Maximizing profits should not be the rationale for rezoning land in Oro Valley

Below is an excerpt from the speech given by Oro Valley resident, Michael Sanderson, during the May 16th Town Council Public Hearing on the Capella rezoning. Yesterday, we published the speech that Diana Sanderson gave the same evening. We’re publishing these speeches to show our readers that the current Town Council does not listen to the citizens, no matter how well-researched and well-presented those citizens’ speeches might be.

Mr. Sanderson’s Speech
We live in the Canada Hills area. My wife and I sent a letter to each of you at the first of the week. I assume you have taken the time to read it. In the letter, we listed the specific variances proposed in the rezoning for the Capella PAD that are unacceptable to a significant number of Oro Valley residents. We have been meeting with these residents for the last three months.

We, unfortunately, do not have time this evening to discuss each variance, as we did in the letter. Very briefly – they center on the following requests by the Developer:

• In the residential areas: to create dense single-family housing by reducing the size of the lots and placing the homes closer together, beyond existing town code.

• In the multi-family housing: to reduce the open areas surrounding the structures, again, beyond town code.

• In the commercial zone at the NW corner of Naranja and La Cholla: to expand the size of the buildings from the existing code of 5000-9,000 sq. feet to 20,000 sq. feet.

• In the commercial zone at Lambert and La Cholla: to have a super big-box store of 125,000 square feet, more than twice the size allowed by current code – and bigger than any single store in Oro Valley except the Walmart Supercenter at Oro Valley Marketplace.

• In both commercial zones: They are also requesting that commercial buildings in both areas be five feet higher than allowed by code.

The Zoning Code is intended to maintain the character and quality of the town by imposing development standards and to reduce adverse impacts on neighboring property owners. Unfortunately this proposed plan seeks variances that would allow the developer to degrade the character and quality of Oro Valley and have an increased adverse impact on neighbors.

Three of us met with the applicant in an attempt to understand the need for the zoning variances. We, absolutely, appreciate him taking the time to meet with us and provide detailed responses to our questions. Clearly we do not agree with the basis for the variance requests.

Our interpretation of the responses was that they were based on the need to build as many single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, and provide as much commercial square footage as possible to maximize the profits for the current landowners and prospective buyers. This should not be the rationale for rezoning land in Oro Valley.

We support the amendments proposed by the Planning and Zoning commission at their April 3 meeting and approved by a 6-0 vote.

In addition, there must be the 5 conditions that we listed in the letter we submitted to each of you. These conditions for approval of the Capella PAD rezoning have been thoughtfully researched and considered by our group of concerned Oro Valley citizens. We expect you to add these conditions to the amendments unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. These combined conditions represent a reasonable compromise to allow this PAD to move forward.

This is your opportunity to demonstrate to the citizens of Oro Valley that you do listen to their concerns.

(Editor's Note:  The council did not listen.  They approved the rezoning with a unanimous 7-0 vote).

- - - - -

For reference, below are the amendments passed 6-0 by P&Z during the April 3rd meeting.

Planning & Zoning Amended Motion:

1. All future site plans for each parcel will go through the Conceptual Site Plan process to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as Town Council for further review.

2. Complete an updated Traffic Analysis for each development phase required by Town Code.

3. Parcel M is restricted to 1-story height within 300 feet of the west property boundary.

4. The plans for restrooms and playgrounds in recreation areas must be maintained.

Below are the additional conditions that the Sanderson’s requested in their letter to the mayor and council:

1. All single family homes in the PAD shall meet the requirements of R1-7 zoning regarding minimum lot area, lot width, yard setbacks, and building height; except that the minimum lot area in Parcel H, for homes not located along Lambert Lane, can be 6600 square feet, per the Special Area Policies adopted in 2015.

2. Multi-family residential buildings in the PAD shall meet the requirements of R-7 zoning regarding outdoor open space and outdoor private living space.

3. All businesses in the C-N commercial zone at the NW corner of Naranja and La Cholla shall meet the current C-N zoning requirements for business floor area limits, building height and allowable use.

4. All businesses in the C-1 commercial zones shall meet the current C-1 zoning requirements for business floor area limits, building height and allowable use.

5. A traffic control “island” or curbing shall be placed at the Canada Hills Drive intersection to not allow through traffic to cross La Cholla. (The proposed design will not be sufficient to “not permit eastbound or westbound through-traffic across La Cholla Boulevard” as stated in the current proposal).

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Councilmembers Snider and Hornat offer absurd reasons for approving a recent rezoning

Click HERE to read the absurd comments that Mayor Hiremath made during the same Council Meeting when discussing this rezoning in the LaCholla/Naranja area.

Today’s article focuses on the absurd justifications made by Councilmembers Snider and Hornat to explain their approval of that rezoning request…rezoning 85 acres of pristine desert on the west side of LaCholla from R1-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot lots with custom grading) to R1-7 (minimum 7,000 sf lots with mass grading).

Prior to their discussion, I spoke at the podium, pointing out the false information that had been supplied to them by the applicant and the Town Staff…false information that they would use in formulating their decision. Below is an excerpt from my speech:

"I’d like to begin by stating that The WLB proposal contains misinformation. Page 5 states that the existing land use east of the property at Ironwood Canyon has “a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.” That is false. The smallest lot size is just under 15,000 sf and there are only 2 lots of that size. The majority of lots are between 18,000 and 23,000 sf.

In your Council Packet, Item C3 states that the largest lot in Ironwood Canyon is 28,884 sf. That is false. The largest lot is 33,020 sf.

Those two falsehoods should make you question how many other items in the report may also be false.

Page 48 of the WLB proposal states…“This residential development, with its relatively low proposed land use intensity…will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” That is false. 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east at Ironwood Canyon and it’s 20 times smaller than the 3 acre lots directly to the north. How is that compatible?"

Councilmember Mary Snider’s absurd comment

Snider tried to blame approving small lot sizes and cluster homes on quote...

“...the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance [ESLO] which the citizens of our community drafted and this council approved in 2011 or 2012. We’re following the direction of what the community has said they want us to do in conserving more open space…Sometimes people might not understand why we’re getting slightly smaller lots, but we’re getting more open space.”

My rebuttal
Really, Mary? You think that residential lots that are half the size of the adjacent lots to the east and 20 times smaller than the adjacent lots to the north are slightly smaller??!! You need to be replaced with a council member who can do basic math and who cares about the property values of ALL Oro Valley residents, not just the ones who live along the golf courses.

Also, it was not the citizens who wanted cluster homes on tiny lots. You failed to mention that the ESLO Committee included members of the development community including Councilmember Steve Solomon (a developer) who acted as the Town Council representative for the ESLO Committee.  As usual, they got what they wanted and the citizens were ignored. The ESLO concept that citizens had in mind is vastly different from what was adopted. Why do you think the citizens continually complain about the constant rezonings for postage-stamp sized lots?

It’s disingenuous of you to say that you’re following the direction given to you by the community when you have never taken that approach when it comes to approving General Plan amendments and rezonings. The General Plan was written by the community, giving the Town Council direction on what the citizens want for our town, yet you have had no problem approving one General Plan amendment and rezoning after another. In fact, in 2016, you approved a General Plan Amendment just 8 days after the new General Plan was ratified. Citizens worked on that plan for two years and you began dismantling it in 8 days. So spare me your sanctimonious, “We’re following the direction” of the citizens.

Councilmember Joe Hornat’s absurd comments

Hornat Comment #1. “I’m a little defensive about when people tell me that we haven’t followed through with the process. The P&Z folks who rejected this, or denied it, never even brought up the number of houses or the size of the lots. They were concerned with traffic. I submit that they denied it, but not for the reasons that have been brought up here.”

My rebuttal
Joe, you were present when Town Planner, Milini Simms gave the Town’s Power Point presentation on this rezoning, shortly before you made your comments. She stated that this rezoning…

“…was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6th. They did recommend denial. The main focus of that meeting was compatibility to the surrounding area and traffic along Naranja.”

The compatibility had to do with the tiny lot sizes not being compatible with the surrounding homes. You were present at that P&Z hearing, so you were well aware of what had transpired that evening.

Hornat Comment #2: “Is this really that much different than what is across the street on the East side? We can play with the numbers all day long. We can look at the pictures. It’s not that much different. It might even be better. I don’t want to get into a numbers game. That’s just ridiculous.”

My rebuttal
Yes, it’s much different than what’s across the street on the East side. As I outlined in my speech (were you listening?) 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east.

Other differences include:
• mass grading vs. custom grading
• 2-story homes vs. 1-story homes
• 10 feet between homes vs. 50 feet between homes
• lot widths of 50 feet vs. lot widths of 100 feet
• connecting walls vs. no connecting walls

Why do you listen attentively to the applicant when they discuss their numbers? They present their numbers (lot sizes and number of homes) as they try to convince you that their numbers are compatible with the surrounding numbers. But for some reason, it’s not until the residents speak about the numbers not being equal that you decide that you don’t want to “get into a numbers game.” What's really ridiculous is how the Town Council repeatedly gives more weight to the presentations of the applicant/developer and the Town Staff than they do to the presentations of the citizens.

I’ve come to expect ridiculous comments from Mary Snider, but your comments at this meeting had me wondering if perhaps you had died recently and the council is now propping up your body at the dais in the manner of Weekend at Bernie’s.

Important Planning and Zoning Meeting tomorrow (Tuesday)

Tuesday, March 6th at 6 PM

Town Council Chambers
11,000 N LaCanada Drive

If you live in the LaCholla area between Glover and Lambert, there are THREE agenda items scheduled for Tuesday's P&Z meeting that affect your neighborhood.

Item 3: CAPELLA
This is for the proposed REZONING for the Major General Plan Amendment that was approved in 2015. The applicant, Paul Oland of the WLB Group, has stated that this is just the continuation of the Major General Plan Amendment and that nothing has changed. But we all know that deals are made when no one is looking, so if you live in this area, you might want to plan on attending.

Items 4 and 5: SAGUARO VIEJOS
This is the residential development slated for the area on the west side of LaCholla between Glover and Naranja. See the history of this parcel below.

History of Saguaro Viejos
This parcel was already rezoned from 144,000 square foot lots down to minimum lot sizes of 20,000 sf in 2007. In 2014, The WLB Group submitted an acceptable plan for custom homes on lot sizes between 16,000 sf all the way up to lot sizes of 1.5 acres. This plan involved no mass grading. Each lot would be custom graded.  Surrounding neighbors agreed to this plan back in 2014.

(They could go down to 16,000 square foot lot sizes despite the minimum lot size being 20,000 sf if they left open space in other areas, which they were planning to do.)

Fast-forward to 2018.  NOW they are coming back requesting to scrap that plan and rezone the eastern portion of this property again, this time from 20,000 square foot lots down to minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet!!!! This will include mass grading of a large portion of the 85 acres followed by the building of cookie-cutter homes with connecting walls. This is unconscionable considering that surrounding homes are on lots sizes of 1/3 acre, 1/2 acre, all the way up to 3 acres and include custom and semi-custom homes and no connecting walls.

In less than ten years, that parcel has gone from a plan of approximately 25 homes on 144,000 sf lots (3.3 acre rural residential lots) to 118 homes on 20,000 to 63,000 sf lots, and now they are requesting 178 homes.  Of those 178 homes, 103 homes will be on 6,500 sf lots and 64 homes will be on 7,000 sf lots (for a total of 167 homes on postage stamp sized lots).  Only 11 homes will be on 16,000 square foot lots.

How does this proposal meet the below criteria in the General Plan?
- Promote land use development practices that conserve and minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources
- Maintain the small-town, neighborly character and improve the design and safety of the built environment

You can view the agenda HERE