---
John Musolf reports that the Oro Valley Town Council continued the PAD Amendment "clarification" of the word "may" for the parcel located on the Northwest Corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Tangerine until the November 16, 2011 Council Meeting. There reason for this is that there is a legal question as to whether the Rancho Vistoso PAD, on page 49, prohibits residences on this parcel. If so, this discussion becomes not a clarification of wording but a request for a General Plan Amendment.
In addition:
- Because more than 20% of the residents formally complained in writing, Arizona Law requires a super majority of six of seven council people to vote in favor of the application.
- The applicant said they consider they already have approval to put "residences" on that property and had gone through the PAD change process more as a courtesy.
- The other major problem that was discussed repeatedly were the anticipated traffic problems regardless of entrances on either Tangerine or Woodburne.
---
Thanks for the report, John.
5 comments:
Zeeman,
It's actually P 49 in the RV Pad. Under Planning Unit Policies, Item 6. Commercial:
a. "Commercial" means nonresidential C-1 or C-2 zoning.
Thanks,Shirl. I have updated the posting to reflect this.
After viewing the photos of only the clubhouse (during the Council Meeting), I felt it necessary to drive by this applicant's new apartments on River Rd. & LaCholla. Only a few seem to be completed. The buildings are very close together and looked quite CROWDED!
Please send us a photo, Cares. We'll be happy to post them for all to see.
John,
Succinct summary of a long meeting.
Great reporting.
In addition to content, there was very transparent "process".
Myth: David Willams and Council reassured the public that neither had "made up our minds", "it's not a done deal", and they were open for the public's opinions.
Fact: As each Councilman was acknowledged by the Mayor, almost all read from a prepared speech.
Conclusion: 90% decided 10% spontaneous with new input
Myth: The meeting would be unemotional.
Fact: Williams tone of voice in announcing the numbers of residents at each meeting was dismissive. He put down the alleged form letter signed by a resident. When Williams waxed defensive about incorrect, misaddressed or absent notices, Councilman Hornat, without recognition by the Mayor, jumped in animately to protect him.
Conclusion: Emotional? TOV Rational? public
Myth:Council would process the information fairly and justly.
Fact: Councilman Hornat and Waters visited an HSL property on River. No councilperson mentioned visiting the affected subdivision or area. Solomon alluded to how close to the meeting the Council receives its packet. Was that to justify his lack of preparation? It's been a public issue for six months. Did he consider a drive there? Since Solomon is a developer, why doesn't he offer to recuse himself? Snider deferred to Chief Sharp for her answers and said she needed legal input before deciding. Several alluded to a potential lawsuit by the developer.
Conculsion: Developer-5 Constituents-1
Post a Comment