This is the second of our discussion with Oro Valley resident Bill Adler regarding a mixed use zoning code designation for Oro Valley. You can read our first posting here.The model ("smart growth") definition of mixed use is building a self-sustained community, where people live, work, shop,, and go to school. There is supposed to be little to no driving (horizontal mixed use). The definition includes building units that have a mix of commercial and residential (vertical use). Are these the mixed use concepts that are being proposed for Oro Valley? We asked Bill if this is the vision if Oro Valley had a mixed use community.
---
First, "Mixed Use is to be pedestrian oriented. This means parking is not concentrated on streets, but in areas nearby so that people can walk comfortably to the mix of restaurants, shops.
Secondly, Mixed Use is about appearance, or form. Pictures of Mixed Use projects show a uniformity of design – not sameness, necessarily – but similarity so that the actual use is not transparently obvious. Like a Village, the architecture emphasizes a pattern of design that is more like a small town than cosmopolitan. Illustrations here would help, if we could get to a public meeting. But, I’ve seen Mixed Use projects where a Target store is designed like the coffee shop, barber shop and appliance shop on the same street. This is very unlike a conventional shopping mall or center.
The uses are blended or integrated together in design so
that pedestrian traffic can comfortably make its way through wider walkways,
roadways, passive resting and civic areas. Residential can be a part of the
design with townhomes; apartments above the retail or offices. The appearance
and the design of this integration is hugely important; not just the use within
the design. Again, illustrations would help, and there are lots of them.
Oro Valley has vacant land that includes some topographical
challenges, as well as surrounding established uses. Mixed Use – because of
customization – is adaptable to challenges rather than forcing the land to
accommodate the use through excessive grading. When design is the primary
implementation tool the use can better accommodate the land…a basic General
Plan principle."
---
What do you think?
---
What do you think?
8 comments:
You asked, "What do you think?"
I think I need to see some of these "illustrations." And not just drawings, but actual photographs of mixed use projects in other towns.
This sounds like something out of AGENDA 21, the UN plan for our world! Oro Valley beware!
---
One of the challenges that this presents is that it requires great trust in our 7 elected council members to "do the right thing" when it comes to approving mixed use properties.
Do you think that that trust exists?
---
If this "requires great trust in our 7 elected council members to do the right thing" then we are in big trouble.
Only three of them will do what's best for the citizens. Four of them will do what's best for the developer(s).
For several years, residents were told the east side of Oracle Road at 1st Avenue would be the future Town Center for Oro Valley. The plans included most of the elements Mr. Adler has outlined in his Mixed Use, Part 2. There would have been residential units over stores, open spaces, dedicated shopping areas, pedestrian-friendly design, and individual living units, etc. What happened? The current developer claimed that the Mixed-Use concept wasn’t economically viable for this parcel. If this prime parcel is not economically viable Mixed User, how can any other vacant parcel of land be suitable?
The Mayor, some council members, and staff dismissed the residents input, on the now current development, because the developers and builders were the only ones who understood what was viable. The development is now a shopping center, apartments, single family housing and open areas; nothing truly unique within Oro Valley. If this is Mixed Use, then the land-use codes already exist. Therefore, we do not need to add Mixed Use.
Oro Valley’s strip shopping centers and the Oro Valley Market Place, with the exception of Best Buy, had architecture with a uniformity of design. The building fronts were in harmony, the wall signage was uniform, the individual store fronts were of the same color pallets, etc. The current mayor and council, staff, along with the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce eliminated this uniform approach saying it was business unfriendly, and it was restricting the Town’s sales tax collections. Best Buy was allowed to use their unique corporate architectural on their store front. Almost all businesses in Oro Valley, are now allowed to remove any shopping center uniform signage, and replace it with almost any color and design desired. Again the uniformity of design of a Mixed-Use development isn’t viable according to the Town’s business community and Town government.
The Town General Plan approved in 2005 contains a work plan requiring the development of Mixed Use. In the last three years, the Town has claimed that many elements of a Mixed Use development are not commercially viable for Oro Valley. Therefore, why in 2013 do Town council, management and staff have the development of Mixed Use as a high priority? Council should remove Mixed Use form the staff’s work plan.
Ask the citizens/residents when they vote on the next General Plan if they want staff to be develop Mixed Use for Oro Valley. Staff should not be telling the citizens/residents what they want for Oro Valley.
Richard,
You asked a good question. I do not think that trust exists. Some council members are more committed to the developers and builders than what is best for the Town.
OV Important.
I doubt if the Best Buy signage will be around to bother anyone in a year or so.
Best Buy is a showroom for the internet.
Recall the fight with the shoe store next to Target. The store refused to comply with requirements, stating that if it modified its design parameters, it would be giving up its trademarks, and threatened to sue. What did that town council do...?
Post a Comment