---
A big train rolled through Oro Valley last night.
Planning and Zoning voted 6-1 to approve the request by the town's Development and Infrastructure Department for a general code amendment for mixed land use. They did this without previous public hearings. They approved this after paying no attention to the statements against this measure by six of our citizens.
The Planning and Zoning Commission substituted their judgement for the judgement of the people since the people rejected mixed land use in 2004 when they voted on the general plan.
The amendment will now be considered by town council where it till require five votes to pass.
---
13 comments:
Bloggers,
Aside from the nano second for the six to vote for "comparable use" without any, repeat any, citizen study of this issue, and the body language observed in Cox, Williams and Hornat, how does this scenario feel to bloggers about what happened last night?
"Timeline for train wreck"
July 2011
Dematologist Sheftel and Asso. gets P&Z's and TOV's approval for his medical offices "and other business related businesses" which were not defined, on a section of 2285 Vistoso Commerce Loop aka "the Ford Plat".
Dec. 7, 2011
TOV denies Beztak's request to build apartments on the remaining portion of Ford's property as the land was needed for "commercial".
Jan. 3, 2012
A nervous, barely audible Chad Daines, who turned frequently to the grim, unsmiling Hornat as if trying to communicate something, (Hornat's ties to Ford are well documented. Hornat also argued for the need for "entertainment" for businessmen close to their place of employ.)unfolds a virtually unprecedented General Plan change to establish "mixed use" now known as "comparable use" which represent the "new urbanism", stating that this is not new because 2010 Council ordered it.
Williams, who elects to villify residents of Neighorhood 2 at every meeting, complained last night that 2 was visiting his department to discuss the type of commercial buildings that might be constructed. In addition, Williams relies on Cox for support of his ideas. However, from the other side of his mouth, he states, "This is not a done deal."
One brave woman from 7-i asks Williams, "Does this mean that Beztak can reapply?" On the spot, Willims hisses, "Yes."
Do you hear that commerical is already an approved plan on this property?
Do you see the "smoke and mirrors" of this scenario?
Do you see the urgency and motive for why D&I initiated this "small GP change" without citizen input?
Do you see how this impacts 2E and potentially 7-i?
Do you think it's a "done deal"?
Was this TOV's plan from the beginning?
Will you argue that there is NO NEED for any form of residential housing in OV and remain adamant about job creation?
In my opinion, Hornat has brought IL politics to The Town of Oro Valley. The MU designation will be "useful" for Town Council members to by-pass the Citizens' vote (required for changes to the PAD) and be "greased" by developer/s.
I suspect that some of the Town Staff were "greased" or at least told of the "advantages" to them and the Town Council by Hornat.
In the past the Illinois plan had not been refined to the extent it will be if MU is allowed.
grease = $ or something of value, by the way :)
NOT
Ferlin,
In a prior post after Zinkin's aritcle on "Lessons of Leadership", OVOT who is Vice Chair of P&Z in #23 posting, "It is not illegal, immoral or unethical to accept campaign contributions."
While it is not illegal and, indeed, those who run for office need funding, OVOT's values are questionable. Cox supported and praised this decision, too. The speed with which their decisions came, ignoring all the salient points made by speakers makes a statement. Terry Parish asked the public what was wrong with his accepting $33K in campaign donations! Is this attitude "in the water" in OV?
Kudos to Napier for being the lone "nay" vote.
I would like to know Mr. Napier's reasoning for his "nay" vote. Did he give any indication of that?
Mr. Napier most probably wishes to be on Town Council sometime in the future....where to start, aaah he has started....and then he achieves "popularity" for his vote on this ? with the populace = the citizens.
Please understand folks on this Planning and Zoning Board have no power, are simply shills for the developers, and have done nothing but betrayed the good citizens of OV.
However, thank you Board members for the great election talking points. The citizens will know that at any time regardless of where they live the rules can be changed. Instead of beautiful mountain views, might have a gas station with its lights on 24/7 bearing down on them.
I believe from reading, etc., that most probably a yes vote was appropriate.
Pass it on....it is a volatile subject. :)
Stll wanta know about Napier's reasoning.
Mr. Napier was a police person in Mesa, I think. That is okay with me :) he lives here and is probably positive for law inforcement.
Perhaps, we are being taken over by the developers and police.
Ferlin,
Napier felt the change should wait until the revision of the General Plan. Does he have personal motivation for siding with voters, especially voters with strong feelings? Sure.
Just as Solomon, also a candidate for Council, initiated the motion to deny Beztak may have done so to garner votes.
What is very telling is no one on P&Z engaged any of the articulate speakers or wanted them to elaborate. Council questioned D&I only.
Fair????
---
Napier and Solomon are running for council.
It would be foolhardy for them to do anything but "side" with the people in their voting.
This is why keeping F-I PAD rezoning to a super-majority vote is so important. Passage would require that Appointed Council Member and 2012 Council Candidate Steve Solomon vote for it. Guess what? He won't. If its merely a majority vote he can vote against it and look good to the citizens while it passes.
As for Mr. Napier, he's a cop. That's his background. There is nothing else there. How this qualified him to be on the planning and zoning commission is a complete mystery. How this qualifies him to be a Council Member is even more mysterious.
Lurking in the background is Mayor Hiremath. He has his hands in many things.
Be alert Oro Valley.
---
Does anyone know how long Don Cox has been on the Zoning Commission? I noticed his name in the Acknowledgements section of the General Plan as having worked on both the 2003 & 2005 versions as Vice-Chair & Chair respectively. Has he really served that entire time or was there a break in his service?
Shirl....I was reappointed to the P&Z December 2010.I am glad that you noticed my previous experience in the preparation and revision of the 2005 General Plan. It has proven to be extremely helpful to me in evaluating the recent General Plan amendments.
My vote (and I speak only from my personal perspective and not on behalf of the P&Z) to recommend approval of the Mixed Use category goes primarily to the General Plan and the Strategic Implementation Program. It is as simple as that. Secondarily, I think it is a very interesting land use option that has some great potential here in Oro Valley. It is one that helps us conserve taxpayer dollars and aids the environment also.
The direction to create such a zoning district is 7 year old. It should have been done in 2006.
DV......Which points presented to the P&Z do you consider "salient"? That will make for some interesting conversation.
Will someone please clarify the following for me:
Doesn't FHA and several other housing development programs place limits on how much they will insure residential property, if the residential property includes commercial property. If so, since private lenders take their cue from the Fed requirement won't those policies prevent the mixed use land development as advocated by this Board?
Also, aren't urban areas more suited for the mixed use developments than a town like OV?
OV Objective Thinker,
Thx. So were you actually on P&Z then during the 2003 thru 2006 time period or were you off the Commission at some point during that time period?
Re: Mixed Use - So are you saying that the Town should have gone against the will of the people & instituted the Mixed Use code that they specifically voted against in 2003?
I'm actually not opposed to Mixed Use in the appropriate setting. I think it works well in urban areas but our Town is not set up that way. We have the capability to develop that in Town Center neighborhood & there seems to be sufficient property to do so there. But guess that's out of the question for awhile.
What I am against is the Town's attempt (my opinion only) to circumvent the Amendment process by creating a land use designation in the GP which will then permit developers - like Beztak & Venture West - to re-apply and get the apartments that Rancho Vistos homeowners don't want on those parcels. As we said repeatedly, build them where the land is already zoned for them. The proposed amendment doesn't want to apply the designation to specific parcels because that would require a Major amendment &/or vote of citizens. In a nearly built out master planned community, current & future homeowners should know which parcels might be acceptable for Mixed Use.
Again, in my opinion, anyone who doesn't see the link between Mixed Use & 7-I is blind. We now know exactly what was meant by an "alternative" solution to get by the super majority vote requirement.
Fear....I don't believe FHA insures property. They do provide mortgages for potential home owners and do provide mortgage insurance.In the mixed use areas I have seen first hand, the majority of the residential uses are incorporated into the same strucure as a commercial or retail business and are rentals. The occupants would simply purchase a rental policy from an insurance company as the structure itself would most likely be covered by the building owner.
Shirl...I was on P&Z from Nov 2000 until Jun 2005. Let me attempt to clarify the 2003 vote. To the best of my knowledge the objection to Mixed Use was limited to the lack of definition. I don’t recall any serious bjection to the concept. In fact there was a development plan submitted and approved, as I recall, for the vacant piece of property at Oracle and 1st Avenue. Exactly why it never was developed and eventually those rights expired, I don't know. It is, in my opinion, a great piece of property for that use and appropriately sized. As for your comments regarding Beztak and Venture West they certainly have that right but they could have come before the Town with a mixed use plan previously and simply applied for a Planned Area Development (PAD) and accomplished the same thing. So I am not sure that is on their priority list. I don’t believe there is sufficient room on either parcel to accomplish what you need to do to be a true Mixed Use use. As I previously posted on the 7-I property the N/S wash that runs through that property must be preserved. In order for there to be connectivity to both sides it would have to be bridged which dramatically increases the development costs and makes the parcel less attractive from a financial point of view. The addition of mixed use to the GP is a minor amendment simply because it does not fit the major amendment requirements (map change) and neither require the vote of the public.
Please keep in mind that we still do not have a land use designation in the Town Zoning Code titled Mixed Use. If the Town Counsel approves the amendment in question, THEN we will get busy on the task of specifically defining what this thing really is.
Post a Comment