Did you know that 22 years ago the town recommended that the Desert Springs property designated land use was for resort use? Did you know that is how it is designated in the Oro Valley General Plan?
Last night, the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission recommended changing it. By a 4-3 vote (Commissioners Swope, Rodman and Buette saying "no") the commission recommended substituting its judgment on how this land should be used for the judgment of the people. That's right. Four appointed commission members decided that what you voted on in 2005 no know longer suited the times.
The four made the decision without the benefit of detailed market studies and analysis demonstrating that the situation had truly changed during the past eight years. They did it on the basis of a recommendation by town staff. They did it based on a lengthy presentation by the developer. They did it with the full knowledge that in just two years you would have the opportunity to vote on it if it will put in the General Plan to 2015.
No need to wait. Their vote says that know better than you, the people who approve the general plan.
The decision on what happens with this property and whether the amendment actually passes is now up to the Oro Valley Town Council, four of whom (Council Members Burns, Hornat, Snider and Waters) listened to the 3 hour 15 minute discussion that proceeded this vote.
Don't count on the State Parks Division to help you with the decision. Their position is that landowners have the right to use their property and that the State's job is to mitigate the impact. In other words, they do not opining on the use of any property.
Don't count on the abutters, Taglante Estates, to stand in the way of this change. The developer has been in talks with them. These abutters said last night that they were satisfied that their "concerns" have been met.
What they don't understand is that none of the promises the developer has made to them need to be met once this amendment is approved. "Details" regarding sightlines and buffer zones are not decided until after the applicant begins the process of actually building something on the property.
What these abutters also may not realize is that the people with whom they have been negotiating may never actually build out the property. Instead, the property owner can sell the property a a nifty profit once it is general-planned for a more than doubling of home density on the property. This profit, by the way, is earned because the development of a property of greater home density is of higher economic value.
Here are some of the comments made by the public at the hearing.
- "It is not the job of government to change land use to make it better for a developer"
- "Healthy land makes for a healthy population... Blading the land will simply disturb the animals and the plants and create stress for us all.
- This from a Sun City Resident: "My concern is light pollution. I like stars. I don't think I will be able to do that if more lights are put in."
- From Oro Valley resident Pat Kinsman: We thought we would keep this land for the animals when we created the general plan.
- From Oro Valley resident Bill Adler: "I have suggested that the commissioners should discuss density. Focusing on two units per acre at the maximum."
- "Open space is a treasure of Oro Valley."
Unfortunately, many of these comments have nothing to do with the criterial for seeking a general plan amendment. The primary requirement is demonstrating that conditions have changed such that an amendment is appropriate.
In speaking of the proposed amendment, some council members spoke of the right of a landowner to use this land. (One, Commissioner Alan Caine, "laughed" at how people could even be concerned of the visual impact of the park on those who use the park. After all, people are looking east, not west.) Others noted that the landowner has the right to build on it as it is currently planned. So, they noted, there is no option regarding having this property be open land.
One Commissioner noted that this request represents a big change from the general plan in that it is a major change in usage and housing density. Yes, he noted, the owner of the property has the right to use the property as it is now in the general plan; however, it is not the job of the Commission to recommend a change unless there is an egregious problem. A problem that he did not foresee.
In our posting: "Desert Springs: Is This A General Plan Amendment You Want? we asked you to become knowledgeable of this requested amendment for this property that is adjacent to Catalina State Park. After all, once this land is developed it is forever changed.
The real "decision" on this proposed amendment now moves to Town Council in December. You should be there.
---
The real "decision" on this proposed amendment now moves to Town Council in December. You should be there.
6 comments:
Rename the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I attended the November 5, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
The second item on the agenda was considering approval of an amendment to the Oro Valley General Planning for Desert Springs Development.
There was a 3 hour+ presentation and discussion on this item. A large percentage of that time was given to the applicant (developer) to make their case on meeting the four criteria for recommending a general plan amendment.
During the public hearing section, there were at least a dozen citizens that spoke against approving this amendment. Many stated that the developer failed to meet the four criteria for a general plan amendment.
After the public hearing, there was an extensive discussion between the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Planning Department Staff, and the Developer (with of course no citizen input) where it was repeated "ad naseum" that most of the citizen objections were zoning based.
Yet, during the developer presentation, the developer had discussed a number of issues that would pertain more to zoning going as far as discussing environmental issues in one instance, referring to a consultant’s report, and having a representative from the consulting report firm who discussed the environmental issues in some depth. Evidently what is good for the developer is allowed but what is good for the citizen is not allowed?
Subsequently, during the next portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission another agenda item, Mercado general plan amendment (item 3) was discussed. During the public hearing, citizens again discussed whether the four criteria were being met by the developer. It was repeated that most of the citizen objections were zoning based.
Since, it seems to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Staff that all citizen input for general plan amendments is concentrated on zoning issues, we should dispense with consideration of any criteria to justify a general plan amendment and simply approve (rubber-stamp) any general plan amendments and wait till the zoning is presented and argue the correctness of the desired zoning instead.
This is my reasoning why we should eliminate the planning portion and spend the time researching the zoning issues and rename the Planning and Zoning Commission to be the Zoning Commission.
However, since us pesky citizens voted for evaluating those four general plan criteria in 2005, we will have to continue the “façade” and go through the motions of discussing general plan amendments.
The last item on the agenda was adding an energy element (item 4) to the general plan. Some of the public input and one commissioner questioned this need.
• What is the urgency or justification for adding this item? Couldn’t it wait until the general plan is again voted on in 2015?
• This type of element is required for towns above 50,000 population. Why is it being discussed for a town of 41,000?
• Won’t this government energy element favor certain renewable energy companies such as solar and wind?
• Establishing a government precedence might lead to later mandatory requirements imposed on the citizens.
• What will be the cost to the citizen?
John Musolf
I, too, sat in that 5 hr marathon meeting. It was grueling. I recognize that the P&Z Commissioners are volunteers. And they gave up a lot of personal time last nite as Desert Springs rep Keri Silvyn (campaign contributor to Mayor & Town Council) went on & on with her presentation. But for them to sit there & laugh at FACTS & comments presented by citizens - as if they know better than us & we are imbeciles -is egregious. They would certainly be voted out if they were in elected positions. Such elitists.
There was a third neighborhood meeting on October 24, 2012 for Desert Springs. The following information from that meeting could not be adequately presented before the Planning & Zoning Commission on November 5, 2012 since only 3 minutes are given to any citizen to speak.
General Plan Amendment Criteria:
1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires modification
Developer
Developer pointed out that the area had experienced growth and development. Examples given: Oro Valley Marketplace, Oro Valley Hospital/Medical Offices, Innovation Park. Developer cited these changes as a clear intention that the creation of jobs would need additional residential and commercial development.
Public Comment
The public responded that there existed a surplus of residential housing in Oro Valley today because of economic conditions and that this development would add to the “glut”.
Also, with the scope of the Oro Valley Marketplace being so significant why would more commercial development be necessary?
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility
Developer
The developer said that they want to achieve community and environmental compatibility.
Public Comment
In its original application the developer requested removal of the Significant Resource Area (SRA).
• The developer retracted the SRA removal request since they plan to retain SRA as open areas.
Also, the public responded with a number of critical concerns:
• What kind of disturbances such as grading and sloping would take place in the Special Resource Areas (SRA)?
• Will a class III archaeological and historic survey be conducted on the subject property?
• How will vulnerable species of wildlife be protected?
• How will the native plant life be protected that could adversely affect the watershed and habitats?
• What impact would this development have on natural wildlife movement?
• Will assurance insurance be required of the developer so that monies would be available for restoration and/or protection (treatment and remediation) should significant archaeological resources be discovered or the developer goes bankrupt or runs out of money?
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to visibility and general community acceptance
Developer
The developer stated that a resort/golf course is not currently demanded by the market or resort developers
Public Comment
The public audience did not disagree with that assessment.
Developer
In spite of the introduction of the Oro Valley Marketplace, the overall need for commercial development is still appropriate for a portion of this property. One of the developer team members then made a statement that “this commercial area on this site would contain “higher-end” shopping experiences”.
Public Comment
An audible groan went up from the audience. The public had heard the same general “higher-end” shopping experience statement from a representative from the Vestar developer when justifying the Oro Valley Marketplace. Higher-end examples like Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
Public Comment
One of the citizens stated that the Catalina State Park had been touted as a tourist destination and that this development would do nothing to enhance that objective.
Developer
The developer gentleman then made a statement that Desert Springs commercial and office segments would be a significant draw to bring tourists to Catalina State Park. No studies were presented to back up that statement.
John Musolf
Part 1.
OK....Now let's set the record straight.
1. A small potion of the subject property was designated for a resort and golf course. Also keep in mind that 22 years ago golf courses were far shorter than they are today and required far less property. That in itself is a substantial change.
2. No one decided anything. The P&Z recommended accepting the application of the owner of the land. The owner presented a case for changing the land that he/she OWNS.
2. It's blatantly obvious that after 22 years and even since the Oro Valley General Plan was voted on that conditions have changed. "Detailed market studies" are not necessary. "Detailed market studies" is red herring language for "come up with smoke and mirrors and see if we can fool them".
3. I can’t speak for the rest of the commission but I did not base my decision solely on the recommendation of staff. I based it on what I think the economic conditions will be 4-6 years from now, the impact (or in this case) lack of impact on the Catalina State Park and several other dictated in the General Plan and my own independent analysis. I walked the land. Did any of you? I also walked much of the property within Catalina State Park to include the closest two campgrounds and the equestrian center.
4. The voters in 2005 passed the rules for changing the General Plan which the poster and many of the participants on this blog seemingly refuse to accept. These rules were followed to a 't'.
5. The residents of the neighborhood adjacent to the project DID NOT state, "that they were satisfied that their "concerns" have been met". They stated that they have been negotiating with the applicant and that they were satisfied with the progress "to date".
6. "Details" regarding sightlines and buffer zones are not decided until after the applicant begins the process of actually building something on the property.", is a totally inaccurate/false statement.
7. The following characterization, "One, Commissioner Alan Caine, "laughed" at how people could even be concerned of the visual impact of the park on those who use the park. After all, people are looking east, not west.)" is simply not factual.
I could list several others but suffice it to say that many of the representations in this blog are for the most part inaccurate.
Part 2
Moose….I am surprised that you didn’t do some better calculations. You state:
“A large percentage of that time was given to the applicant (developer) to make their case on meeting the four criteria for recommending a general plan amendment.” You should know that I am going to verify your statements. The truth is 51 minutes of the time was taken by the applicant in their presentation. That is NOT a “large” percentage…less than 30%. Nearly an equal amount, 45 minutes, was devoted to the public input.
You go on to talk about zoning versus general plan amendment stuff. To your credit you did recognize that most of the substantive comments made had to do with zoning decisions. Whether you like it or not, there is a process and it should be followed. Zoning issues, more times than not, serve only to cloud general plan decisions. The applicant did refer to many zoning issues as a response to citizen input from the last neighborhood meeting (a general plan requirement). Had they not addressed those issues you would have been critical about that. With all due respect John, in my opinion you are the classic ‘sharpshooter’. You will question something hoping to catch people off guard whether or not it is germaine to the topic at hand. You spend far more time questioning process, which isn’t going to change, than you do in submitting substantive input to move a project forward.
Lastly, many folks said that the land should be left untouched. These folks, while I have empathy for their feelings, simply are not realistic and in truth do a disservice to the process.
Property owners have rights. They can ask the local governing/zoning body to make changes to their entitlements. That is their right. And whether the public likes it or not IT IS the job of government to hear these applications and act on them as they see fit.
The State of Arizona has dictated (rightly or wrongly) how and when these major General Plan amendments should be submitted and heard. If you don’t like those rules go see Al Melvin and the rest of your Arizona Legislative delegation. To question a P&Z about the timing of hearings is a waste of time and indicates that the questioner has done little if any homework.
Moose...I appreciate your attempt at relating info from the neighborhood meeting. It is beneficial for the public to accurately hear the comments.
However if you are going to editorialize then do so fairly or clearly state that some of what is presented is your opinion or your personal interpretation of the statements or questions.
For instance....you state,
"the public responded with a number of critical concerns." That is your opinion of the public response. In the same set of 'responses' you completely mistate several others.
Here is one that simply does not make sense:
"How will the native plant life be protected that could adversely affect the watershed and habitats?"
Here is my favorite...."An audible groan went up from the audience." There was NO audible groan. One person replied to that statement. And you didn't even accurately report the two stores she identified (Big Lots and Tuesday Morning).
Post a Comment