Planning and Zoning

Mr. Oland continued stating there are four conditions he would like revised related to: the 128.9 acres High Density Residential (HDR) rezoned to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR); the natural OS buffer area by Big Wash; undergrounding all utilities lines; and the new archaeological survey.

Questions from Commissioners and applicant’s response:
- Show where the buffer starts and stops on the map.
Response: Along the outer edge on the extreme eastern edge, adjacent to Big Wash and Honey Bee Wash. The point is to buffer Big Wash and Honey Bee Wash.

- Where is the sewer line going?
Response: Behind the bank protection.

- What happened to the sewer line on the eastern bank of Big Wash?
Response: There is one through NH3.

Mr. Keesler said regarding the sewer line on the west side, there is one other additional lift station that is in 5N. It does not work well. One condition is to help relieve that station. Public Works is looking for a stub out to that particular station.

- Is that the same station that was to be served by a line that was part of a plat requirement in another neighborhood?
Response by Mr. Oland: Stone Canyon 8 agreement required it be constructed with the pulling of the school site permit.
Dick Maes, Vistoso Parners, said the site referenced is 5B, developed by another contractor. They used a lift station. It is on their plat that they had to hook up with a sewer line when available. Only other lift station is at the south end of Sun City to service 13B, 13A and 5C.

- Are there 2 lift stations that need fixing?
Mr. Keesler responded there are two: RVNH5C/Sun City 9 & 10, and RVNH5B have problems.

- The 100 foot soft edge buffer area does not reduce density because it begins at the residential property. A 50 foot buffer might reduce density because it forces the property line back.
Response: It would reduce developable area. It would probably force the lots to be smaller to get the same yield.

- Restate the rationale that by vegetating an area that was going to be golf course, but will now be natural OS, it will soften the buffer area. The idea was to reduce density at the edge of development to respect the sensitivity of the conservation area.
Response: Much of the land within this area would retain natural vegetation. There would be some clearing around the sewer line and the erosion protection area. The effectiveness of the buffer is inserting human presense, i.e., path, cleared maintanence road. Animals would not preceive a wall of human built environment. The first encounter is well away from the hard edge. The sewer main can go down the middle of the road.

- The proposed 100 foot soft edge buffer area does not address the softening impact as transitional density. How does this achieves what we want to achieve? The only area where transitional density would not apply is near the school.
Response: Not developing something shows more respect to the edge than transitional density. There is more OS is in this proposal than currently exists. Would like to not further restrict.

- Regarding the multi-use path, how does it relate to trail #180, 33 and 156 mentioned in one of the conditions? Is the multi-use path one of these trails?
Response: #33 does not follow it exactly. Parks and Recreation Department would probably eventually see it as the trail #33 alignment.

- Are the 885 acres with the amendment natural OS?
Response: Yes.

- Can it be a golf course in the future?
Response: Yes, but it would have to get approved.

- Is the area to the north of Arrowsmith/Moore about 23-25 acres?
Response:  That is about 46 acres.

- If not approved, the applicant might pull that area out. The area to the south is open and hidden behind a hill. The Town Center looks down on it. The visual feeling is very different.  Could there be a compromise with high density on the south but change the north to medium density, which would be loosing 3 dwellings per acre, or 180 dwellings?
Response: The applicant would not like to see that condition made a part of this amendment.

- The northern most lots in the Town Center have great views. Would like to see less density.
Response: Looking at what has already been built, there are densities from 4 to 7 looking out over Big Wash. The visual difference between 4 to 6 or 7 is not very different. Visual impact is not that different in the range from 3 to 8.

- How many other places are there with entitlements of 8?
Response: All along Rancho Vistoso Boulevard is entitlemented at 21 per acre.

- For clarification, are the areas on the map where there will be no building, part of the total of OS value?
Response: Yes.

- Is the old school site included in the 885 acres of OS?
Response: Yes. The existing OS is not in the value of open space being added. Portions of the golf course and the old school site is where the increase comes from.

- Is the multi-use trail only going along the east side of zoning density sites?
Response: There are no other trails proposed through the OS. One of Public Works conditions is that, for the benefit of the school, a similar path be put up the east side of the loop road.

- Has there been any agreement finalized about the school site yet?
Response: No. The School Board has decided on the new site and it will be deeded prior to first permit pulled in Stone Canyon 8.

- Identify what economic studies have done relative to building this golf course and whether there have been any discussions regarding partnering with the Town?
Response: We have not provided any studies. The informal study is that Vistoso Partners owns other courses which show there is not sufficient market at this location.

- Has the Town been approached to go in a partnership?
Response: No.

- Researching shows almost always when these courses are built to help sell real estate, there is an exit strategy, i.e. turning over to an HOA. Might that be an alternative to be considered for this one?
Response: That has not been considered.

Commissioner’s comments:

Commissioner Merry said at the previous vote he was not in favor of the amendment in the way it was proposed, and didn’t fully understand that the motion to deny, meant it would be accepted.  He was looking for some changes, so we are back here to get some changes made. He liked the 100 foot buffer zone. Houses on each side of the street should resemble each other, as it makes for a better socio-economic neighborhood. The northern NH has a totally different visual experience from the sights above than those areas to south.  Particularly in that you tend to build this out at a lower density anyway. To me, you would be saying okay, we will take the medium density that allows us to go to 5, and you will only go to 3 anyway, so you haven't given up anything that you want to do down the road.   With that kind of change he would support the amendment.

Commissioner McKee said the golf course should not be removed because of the economic impact. Based on the study he passed out on a similar course in Idaho, it would bring in jobs for building and operation, plus sales tax and construction tax, and additional visitors.  The potential of turning the course over to another entity in a few years should be considered. A study should be done by a qualified consultant to know whether it is feasible or not. There is a future market for it. If taken out of the GP, it will never get back in.

Commissioner Loughney said the trend is to move away from big houses and have more OS. Real estate is unpredictable. Families tend to purchase smaller houses. He liked the idea of greater density but coupled with more OS with more of a transitional area to allow for migration of animals.

Commissioner Adler would like to hear staff comments to the applicant’s revisions to the conditions. What is proposed is marginally an improvement over what exists now. There is more OS that will not be developed, some in high impact visual areas. The golf course creates as many negatives as possitives: traffic, noise, disruption. People would continue to enjoy looking at OS which is preferable to a golf course. We are compromised by exisitng entitlements. It is difficult to seek compromises on unentitled areas when entitled areas are in the middle. Some commercial areas could be developed if not amended. The change in the school site is better. He will support the amendment.

Commissioner Hornat said the golf course disturbs him.  Golf Courses are not being utliized. The study didn’t apply to OV. Landscaping and maintenance of golf courses are costly. Turning over running to a municipality is a great idea, then there is no risk. He submitted that the costs and jobs don’t take into consideration real costs. He intends to support this NH5 GP amendment after consideration of the four P&Z conditions that came up.

Chair Bergman stated she didn’t see anyway to force a developer to do a golf course if they don’t want to. The golf course is a non-issue, and she didn’t think it would be good to make a public course if that was an option. It would bring in outside traffic. She had concerns about the density issue.

Mr. Michels said they had an opportunity this afternoon to look over the proposed changes: 1, 4, and 5. Staff in principal would be amenable to these suggestions.  The revisions, represented in different approachs, accomplish the same goals. #5 future utility lines represent a clarification of what was intended. Should the Commission choose to adopt these conditions, it would be ameniable with the exception of the Arizona State Parks & Rec condition.  In all cases in Rancho Vistoso an updated cultural resources inventory has been acceptable. What we have from State Historic Preservation Office is a broad approach. The bottom line is that whether this condition is included or not, the practice of staff to require an updated cultural resources survey at the time of individual developments will remain the same.

Chair Bergman asked if this item is something that would be addressed at the time of development proposal.
Mr Michels said that is correct.

- Clarify what is different about #1.
Response: 128.9 acres of HDR originally had 2 areas proposed: 1 will change on the landuse map at the rezoning. The rezone would have two parts: areas being changed and areas already having zoning in place. The underlying GP needs to be changed. The applicant doesn’t want any area already entitled for higher density to be downzoned.

Mr. Oland said regarding the sewer line, there are only 2 lift stations. Public Works condition #3 provides sewer to 15B. We would provide a stub out to come down to us. Use the same wording and strick bullet points A & B and add below "a stub out shall be provided to allow for a future connection to Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, parcel B."

Mr. Keesler said keep A,B and C. There is no lift station in NH5C. A gravity line does account for flows coming from that NH as well as Sun City Vistoso. Leave the wording the same except for clarifying A. "Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 parcel B, a stub out will be provided to the property line of said subdivision."

Mr. Oland would prefer not to have that because Vistoso Partners has not been responsible for that lift station. It would be more reasonable to say "a stub out shall be provided along the alignnent of our sewer line serving the other ones, so they can connect to it."

Mr. Keesler would have an exception to that in that NH5 would only have legal connectivity to the edge of their parcel. They would not have legal access.
Mr. Oland said we could agree to grant an easement to allow that connection.

Commissioner Adler suggested that in regard to Public Work’s condition #3 that we stipulate any revision in the working would be worked out between staff and applicant prior to the Town Council meeting.

MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to recommend that the Town Council approve OV11-08-04, General Plan Amendment for portions of Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, generally bounded on the north by Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, on the east by the Big Wash, on the South by Tangerine Road, and on the west by the Rancho Vistoso Boulevard with the proposed conditions of approval in Exhibit A to include modification of Planning and Zoning condition 1 and 5, and to include the soft edge buffer area as proposed in Planning and Zoning condition 4 rather than the 50 foot buffer.  With regard to Public Works’ condition #3 any wording revisions to that will be worked out satisfactorly between the applicant and staff prior to the item coming before the Town Council. Include a stipulation that the High Density Residential request be a part of this recommendation but not exceed 6 units per acre. (Accepted Friendly Amendment made by Commissioner Loughney): Section 1 of Planning and Zoning issues identified as Exhibit B shall identify the 3.6 acres to be conclusive of 21 to remain consistant. Commissioner Merry seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner McKee will not support this because of the golf course.

Chair Bergman will support this motion, but expressed disappointment that there wasn’t more advance attention to possible changes.

Commissioner Loughney said his only concern was the NW parcel, the little strip of 3.5 acres between 21, for housing consistency. So on the map the blue strip marked 21 would stay 21, and the other saying 8 would be a maximum of 6.

Call for the vote:
Motion carried 5 yes, 1 no. Commissioner McKee voted no for reasons stated above.