DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING RESULTS March 15, 2007

The Pima County Design Review Committee (DRC) met to decide on the approval of a cluster development for the Kettenbach property on March 15. However, the discussion of the cluster development option was cut short by the concern of the committee on installation of a wastewater treatment facility. The following is from an article in the March 15 Green Valley News by Tim Hull.

"Cielo Madera Project on hold after decision. Questions about a privately operated wastewater treatment plant planned for the Cielo Madera development near Madera Canyon have postponed a key design review of the project indefinitely. The 280-home cluster-style project by Boston-based developer Mike Kettenbach wants to build on 1,189 acres of environmentally sensitive desert grassland about a mile below the mouth of Madera Canyon was set to go before the Pima County's Design Review Committee Thursday, the last hurdle for the project prior to a tentativel plat. Early in the hearing, however, DRC vice chair Barbee Hanson made a motion to postpone the review citing a lack of information about a proposed privately operated water treatment facility that would serve the development. The land is 10 miles from any county infrastructure and so must receive a permit to operate its own wastewater facility. Hanson said it's not likely the developer will receive such a permit and so any design review of the project would be a waste of time in the absence of assurances that the project will move forward. "Pima County doesn't support these systems," Hanson said. "The viability of this project completely revolves around the issuance of a permit for the wastewater plant." Hanson added that she had recently talked with a deputy director of the Pima County Wastewater Department who informed her that the county wasn't inclined to support private plants. The Pima Association of Governments is responsible for issuing such permits."

"A clearly frustrated Kettenbach, who said he flew 2,000 miles for Thursday's hearing, countered that he couldn't submit a plan for his wastewater facility without first knowing the design parameters of the development. Neither Hanson nor the other committee members were much moved, and the committee voted unanimously to postpone the review. Kettenbach added that "politics" had entered the equation. "Suddenly we are faced with traffic issues and view issues," he said. "I find it unconscionable to suspend this process." Opponents of any development on the grasslands had showed up in force to the hearing, prepared to testify to what they say are myriad downsides, including potential negative impacts on dark skies, traffic, safety, and the Greater Madera Canyon ecosystem. "The concerns raised by the DRC reflect the same concerns we have," said Luis Calvo, spokesman for Friends of Madera Canyon, a group opposed to the project. "In this instance, common sense has prevailed. We want to come back to the DRC and tell them why we believe that a cluster development is not right where you have uninterrupted open space near legendary Madera Canyon."

FACTS - Earlier, in a memorandum to the members of the DRC that will decide on the cluster development proposal for the Kettenbach (Cielo Madera Estates) development on March 15, Daniel Signor, Senior Planner wrote:

[The following are excerpts from the memor-andum by G. C. West.]

 Valerie Feuer, the planner from Psomas, has submitted a cluster subdivision proposal, allowed by Chapter 18.09.040 of the Pima County Zoning Code for 280 single-family lots on 1,189.50 acres, zoned RH with Buffer Overlay Zone for review by the DRC.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the DRC find that they cannot determine if the proposal meets the purpose and criteria of 18.09.040 C and continue the proposed cluster layout to allow time for a new design.

The reasons for the recommendation of denial are as follows:

1. Staff did not receive Transportation comments in time to make an informed recommendation to the DRC. Issues have been raised involving sub-standard bridges on Madera Canyon Road and the impact to Madera Canyon Road, Whitehouse Canyon Road, and the sub-standard bridges on Madera Canyon Road by construction and residential vehicles associated with this proposed development.

2. The site design does not utilize to the fullest extent possible innovative and unique design features required for a cluster subdivision. The overall design concept exhibits a very good design in that lots are clustered in one portion of the subject property, while leaving the large areas relatively undeveloped. Staff feels, however, that placing small lots on the eastern portion within the areas identified in the Regional Viewshed exhibit as medium visibility does not sufficiently mitigate the visual impact of the development from  offsite. Larger lots should be on the perimeter of the subdivision with smaller lots interior, in areas identified as low visibility.

3. Lots are now proposed in areas tentatively identified as riparian areas and erosion hazard setbacks. Ideally lots should be located outside of these areas.

In the event that the DRC should find that the proposal meets the purpose and criteria of 18.09.040 C, staff recommends that the following conditions be added:

[What follows are three pages in small print of problems with the plan as presented to the DRC, listing in some detail conditions that exist that the planner must address before proceeding. These conditions are in the following subjects:]

Planning – Refers to a list of items that must be submitted for approval by the DRC once the cluster development option has been approved. Most of these are for changes that the planner might make following submission of the original plan.

Flood Control – Requires that drainages not be altered, that potential erosion areas be identified, comply with detention/retention requirements in the Floodplain Management Ordinance, make all necessary on and off site drainage related improvements subject to the approval of the Flood Control District, assure that all weather access is provided to all lots within the subdivision, and a provision of a riparian mitigation plan be approved before plat approval.

Environmental Planning – At least 818 acres of natural open space shall be preserved in perpetuity, consult with an urban wildlife specialist and ornithologist on native landscape plans for all open spaces and riparian areas, all grading, all road construction, building envelopes, and livestock paddocks and pastures shall be located outside of the Erosion Hazard Setback Areas and Riparian Habitat, no fencing in riparian corridors, design to allow wildlife to cross or use culverts to reach all open areas. Rip-rap slopes adjacent to riparian areas with native vegetation, replace the cattle tank with a wildlife pond to maintained by the HOA, proposed trails shall avoid riparian areas and the trail plan be approved by the Subdivision DRC, interior fences and other obsolete structures shall be removed from the natural areas, a lighting plan must limit illumination to the natural areas and to the night sky, and a list is given of terrestrial and aquatic non-native plants not allowed to be planted in the area.

Cultural Resources – Prior to ground modifying activities an on-the-ground archaeological and historic site survey shall be conducted with a plan to mitigate findings must be submitted, during construction, if any archaeological or cultural resources are found, construction shall cease until the Arizona State Museum can assess the situation and provide remedy.

Return to Home Page