Guest View-John Musolf: Mixed Use Neighborhood ("MUN") is Not Mixed Use

---
There is confusion between what the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department terms Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) and Mixed Use (MU).

Having attending the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department's informational meetings on "Mixed Use"and having studied the accepted meaning of "Mixed Use," I have concluded that Oro Valley is talking about something quite different than the generally stated definition of "Mixed Use".

Why is knowing the difference between these two terms important?  It is important because, at some point in the near future, the Oro Valley Town Council will be asked by the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department,  as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, to vote a General Plan Amendment to add this zoning code. It is important because they will vote on this without a proper, clear definition of what it is.

Mixed Use Neighborhood

On December 7, 2011 at the Town Council Regular Meeting, Agenda Item 6, there was a Public Hearing where Resolution 11-82 was passed by Council amending the General Plan. This General Plan Amendment  applied to a property of 20 acres. The amendment split the parcel into two different zoning uses:

• The amendment changed the land use category from Neighborhood Commercial-Office (NCO) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 13 acres located in the rear of the property in proximity to the northeast corner of Linda Vista Blvd. and Oracle Rd, for the purpose of building an apartment complex of approximately 215-220 units. 
• The 7 acres fronting Oracle Road remained Commercial and 5 buildings were proposed to house restaurants, cleaners, and other retail or commercial use. 

Thus, the property would now have two separate uses approved for it.  This is what is called segregated land used on one parcel.  It is not what one would call "Mixed Use" as generally defined.

Please, read on.

Mixed Use

On January 3, 2012 the Oro ValleyPlanning and Zoning Commission approved what they called a Minor General Plan Amendment to add a Mixed Use (MU) land use category to the General Plan (OV1111-006).  The General Plan does not include a category which allows a mixture of land uses on one property. This was a generic proposal since no applicant or property was involved in this item. Some of the citizens in the audience felt they needed further definition on Mixed Use

The Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department has offered several outreach educational programs on mixed use.  A definition sheet was handed out at the first outreach program on January 31, 2012 on Mixed Use. The first paragraph offers this explanation: This designation denotes areas wherein a range of land uses are planned as an integrated development.

"The mixed use designation is intended for residential, commercial, office and employment uses, creatively designed based on new urbanism principles. Such areas should be reflective of a village concept wherein there is an opportunity for residents to live, work and recreate within the same neighborhood."

On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at the third Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department outreach program, a panel discussion was held with Roger Eastman (Flagstaff Planning), Don Keith (Phoenix Community Planning) and Ross Rulney (Tucson Developer) on the subject of mixed use. All three gentlemen discussed mixed use that matched very closely to the explanation on the definition sheet handed out at the first outreach program on January 31, 2012. “Such areas should be reflective of a village concept wherein there is an opportunity for residents to live, work and recreate within the same neighborhood”.

Mixed Use Neighborhood v. Mixed Use

The keyword constantly referred to in discussing mixed use is integration of many uses on the same property.  It is the building of a village that is self-sustaining.

The Linda Vista and Oracle facility is an example of what the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department is talking about.  It is, by no means, integrated.  The 200 plus residents will not work in the "neighboorhood." Like everyone else in Oro Valley, they'll drive to work somewhere.  Their children will not go to school in the "neighborhood." They will be bussed, like many others in Oro Valley.

Mixed Use, as the town is educating us, is about building a complete village for "residents to live, work and recreate within the same neighborhood".   On paper, in theory, this sounds like an appealing concept. In reality, though, this is not what Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department is talking about.

When the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department says Mixed Use they are talking about multiple zoning uses on one parcel, a concept the voters rejected when they finally approve the 2005 General Plan.

Splitting parcels to make them usable for multiple zoning purposes does not create a village.  It simply creates a "hodge-podge" of uses on one parcel.
---

Guest View-Shirl Lamonna: Mixed Use's "Trojan Horse"

---
The following are remarks delivered before the Oro Valley Town Council on June 6. The remarks were made in response to item 3 on the agenda. The objective of that item was to make it easier to make amendments to the general plan.  Under this item, many more land parcels would be subject to minor and not major general plan amendment criteria.  A minor amendment requires a 4 vote council majority. A major amendment requires a 5 vote council majority.

Several residents spoke against this measure, including John Musolf and Bill Adler.  Shirl Lamonna delivered the following remarks:
---
We’re all familiar with the story of how the Greeks built a large wooden horse, hid their soldiers inside of it. When the horse was dragged into Troy, the soldiers crept out and conquered the city.  There are changes before council that would simplify changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code.  These changes would make it easier to make amendments to the general plan, by raising the threshold for defining a major plan amendment from 5 to 20 acres.

Such a change is a Trojan horse for "Mixed Use" in Oro Valley.

In deference to the new council members, let’s review how we got here.  As you may know, in 2003 the Council tried to pass a General Plan that included a designated land us of "Mixed Use" despite numerous public hearings where residents objected. That plan was soundly rejected by the voters.  A new plan was not approved until all references to Mixed Use were removed.  

Fast forward to 2011:

I’m sure you all remember the controversy over the proposed apartments on parcel 7-I; the applicant attorney’s desire for an alternate approach to secure the rezoning.  Miraculously, a few weeks later, the Zoning Commission held their first meeting to make changes to the major and minor amendment process to add a Mixed Land Use element to the General Plan. 

A number of Oro Valley residents spoke in opposition that nite.

The Zoning Commission asked Town Staff to secure public input and to address several of their concerns.  We discussed Mixed Use and general plan amendments at 3 of the 4 subsequent Community Outreach meetings.  Panelists were recruited from Phoenix and Flagstaff to tout the benefits of Mixed Use. In my opinion, no one who was originally opposed was convinced that Mixed Use was needed or would be good for Oro Valley. 

The Urban Land Institute’s Handbook on Mixed Use was recommended reading at our first outreach meeting.  It states: “It should never be assumed that a mixed-use concept will lead to greater financial returns or a better urban environment.  Mixed use developments can be failures on either or both counts just as easily as other projects.”

Other recent research shows that mixed use development doesn’t always solve the problems that planners and developers hope it will solve.  For example: high density mixed use development and lower levels of automobile use are not always linked.  Parking can be an issue.  Retail space often remains vacant.  Even Ross Rulney [a developer], when given an option to wait for Mixed Use several weeks ago, declined and chose to stick with only his apartment plans [Northeast Corner of Oracle and Linda Vista].

Oro Valley is not Urban. We do not have the climate, population density, universities, young professionals or public transportation that might make a mixed use concept feasible elsewhere.  Why until today, we didn’t even know how many vacant parcels were in the town or their acreage.  Now we know that changing the acreage threshold to 20 acres leaves only 36 vacant parcels out of 211 (17%) to be reviewed as a Major Amendment. If these changes go thru, most rezoning applications will be approved. Make no mistake: the intent of these revisions is to add mixed use - to get these projects approved quickly and to stifle input from a community that is opposed to it.

I will close with a quote from Sunday’s Arizona Daily Star titled: "Tucson Mayor and Council Disregard Constituents’ Desires": “Somehow the current Mayor and Council view governance as a process that suspends the concepts of representing the interests of the entire community …  The arrogance needs to end.”

A vote to approve the amendments to the Zoning Code and the General Plan is a vote against the citizens of Oro Valley.  Let’s keep representative government in our town and let voters decide on these issues with the next General Plan update.

Leave this Trojan Horse outside the gate.  
---

Guest View-Adler Makes A Case For "Mixed Use" Zoning Code Designation (Part 3)

This is the third posting regarding our discussions with resident Bill Adler regarding a mixed uses code designation.  This posting is in response to some questions we asked Bill regarding the designation.
---
We asked Bill: Does the new mixed use designation require public trust in town staff and in our elected town council?

"First, in order to participate in a meaningful way in land use proposals the issue of trust needs an open mind. That's an individual choice, but has nothing to do with the merits of the proposal itself.

Secondly, neither the Town Council, Town Staff nor advisory board members decide land use matters unilaterally. I worked hard to get a neighborhood meeting ordinance passed several years ago, and with some improvement in format, these meetings with citizens are very productive and instructive for all attending. Notes are taken on issues, concerns, objections and suggestions. These notes are part of the record, as the application is processed and decided.

There are public hearings at the advisory board level and Council level. Often more than one if the matter is controversial. The point is, the public is not shut out, and can play a vital role. Obviously, the pubic - like everyone else - needs to be prepared and have their facts and familiarity with the application in place. This is a reasonable requirement for any business meeting.

Thirdly, I can have a copy of the staff definition of mixed use as it would appear in a revised General Plan e-mailed or posted if you want to read it. Adding this definition allows a property owner to know that the Town will receive his application to designate his property Mixed Use. This application would amend his current designation - whatever it is - to Mixed Use through the public process. His application would include a conceptual site plan showing location of proposed buildings, their approximate size and probable tenants. At this stage a property owner can't be offering anything specifically to customers because he doesn't have the authority to actually develop Mixed Use. He is simply changing the designation on the property. Architecture and more details on traffic, uses, density happens at the re-zoning stage...an entirely separate and much more specific, detailed set of requirements."

We asked Bill if the designation will be voted upon as part of the 2015 general plan update?

"This additional designation within the General Plan would be subject to more discussion during the General Plan update process including ratification of the full Plan revision. All Staff is asked to do now is to finalize the language for inclusion in the General Plan for this designation. Once that is done, that revision along with many other suggested revisions will be subject to citizen review as part of the General Plan update and subsequent ratification."

We asked: How will mixed use apply to Oro Valley?

"Mixed Use is a customization process in order to blend form and use to fit the land available. This is unlike a shopping center; a stand alone apartment complex, professional offices all of which have been approved for the Town Centre east of Oracle at First. This is not an integrated, mix of uses. These are separate uses on separate pieces of land within the parcel, and is typically called Multiple Use. This is conventional development and, as such, is more familiar to design and construct. Mixed Use, because of the integration, and form base, is less familiar, and may be perceived as more complicated and perhaps expensive to construct. That depends upon the proposal, of course. So, customization is a more sensitive form of development...sensitive to the land, the natural environment and to the surrounding area.

There are photographs of existing Mixed Use developments, and there are planners and architects with experience. Experience exists within our Oro Valley planning staff. This works to ensure that a proposal - however customized - has the form and function to fit the space available versus the conventional approach to simply maximize the use of the land.

Mixed Use was built into the zoning for the Town Centre originally. There was no definition even within the zoning, and so it was up to the imagination of all parties to agree on what was actually intended. This is one of the reasons why Mixed Use was abandoned and Multiple Use substituted on that property. I think the Town would agree that the process on the Town Centre property was not well handled during the General Plan and zoning process many years ago. We paid the price. The Town has made land use mistakes in judgment - in my opinion - in the past. I was involved and participated, but we've all learned. Certainly the Marketplace was another example. I'm not sure it's a good use of everyone's time to review the particulars of that case, but I can if we all can meet at some point."

In his reply to us, Bill summarized his thinking:

"Finally, it needs to be understood that a property owner has the right - the entitlement - to improve his land. That's why designations and policy statements in a General Plan are relevant, and certainly restrictions in zoning are necessary. We don't want improvisation. However, there does need to be flexibility so that an improvement not only makes money for investors but looks good; is convenient, efficient and practical for citizens. Flexibility to some might be "code" for doing what a developer wants. I suppose that's a presumption that can't be eliminated entirely. It gets back to trust...but not just trust in the Town but in yourselves to become engaged and work through the land use process to achieve an outcome satisfactory to all."
---

Guest View-John Musolf: Does "Mixed Use" Really Apply To Oro Valley?

For the past several weeks, we have been discussing the concept of a mixed used zoning code. Problem is: Most of us really don't understand it.  Or, if we do, are passionate for or against it.  So, we felt, in the interested of engaging is honest conversation, that we would present more information on it.  Understanding "mixed use" matters to you because it could become part of the Oro Valley code and be applied to a lot next to you.

Resident Bill Adler kindly agreed to present two guest views discussing what this zoning code is and how it would work in Oro Valley.   To date, some of you have commented on Bill's guest views.  Oro Valley resident John Musolf has provided his insights regarding mixed use. They follow:
---
"During the past year or so, I've invested some time in learning about "mixed use" and town staff's view of how it would apply to Oro Valley. I've read about it, discussed it, and attended town staff's discussion of it.  So, when resident Bill Adler posted his guest view I was very interested in it because Bill is very knowledgeable of all things "code" in Oro Valley.  Also, Bill has not "ax to grind".

To some extent, the views expressed by resident Bill in his two guest views and what I have learned do "square."  The concept of mixed use does provide great flexibility when it comes to what can be built on a property. It does provide for customization to suit to the unusual topographies in Oro Valley.

In his discussion, Bill introduced the word “customization” to describe the mixed use concept.  If we leave the mixed use "customization" up to the developer  however, I am concerned that we will cede control of what ends up on any piece of land to the developer, then to town staff and then to the town council. We can end up with a hodge-podge of property use.  I wonder: Doesn't is that vagueness make the  mixed use concept confusing?

This Mixed Use designation does sound ideal on the surface. To be fair to Bill, it may work in a large land area that is being built primarily as a shopping mall but contains apartments above (vertically) or town homes adjacent (horizontal) to the shopping mall and parking garages.

I have personally seen this accomplished in Wisconsin where I lived years ago.

Bayshore Town Center (formerly called Bayshore Mall) is a shopping mall/mixed use retail complex in Glendale, Wisconsin anchored by Sears, Boston Store, and Kohl's. Originally an outdoor strip mall built in 1954, it was converted into an enclosed mall in 1974. In 2006, it was remodeled and an outdoor shopping district was constructed on parts of the former parking lot, which required the construction of parking garages.

In spite of the parking garages, street driving and parking is still allowed within the retail complex making it only partially pedestrian friendly.

The project included 1.3 million square feet of retail space (over 80 tenants) such as department stores, retail apparel shops (men, women, children), toy stores, specialty shops, service retail (banks), technology stores (Apple) entertainment (theatre), restaurants, surrounding a 1-acre town-square park.

Included in the project were upscale apartments. They are really nice!

Does Oro Valley have the huge parcels needed to make the mixed use concept feasible?  Many of the remaining parcels in Oro Valley are smaller and some are in-fill spaces. If a mixed use designation is applied in those places, could it mean that a gas station, liquor store, or a medical marijuana store could be built and “integrated” next door to your family residential home?

The most important question still to be answered: How will the “integrated” Mixed Use land use designation provide measurable direct benefits for the majority of individual citizens of Oro Valley?"

John Musolf
Oro Valley Resident
---

Adler Makes A Case For "Mixed Use" Zoning Code Designation (Part 2)

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?

Adler Makes A Case For "Mixed Use" Zoning Code Designation

 A "Mixed Use" designation to the Oro Valley zoning code would allow a landowner to apply to have various facilities on the property they own.  For example, the property might include a combination of commercial properties, single family homes, apartments, or any other type of facility.

There are some who believe that adding this designation to the Oro Valley code would mean disaster for Oro Valley. There are others who think it is a rather benign change.   We thought that our blog could be useful in "fleshing out" the opinions. So, last week, we began the discussion with our posting: "Mixed Use: A Bad Thing To Some-A Good Thing To Others."  This week we continue the discussion.
---
Resident Bill Adler is a proponent of adding the code.  Bill, a long-time Oro Valley resident, is active today, and has been active for many years in Oro Valley.  In 2005, during the process of getting the last general plan approved, Bill opposed the mixed used designation.  It was eventually left out of the plan.  Now, Bill is in favor of adding it to the plan.  We ask why?

"Two basic differences; Then, Mixed Use was imposed upon specific pieces of vacant property on the Land Use Map replacing previously approved land use designations. Also, there was no definition of Mixed Use. I was told, we'll get to that when we create the ordinance. 

Now, there is no imposition of a Mixed Use designation on the Land Use Map. Owners of property have the designations approved in 2003-5. They - obviously - can submit a General Plan Amendment to change the designation, and we have several attempts to do that every year. Secondly, there is now a definition of Mixed Use. It necessarily is vague, because Mixed Use is a varied designation custom designed to the property. However, the vague nature of Mixed Use is clear - if that isn't an oxymoron - by allowing the customization of use to the particularities."

Those who oppose adding the mixed use designation to the code think that it should be approved by the voters as part of the 2015 general plan vote if, indeed it is to be included at all; that is should not be "snuck into" the Oro Valley codes using a minor amendment.   So, we asked Bill: "Where's the fire?"

"If the issue really is why NOW versus some later time, all Oro Valley people need to do is look at the vacant property available. There's hilly property behind Home Depot that runs past Naranja Drive on the east to Palisades.  Unless that property is fully graded which would ruin the beauty of the contours, clearly the land must be customized as to use. The R1-7 ( minimum of 7,000 sq.ft. lots ) as presently zoned would maximize profits but irreparably damage the aesthetics of a high profile piece of land. 

If we offer to a property owner the option of customizing rather than standard development categories and density, we can achieve a "win-win". 

When the General Plan revision is underway, this new element would be presented, and clearly the interested residents can grasp the detail as offered and respond. So the public is not being circumvented."

Guest View-Shirl Lamonna: Mixed Use-Is It Really In Our Nature?

Who buys a house – or even a car - based strictly on the word of the seller? Who sends their child away to college without first exploring the quality of education and safety on campus? Who accepts a job without understanding the duties, salary and benefits?

So why should anyone accept the notion that a “Mixed Use” zoning code will be a benign change to the Oro Valley General Plan without examining the consequences? Further, why allow those who refuse to investigate the agenda behind the “Mixed Use” concept to impose their ignorance upon Oro Valley?

Heard frequently in Council chambers, the terms New Urbanism, “Mixed Use”, Smart Growth, Land Use Policies, Walkable Communities, Sustainable Development and Multi Use Dwellings are among the many code words used to implement a political agenda - referred to as Sustainability - at the local level. But the devil is in the details.

Left unsaid is that Gro Brundtland, the Vice President of the World Socialist Party introduced “Sustainable Development” in 1987 and defined it as follows:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
   • the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
  • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."

At first glance, this seems harmless. In reality, it means that our single family homes with yards are considered to be unsustainable; that we need to get out of our cars and take public transportation; that we should ultimately live, work and play in “stack and pack” Mixed Use developments which will change the entire complexion, values and “nature” of Oro Valley.

Is it any wonder that there’s a lack of trust with unelected staff who promote this agenda at every opportunity? And a similar lack of trust with many elected officials who have no knowledge of the history, intent, or consequences of "sustainable development" policies?

Clearly there is a need to look beyond the fancy talk and identify the impact on the “nature” of the town.

A major area of concern is with the vague nature of the “Mixed Use” designation. According to a recent Guest View: "At this stage a property owner can't be offering anything specifically to customers because he doesn't have the authority to actually develop “Mixed Use”. He is simply changing the designation on the property. Architecture and more details on traffic, uses, density happens at the re-zoning stage...an entirely separate and much more specific, detailed set of requirements."

This means that a developer must first apply for a “Mixed Use” designation on his property and then seek to rezone it. At present, this rezoning requires a super-majority vote of five council members. You may recall, however, that Staff wants to change the requirements for a major and minor General Plan amendment so that most everything will become a simple majority vote. Such a move would undoubtedly make Staff’s job easier but it is not in the best interest of any existing homeowner near any vacant land in the Town.

This isn’t a partisan issue “Mixed Use” will clearly impact the “nature” of Oro Valley as the Town seeks to build out the remaining empty land parcels. Wouldn’t you prefer the current prescribed range of zoning uses - not a vague code designation called “Mixed Use” that is subject to broad interpretation and special interest manipulation? I urge everyone to do their own research on this matter and get involved before it’s too late.
---

Mixed Use: A Bad Thing To Some-- A Good Thing To Others

We have written  about a potential land use designation called "Mixed Use."  We have even posted guest views on it.  In June, we reported that the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department look at it as part of their planning efforts. Yesterday, we reported that town staff and some council are in favor of it and are moving forward to amend the current general plan to include it.

So, how do the residents feel?

Two residents spoke about mixed use zoning at the July 3 Oro Valley council meeting. Their comments appeared during the "blue card" portion of the review of the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department 2013-1015 plan.   They residents are Don Bristow and Bill Adler.  Both are knowledgeable and articulate on the subject.

Don's comments were the main thrust of his call to audience remarks.  Bill's were a part of a large discussion of items.  We thought you would like to view both remarks because they clearly differentiate the two opposing views.

In Don's case: "My opinion is that council and town staff do not legitimately have  a mandate  from the citizens of Oro Valley to place mixed use designations on the zoning maps... to be included in the 2015 plan for the citizens to ratify."  Don believes that the town should first define "mixed use", apply it to the zoning maps, if applicable, and then put it in front of the voters as part of the general plan update.

Bill's postion is that "Planning staff has developed a definition for it and there is no anticipation of changing the land use map. All we are trying to do is to add an element so that the option to designate would be an option for the applicant to choose to have their property designated as mixed use. This is not something that the town will impose. It is something that the town will afford to an applicant."

Later, during the same discussion at the council meeting, Council Member Hornat observed: "I would never support the imposition of mixed use on a physical property." Continuing, he noted: "I would support an alternative that specifically said: 'If you're going to do mixed use, these are the kinds of things you're going to do.'"  Hornat further observed: "I agree with Mike [Zinkin] that the citizens deserve a chance to look at this." Later, however, he states: "I would like to see a minor general plan amendment that we have fixed use" so that staff can move forward to develop the code for it."

Tell us what you think.

• Do you understand the concept of "Mixed Use?"
• Do you think its a "good thing" for Oro Valley?
• Do you think that it should considered as a general plan amendment, as an inclusion in the 2015 general plan, or not at all?

---

Bill Adler Helps Us Understand The Drawbacks Of "MUN" Plans

Bill Adler probably knows more about the zoning codes and the development plan for Oro Valley than just about anyone in or out of town government.

Bill was good enough to explain the drawbacks of "MUN"---Mixed Use Neighborhood as it pertains to the new development plan for the previously approved Town Centre below La Reserve.

All our residents, especially our neighbors in La Reserve should be familiar with Bill's concerns NOW, before it is too late, and approval is granted.

Please see our next post from Monday, July 11, 2011
La Reserve Neighbors And Others: Are You Aware Of The Modified Plan For Town Centre?

Here is Bill's message.
*************************************************************************************
When the General Plan of 2003 went through the process and was defeated by the citizens of Oro Valley, one of the major contentions was "MUN" [ mixed use neighborhood ]. This was contentious - not because the concept was unacceptable - but because the Town couldn't define what MUN meant.

Planning Director Bryant Nodine felt strongly that mixed use, or New Urbanism, was a necessary and desirable development style for a number of reasons, and the term " mixed use " continues to be used today within revisions to commercial codes, as well as within discussions of undeveloped properties. When the General Plan was revised and finally ratified in 2005 LU 8 within the Implementation Program specified that a mixed use ordinance was to be finalized.

Because the Town has failed to execute the LU 8 requirement, we have the Town Centre electing to abandon mixed use freely. The term remains undefined in the code, and so referring to mixed use is meaningless. This means that the Town cannot enforce a reference to mixed use, or New Urbanism, even though the term is within the PAD for the La Reserve property.

The concern I raised repeatedly during the General Plan and PAD process back in 2002 - 2003 was the high profile, highly conspicuous nature of the property where the Town Centre is proposed. Anything of mass and height will be easily viewed - not only from Oracle - but from 1st Avenue; Lambert Lane; areas on Naranja and La Canada. The New Urbanism form conceptually addressed this high impact concern since the development would be lower in profile. The 75' hotel was the exception.

My understanding from the notes on the April meeting is that the application is requesting an extension of both height, mass of commercial office use, as well as additional high impact uses such as convenience/drive through uses. Expanding permitted uses means more parking, which means even more destruction of the natural amenity and visual amenity. The concept of New Urbanism is being abandoned because of a lack of demand, as I read the notes. How can there be demand for a use that is undefined in the code? How can a use be "marketed heavily" when nobody could possibly know what the land use entitlements are?

I supported the relaxation of use at Steam Pump Village because the property is not high profile due to its relatively flat elevation and residential is not immediately adjacent, and somewhat higher elevation. The condition on the Town Centre property is the reverse. I suggested that grading exceptions would have to be required to lower the height from natural grade in order to preserve the appearance of this elevated property.

It remains the burden of the applicant to justify their request by showing through design presentations that the integrity of the view of the foothills from the west and east can be maintained. I don't find any representations in the applicant's proposal with regard to minimizing both visual and natural impacts.

Bill Adler

"Mixed Use Neighborhoods" mean APARTMENTS

---
Friday, John Musolf contributed a very detailed, considered piece defining what he thinks is meant by MUN.

As one of our bloggers noted in an email to me:

MUN "...would allow developers to apply for rezoning to allow multiple uses on their land.  For example, they could have commercial and apartments/condos on the same parcel.  This would be like the apartments sandwiched between the gated community of homes and the Big Five Sporting Goods/Noble Hops strip center at La Canada & Lambert."

So, what does MUN mean?  Given we have heard to date, one word keeps coming up when it comes to MUN:  Apartments.

A few months ago, the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department and the Developer stated, at a  public hearing on Rancho Vistoso Pad 7-I, that there is very little land in Oro Valley zoned for multi-family residential, Apartments.   They both felt that more land was needed.   Perhaps that is why they supported the general plan amendment that would have allowed apartments on 7-I.  Perhaps that is why the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission recommended this change.

At each public hearing the the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department has conducted on  Mixed Use, every mixed used development example provided includes Apartments.

This quote is from a highly reliable source: "It is the intent to make Mixed Use part of a General Plan update - along with other issues - this year."

If a Mixed Use Zoning designation is approved by this Oro Valley Town Council, you should expect to see many requests put forth to rezone properties for mixed use, since mixed used gives developers much more flexibility regarding what can be built on a property: Like apartments.

This designation, once placed on a property, will also make it much more difficult for residents to oppose apartments if they don't want them since the zoning code mixed use will already include a permission to build apartments.

In other words, one never knows what will actually be built on a property once the mixed use designation is placed on the property.  Who knows what property 7-I or the Ford Property in Rancho Vistoso would have become if it had been designated under this MUN code.  

The mixed use zoning designation was rejected by the Oro Valley voters in approving the 2005 General Plan.  So, if the Oro Valley Town Council moves to approve such a designation, they are going directly against the will of the people.

Thing is: Adding this zoning designation to the Oro Valley codes is a major, not a minor change to the General Plan. Therefore, shouldn't it be for the people, not the council, to make this change? That would occur, if approved, in the 2015 General Plan.
---

Did You Know? A General Plan Amendment Is Being Considered For A Major Development At Oracle and Hardy

A General Plan Amendment for a Mixed-Use Project
A General Plan Amendment is being processed by the Town of Oro Valley for the development of a “mixed-use” project at the southwest corner of Oracle and Hardy Roads. The property, currently open space, spans approximately 18.5 acres and comprises four separate parcels. Four of these parcels are included in the request for general plan amendment changes. The first neighborhood meeting regarding this proposal is scheduled for tonight at the Oro Valley Town Hall. Residents can attend either in person or online.

Current Land Use and Zoning
The property is currently divided into two primary land use designations. A portion is designated for large residential lots, where single-family homes are built on spacious properties, preserving a rural character. Another portion is designated for medium-density housing, which permits townhomes or smaller single-family homes built closer together. Additionally, a small section of the land is already zoned for commercial use, suitable for businesses like shops or offices.

Requested Land Use Changes
The applicant is requesting changes to the property’s designations to allow for what they assert will be a more a cohesive and practical use. The area closest to Oracle Road would be designated for commercial development, including retail stores, offices, and restaurants. The portion on Camino Greenfield will be e used for a residential community of 39 townhomes. This residential area would also include open space to serve as a buffer between the development and neighboring homes while preserving some natural areas for drainage.

This is an unusual request for two reasons

There are at least to key items to learn more about during the upcoming neighborhood meeting:

• Ownership Discrepancy
  According to county records, not all the parcels under consideration are owned by the applicant, Skyline Ridge, LLC, despite their claim that they own all four parcels involved in the request 
• Questionable Mixed-Use Designation
  The project lacks the co-dependency typically required for a “mixed-use” designation, as the residential and commercial components are not dependent on one another.  In other words, the success of the commercial properties will not be dependent on the new housing units; nor will the commercial properties be a major inducement for the new residents. However, the developer does have plans at least try to make them codependent (See note below)

Community involvement needed
Oro Valley residents are encouraged to participate in the neighborhood meeting process to ensure that the development addresses community concerns and reflects local needs. Nearby neighborhoods, including Rancho Feliz, Sunnyslope, and Shadow Mountain Estates, as well as homeowner associations within 1,000 feet of the project, have been identified for outreach.

There is always "more than meets the eye" involved in every General Plan and zoning change requested. This neighborhood meeting is your opportunity to learn more about the project, ask questions, and provide feedback. Resident involvement at this stage will help ensure that the development aligns with the needs and values of the Oro Valley community.
- - -

Editor Note 1: Ownership
The Ravitz Family Trust is listed as the tax agent for two of the four parcels.

Editor Note 2: Mixed Use
The developer plans to make the project a mixed-use development by enhancing pedestrian connectivity within the site and the surrounding neighborhood. They will install sidewalks along Hardy Road and Camino Greenfield, where none currently exist, and provide safe, accessible pathways through the development. The design includes outdoor plaza and gathering spaces, complemented by wide sidewalks to promote walkability and ease of access for nearby residents. Additionally, the scenic corridor will feature significant vegetation preservation, maintaining the natural aesthetic of the area while integrating these new community-focused elements.

Zinkin Stands Up For The People

---
The following remarks of Mike Zinkin were read to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last evening. These remarks relate to Mike's opposition to the mixed use general plan amendment.

As you can see, Mike stands with the people.
---
"I am a citizen of Oro Valley.  I repeat: I am a citizen of Oro Valley.  It is important to understand that because it is the citizens of Oro Valley that helped write the General Plan, and it is the citizens that ratified the General Plan.  Our town attorney has stated that "The General Plan drives code."

In November of 2003, 60% of the town's voters disapproved a General Plan proposal, primarily because it contained a land use designation called "mixed use."  The citizens wanted the term better defined. The modified proposal of the General Plan excluded the mixed use designation. The voters ratified this plan on November 8, 2005. This is now the General Plan we are discussing.

On page 11 of the General Plan there is a chart which denotes whether a General Plan amendment is major or minor.  On the vertical access are existing land use categories. On the horizontal axis are the proposed new designations.  Pages 23 and 24 of the plan define the land use designations. Neither axis lists a designation of "mixed use".  On pages 23 and 24, there is not definition of mixes use designation.

What this agenda item is proposing is not an amendment of the General Plan, but rather a re-write of the General Plan. Neither the learned Oro Valley planning staff, nor you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, have the authority to re-write the General Plan.  Only the citizens of this town have the authority to re-write the General Plan.

If there is an applicant that desires to develop any mixed use area, and we all know there is, and who it is, then the applicant should be lobbying the town to draft a change to the General Plan and go to the voters to ask for approval of this change.

Please do not rely solely, totally on the staff's recommendation.  It was the staff that failed to advise you of the correct wording in the Vistoso Pad that lead to you incorrectly approving an apartment zoning on land that was not so designated.  It was a concerned citizen that had to bring this to the attention of the town.

It the town staff really represents the General Plan, they should be conducting open meeting trying to sell the public of the need to modify the General Plan. They should not be here trying to sway seven volunteers to do something that is in the purview of the 41,000 citizens of Oro Valley.

I realize that this commission is only advisory to the council; but, in this case, the final decision must come from the citizens, the voters.  It this body believes that there should be a re-write of the General Plan, then forward that recommendation.  There is an election schedule for May15 that could be used to give the citizens an opportunity to add or reject a new land use designation.

Remarks of Mike Zinkin
January 3, 2011
---

Oro Valley Town Council To Hold Open Hearing On "Mixed Use"

---
The Oro Valley Town Council is considering a general plan amendment that adds a mixed land use designation to our codes ("mixed land use") when it gets back to business.  A public hearing may be included in the September 5 meeting.  The public hearing is your chance to speak out on this land use designation.  Read our previous positing on mixed use.

Why does this matter to you?  It matters because the current general plan, the one that the voters approved in 2005, does not contain a mixed land use designation.  This is because "mixed land use" was removed from an earlier version of the plan, one that the voters rejected in 2003.  In other words, the voters said "No" to mixed land use then.

Our concern has always been the following: We think it is wrong for any council to substitute its judgment for that of the people.  For the council to now approve something the voters rejected would be doing just that.

What's the rush?  The town is to draft a new general plan in 2015.  Why not simply wait. Include mixed land use in that plan. Let the voters decide.

The general plan is an extraordinary document.  It is the blueprint. It is the people's agreement on what they want Oro Valley to be as Oro Valley grows.  Its intent should not be subverted by council.

Since this is a General Plan Amendment we believe that it will require a super majority (5-2) to pass.  We urge you to go to this council meeting. Contact our council members.  Let your voice be heard.
---

Mixed Use Neighborhoods: What Do They Mean In Oro Valley?

---

Last July, we posted regarding Mixed Use Neighborhoods ("MUN"). This is a zoning designation that is not in the Oro Valley zoning codes nor is it included, as such, in the General Plan. There is a designation in the General Plan called "Complementary Use" that was substituted in the General Plan in order to get voter approval of the General Plan in 2005. The details surrounding "Complementary Use" have not been defined.


Bill Adler, an Oro Valley citizen who was involved with the creation of the General Plan, provided a background about MUN in relation to Town Centre at La Reserve. Click here to read Bill's explanation.


The town has a pending request for what would be an MUN.


Last night, the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department hosted a panel discussion on mixed use development. Bill Adler sponsored this panel. Bill is in favor of the MUN concept.


Tonight, we will get the opportunity to see what MUN might mean for Oro Valley. The Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department will host a Mixed Use Neighborhood Meeting for a new Planned Area Development (PAD)
for 20 acres located on he northeast corner of Linda Vista Blvd and
Oracle Road for high density residential and commercial/office uses. See the left column of the blog for information on this meeting.


Last night, Ross Rulney, who is the developer of this project, provided insight into why MUN works for the development community. His explanation:

In today's real estate financing environment it is far easier to interest lenders in financing one of the pieces of an MUN as opposed to trying to interest one lender in financing the entire project.

So, now we know why this Developer and perhaps why the entire developer community supports MUN.


Tonight's meeting should give us insight into what it means for Oro Valley.

---

Here They Go Again! Planning and Zoning Commission Advocates "Mixed Use" Zoning

---
Seems like some people never give up. This time its the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tomorrow, they will begin what is now their annual push to add Mixed Use to the Oro Valley Zoning Code. We've written volumes on this.

Apparently, this idea came up at the May 7th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting during a discussion of the Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department's activities for the next year.  At that time: "Several Commissioners expressed a desire to encourage Town Council to reconsider the Mixed Use General Plan amendment, which currently has been tabled.   The Commission discussed Form Based Codes as a tool to implement the Mixed Use category" (Source)

The Mixed Used cheerleaders simply don't give up.   The last time council discussed it was last year.  Now, the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to urge council to discuss it yet again.

Thus, we write about it yet again:

"This designation denotes areas wherein a range of land uses are planned as an integrated development. The MU designation is intended for residential, commercial, office and employment uses, creatively designed based on new urbanism principles. Such areas should be reflective of a village concept wherein there is an opportunity for residents to live, work and recreate within the same neighborhood. "(Source: January 2012 Oro Valley Development and Infrastructure Department information sheet).

That is the concept. In practice, as we have pointed out, the objective is simply to allow multiple uses of a property without going through the process of subdividing the property and then rezoning portions of it.  It is an end run around the zoning code and the general plan.  It can easily result in a miss-mash of land use with one property.

As we have previously written:  "Adding this zoning to the Oro Valley codes is a major, not a minor change to the general plan. Therefore, it is for the people, not the council, to make this change." This approval or denial would occur as part the 2015 general plan update process.

What do you think?
---

Marketplace Plan Requires Town To "Transfer Ownership of Land"

Big Changes sought for the Oro Valley Marketplace

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission is holding a public hearing Thursday on proposed changes to the Oro Valley Marketplace. The changes cannot happened unless the town council approves changes to the the land's current zoning. 

It also cannot happen unless the town transfers ownership of at least part of the CDO multi use path and a parcel on Tangerine Road to satisfy open space zoning requirements for the plans.

There are four items being requested

1. Reclassify the drainage area to create a central entertainment district.
   This is an amendment to the "“Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance” zoning map.  This ordinance, reluctantly passed by council in 2011, dictates open space requirements by land area. The area in question is a drainage area that the ESL designates for 95% open space. The request is to change the designation to reduce the open space requirement.
2. 
   Permit apartments and hotels
   The applicants want to use the Environmentally Sensible Open Space ("ESL") zoning option mixed use flexible design option to permit apartments and hotels. This option applies when the site will conserve a minimum of 25% of the area as ESL. The staff argues that the applicant's request meets this requirement because of land that the previous developer in 2007 gave to the county along Big Wash. This is now county land.
3. Increase building heights and reduce buffer zones
   The applicant wants to the town to revise code standards by amending the Rancho Vistoso PAD, Neighborhood 4 (Note: A PAD is a zoning document covering a specific area that represents a higher and better level of regulation than the town zoning code). The applicant wants to increase heights for the apartments and the hotels, landscape buffers and setbacks as well as permit a drive through use in the shopping center.
4. Revise site and landscape design for the new building and entertainment district and the associated parking and circulation design changes.According to Michael Spaeth, town planner:  “Should any of the first three not be approved by town council the fourth can not be approved.”

Town Staff  advocates for the changes

The area population does not justify a regional mall

In his presentation at a study session to the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 14, Spaeth referred to a study town staff had done on regional shopping centers in Arizona. He concluded: "Ultimately the market place has too much supply and not enough people to support the center." (We knew this 15 years ago when we fought against the town giving the developer money, in the form of sales tax revenues, to build it.)

Staff permits use of county-owned wash land to justify the ESL requirement for mixed use

Staff is also "bending backwards" to approve the apartment zoning change request by saying that the requirement to meet the ESL amendment was met because the previous developer gave the county 77 acres along big wash in 2008. "The 77 acres exceed the requirements of the zoning codes to use these flexible design options." This land is not owned by the applicant. 

Building height increases are alright because they are far from neighbors

There are five building height variances. The existing limit is 40 feet.

• Tangerine Apartments: 75 feet
• Oracle Apartments: 59 feet
• Three hotels: 49 feet

According to Spaeth, these height variances are alright because they are "far away" from neighbors.

Town owned CDO use path counts as recreational space

"The zoning code requires that recreational facilities be provided on the same lot as the units. The applicant is proposing to use both amenities within the buildings and throughout the center to meet the recreational requirements."  This the proposed entertainment center and the town owned "CDO use path."

Land ownership transfers from Town of Oro Valley and ADOT must happen for this plan to move forward

A transfer of land from the town and from ADOT is a "condition of approval", as defined by the planning staff. 

One of these transfers of land ownership is from  ADOT along Tangerine and Oracle Roads. This is a few months from happening. The item will be presented to council after this transfer has occurred.

The other transfer involves land now owned by the town; some of which appears to be the multi-use path that runs along the wash.  This has not been highlighted in any forum nor discussed by to the public until this posting. The land in question can be seen in the "Conceptual Site Plan" panel. 

- - -