Last week’s council denial of the Avilla tiny rental homes rezoning project was a victory not only for those who live in the area but also for all residents of Oro Valley. It was a victory because if there ever was a residential housing project that didn't belong in Oro Valley, then this was the project. Residents felt that two hundred and seven tiny rental homes stuffed around the Safeway plaza in Rancho Vistoso was just a bad idea—such a bad idea that it is astounding that town staff supported it.
Residents hated the project
Residents made it known that they were against the project in big numbers when they packed Council meeting chambers [see panel below-right]. They presented a number of objections… from traffic concerns… to a tainted Planning and Zoning Commission approval… to the simple objective of cramming ultra high density rental housing around the Safeway Plaza.
This project, residents felt, would make it worse, despite the assurance of the applicant that they were going to make things better by creating a shiny new intersection. After all, a little skepticism is a good thing.
The shiny new intersection was presented by a traffic engineer hired by the applicant and not by town engineer, Paul Keesler. Keesler only spoke when pressed by Council Member Solomon to guesstimate what it would cost the town to build the intersection. He was very hesitant to answer, dropping a number in the $2-$3million range. He did not opine on whether the proposed intersection design was a good solution or even the best solution.
Residents were involved
They made a difference
We think the most telling thing was the gathering of 23 pages of 1,045 signatures—all against the project. This represents more than 700 households. Resident Shirl Lamonna and others gathered the signatures. The time and effort devoted to doing this was a significant commitment over many months. The result was Lamonna’s three-minute clip [panel left] in front of the council to tell them that the people didn't want the project. That’s a lot of work for a moment in front of the council, but it made a huge difference
Thus, the land remains zoned for commercial use
At the meeting, Town Planner Michael Spaeth painted a doomsday scenario if the project were not approved. He told the residents that the property, as it is currently zoned, could one day have very large buildings on it—buildings that could obstruct views and bring "gobs" of traffic. His inference, of course, is that the residents should want the Avilla project because it will be less of a monster; and, as a bonus, they will get a shiny new intersection. The residents and the town council didn't buy his argument.
One day the property could have commercial buildings on it. On the other hand, it may stay vacant for another 50 years, which would be just fine with everyone who lives in the area—everyone except the property owner, who doesn't live in the area.
They made a difference
We think the most telling thing was the gathering of 23 pages of 1,045 signatures—all against the project. This represents more than 700 households. Resident Shirl Lamonna and others gathered the signatures. The time and effort devoted to doing this was a significant commitment over many months. The result was Lamonna’s three-minute clip [panel left] in front of the council to tell them that the people didn't want the project. That’s a lot of work for a moment in front of the council, but it made a huge difference
Thus, the land remains zoned for commercial use
At the meeting, Town Planner Michael Spaeth painted a doomsday scenario if the project were not approved. He told the residents that the property, as it is currently zoned, could one day have very large buildings on it—buildings that could obstruct views and bring "gobs" of traffic. His inference, of course, is that the residents should want the Avilla project because it will be less of a monster; and, as a bonus, they will get a shiny new intersection. The residents and the town council didn't buy his argument.
One day the property could have commercial buildings on it. On the other hand, it may stay vacant for another 50 years, which would be just fine with everyone who lives in the area—everyone except the property owner, who doesn't live in the area.
- - -
