Under its Pima County zoning, a proposed four-story hotel on the edge of the Catalina Foothills could only be about half that tall.
That’s one reason why opponents of a proposal for Tucson to annex and rezone the land to allow construction of the hotel, a restaurant and town houses are concerned. They say the developers will get a better deal from city officials than they would have from the county.
The hotel, about 60 feet high, would be built near the North Campbell Avenue-East River Road intersection, a gateway to the foothills. The hotel would rise on Campbell’s east side, north of historic St. Philip’s in the Hills Episcopal Church.
The foothills contain few buildings of the height the Campbell-River developers want. One four-story foothills building is the Loews Ventana Canyon Resort hotel. The Westin La Paloma Hotel is three stories high.
But much of that area consists of one- and two-story homes and apartments, and at a meeting Thursday night, a number of neighbors said they want it to stay that way.
Project opponents living in unincorporated Pima County say they’re also concerned that once the land is annexed into the city, they’ll lose influence over the development site’s future even though they live near it. They fear they’ll have no say with City Council members whom they don’t elect.
An attorney for the developer, Keri Silvyn, disputes the concern that her clients will get a better deal in the city than in the county.
She said the rezoning process they face in the city is the same as it would be in the county, and called it “apples to apples.”
The City Council member who would represent the annexation area, Paul Durham, also sought to dispel fears that county residents will be ignored in the upcoming rezoning case.
He said he’ll listen to anyone with valid concerns —regardless of where they live.
County has stricter height limits than city
There’s no question that current county policies on height limits for that land are stricter than the city’s.
If the land were to stay in unincorporated Pima County, the hotel would be limited to two stories and 34 feet high under its current zoning.
The entire Catalina Foothills, meanwhile, are covered by a county policy limiting building heights to 24 feet, unless a developer can secure a rezoning from the county Board of Supervisors allowing taller buildings.
In the city, the only building height restrictions near the River-Campbell area are those imposed on individual developments getting rezonings, said John Beall, a city Development Services Department official who oversees rezonings and other development approvals.
The developer Town West and the Sarikas/Murphy Trust Property, which owns the sites in question, and city officials have all signed off on an agreement calling for the annexation to be carried out and for city officials to process the rezoning application.
Before the developer’s plans can bear fruit, the City Council must formally sign off on annexation and rezoning, a process that will require several public hearings before a final council vote.
The next hearing in that process will occur Wednesday evening before the council.
At a community meeting Thursday night, more than 100 neighbors turned out to pepper two city representatives with questions and concerns.
Several speakers accused the city representatives of already having made up their minds about the project, which they denied.
One opponent, Catalina Foothills resident Rosemary Petry, has lived 15 years in a neighborhood where the rules are even stricter than what the county allows.
She lives about two miles north of the proposed development site, in Catalina Foothills neighborhood #5, where by the original developer’s own requirements no house can be more than one story tall.
While some other original Foothills neighborhoods have long since discarded similar, historic restrictions,
“I’m personally very happy we were able to come to a place that fulfills the mission of the original builders and how they understood the land and the landscape,” Petry said.
“I appreciate not having very tall buildings in our neighborhood. I think we should maintain that as long as we can.”
Silvyn sought to draw a distinction among land use codes for suburban areas such as the foothills and for urban areas such as those on Tucson’s north side, approaching the River-Campbell intersection.
“In all counties, in suburban areas, their codes are more of a suburban land use than urban,” Silvyn said. “It’s not unusual for the county government to have a lower profile for land use.”
There are areas in both the city and the county that already have infrastructure and urban densities of development where officials need to deal with transitions from urban to suburban land uses, she said.
Besides the Campbell-River area, there’s also the Foothills Mall area in unincorporated Pima County, where a client of her firm recently obtained county approvals for zoning changes allowing “a tremendous amount of height,” she said.
If the Campbell-River hotel site were to stay in the county, it’s true that the county’s foothills height limit could be overcome through a rezoning, county officials said.
“But it would have to be confronted by the board. The board would have to go on record as to why they’re not sticking to it,” said Chris Poirier, Pima County’s deputy development services director.
Silvyn countered that the zoning process will be the same in the city.
As for the influence of unincorporated county residents on the Tucson City Council, Poirier noted “sometimes their voices can get lost” in an annexation issue.
Back in 2012, for instance, when the city annexed and rezoned land near East River and North Craycroft roads, neighbors called the county to complain, Poirier said.
“We said ‘you need to work with the city.’ They said, ‘the city told us you are not residents of the city.’”
Durham, however, noted that a public hearing that will be held on this project’s rezoning, run by the city zoning examiner, will be open to all.
“It’s important that the neighbors go to the zoning examiner hearing and they will be fully considered as if they are city residents,” Durham said.
He said his own vote on the rezoning will depend on how accommodating the developer is to changes that neighbors want.
“I’ll listen to them,” he said of the unincorporated county residents. “I don’t care that they don’t vote for me. I think their views are important anyway.”
