Planning & Zoning

Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director, gave a brief preamble to the staff report. This is a General Plan (GP) amendment. The Arroyo Grande area for the proposed amendment is within the boundaries of the Town of Oro Valley’s GP. GP policies have indicated that where annexation makes sense within that planning area, the policy is to expand the boundaries. The GP is a general document, not a zoning document. The GP is essentially the community’s blueprint for land use and development. It serves as the basis for rational decisions regarding the community’s long term development. The next steps provide for more clarity with additional studies required. Each process has a higher level of specificity.

Sherry Ruther showed several slides of maps with the modeling that Dr. Beier did on wildlife linkages while he was under contract with the Game and Fish Department. The model is based on 9 species that very likely inhabit the area. Of the 9 species, he identified breeding habitat and population core areas, and looked at the distance between those areas. He factored in a minimum linkage width, of which the benchmark distance is roughly a kilometer. Ms. Ruther presented a map with the wildlife linkages within AG planning area. They have tried to maximize the wholeness of the natural open space areas, keeping it as intact as possible, with a target width of about 1 kilometer or 3280 feet. When planning for corridors especially in areas that may be developed in the future, they try to account for a buffer area between the core of the linkage and those areas that will assume more development. That buffer area is approximately 300 meters (984 feet).

Questions from Commissioners and Ms. Ruther’s response:

- Define what in your opinion what is and is not allowed in natural open space.
Response: Free from urban development. There are uses that could be compatible, ie. non-motorized recreational trails. There should be sensitivity of how many trails are allowed and with minimum type of uses. Something that would not trigger permanent occupancy.

- Would an electrical substation be allowed?
Response: From a biologist’s perspective, those types of uses have a small footprint and are not occupied or heavily traveled.

- What about underground power lines, sewer lines, etc., and access roads to those lines?
Response: As long as mitigated they would be compatible. Access roads are used less and not paved, so would have a lesser impact.

- What is your feeling as a biologist as to how development should be treated at the edges of the linkage? Should the density be graduated? Is the distance of linkage sufficient to protect the wildlife corridor?
Response: The generally accepted point of view is it is a better option to have a tapering effect, gradually increasing density as you move away from the core linkage areas.

- How and to what level is the cultural area protected? How can trespassing be prevented?
Response: From a biologist’s perspective, when a natural open space area is set aside, it should remain as free from impact as possible. There is a gamet of options from fencing to not allowing public use of area. Expenses and management must be considered.

- Would it be your recommendation to not allow public access into a cultural preserve?
Response: Ms. Ruther said she was not qualified to make that recommendation. If there is concern of how to implement preservation, the Town should consult those people who are used to dealing in cultural preservation issues.

- Is that area in the wildlife corridor?
Response: It partially falls in Dr. Beier’s linkage area and contributes to the north/south linkage area.

- Dr. Beier’s modeling extends outside of Arroyo Grande area. The Town doesn’t have the ability to do as the modeling requires outside the area. What happens if it eventually gets choked off?
Response: That becomes problematic. There are ongoing conversations with entities outside the area as to how to maintain the value of the connectivity area.

- Can animals cross areas not in the model or is movement allowed only through the corridor area?
Response: The open space areas are the optimum route that an animal would use. However, animals may cross areas outside the optimum corridor area. Dr. Beier did not include that intense development areas in his model.

- The denser the development, the fewer animals would go through. Low density areas may still have animal movement.
Response: Yes. 50% natural open space may still provide for low density development and wildlife may move back and forth.

Ms. More continued with her report, then introduced Charlie Deans, CommunityByDesign, who talked about land use tables, land use categories, densities, and plan changes.

Mr. Deans stated that Dr. Beier’s study went to Pima County, the cultural resource people, and others involved. The study helped to identify development envelope areas outside the wildlife corridor. CommunityByDesign, as the planning consultant for the State Land Department, took the areas identified for development and refined the more specific land uses that would occur within those areas: Master Planned Community (MPC), 50% open space area, Village Center (VC), and Commerce Office Park (COP). The biggest change in plans from the earlier presentation was the wildlife linkage. Overall numbers and land uses are essentially the same. Village Center, defined as a mixed use, gives the flexibility to adapt to the market. Depending upon the market at the time of sale, the VC area could become commercial office park.

Questions from Commissioners and response:

- The term "planning" does not include the ability to respond to the market. Planning is looking out 1-2 decades. How do we know how to mix and match retail, employment and residential? How much acreage should be allocated to each use? How do we know what the future market will be? Suggested the entire area should be a MPC which allows almost any mix of uses and the allocation of acreage could evolve as parcels are sold and development comes in for review.
Response: At this point in the plan there is not a lot of detail. As we move from GP amendment to the entitlement process there will be an extensive market study completed that will start to identify the demographics and what the needs are for uses, and there will be a user involved at that time.

Looking at the Town’s GP land use definitions, in MPC and COP, Mr. Deans does not read the uses allowing regional commercial or employment uses. It seems specific about residential uses.

- The differences between the two land use tables was confusing. Why does the same land use create a different number of jobs? How did you decide to make changes to respect the wildlife corridor?
Response: Using VC as an example, there are 5.0 jobs per acre in the current table. In the March presentation, COP had a higher job ratio, and a VC designation. Those 2 uses were combined into one Village Center land use which created an overall higher job ratio. The number basically stayed the same, but reflects the combined use.

- The COP designation changed from 47 to 400. Total available for COP has gone down.
Response: That is true. The entire VC area has been reduced, but could be expanded into the MPC if so desired.

- The Town wants to have biotech companies locate here, which require large parcels of land.
Response: The Commission has the ability to recommend increasing the COP area.

Ms. More continued with the staff report and referred to the Biotech article handout. To attract biotech firms, the right land use and size are needed. Staff supports the idea of VC, but would also support carving out additional land either from the VC or the MPC as a whole. MPC is vaguely defined in the GP. Would hope the plan would have, in the large areas of MPC, small nodes of NHC.

Ms. More introduced Nicole Fyffe. from Pima Co.

Nicole Fyffe, Pima County, stated that County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry is supportive of the process we have been going through in participation with the State Land Department and the Town of Oro Valley. Two conditions were mentioned in Mr. Huckelberry’s September 4, 2008, letter. One regarded open space (OS) being delineated on the map, and insuring a mechanism is established to provide for management of the Tortolita Mountain Park and the OS to be added to the Park through this GP amendment. Mr. Huckelberry asked for a condition that ultimate ownership of the land to be with Pima County.

Secondly, Mr. Huckelberry would like recognition for a future discussion of an enhancement fee to help in the maintenance of the Tortolita Mountain Park.

There were a few minor edits to Special Area Plan policies, but overall Mr. Huckelberry supports this plan amendment.

Questions by Commissioners and response:

- Explain why the Town is choosing to annex versus purchasing the State Land.
Response: Annexing this property does not make the Town owner. It remains in Arizona State Land ownership until they auction or sell it as they are required to do. Council will be providing policy for future guidance of private sector development. This is a groundbreaking model for State Trust Land planning in Southern Arizona. OS would be in public ownership. Pima County has an OS purchase program and the capacity to do OS management plans. The goal is to work together and to help this happen.

- What is an enhancement fee?
Response: A nightly fee that guests pay and is ongoing.

- What control will OV exercise over the OS after the County takes ownership?
Response: If the County buys the land with OS bond money or State Growing Smarter money, then they are precluded from doing anything else with the land.

- Is that amount of money available?
Response by Ms. Fyffe: Until an appraisal is done we don’t know what the amount will be, but yes there is money available.

- Is it fair to say there is an assumption that the adequacy of water will exist?
Response: That is correct. The Town has an adopted water plan and has established fees to implement that plan.

- 80,000 people assumes all CAP water will come to the Town. The Town is currently serving about 47,000. Tucson and Metro Water still serve some who will eventually come into Oro Valley’s system. That sustainable pumping rate will only reduce the rate the water level goes down. We will be about 25,000 short which will have to come from additional CAP allocations or the number of people will need to be reduced.
Response: The Water Utility Director has discussed mechanisms for recapturing water. We have also talked about having development aim for lower water useage.

Attorney Andrews said the assured water supply program works as part of the platting process. Before a plat is approved there has to be an assured water supply. If the Town got to the point where there were more people than water supply, the State would have to be applied to for additional water. The State would assure that supply or not. If we were overburdened on water, we would loose our assured water supply and development would become a problem.

Ms. More introduced Michele Muench, from the State Land Department.

Michele Muench said there has been regional collaboration on this project. Historically the State’s plans are much like development plans. Discussion started on this early with the Town and Pima County, the Sonoran Desert Coalition, and other environmental groups, and has been a unique experience for the Land Use Department.

The plan has an unprecedented amount of open space. Never before has the Land Commissioner set aside 60% open space. This is the first step of many. A Conceptual Plan is for planning, and is updated every 10 years.

There is one condition in the letter from the County being that asking of ASLD we are struggling with. Under current laws we are required to auction property and it would go to highest bidder in a public auction. If those conditions go in we would have legal issues with them. We are willing to work with County to come up with an acceptable plan.

Ms. More continued with the staff report. There aren’t many buyers for land that is planned for OS. Even though there are legal constraints, we are confident that we will be able to work something out.

Pinal County is working on their GP for future buildout. It is in the best interest of the Town to insure this OS is secure and developed with OV standards, and partner with Pima County and the State Land Department consistent with community values.

Questions from Commissioner and response:

- The public needs to understand in the areas to be developed where a percentage of OS is not delineated, that there will be OS in the master planned areas, i.e., recreational parks, trails, paths, etc. The 68% is not everything.
Response: Clearly, there is OS within areas of development, such as school sites, parks, etc.

- Regarding riparian areas and linkage, the plan connects Tortolita through this area, and then bottlenecks it at Oracle Road. Areas east of Oracle Road have not been addressed. Is there any study on that portion of the project?
Response: There are comments regarding that in Dr. Beiers letter. There are recommendations for outside the scope of this planning effort. He suggests development to the west of Oracle be addressed in the future.

- Is it going to be a problem referring to the Environmentally Sensitive Land (ESL) ordinance that does not yet exist?
Response: It is in everybody’s interest as a community to have riparian designations nailed down, prior to any type of zoning or development.

- So special conditions could be put in to require that rezoning be delayed until the ESL ordinance is in place.
Response: There are two ways of addressing Village Center: 1. amend the Zoning Code to include it, and 2. define it in a PAD for this area first and then decide whether to apply it community wide.

PUBLIC HEARING opened at 8:00 p.m.

The following list of individuals were either undecided or spoke in opposition of the Arroyo Grande General Plan Amendment siting the following reasons: Concerns for wildlife, potential water shortage, long term demands and cost of CAP water, additional garbage, traffic conditions, commute times, air pollution, monsoon runoff, effect on existing businesses, potential damage to historic sites, where will roads go, transitional zoning, should be designated as open space, Tortolita Mtn. Park extended, cultural resources, parks, bike paths, and equestrian trails.

John Szpisjak, unincorporated Pima County resident.
Patricia Murchek, Catalina resident.
Kathy Schroeder, Catalina resident.
John Payton, Catalina resident.
Geri Ottoboni, OV resident.
Kathy Pastryk, OV resident, representing OV Citizens for Responsible Growth.
Larry Wolf, OV resident.
Hector Conde, OV resident.
Gary Lunstad, non-resident.
Jan Johnson, OV resident.
Nancy Young Wright, OV resident.
Robert Schumann (did not speak).

The following individual supported the Arroyo Grande General Plan Amendment:
Charlie Troll, OV resident.

Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Preservation, gave a brief presentation stating the Coalition’s views. The best use of the land is conservation as 100% OS. The Coalition will continue to try to convince the State Land Department and Pima County to follow up on the 2007 bond packages, and would like the Commission’s support. The Coalition would like the following addressed:
- natural OS workable and functional at the level of the GP for wildlife.
- development assurances and specificity at the same level for conservation.
- buffering Tortolita Mtn. Park
- more open space
- transitional areas of low density beffering the major riparian areas, OS of park and the linkage
- a commitment to a management plan and assured funding
- an enhancement fee from residences and businesses
- an endowment from the Town.
There is still concern about the bottleneck on Oracle. This plan is working towards that. The Coalition will continue to work with ADOT, the land owners on th east side of Oracle, and the County.

PUBLIC HEARING closed at 9:00 p.m.

Questions from Commissioners and response:

- Would clustering successfully open up more OS to protect the linkage?
Response from Ms. Campbell: It depends. In the area on the western end particularly, there is 100% OS and then some clustering or lower density and on to higher density further north and east. That is where it would get into the zoning stages. The buffering should be rural low density, not clustered.

- Do the two resorts shown have any relationship to the one on the plan?
Response: These are very conceptual resorts locations and possiblities. The plan clearly says the intent is to provide for one resort. We are aware of the prior plan in Stone Canyon. The market will determine whether there is a need and location will determine access.

- There is a question of accessibility in the SW corner?
Response: There are two options: one extension of Stone Canyon, and the other if the roadway system evolves there would be access. It is not assured.

Chair McKee said because of the 26 items in the special conditions Staff has prepared and the multi-page communications from the County, he suggested this meeting be continued giving time to consider material.

MOTION: Commissioner Merry MOVED to continue for action the General Plan Amendment for Arroyo Grande area to the October 7, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission regular session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 6:0.

Vice Chair Bergman asked staff to consider carefully all comments and give the best advice as to how to incorporate public concerns into a final motion made in October.