In a June 27th post, "Will Another Developer Have His Way In Oro Valley, the answer is "No.'
In last night's meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners voted unanimously to NOT allow the Embassy Suites Hotel to move 185 feet closer to the street. The hotel is contemplated as part of the Innovation Park Complex in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 3.
The fact that neither the applicant nor staff could justify their argument that a setback was required because they desired a 75 foot high structure, didn't make sense, especially when Planning and Zoning approved a 36' high hotel back in April. Additionally, a number of Oro Valley citizens spoken in opposition.
A win for the people.
Now, we'll see if the Council upholds this recommendation, should the applicant wish to proceed to appeal.
11 comments:
Thank You for posting this information.
My bet would be that this exemption request will be pursued. Developers
don't take no for an answer.
If this one is passed, it would open
the door for all developers to try
for exemptions of all types .
Art, where can we find out how each member voted.
I also notice that on the town web site, a lot of the meeting notes, etc are not being kept up to date.
Wonder why. I did email the town a little while back with a few comments about the web site format, but got no response.
Hi mscoyote. As for this specific issue, Chairman Doug McKee and 5 of the 6 members present all voted "No."
As for other votes, I guess you could call Town Hall and ask the Town Clerk. Another option is the new "audio stream" available on the OV site which allows either "live" listening, or do so at your convenience. At some point, the minutes of the meetings are also posted on the OV web site.
If none of this works, perhaps we can try and indicate the vote on (what we perceive, as) criical issues.
Art
Art, wasn't the vote unanimous (6-0) to require the applicant to meet the 4:1 setback requirement? I believe the 2nd item heard at the meeting (that of the rezoning at LaCholla and Naranja)was approved 5-1, with Mr. Adler voting no, based on environmental impact.
Thank You Art.
If you have the information , which member voted No?
About the audio stream I thought that was just for council meetings.
I sometimes listen to the council meetings from the safety of my home.
I had requested several times that the Explorer print this information
such as the names
of who voted yes and no.
Also I suggested that the Explorer
do a summary of issues and how our
council voted , specifically when the do their election articles.
Never happened!
Also heard that the meeting was attended by a lot of residents
who spoke up about this issue.
Maybe more will become interested in our town politics. If so, we can work hard to elect representatives of the people, not
cheerleaders for developers.
Can someone please tell me what is now planned for the corner of LaCholla and Naranja?
With apologies to those I mislead with my poor use of grammar. What I meant to say, (as I did in the original post)--- the vote was unanimous. However, only 5 of the 6 members were present. So---with chairman Doug McKee, the vote was 6-0.
To respond to Victorian Cowgirl, there was a third item on the P &Z agenda last night. If you allude to the NW corner of La Cholla & Naranja, the applicantt, on behalf of the developer asked for, and received a rezoning on the parcel.
It is planned as a gated community with lots from approx16,000 -36,000 sq.ft. There will be 118 single family homes.
The zoning change requested was from R-144 to R-120 (lot sizes)
The vote was 5-1 with Bill Adler against the zoning change request.
Art
Good for Bill Adler.
Rezoning is a major profit making technique developers use to make profit. They by a parcel zoned for one thing then get it rezoned for other things.
Why do we have a master plan and zoning regulations if all that happens is variances are premitted?
Good for standing your ground, Bill Adler.
How will The Town Council Vote? Anyone care to place bets?
Ok, Here is my bet. For the setback,(yes) the vote will be
Loomis, Parish, Dankewerth and Kunisch Maybe
Against the setback(No) will be Abbott and Carter and probably Gillaspie.
Hey "Ferlin"--- There's an OV election on the horizon. Three seats are up ----Dankwerth, Parish & Gillaspie.
My take, regardless of which, if any seek reelection, only a fool would vote to over-rule the unanimous "No" vote of the P & Z Commission.
These people aren't fools----are they???
Hmmm!
Unless I am mistaken, it appears that the Consent Agenda item H marked for approval is the 75 foot hotel and the setback.
I hope I'm wrong but this looks like it is just going to be steamrolled past everyone, regardless.
Post a Comment