The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission held two public hearings last week on a minor general plan amendment and on a text amendment to apply the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance ("ESL") to areas not yet annexed to Oro Valley (nee: Desert Springs).
---
The first hearing was about a small parcel located on the northeast corner of La Canada and Moore Road. The property, a bit less than 5 acres, is currently zoned for commercial. There is a small piece of the property that is not being changed that will likely be a common area that will not be built upon.
The request is to develop it for medium density residential, similar to what is already in this neighborhood. There is no commercial in that area. The property is not a source of revenue. If approved, the owner will submit a rezoning request.
It is not "clear-cut" as to whether or not this property should be amended to residential.
The public hearing on this matter was one person, Resident Bill Adler. Bill questioned why "market demand" is the right formula for changing the zoning in a master planned community since the community was, by definition, master planned by professional planners. Therefore, a change of this nature simply to reflect today's market demand is "arbitrary." He asks: "What happens to our trust in planning when we are regularly making changes in land use maps?"
As one commission member noted: "We wanted to encourage people to walk to services... It hasn't happened yet [in that area]...Are we taking away this opportunity..." by amending the general plan?
Oro Valley Planner Williams noted that Rancho Vistoso "... was envisioned as a self-contained residential area... However, it is not as the plan it was 30 years ago... Our concern is the distribution of retail..." in the community. I think it is an excellent site..." for commercial. He also noted that he would put a range of uses on this parcel if he were to do the planning for it today.
The commission voted 5-0 to approve the amendment based on the fact that the property has been open for commercial used for many years with no development. In other words, their "yardstick" was current market demand for the property.
---
The second hearing was a measure to clarity how the ESL applies to a general plan amendments and how it applies to land being considered for annexation by Oro Valley. This clarification was requested by council.
One resident spoke during the public hearing portion, voicing concern that the measure, as written, did not fully account for land use map and zoning requirements. "This is complicated," resident Bill Adler observed during this public comment.
SAHBA weighed-in with their support for the proposed amendment. The Coalition For Sonoran Desert Preservation, absent at "hillside destruction meetings" about which we have previously written, did come to this meeting, voicing their support for the text amendment, wanting to add two suggested items. One of these it to accept and apply the land use maps prepared by the county of annexed lands and to not develop separate land use maps for Oro Valley in these areas. Their suggestions were later ignored.
Confused? So are we. So weren't many at the meeting.
One commission member noted that his "eyes were crossing" when he read the proposed amendment; that he didn't understand it until staff explained it to him. Board member Cox noted that "things do change" so updates to the land use maps are good. Someone noted: "If you apply every bit of the ESL before they are annexed, it could be a problem."
We agree. This is a confusing topic. One that deserves a better vetting than the 40 or so minutes in which it was "discussed" by the commission.
The commission voted 5-0 in favor of the amendment. We think that they simply "gave up" trying to understand on what they were voting, never even considered any changes to what they were given, relied on staff's opinions, and voted to yes.
---
2 comments:
Oro Valley & the county have had similar requests for rezoning & Gen Plan Amendments. The developers always cite the same "changes in market conditions" on the application because they are writing them for undeveloped parcels across multiple jurisdictions. Clearly they have learned the appropriate terminology to get their requests approved.
We will continue to lose the vision of the Town (voter approved, I believe) as this continues. It's time for the volunteer & elected officials to do their homework & be fully informed - based on personal research, not simply the word of staff- before they vote.
This from a highly credible anonymous source:
"It is a legitimate concern as to whether market demand ought to be an amendment criteria for a General Plan Amendment. It keeps coming up, however, by applicants that the designation in the Plan is not "marketable" or "feasible".
The criteria for amendment calls for their speculation in order to fully evaluate the proposal.
It's like the first criteria...that conditions in the market have changed to require a change in the Plan... . Most applicants have a hard time responding specifically to this criteria except to refer to the "market", even though - by the time their project is built - the market may have changed again."
Post a Comment