involved in this 'sport'; that translates into usage for merely 45 persons in Oro Valley; is this enough patronage to justify the expense?) There are features that should be included that the Town, in it's presentation the other night, completely ignored. This park should include SOME sports facilities, SOME museum or visual arts facilities, and, the MOST PROFITABLE FACILITY OF ALL - an amphitheater (believe it or not, a relatively inexpensive entity) that could service around 7000 patrons, blended into the 'surround' where concerts could be held, a proven money maker, as well as a facility where more local presentations could be afforded. The rest of the area could (should) be left as an open 'natural' area for the enjoyment of
all.
I say, scrap the old plan entirely, form a focus group not dominated by special interests or town innies and let his group explore what facilities presently in existence might be expanded upon and/or improved, AND create a 'park', family friendly, that would include facilities that are more inclusive and less 'formal' than the 'current' plan.
Post a Comment