By unanimous agreement, the Oro Valley Town Council agreed to continue a major general plan amendment discussion for an undetermined period. The amendment was for property located on the west side of La Cholla, from Naranja to Lambert Lane. We wrote about the hearing for this amendment this morning.There is no deadline on when this will be heard again.
Mayor Hiremath suggested a continuance to answer the following:
- A discussion regarding the buffer on the Southside of the southern property;
- A more in depth traffic analysis;
- Further clarification of whether the site needs senior living; and
- Further clarity on what is the intent of the church for the 2 parcels that it owns
Council Member Snider, who also attended the previous meetings not he request, observed: "I think that this parcel will be developed in some fashion. I think that this is a better transition than could otherwise be done" under existing land use.
Both Snider and Waters, however, felt a continuance was warranted in order to get clarification of the church's plan.
Council Member Burns commended the Mayor for suggestion a continuance since Burns felt that the plan has many benefits.
Council Members Zinkin and Garner also agreed to the continuance. Both noted great respect for the applicant and the applicant's commitment to Oro Valley.
Developer Greg Wexler, during his presentation of the project, provided an estimate that the project would have a $350 million build-out value, provide $20 million in construction fees to Oro Valley, and $1 million to the Amphi School District over the life of the project. That life is 8 years.
---
1 comment:
CM Zinkin pushed for a continuance in order for Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan to have a second private meeting with the applicant to negotiate more conditions than what they have currently offered. While claiming to have made numerous concessions to residents, those of us who know the specific details of those concessions also know that some of the "concessions" made weren't concessions at all. Some of them were things that they HAD to do and some were things that they were already PLANNING to do anyway.
EXAMPLE #1: The "gave us" a 200 foot natural buffer on the west side of the property. Full disclosure: there is a wash on that portion of the property so they couldn't build there anyway.
EXAMPLE #2: They removed apartments from the plan. While it's true that Citizen Advocates submitted a comprehensive list of reasons why we were opposed to apartments, and they removed apartments shortly thereafter, during the same time-frame they also received a report that stated that apartments were not in market demand at this time. So wouldn't they have removed them anyway? They can't make money on something that's not in demand.
Post a Comment