Council rejects amendment to Rancho Sahuarita plan that would have allowed denser lots in Pod 33 after heated public hearing

The Town Council held a public hearing on a proposed major amendment to the Rancho Sahuarita specific plan that would have changed the land‑use designation for Pod 33 from low‑density residential (LDR) to medium‑low density residential (MLDR) plus public facilities/open‑space to allow smaller lots and an additional 43 lots in that pod.

Dylan Perry, community development staff, explained the amendment would reduce minimum lot sizes in Pod 33 (from existing minimums as platted to as small as 4,000 square feet) and memorialize a 20‑foot natural open‑space buffer at the south end adjacent to the Valle Verde Del Norte neighborhood. Staff noted the specific plan (adopted in 1996) contains density‑transfer and lot‑size flexibility provisions that the applicant is invoking; the applicant asserted market changes since 1996 make narrower lots necessary to achieve more affordable homes.

The Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval with conditions, and staff proposed conditions to address neighborhood impacts. At the council meeting, engineers and staff described drainage modeling and said the developer’s drainage plan detains or routes runoff so post‑development flow would not increase on adjacent property; staff identified one existing watershed channel (Wash 88) near Calle De Julio that will require coordination with ADOT and continued town maintenance because of channelization and sand accumulation.

The public hearing drew extensive comment from dozens of residents of Valle Verde Del Norte and nearby areas. Speakers raised recurring concerns about drainage and erosion at two major washes, recent sand and flow accumulation at Calle De Julio, potential loss of views, increased traffic and crime, and a perceived lack of transition between one‑acre homes and the proposed higher density. Several speakers asked that the council respect the long‑standing character of the neighborhood and protect property values. Residents also asked for stronger buffering, solid masonry rear walls, and assurance the 20‑foot natural open space remain undeveloped. One resident asked whether water demand studies had been done for the additional homes.

The applicant’s representative (Planning Center) confirmed the proposal would limit the southernmost row to single‑story homes, add a dedicated 120‑foot area that would remain open space, and that smaller 1‑story models would reduce unit square footage to lower prices; the applicant accepted staff and Planning & Zoning conditions including masonry rear yard walls and additional landscape buffering.

After public comment and staff responses, a motion was made not to adopt Ordinance No. 2024175 (the amendment). The motion passed on roll call (final tally recorded as 5–2 in favor of the motion not to adopt). As a result the ordinance amendment was not adopted and the specific plan remains as approved; staff noted the applicant could pursue other procedural steps such as a revised submittal or a replat that complies with the current specific plan standards.

The council discussion noted tradeoffs: several members said they understood the applicant’s affordability argument but emphasized protecting adjacent long‑established neighborhoods, drainage and the view corridor. Staff reiterated that drainage on Wash 88 is an existing condition that the town will coordinate with ADOT and pursue planned drainage maintenance. No additional town action was taken on a replat or alternative other than the existing application being denied by council vote.

Key conditions discussed during the hearing that staff had recommended (and that the Planning & Zoning Commission had added) included: paving the emergency secondary access consistent with the town’s emergency access policy, restricting the southernmost row to single‑story homes, requiring a 10‑foot landscaped buffer plus the 20‑foot natural open space, and construction of solid masonry rear yard walls; council discussion focused on whether the proposed conditions sufficiently mitigated neighborhood impacts, and the council declined to adopt the amendment.