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. 

- - -

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Planning Department enters the Circle of Deceit. Part 2.

You can read Part 1 HERE

Below is the speech that I gave before the P&Z Commissioners:

Point #1: There’s a document in the P&Z Packet that describes the surrounding neighborhood land uses. It describes the neighborhood EAST of the property as being “single-family residential 7000 and 10,000 sf lots.” This is false.

A map that I obtained from the Town shows that it was actually zoned for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (not 7000 sf)…and more importantly, although that parcel was zoned for 10,000 sf minimum lot sizes, it was not developed that way.

The majority of homes in that neighborhood (Ironwood Canyon) are on lot sizes between 16,000 and 19,000 square feet. The smallest lot is just under 15,000 sf and the largest lot is 33,000 sf. There are a total of 65 homes and 22 of them are on lot sizes of over 20,000 sf.

The developer (WLB Group) is asking to build 167 homes on lot sizes of 7000 square feet and less with only 11 lots of 16,000 square feet, meaning that the average lot size will be way under 15,000 sf. This means that the entire buildable portion of the property will be mass-graded. (When the average lot size is less than 15,000 sf, the developer is allowed to mass grade the entire property). This not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods as the developments directly to the east and to the north were not mass-graded.

Point #2: The Staff Commentary (in the packet) states that this proposal conforms with the General Plan because it will provide housing for employees and students of the adjacent schools.

Those schools have been there for years and the employees and students haven’t needed housing in the immediate area in all that time. Why do they suddenly need it NOW? We already have 570 new homes planned at Capella…right next door.

What did the applicant present to the staff that supports the housing need for employees and students of adjacent schools? Where are these people and how many of them are there?

In 2014, the surrounding neighbors agreed to a rezoning request on that parcel to allow 118 semi-custom homes on lot sizes ranging from 1/3 acre to 1.5 acres. What significant change has taken place in the last 4 years to support this new proposal?

Point #3: The documents state that, “Staff recommends approval.” Well, they also recommended approval of the original plan that was presented for this property in 2014 --- 118 semi-custom homes on large lots with no mass grading and no connecting walls. So does this mean that the staff was wrong when they recommended approval of that project in 2014? And if they were wrong in 2014, why should we trust their judgment now?

I want names
A few days later, I contacted the Town and asked for the names of everyone involved in compiling the informational packet for the P&Z commissioners and the Power Point presentation and reviewing it for accuracy. I was provided the following names:

Bayer Vella (Planning Manager/Planning & Zoning Administrator)
Michael Spaeth (Principal Planner)
Rosevelt Arellano (Senior Planner)
Milini Simms (Planner)

Getting into the weeds
So that’s FOUR Town planners who worked on this who either didn’t know that the information they provided was false (incompetence) or they knew but their number one job is not to tell the truth, but rather to do the mayor’s bidding by pushing through new developments as quickly as possible. Either way, the citizens are not being properly represented.

Mayor Hiremath always says that he doesn’t “like to get into the weeds” but shouldn’t the staff be getting in there? The staff should be visually inspecting the neighborhoods adjacent to the subject property to ensure compatibility and not just assume that the developer’s submittal and Town documents are accurate.

Since P&Z and the Town Council base their votes on the information provided to them by staff, that information needs to be accurate and up-to-date.

The Vote
The initial vote was a 3-3 tie with one commissioner absent. 

Voting YES to approve the rezoning were Chairman Charlie Hurt and Commissioners Tom Drzazgowski and Don Cox.

Voting NO were Vice-Chair Melanie Barrett and Commissioners Thomas Gribb and Bob Swope. (Commissioner Gribb mentioned my speech as his reason for voting no.)

They reworded the motion and voted again.  The second vote was 5-1 to DENY the rezoning.  Commissioner Tom Drzazgowski was the lone YES vote.  It will still go before Council, but with the caveat that P&Z does NOT recommend approval.

Once again, town staff controlled the message and the message was false.

Below is the erroneous information that was included in the P&Z packet and in the Power Point presentation. It appears in Row 3 where it describes the zoning to the east of the subject property.

Below is the false statement made by Planner, Milini Simms, during the Town’s presentation in support of the Saguaro Viejos rezoning:

“The existing zoning is 20,000 square feet and the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to 7000 sf lots…..I do want to point out that at 7000 square foot lots, it is located to similar sized lots especially to the east and to the south.”

As you can see, if I hadn't spoken up, the P&Z Commissioners would have assumed the information in their packet was correct and they would likely have approved the rezoning. You have to wonder how many other times they have unknowingly voted to approve a rezoning based on false information.

Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated a controversial 200-acre development project. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.