Monday, July 12, 2010

Miller Ranch Master Plan On Oro Valley Council Agenda July 21

For anyone interested or concerned about the Miller Ranch proposed Development Plan for the NW corner of La Canada & Tangerine, please note, it is on the OV Council agenda for July 21.

The packet for this item is on the town web site or it is available on the blog on the left column.

OV12 08-07 & 07A CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PHASE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MILLER RANCH PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CA√ĎADA DRIVE AND TANGERINE ROAD.

Explanation: Desco Southwest, represented by Rick Engineering Company, requests approval of a master development plan and phase 1 & 2 development plan for the Miller Ranch development.

15 comments:

OV Objective Thinker said...

I am glad that another post has been made regarding this topic so that some previous posted information can be corrected. I had asked Art to specify what codes/ordinances had been violated and as I recall there was no response.

I believe that someone posted that the meetings had to be run by the Planning Dept. There were some other accusations made that to date I have found to be baseless. I have the entire neighborhood meeting
criteria archived and would be willing to discuss this at whatever length folks wish to discuss.

In my quest for accurate information, I went to various properties on Washbed (the residential street immediately east of LaCanada).I went to the west property line and frankly, in many instances I doubt that the buildings on the Miller Ranch will even be visible through the vegetation.

It appeared that the applicant was in the process of erecting a 'story pole' on the site so I will go back to confirm my guess.

artmarth said...

Perhaps Mr. cox can attend the July 21 council meeting and put to rest any and all concerns the neighbors may have concerning this development.

I'm sure everyone will appreciate that.

OV Objective Thinker said...

It is obvious that art does not want to respond to the initial question.

It is useless to make any attempt to carry on a reasoned conversation with him.

OV Objective Thinker said...

If anyone is interested here is the applicable section from the code.
Due to space limitations it must be sent in two parts.

Section 22.15 Public Participation
A. Purpose

This section provides requirements for neighborhood meetings for proposed development projects. The purpose of promoting public participation in the development review process is to:

1. Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.

2. Promote fair and open dialogue between stakeholders, applicants, staff, board and commission members, and the Town Council.

3. Inform and educate stakeholders regarding the development process, review criteria, and planning and zoning regulations.

4. Provide stakeholders with opportunities to ask questions, identify issues, and forge solutions early in the development process.

5. Promote transparent conveyance of agreed upon solutions to staff, boards and commissions, and Town Council.

6. Promote consistent implementation of agreed upon solutions through the development review process.

B. Applicability

1. General

Neighborhood meetings are required for the following development applications:

a. Major and minor general plan amendments.

b. Rezonings.

c. Conditional use permits.

d. Preliminary plats.

e. Development and landscape plans, excluding landscape plans not associated with a development plan or plat.

f. Any other proposed action that results in significant change in the development intensity or compatibility with existing development as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.

2. Exceptions

The Planning and Zoning Director may determine that a neighborhood meeting is not required in accordance with the following criteria:

a. There are no residential uses or zones within six hundred (600') feet of the subject property, excluding areas designated as right-of-way, open space or drainage easement.

b. If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivision name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.

c. It is determined that the project/proposal is:

i. Not anticipated to be controversial,

ii. Consistent with similarly situated property, or

iii. Not substantially affecting land use, streetscape, or views.

C. Administration

Neighborhood meetings shall be organized by Town Planning and Zoning Department staff in the manner specified in the Public Participation and Notification Policy maintained by the Planning and Zoning Director.

D. Public Outreach Plan (POP)

1. The applicant must submit a POP that meets the requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Director.

2. The POP must be submitted after pre-application review and before neighborhood meetings are scheduled.

3. The POP must include:

a. A description of the project.

b. Identification of interested stakeholders, including homeowners associations that are affected by the proposal.

c. A proposed neighborhood meeting process.

4. The POP must incorporate the Neighborhood Meeting Requirements noted in Oro Valley Zoning Code Section 22.2.D. The applicant may propose an alternative process if it is designed to include key stakeholders in a meaningful way, and is consistent with Section 22.2.A, Purpose, and the Public Participation and Notification Policy. Any alternative proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Director approval. At a minimum, the POP must contain educational and issue identification and resolution elements, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy.

5. The POP is subject to Communications Administrator review.

OV Objective Thinker said...

If anyone is interested here is the applicable section from the code.
Due to space limitations it must be sent in two parts.

Section 22.15 Public Participation
A. Purpose

This section provides requirements for neighborhood meetings for proposed development projects. The purpose of promoting public participation in the development review process is to:

1. Build trust through effective public outreach and communication.

2. Promote fair and open dialogue between stakeholders, applicants, staff, board and commission members, and the Town Council.

3. Inform and educate stakeholders regarding the development process, review criteria, and planning and zoning regulations.

4. Provide stakeholders with opportunities to ask questions, identify issues, and forge solutions early in the development process.

5. Promote transparent conveyance of agreed upon solutions to staff, boards and commissions, and Town Council.

6. Promote consistent implementation of agreed upon solutions through the development review process.

B. Applicability

1. General

Neighborhood meetings are required for the following development applications:

a. Major and minor general plan amendments.

b. Rezonings.

c. Conditional use permits.

d. Preliminary plats.

e. Development and landscape plans, excluding landscape plans not associated with a development plan or plat.

f. Any other proposed action that results in significant change in the development intensity or compatibility with existing development as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.

2. Exceptions

The Planning and Zoning Director may determine that a neighborhood meeting is not required in accordance with the following criteria:

a. There are no residential uses or zones within six hundred (600') feet of the subject property, excluding areas designated as right-of-way, open space or drainage easement.

b. If any portion of a subdivision falls within the required notification area, the entire subdivision (as defined by subdivision name or unit number) may be required to be notified if the impacts of the proposal would have impacts affecting the entire subdivision or neighborhood, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.

c. It is determined that the project/proposal is:

i. Not anticipated to be controversial,

ii. Consistent with similarly situated property, or

iii. Not substantially affecting land use, streetscape, or views.

C. Administration

Neighborhood meetings shall be organized by Town Planning and Zoning Department staff in the manner specified in the Public Participation and Notification Policy maintained by the Planning and Zoning Director.

D. Public Outreach Plan (POP)

1. The applicant must submit a POP that meets the requirements established by the Planning and Zoning Director.

2. The POP must be submitted after pre-application review and before neighborhood meetings are scheduled.

3. The POP must include:

a. A description of the project.

b. Identification of interested stakeholders, including homeowners associations that are affected by the proposal.

c. A proposed neighborhood meeting process.

4. The POP must incorporate the Neighborhood Meeting Requirements noted in Oro Valley Zoning Code Section 22.2.D. The applicant may propose an alternative process if it is designed to include key stakeholders in a meaningful way, and is consistent with Section 22.2.A, Purpose, and the Public Participation and Notification Policy. Any alternative proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Director approval. At a minimum, the POP must contain educational and issue identification and resolution elements, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy.

5. The POP is subject to Communications Administrator review.

OV Objective Thinker said...

E. Public Outreach Report

1. The applicant must submit a Public Outreach Report as part of the project application.

2. At a minimum, the Public Outreach Report must include:

a. A list of neighborhood meetings, noting when and where they were held; the number of people that attended; and copies of sign-in sheets.

b. A list of meeting notification methods used.

c. Copies of comment letters, petitions, and other pertinent information received from residents and other interested parties.

d. A summary of the issues and concerns that were raised.

e. A list of solutions that were agreed upon.

f. A list of issues that were not resolved, with an explanation of why a solution was not achieved.

F. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements

1. Number of Meetings

a. A minimum of two neighborhood meetings are required in the following sequence. One meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.

i. The first meeting is an educational session with neighbors, other stakeholders and the project planner to review and discuss the process and applicable planning and zoning regulations.

ii. The second meeting is an opportunity for the applicant to present the project, solicit feedback, and address issues and concerns.

iii. It should be determined at the meeting if additional time or information is needed to develop solutions. The decision about whether to hold an additional meeting should be made at this meeting.

b. If the project type, layout, or previously agreed upon mitigation solutions are substantially changed after meeting with neighbors, an additional meeting must be held.

2. Meeting Location

Neighborhood meetings must be held in a facility that:

a. Is accessible to the general public, such as a Town-owned facility, school, house of worship, or community recreation center, and

b. Provides access for persons with disabilities.

3. Scheduling

a. Neighborhood meetings should typically be scheduled on a weekday evening so that working residents may attend, but may be adapted to neighborhood needs, as appropriate.

b. The educational session and applicant presentation meeting must be scheduled prior to formal submittal of the application.

4. Meeting Notification

a. Notice shall include all persons and entities identified in the Public Outreach Plan.

b. Neighborhood meeting notifications must be:

i. Prepared by the applicant using a Town-approved letter format. The letter must include a description and tentative timeline for the review and public meeting/hearing process.

ii. Submitted to the project planner for review and verification one week prior to mailing.

c. In addition to the aforementioned, other meeting notification methods may be utilized for projects of broad scope.

5. Facilitation

a. A Town-approved facilitator may be utilized to assist with neighborhood meetings, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy.

b. If professional facilitation services are required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director, the applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for such services.

((O)09-17, Added, 11/4/09)

OV Objective Thinker said...

E. Public Outreach Report

1. The applicant must submit a Public Outreach Report as part of the project application.

2. At a minimum, the Public Outreach Report must include:

a. A list of neighborhood meetings, noting when and where they were held; the number of people that attended; and copies of sign-in sheets.

b. A list of meeting notification methods used.

c. Copies of comment letters, petitions, and other pertinent information received from residents and other interested parties.

d. A summary of the issues and concerns that were raised.

e. A list of solutions that were agreed upon.

f. A list of issues that were not resolved, with an explanation of why a solution was not achieved.

F. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements

1. Number of Meetings

a. A minimum of two neighborhood meetings are required in the following sequence. One meeting may be sufficient if the project is of very limited scope as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director.

i. The first meeting is an educational session with neighbors, other stakeholders and the project planner to review and discuss the process and applicable planning and zoning regulations.

ii. The second meeting is an opportunity for the applicant to present the project, solicit feedback, and address issues and concerns.

iii. It should be determined at the meeting if additional time or information is needed to develop solutions. The decision about whether to hold an additional meeting should be made at this meeting.

b. If the project type, layout, or previously agreed upon mitigation solutions are substantially changed after meeting with neighbors, an additional meeting must be held.

2. Meeting Location

Neighborhood meetings must be held in a facility that:

a. Is accessible to the general public, such as a Town-owned facility, school, house of worship, or community recreation center, and

b. Provides access for persons with disabilities.

3. Scheduling

a. Neighborhood meetings should typically be scheduled on a weekday evening so that working residents may attend, but may be adapted to neighborhood needs, as appropriate.

b. The educational session and applicant presentation meeting must be scheduled prior to formal submittal of the application.

4. Meeting Notification

a. Notice shall include all persons and entities identified in the Public Outreach Plan.

b. Neighborhood meeting notifications must be:

i. Prepared by the applicant using a Town-approved letter format. The letter must include a description and tentative timeline for the review and public meeting/hearing process.

ii. Submitted to the project planner for review and verification one week prior to mailing.

c. In addition to the aforementioned, other meeting notification methods may be utilized for projects of broad scope.

5. Facilitation

a. A Town-approved facilitator may be utilized to assist with neighborhood meetings, as defined in the Public Participation and Notification Policy.

b. If professional facilitation services are required as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director, the applicant is responsible for the fees incurred for such services.

((O)09-17, Added, 11/4/09)

The Zee Man said...

OJT...

Is the document you posted here available on the net?

If so, what is the URL?

I will post it as a comment so that we can eliminate the multiple postings.

Meanwhile, I've looked at a Google Earth view of the Miller Ranch property and I'm hard pressed to see why anyone would have a problem with building on it. It's hard for me to imagine that the homes on the east side of LaCanada will even see it.

In fact, the entire area between Tangerine, La Canada, Moore Road, and La Cholla is virtually empty.

Zev Cywan said...

OK, I'm just back from a getaway I have a couple of questions:

Is there a complaint from the neighborhood and, if so, what is it?

Is a zoning change in order and if so what does it entail?

Did the residents know what the zoning was prior to their purchasing their homes and, if not, why not?

Is the proposed project within reasonable parameters of the site designation? If there is a difference, is it being dutifully addressed and/or will it affect what should have been expected when one or any of the property owners purchased their property?

Note: Desco did come before the Oro Valley Art Review Commission with their conceptual presentation for 'public art' as is required by Oro Valley; their submission was 'down voted' by the commission in a unanimous decision. Did Desco or the artist have a willful intent to 'harm' the neighborhood by what the ARC considered to be 'out of order'? No, THEY SEEMINGLY TOOK IT IN STRIDE and appeared to be quite amenable in exploring other possibilities.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Zev.....

Welcome back.

I will attempt to answer your inquiry as best I can. I am relatively confident that my response covers the waterfront accurately but I am sure there are those out there who would disagree.

I attended both meetings and was there from start to finish for both and so I didn't miss any of the 'official' conversation.

The bulk of the opposition is coming from the residents of Washbed Drive which is a n/s oriented street located immediately east of La Canada Drive north of Tangerine. There was one resident living on Sunkist (just north of the project) who appeared to be satisfied with the efforts of the developer to mitigate his concerns. I believe there was one resident who resides west of the project who was more interested in the revegetation of the wash than the project itself.

The primary objections (complaints) were:

1. The 2 story buildings would severely impact the western view of the Washbed Dr. residents.

2. The additional traffic created by the development would create a noise issue.

3. The vehicular lights of those exiting the development at night would create an issue.

4. The commercial development would reduce the property values of those residents living on the west side of Washbed Dr.

5. The lighting from the project will have a negative impact on the residents.

6. The project does not conform to the General Plan.

There is no zoning change requested at this time.

The general plan amendment for this property and the subsequent zoning change was accomplished after these homes were built in 2004/5. I do not know when each current resident purchased their home but if you wish that information, I have it available. At least one resident stated that Sterling Homes (the builder) represented that the property across La Canada would only contain only one story buildings. If that representation is in writing and available there may be some recourse. I use the term "may" because in some (many) instances, I do not believe the current Washbed residents will see the bulk of the 2 story buildings in the proposed development due to the maturation of the vegetation between La Canada and the western property line of the concerned residents.

The density of the project on the property has been greatly reduced from what is allowed.

What is somewhat ironic, is that when the application for the Sterling surdivision project was submitted (2003/4)there was a great deal of concern expressed by the then owners of the Miller Ranch property about the density of those homes to the east.

Everything that I can find indicates that with proper due diligence the potential scope of development of the Miller Ranch property was available to all parties at the time of purchase. I would also opine that when there is vacant land at the intersection of two major arterials (La Canada and Tangerine) one must seriously consider the possibility for commercial development.

The widening of LaCanada has impacted the Washbed properties. The existing traffic noise at the south end of this subdivision is a factor. But again that project was on the books for a great deal of time.

Christopher Fox said...

Z,

Art or someone already put a link to this document under one of the agenda listings for a TOV council meeting. The posting here is a little bit of a space and time waster....

Christopher Fox

Zev Cywan said...

OVOT et al:

It appears that there's little difference (theoretically)in having a commercial development at the corner of Tangerine Road vs. that of the commercial development at Tangerine and Thornydale or one at the entrance to Dove Mountain or ANY 'small' commercial entity in any area anywhere. There is only the question of 'how it might, IN FACT, effect the 'neighborhood'. In actuality, as long as this development does not impinge negatively on the original intent of the neighborhood, there is nothing else to question.Fact is, a development such as this may INCREASE the value of the homes in the area. It appears that the developer will hold to reasonable height and density standards permitted within the complex, and, as I mentioned above, seems to be willing to address impact concerns if they appear to be legitimate (see my commentary relative to 'public art'. I, too, have examined the property and it appears that this development will not devour the natural elements of the surrounding area. Traffic? That is going to 'change' no matter what or where. Lighting? Work WITH the developer to attain the least intrusive; most developers will work with the community on that scale. In short, if the parties do sit down and REALISTICALLY work with each other, common ground CAN be achieved.

Zev Cywan said...

Christopher, admittedly I perhaps phrased my first post in a manner which might have seemed to question the facets of the already established process. What I was trying to get at was 'why the current outcry'. Sometimes, Christopher, not all of the 'answers' are in the packets.

Christopher Fox said...

Zev,

Oh, no, I was responding to the Zee Man, and the entirely too lengthy posting of the entirety of "Section 22.15 Public Participation" by OVOT. I always find your posts edifying regardless of length, although sometimes you make me work too hard due to the necessity of looking up a lot of words on Dictionary.com!

Zev Cywan said...

Thanks for the note, Christopher; sometimes I forget that I am not the only 'Z' in town.