Karen Berchtold gave the staff report. 

Questions and comments from Commissioners, and response:
- Are there any archaeological problems?
Response:  The applicant provided a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).  SHPO recommended a study be undertaken.

- Are the lots in the northwest corner of the property buildable at 3 acres or 1 acre?
Response: Staff feels 1 acre may not be sufficient.

- Will a Significant Resource Area (SRA) study be done by the September meeting and will it help clarify whether SRA is properly placed? 
Response:  The study is not being requested of the applicant at this point.

- How can density be increased in an SRA overlay until a study is done?  This is not a rezoning issue, but a General Plan (GP) matter.
Response:  Only the eastern part of the property is covered by an SRA.

- It should be clarified by the September meeting whether that portion of the property is properly designated if increasing density is being considered.
Ms. More responded that she is confident that based on information in the submittal that a recommendation will be presented to the Commission at the September hearing including the applicability of the SRA areas.

- Three GP policies should be addressed by September and included in the staff report:  1.1.1, 7.1.1 and 7.2.3. 

- How many acres is the Town owned piece of property at the trailhead and how many vehicles with a horse trailer can be parked there?
Response:  The trail is an effort lead by the Parks & Recreation Department.  Staff cannot answer at this time.

- How would this be accessed if used for an equestrian trailhead??
Response:  The Parks & Recreation Department has proposed creating easements along the boundary of the property, non-motorized access to the trail and motorized access to that site.  More intensive discussions will need to occur with Parks & Rec and the applicant to understand how that would relate to the land.

- Will the vehicles be going through Stone Canyon to get to the trailhead?
Ms. More responded this trailhead/parking area is not part of the plan amendment.  We hope to arrange appropriate easements that would facilitate access to the trail that exists.  Access from the south has not been determined.  Parks and Rec anticipate it could take years to put together appropriate access to develop that trailhead.

- Trailhead access needs to be discussed in the next staff report.

- Who controls the gated community and would access be allowed needs to be determined? 
- If water were extended to this area, how much potable water would this add to the Town requirements?  This should be discussed in the next staff report.

- Are there 4 wells in the area?  
Response:  Yes.  Several residents on the property are probably still utilizing those wells because they don’t have Town water.

- Are there houses on the property now?
Response:  There are one or two existing homes.

- Is the mix of larger and smaller lots within the proposed range of density as suggested by the applicant?  As a remedy are you thinking about mixing the designations or just the range of densities within the single designation? 
Response:  Staff had focused more on key resource sites. 

- At the Study Session an economic analysis was asked for on what it means when density is increased.
Ms. More responded with a brief statement.  Residential development of any density generally does not pay for the itself.  Generally as density increases, the cost per dwelling unit decreases. There are no hard numbers available. This development is putting in all the infrastructure and maintaining it in the future, so the Town does not have that cost.  Cost to provide services are not returned by the State revenue sharing.   Staff will try to get some comparison information for the next meeting.

Paul Oland, The WLB Group representing Stone Canyon, gave a brief presentation covering items not mentioned in the staff report:
 - La Cholla Airpark "C" overfly zone.  
- Conceptual site plan showing extending Stone Canyon down into the area. 
- Constraint areas, i.e.  sloped areas, floodplain and SRA.  
- Transition of residential densities.
- Minimal encroachment into biologically sensitive areas.
- No lot line fencing.
- Building envelopes defined by natural constraints.
- Stone Canyon design guidelines would be used.
- Infrastructure will be installed by Stone Canyon. 
- Streets are privately maintained.
- Roads follow natural contours. 
- Access easement for trail from trailhead to #33 trail.
- Stone Canyon Club is available to members.
- Will be surveyed for archaeology resources.

Questions and Comments from Commissioners and Applicant’s response:

- Work into the September presentation the same GP policies 1.1.1, 7.1.1, and 7.1.4, capturing the intent as well as the verbiage. 
Response:  One of the key driving forces behind development throughout Stone Canyon is the natural beauty of the land.  Development has occurred where the natural constraints were met and built around.  That is balanced with the need to keep the separation between the houses so they aren’t too close. 

- On a 1 or 3 acre lot, is the maximum disturbance the same?
Response:  Regardless of size 20,000 square foot building pads would be proposed.

- If two adjacent lots could be combined, what would happen?
Response: You are talking about the plat note revision that recently got approved.  If in the future we are doing a plat he would include the note if the Town is still comfortable with it.  We would like that flexibility.

- What is the nature of the trail easement?
Response:  There is a trail easement and a water easement that are roughly the same alignment.

- So the trail easement is not used for vehicles?
Response:  No. 

- Will the trail be pedestrian or equestrian?
Response:  It can change over time.  The one that runs along the southern edge of Stone Canyon 3 is listed as both.

- It should be clarified before the September meeting, whether there is anything that can be done to help Parks & Rec develop the equestrian trailhead quicker.

- Is there public access to the Town owned land now?
Response: There is currently no trail, and it could not be accessed without crossing private property.

- Before the next meeting prepare a tentative map showing possible multiple choices of trails from the trailhead through some of the constrained areas.

Public Hearing opened at 5:06 p.m.

Konrad Kundig, resident of La Cholla Airpark, representing the Airpark’s Board, expressed their concerns about flight safety and common sense.  The landing flight pattern is a "J" shape while loosing altitude.  The final leg of landing is a concern, because it goes in over the development and is down to several hundred feet above the ground.  It makes sense to have enough room between houses in case something goes wrong.  

- The Commission would like to know if the Board has any more concerns with the use zones, etc., by the September hearing.  Also have some recommendations of minimum spacing and altitudes over the southern area by the boundary.

Ann Britt, resident, was concerned about the trails, which are very important in the area.  She explained how the trails came about and were mapped on horseback.  Pima County has adopted the master plan as an ordinance.  They will rework the trails if necessary working with developers.  Marana has adopted the trails plan.  Oro Valley has not.  It is imperative we have access from the trailhead to those trails.

- Does trail #33 exist today so it can be used?
Ms. Britt responded yes, part of it does.

- The trails plan referred to has been accepted by the Town and is part of the development review process.
Ms. More responded that is correct.  The Town has a strong position on implementation of trails and has been very successful doing so.  She believes the Town has adopted the plan as a policy document.  Oro Valley’s ordinance and review process is different from Pima County.  She would be glad to provide additional information from Parks and Rec on that plan.

Attorney Andrews stated the Town has a property ownership in each of our trails, so if someone encroaches on it the Town has recourse as a property owner whether it is as an ordinance or plan. 

Ms. Britt said we have already lost trails when development has come along.  

Public Hearing closed at 5:20 p.m.

Additional questions:

- In Exhibit A, do the 16 conditions reiterate requirements that normally would be imposed?
Response:  Yes, a number of them are, particularly in the Public Works section.

- Is it appropriate to include those in this set of conditions?
Ms. More responded we will try to differentiate between major policy statements which belong in the GP as opposed to those attached to the amendment.  These will not go in the GP.  At the rezoning stage there will be more clarity.  The conditions are adopted as part of a resolution, which is a condition of the GP amendment.

- At one of the GP Neighborhood meetings there were comments about the increased density exacerbating the draining problem.
Response:  Applicant is doing a floodplain study of the area.
Paul Keesler responded:  At the GP amendment stage, we don’t go into details about hydrology studies.  We have outlined those specific issues we need to address during the rezoning process.  Whenever you increase density, you increase drainage.  This would be held to the same drainage criteria as is every other development in the Town in which we would need to mitigate the increase in drainage on site so that the outflow is at the same or less than the existing condition. 

Mr. Keesler continued that conditions outline the perimeters of the study needed.  The Code protects the neighbors.  Outflow must be regulated.

Break from 5:27 to 5:40 p.m. 

Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report.  

Questions and comments from Commissioners and Staff’s response:

- For clarification, the loop road from Moore Road to Arrowhead is not going to change?
Response:  Correct.

- The old school site was never accepted?
Response:  No. 

- So we have no input for a new school site selection.
Response:  That is right.

- With that being the case should we be including that as a change?
Response:  To the extent possible we want to be inclusive and follow the process.  We have the ability to go through this public process, and while we may not be able to dictate the site, we may be able to address other aspects, i.e. roadway, sewer, etc. 

- The school site location impacts circulation, which is a safety issue.

- Is the site of the original golf course going to be commercial?
Response:  No, it will be redesignated as residential.

- Will the proposal be adding residential, but subtracting jobs?
Response:  The primary intent of the commercial was for the clubhouse; it was not to create employment opportunities.  Vistoso Town Center will provide some employment.

- What is the impact going to be of increasing density immediately adjacent to the SRA?  Comment on this at the September meeting. 

- Is it practical to provide two emergency access roads to the school site?
Response from Paul Oland:  The two roads are two access routes.  On a loop you create two access routes. 

- What happened to the 6.8 acre park?
Response:  It was omitted from the application. Staff feels it would be appropriate to have a provision for recreational space.

- If approved will the density be the same, less or more?
Response:  Density will generally be the same.

Paul Oland, the WLB Group, Applicant representing Vistoso Partners gave a presentation. 

Questions and comments from Commissioners and Applicant’s response:

- Clarify by the September meeting, does building high density immediately adjacent to the golf course create a problem?  Use GP criteria on policies 1.1.1, 7.1.1 and 7.2.3. 
Response:  If you look at the development edges as exists today and as proposed, today we have a natural open space area which is the portion of Big Wash not covered by a golf course.  Past the golf course you have a development edge which is built in a residential fashion.  We are proposing to not push out the second edge further into the wash, but eliminate the first.  All the area that would have been golf course will be natural open space.  In the existing scenario, there would still be some significant disturbance of that golf course corridor which would otherwise be left natural.  Leaving it natural and dealing with a harder boundary is causing less disturbance. 

- Would like to see something on this in writing in September.

- What will be the heights of the two areas that were golf course and will now be high density?
Response:  They will be in conformance with the Rancho Vistoso PAD which is 2 stoies.  To clarify, that area will be medium high density, not high density.

- The school relocation is a significant change of land use.  Given that has to occur, could you still build a golf course in there? 
Response:  Yes, today.  One of the reasons we don’t want to build a golf course is there isn’t as big a market for it.

- Provide the Commission with evidence that will support that a golf course is not viable.
Response:  Applicant will research and provide an answer.

PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:40 p.m.

George Karzes, resident, realizes the community good is the big picture. He questioned:  Was the school accepted at the first plan?  Why is there a change of the loop road?  Concerned about loss of views. Still need public golf courses vs. private.  What types of residential?  What will the heights be?  How much encroachment will there be? 

Chair McKee said long ago Vistoso Partners was required to provide a school site, which the school district never approved. Recently the new site was approved by the school district.  The school district preempts the Town on site selection.  We are trying to adjust around the school’s decision.  We have some control on roads, etc., but not the school site itself.

Jerry Anderson, resident.  They selected their home lot after looking at plans for the area, which showed a golf course. Traffic will be an issue.  A school will create light, noise and visual pollution.  Students may wander onto private property.  He is against the entire proposal.  Big Wash is a true river of life, transporting water, and is an animal sanctuary.  He is for no more construction.

Bob Becker, resident and business owner, will be impacted by this.  He is concerned about traffic, buses, and the safety of children.  Removal of the golf course is not the right thing to do.  Golf courses are sometimes used as a place for run off.   470 more units in a condensed area generate a lot more trips!  Consider possible access off Tangerine.  Look at ways to make Oro Valley a place to be proud of and students are safe.

Deb Pemberton, resident. Her biggest concern is the safety of the children.  Arrowsmith has a very narrow opening with poor visibility onto Rancho Vistoso, and doesn’t look able to support the traffic generated by the school.   A group of citizens want to understand the choice of the school board and if there is a potential for influencing them to make a change.  They said the new site is the lesser of two evils and if there were a better site to the west of Rancho Vistoso, they would be open to that. 

Shirley Pruitt, resident.  They were told 9 years ago that there would be nothing developed in the valley except possibly a golf course.  They will be loosing their view and privacy.  Will this be a middle or high school?  How big will the school be?  Will there be lights around the school building at night?  How far from our property would the site preparation be?  Does not want to see this happen. 

Joe Pemberton, resident.  He concurs with everything heard this evening.  He attended the tour and the neighborhood meeting, and would like to have seen the citizen's comments.  The land has already been deeded to the school district, and that is harder to change.  Safety and congestion are big concerns.  Adding 450 homes is a 35 to 40% increase to this parcel.  Zoning should be reviewed first.  He would like to see low density.

George Karzas spoke again. Entitlement not a good word to use. 

PUBLIC HEARING closed at 7:15 p.m.

- The Pembertons were asked if the school had another suggestion as to a site.
The Pembertons responded no, but the district would be open to suggestions.

- At what point in the process is traffic analyzed?
Paul Keesler responded:  The process goes through the GP amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, and then improvements.  The GP, which is land use, does not mean that is what they are going to do.  You end up with a wide range of units.  To do the type of analysis for drainage and traffic, we don’t have the means to quantify at this level.  At the development point is when we can do an analysis of traffic, etc.  Variables are extremely wide.  Rezoning is where the "nuts and bolts" come into plan and is where we make detailed judgments.

- Does the school district submit their development plans to the Town? Do you have any opportunities to collaborate with them? 
Mr. Keesler responded:  Legally no, the school district is not subject to the Town’s zoning code.  Functionally, the Town and School District have shared a relationship and they will probably seek our advice.

- Comment on whether Arrowsmith can be widened.
Mr. Keesler responded:  A preliminary comment is that there is a right-of-way (r-o-w) now.  The existing road section of two lanes has an 80’ r-o-w, which would be wide enough to have a three lane section and there would be a light.  Development would be limited to what the infrastructure could support.  The GP amendment is not a guarantee of what will be built.  There will be limits on what can be built. 

- There was a possible proposal to replace the golf course with houses.  To what extent is that true?
Paul Oland responded:  The gold course is currently about 175 acres. Houses to be built on areas currently designated as golf course total about 73 acres.  100 more golf course acres are not being converted.

- If this amendment doesn’t pass, what happens? 
Mr. Oland responded:  The school will go to the new parcel unless the school district changes their mind.  They will need to access that parcel.  The road needs to be more significant and would probably be straightened out.  You would end up with the same with the school site moved. There are parcels that would be developed.  

- Is this golf course being looked at as a tourist site? 
Mr. Michels responded:  Community facilities tend to serve the local population.  It may not be a tourism draw without a resort facility affiliated with it.

- Doesn’t the removal of the golf course undercut the tourism policy?
Mr. Michels responded:  It would be speculation on his part.  Environmental preservation vs. tourism impact is a trade off.

- This information should be provided for the neighborhood meeting in August.  Also provide information on school size, lights, etc.  Define the term entitlement.

Ms. More said the neighborhood meeting will be a good place to have those conversations.   She asked that Mr. Keesler address studies that have been done regarding the 100 year floodplain.

Mr. Keesler responded there have been several studies with respect to floodplains.  Staff is currently working with Pima County Flood Control District.  There are always river course changes.  The school needed to analyze the floodplain with respect to their site.  The lower portion of the school site is in the floodplain.  The buildings are way above the floodplain.  Any development that comes in has drainage reports.