HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV101501pQp'4PyLEY .4&/' yv TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
o
DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARMENT
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY, AZ. 85737
ta'. PHONE: (520) 229-4800 FAX: (520) 742-1022
www.orovalievaz.gov/dis
�pVNDEO 9�A
1.2 GENERAL APPLICATION FORM Office Use Only
__ . . I OV Case #:
Application Type
❑ Major General Plan Amendment
❑ Rezoning/PAD Amendment
❑ Planned Area Development
❑ Conditional Use Permit
❑ Zoning Code Amendment
❑ Conceptual Site Plan
❑ Conceptual Public Art
❑ Conceptual Architecture
❑ Final Site Plan
❑ Conceptual Landscape Plan
❑ Final Plat
❑ Pre -Application
❑ Zoning Verification
❑ Sign Criteria
❑ Sign - PAD Exemption
❑ Master Sign Program
❑ Communication Facility — Tier 1 and 2 Minor
❑ Communication Facility — Major
❑ Revised Development Plan
❑✓ Other Appeal of Administrative Decision
Subject Property Information:
Address: 1063 W. Torolita Mountain Circle Parcel/Tax Code: 219-06-0480
Subdivision / Commercial Center Name: Stone Canyon Il, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11
Book / Page or Sequence Number: Bk. 53, Pg. 48 Lot Number(s) 167
Legal Description: (provided above)
Section/Township/Range: T.11 S, R.13E Area of Property: 1.06 ac
Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Residential (VLDR)
Applicant Information: * If more than one, attach list
Applicant *:
Name: Frank S. Bangs, Jr. Firm: Lazarus, Silvyn & Bangs P.C.
Address: 4733 E. Camp Lowell Dr. City: Tucson State: AZ Zip: 85712
Telephone: 520-207-4464 Fax: Email: fbangs@lsblandlaw.com
Property Owner(s) if different from Applicant *:
Name: Dennis and Judy Merens Firm:
Address: 1071 W. Tortolita Mountain Circle City: Oro Valley State: AZ Zip: 85755
Telephone: Fax: Email:
Consultant: (Discipline)
Name: Firm:
Address: City: State: Zip:
Telephone: Fax: Email:
Project Description/Narrative:
See attached Notice of Appeal from Planning Manager decision in OV1213-20 and accompanying documentation.
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. I am the owner
of the property or the Owner's authorized representative, and if not the owner, I have obtained the owner's permission to
perform stated work. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether
specified herein or not. The approval of this application does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the
provisions of any other federal, state or local law for which this project may be subject to.
Notice: It is the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and regulations (such as Covenants, Conditions
& Restrictions (CC&R's)) of the subdivision and/or commercial center are adhered to. Contact your Home Owners
Association or property management to determine applicable requirements.
It is also the applicant's resp nsibility to coordinate with all outside agencies to secure their acceptance or clearance.
Failu do so may de uance of permits. See attached list of agencies.
Frank S. Bangs, Jr. 12/31/14
plicant's Signature Print Name Date
Important Note: All submittals received after 4:00 p.m. will be processed the next day
Submittals will be rejected if:
• Not folded using Pima County fold & collated;
• There are missing items on the checklist unless otherwise approved by Planning Division Manager or Town Engineer.
• Re -submittals cannot be accepted without a transmittal and a written narrative summary describing the purpose of
submittal.
2
LAW OFfICF
Lazarus, Shp & Bangs, P.C.
January 2, 2015
VIA E-MAIL and
HAND DELIVERY
Bayer Vella, LEED AP, AICP
Interim Planning Manager
Planning Division
Town of Oro Valley
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85653
Board of Adjustment
Town of Oro Valley
c/o Ms. Julie Bower
Town Clerk
11000 N. La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
Re: Notice of Appeal of Administrative Decision 0V1213-20 to the Oro Valley
Board of Adjustment.
This is a Notice of Appeal (the "Appeal") to the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment (the
"Board") from the Planning Manager's decision approving a "minor plat change" (the "MPC")
in Case No. OV 1213-20 that removed a "no build area" (the "NBA") from Lot No. 167, Stone
Canyon II, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, 1063 W. Tortolita Mountain Circle in the Town of
Oro Valley (the "Town"). The Appeal is filed pursuant to Oro Valley Zoning Code ("OVZC") §
22.12(A) on behalf of Dennis A. Merens and Judy G. Merens (the "Merens"), who are the
owners of Lots 168 and 169, adjoining Lot 167 which is the subject of the Appeal.
The Merens assert that the MPC was improperly approved by the Planning Manager
because: (1) the Planning Manager lacks the authority to administratively approve the MPC; and
(2) the Planning Manager ignored the applicable standards for such changes. For these reasons
the Merens request that the Board reverse the Planning Manager's decision and further direct the
Planning Division to record a document restoring the NBA to Lot 167.
A. Factual Background.
Reliance on the NBA. The Merens purchased their home site — Lots 169 and 168 in Stone
Canyon II, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11 — in 2005 and 2012 respectively, and designed and
420 West Roosevelt Street I Phoenix, AZ 85003-1325 4733 East Camp Lowell Drive I Tucson, AZ 85712-1256
602.340,09001602.340,8955 Fax 520.207.44641520.300.9662 Fax
Appeal ofOV1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 2
built their home there in 2011. A crucial factor in their selection of this home site was its
dramatic views of Pusch Ridge in the Catalina Mountains and the city lights of Oro Valley and
Tucson.
In the design of their home, the Merens and their architect carefully considered how
future buildings on adjacent lots, especially Lot 167 immediately to the east, might have an
impact on their views. For this purpose the Merens and their architect used a "plot plan" of Lot
1671 supplied by the Stone Canyon II developer, which showed the NBA, 100-year floodplain
limits, and minimum building setbacks on the lot. The Merens' analysis revealed that the NBA
delineated on Lot 167 by the recorded Stone Canyon II subdivision plat (the "Plat"),2 together
with the effect of the floodplain and building setback lines, would minimize any view impacts
from building on that lot. They proceeded to build their home with the reasonable belief that the
NBA on Lot 167 could not be disturbed.3
Town Elimination of the NBA by MPC. On July 15, 2014 the Merens received notice
from the Stone Canyon Homeowners Association (the "SCHOA") that the owner of Lot 167 was
seeking design approval for a residence of approximately 4,800 square feet that ignores the
recorded NBA. After further inquiries to the SCHOA and the Town beginning on July 18, 2014,
the Merens learned the owner of Lot 167 had obtained the MPC from the Town that effectively
eliminated the recorded NBA. On July 25, 2014 staff for the Town's Planning Division told the
Merens that it was too late for them to voice their objections to the MPC.
The Merens then sought legal counsel on their remedies with respect to the Town's
actions and any prospective approval by the SCHOA of plans for Lot 167 ignoring the NBA. Our
firm was retained by the Merens in early October 2014 to evaluate the MPC.
Our subsequent research revealed that an application for the MPC was filed with the
Town's Planning Division on July 5, 2013, by Golden Star Properties, a custom home builder.
The reason given by the applicant for the MPC was "... to improve [the] building site for new
home construction." The only supporting information for the application was a legal description
of the "Revised No Build Area" and a map of Lot 167 showing the "No -build area per [the Plat]
to be abandoned." 4
The MPC was approved administratively on July 31, 2013 by the Town Planning
Manager and the Town Permitting Manager, and subsequently recorded by the Town.' The
OVZC provides that appeals from administrative decisions may be taken by "persons aggrieved"
to the Board by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the decision.
1 See Attachment 1, Lot 167 Plot Plan.
2 See Attachment 2, Stone Canyon II Final Plat.
3 The Plat contains a Note 38 that reads: "All buyers of lots with conservation easements or other `no build areas'
shall be informed of such easements or areas. Buyers will acknowledge receipt of these information items by
signing acknowledgement forms provided and maintained by the developer."
See Attachment 3, Application for Minor Plat Change.
s See Attachment 4 — Minor Plat Change Approval, recorded Aug. 12, 2013, Sequence No. 2013224-0429.
e OVZC §§ 22-12(A) and 21.6(F).
Appeal of OV 1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 3
Effect of the MPC. The original NBA was located approximately in the center of Lot
167, extending from the middle of the southern boundary of the lot northward. Its size was about
3,568 square feet.7 The new no -build area resulting from the MPC is about 4,115 square feet; it
extends into Lot 167 roughly 40 feet from the edge of the Tortolita Mountain Circle pavement to
the 100-year floodplain, which runs from west to east through the lot.8 Much of the new no -
build area was already restricted by a 30-foot building setback line.9 Consequently, the NBA
was effectively eliminated by the MPC.
Applicable Toivn Zoning. Town zoning of Lot 167 is provided by the Rancho Vistoso
Planned Area Development District #5 (the "PAD"). As shown on the Town's Map of Planned
Area Developments available on the Town's website, Lot 167 is located in Neighborhood 11
North, and has a land use classification of "Very Low Density Residential ("VLDR"). The
purpose of this designation is explained in § 1.3(13)(1)(a) of the PAD:
This designation has been located in areas of Rancho Vistoso where the
terrain is rugged and very little disruption to the lot should occur. A
building envelope shall be located on each lot based on the preservation of
important natural features of the site, and all improvements and disruption
to the site must be located within this envelope. The portion of the lot
lying outside of the building envelope shall be recorded as permanent
open space.
Sec. 1.2 of the PAD describes generally applicable development policies for all PAD
neighborhoods. Subsection 1.2(A)(5)(d) states: "There shall be no development on slopes of 25
percent or greater (emphasis supplied)." Subsection 1.2(B)(1) lists the average and maximum
residential densities in the VLDR district, and further states that "Each lot shall have a building
envelope shown on the tentative and final plats. The envelope shall avoid significant natural
features, as identified on the final plat."10
PAD § 1.2(C) establishes development policies for specific PAD neighborhoods,
including Neighborhood 11. Policy No. 29 for Neighborhood 11 reads: "Encroachment into
25% or greater slopes, throughout the PAD, shall follow the criteria listed in the PAD Grading
Policies." With respect to 100-year floodplains in the PAD, shared Policy 1 for Neighborhood
11 and two other neighborhoods provides: "For those wash areas, identified on the map by the
100-year floodplain boundaries, a condition is attached requiring that these areas be set aside as
natural open space, in keeping with the requirements of the original rezoning."
.See Attachment 1, Lot 167 Plot Plan.
8 See Attachment 4, Minor Plat Change Approval, pg. 5.
9 See Attachment 1, Lot 167 Plot Plan.
io The developer of Rancho Vistoso prepared a "plot plan" for each lot created by the Plat, showing the NBA,
floodplain limits, and building setback lines. Although not expressly labeled as a "building envelope," the document
graphically describes that area. The plot plan for Lot 167 is provided as Attachment 1.
Appeal of OV 1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 4
PAD Subsection 1.3(13)(1)(c)(5) establishes minimum building setbacks in the VLDR
district: Front yard-30 feet, Side yard-20 feet, and Rear yard-40 feet. No building may
occur in these required yards." Subsection 1.3(J) addresses the Hillside District and gradingl2,
noting that "Development in areas in Rancho Vistoso PAD that have naturally occurring slopes
[of] 25% and greater is generally prohibited, but limited encroachment may be allowed ...."
Physical Characteristics of the NBA on Lot 167. The topographic information provided
by the plot plan of Lot 167 suggests that the purpose of the NBA was to preserve steep slopes.
To verify that the purpose of the designated NBA was to protect this natural feature, the Merens
retained Arrow Land Survey, Inc. ("Arrow") to conduct a topographic analysis of the NBA. The
Arrow analysis confirmed that the original NBA on Lot 167 contains slopes in excess of 25%,
and that the vertical height of slopes exceeds six feet.13
B. Legal Arguments.
1. The Merens' Appeal is Timely. OVZV § 22.12(A) provides that "[a]ppeals may be
taken to the [Board] by persons aggrieved ... by a decision of an administrative official, within 30
days, by filing ... a notice of appeal ... (emphasis added)." Obviously more than 30 days has
passed since the MPC was approved on July 31, 2013.
However, the governing Arizona enabling statute provision for such appeals states that
"[a]ppeals to the [Board] may be taken by persons aggrieved ... by a decision of the zoning
administrator, within a reasonable time, by filing ... a notice of appeal ... (emphasis added)."14
It does not appear from the decision file that the Planning Manager provided notice of the
MPC to anyone other than the owner of Lot 167. Consequently, the Merens had no notice of the
MPC decision until almost a year later, as the result of the SCHOA's notice of the plans ignoring
the NBA submitted by the owner of Lot 167. The Merens diligently pursued the basis for the
plans in the MPC, only to be told by Town staff that the time for an appeal had passed. They
then immediately sought legal counsel, on whose advice they have submitted this Appeal and a
companion request for interpretation.
The owner of Lot 167 can hardly claim to have been prejudiced by this Appeal. They
waited a year to file their plans with the SCHOA, only to have them rejected. To date the
SCHOA has received no new plans from the owner of Lot 167. More relevant to this appeal, the
owner of Lot 167 has not sought a building permit from the Town based on the MPC. The
owner of Lot 167 also cannot claim this or subsequent appeals should be dismissed due to
unreasonable delay. This defense only applies when there has been an "unreasonable delay after
11 OVZC Ch. 31, "Definitions." See definition of "yard, required": ...... [Tjhose areas established by setbacks to
provide an open space at grade level between a building and the adjoining lot lines unoccupied by any portion of a
structure...: '
12 See Attachment 5, PAD § 1.3(J).
13 See Attachment 6, Arrow Survey and Slope Analysis of Lot 167 NBA.
14 ARS § 9-462.06(D).
Appeal ofOV1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 5
knowledge of the facts which works a hardship."15 Here the Merens did not unreasonably delay
the pursuit of their remedies after learning of the MPC.
2. The Merens have Standing to Appeal. The Merens have standing to appeal the MPC to
the Board because their rights as adjacent property owners are significantly affected by the
removal of the NBA. As noted above, the Merens specifically designed their home in reliance
upon the existence of the NBA and under the assumption that the views and enjoyment of their
property would be preserved. The OVZC states that "[a]ppeals may be taken to the [Board] by
persons aggrieved..." The OVZC does not define "persons aggrieved," but the same language is
used in the State enabling statutes for the Board.16 Arizona courts have held that aggrieved
means simply "having legal rights that are adversely affected," which does not necessarily
include pecuniary damages.17
"Standing" has also been defined to mean "whether the interest sought to be protected by
the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the
statute."18 An issue presented by these facts and the subject of a separate request to the Planning
Manager for an interpretation of the OVZC is whether the MPC violated the Rancho Vistoso
PAD § 1.3(J), Hillside District and Grading. The purpose of this section of the PAD is to
"protect the mountains and hillside in Rancho Vistoso" and to "accommodate development on
the hillsides while protecting the area's natural character, resources and aesthetic value."19 The
courts have further held that the interests of aggrieved persons "may reflect aesthetic,
conservational, and recreational" values, as well as economic values.20
Here the Merens have standing not simply as adjacent property owners, but as persons
whose property interests have been negatively affected in violation of the Rancho Vistoso PAD.
The Merens are among those that the Rancho Vistoso PAD Hillside District section is designed
to protect; the MPC effectively ignores the PAD and its sections regarding protecting natural
character, resources and aesthetic value, harming the Merens' views and enjoyment of their
property. The Merens thus are not required to show specialized pecuniary harm to their property
— their status as adjacent property owners whose views and enjoyment of their property are
negatively impacted is enough to grant them standing to challenge the MPC. Finally, the Merens
arguably have standing to appeal based on Arizona statutes as Town taxpayers.21
3. The Town Lacks Authority to Administratively Approve the MPC. Arizona
municipalities derive their power to regulate land use and subdivision directly from the state, and
have no greater power than that delegated to them by the state constitution and laws.22 The
Town's governing body has the authority to zone and to regulate subdivisions because it has
15 Summit Properties, Inc. v. Wilson, 550 P.2d 104, 109, 26 Ariz. App. 550, 555 (1976).
16 A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D).
17 Pawn I s` LLC v. City of Phoenix, 294 P.3d 147, 150, 231 Ariz. 309, 312 (Ct. App. 2013).
" Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp., 557 P.2d 532, 538-39, 27 Ariz. App. 600, 606-07 (1976).
19 Rancho Vistoso PAD § 1.3(J).
20 Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Bd. ofAdjustment, 268 P.3d 370, 375, 228 Ariz. 419, 424 (Ct. App. 2011).
21 See Pawn IS"- LLC v. City of Phoenix, 294 P.3d 147, 231 Ariz. 309 (Ct. App. 2013).
22 City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, 983 P.2d 759, 194 Ariz. 390 (App. 1999).
Appeal of OV 1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 6
been granted that power by Arizona law.23 Similarly, the Town's administrative bodies and
officers — such as the Town Planning Manager and Town Permitting Manager — only have as
much power as the Town Council grants them 24
The MPC was administratively approved under a document named the "Oro Valley
Minor Plat Change or Scrivener's Error Process Guide" (the "Guide ,).25 The Guide is found on
the website of the Town's Planning Division under a menu item described as "Applications,
Check Lists, Forms and Design Standards." Nowhere in the Guide does it indicate when it was
adopted or by whom, although the listing on the website notes that it was revised in September
2014.
After an unsuccessful search of the OVZC for any mention of the term "minor plat
change," we filed a public records request with the Town Clerk asking for documentation of the
Guide's approval. In response, we were given copies of two ordinances adopted by the Town in
201226 that enacted substantial revisions to the Town's development design process found in Ch.
22 of the OVZC.
We were specifically referred by the Town Clerk to OVZC § 22.9.E.7, captioned "Final
Design Review." That subsection authorizes the Town's Planning and Zoning Administrator to
grant minor changes to "approved conceptual plans" in connection with plans in the "final design
stage" of Town review. Those design plans are listed in OVZC Subsection 22.9.E. La, which
does not include final plats. Indeed, OVZC Subsection 22.9.E.7.e describes "minor, common
sense changes or alterations" as those that "[d]o not significantly affect final plats ...." This
language does not expressly or implicitly authorize administrative changes to recorded final
plats. 7
On the contrary, OVZC § 22.9.17, captioned "Final Plat," clearly assigns the responsibility
for the approval of final plats to the Town Council. This procedure is consistent with Arizona
enabling law for municipal subdivision regulation, A.R.S. § 9-463.01(R). By the same token,
Town Council approval would be required for the amendment of an approved, recorded final
plat. The Town's provisions governing the subdivision of land, OVZC § 26.4.A, authorize the
modification of subdivision design standards, but only under "extraordinary conditions" and
when approved by the Town Council.
23 See ARS §§ 9-462, 9-463.
24 Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council, 119 P.3d 1027, 1030, 211 Ariz. 224, 227
(2005).
2s See Attachment 7, Oro Valley Minor Plat Change or Scrivener's Error Process Guide.
26 Ordinance No. (0)12-11 (Sept. 5, 2012), Ord. No. (0)12-20 (Nov. 7, 2012).
27 The relationship between a "conceptual site plan" described in OVZC § 22.9, and subdivision documents is not
clear, in part because the OVZC sections governing subdivision platting are apparently silent on the submittal and
approval of a preliminary plat required by the municipal subdivision enabling provisions, A.R.S. § 9-463.01(C). We
have been told by engineering consultants who process plats in Oro Valley that the Town treats a conceptual site
plan as the preliminary plat. If that understanding is accurate, the administrative authority to approve minor changes
to approved conceptual plans granted by OVZC §22.9.E.7 applies to the preliminary plat, not a recorded final plat.
This interpretation would better explain the limiting language in OVZC § 22.9.E.7.e.
Appeal of OV 1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 7
The language of OVZC § 22.9 does not authorize the administrative approval of minor
plat changes as described in the Guide. If the Planning Division administrative staff authored the
Guide, then their action contradicts those provisions of the OVZC that assign to the Town
Council the power to adopt and amend zoning, subdivision, and policy regulations.28
Because Town administrative staff only have as much power as is delegated to them by
the Town Council, and the Guide was not legislatively approved, Town staff do not have the
power to administratively approve minor plat changes. Consequently, the Town did not have the
legal authority to make the MPC removing the NBA on Lot 167.
4. The MPC Did Not Meet the Guide's Criteria for Approval. Assuming, arguendo, that
the Guide's provisions for MPCs were authorized by the OVZC, The Town's Planning Manager
improperly approved the MPC by ignoring the Guide's criteria for the approval of MPCs.
Paragraph 2.2(3) of the Guide provides examples of minor changes. The only example
that applies to the MPC in question reads: "D. a change to no build areas (with at least a 1:1 trade
that creates a better open space element)." Paragraph 2.2(2) lists nine criteria that an application
must meet, if relevant. The applicant here addressed none of these criteria, stating only that he
wished to have an improved building site. Nor does the decision itself or the Town file for the
application reflect any Town staff consideration of the requirements.
Taking the relevant criteria in order:
• A. Change meets all code requirements and plat/plan notes. As we argue in our separate
request for an interpretation of the OVZC, the MPC violates the PAD.
• C. No decrease to open space. The MPC results in a net decrease in open space
approximately equal to the area of the NBA, or over 3,500 sq. ft. The "trade" was almost
entirely to areas of Lot 167 already restricted to open space — building setback areas.
• F. Not controversial. No notice of the application was given under the minor plat change
procedure to potentially affected property owners, including the Merens. If such notice
had been given, or if the applicant had been required to obtain the consent of affected
owners, Town staff might have been able to discharge their duty to address this criterion.
• H. No increase in negative impacts on neighboring properties, sensitive lands, or views.
Had the Merens been able to voice their views on the application, or had staff diligently
investigated this standard, the MPC would not have been approved. The MPC
eliminating the no build area will permit grading of steep slopes, sensitive lands protected
by the PAD and the Plat. It will also have a negative impact on the views the Merens
took pains to protect in the selection of their lots and the design of their home.
• I. Approved by the neighborhood association, if appropriate. The SCHOA is charged
with the enforcement of the building envelopes established for Lot 167. It would have
been entirely appropriate for Town staff to inform the SCHOA of the application and
obtain its approval.
28 OVZC § 21.2(B) (3), (4), and (5).
Appeal of OV 1213-20 to Board of Adjustment
Stone Canyon II, Lot 167
Page 8
The MPC ignores all of these criteria and was clearly improper.
C. Conclusion
The MPC was the product of a flawed process which equated plat amendments with
scrivener's errors. There was no legislative authority for the administrative approval of changes
to a recorded final plat. On top of that, the MPC decision ignored the stated requirements needed
to approve a minor plat change. Finally, the MPC could not administratively waive or vary the
zoning standards of the PAD.
We therefore respectfully request that the Board reverse the MPC decision, Case Number
OV 1213-20, and that the Planning Division be directed to reinstate the NBA on the official
recorded plat of Stone Canyon II. We look forward to presenting the Appeal to the Board.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Tobin C. Sidles, Legal Services Department
Mr. and Mrs. Dennis A. Merens
Mr. Greg Good, Esq., Good Law P.C.
Mr. and Mrs. John E. Runewicz
Attachments
GENERAL -NOTES
1. R MU E TIE ON CF FACR nEEWER TO C6CIUIRGE SICRII MM CI F WO ME SUM& noW FARM OMTO
iTf ACLYFJiT FROM. iT MUL BE UE CEUQIW E Ea ROK000 TD AOEPT SRiiV(CM HBIOFF ERN BE
WON A0IACw P80PDi1FS iVFhESmOF& UK BOm" CRIa= FA7mm Am BESTR m 10 TIE MATmw
OCCURI a Si0RLtv0E8 RUNOFF ifACili"u UK )Cimom TIE U MA0.E RUNOFF MAL DulA E THE O�GiARbIiC
OF FCOI. 31CIi111 AM ANY am am IORK COMDU[UiES HCJ= CF vm STDiimm EACH mmox 1ER MIL
MOT EfEOF. um 0BSIIULT OR FliE m ME an OF BEEBDT OBAI= mw mum LOTS
L 0 ff if V. ON Sa WU1157R�AfQS, ILUA K BOE MOT LEIi A Sift. Tope tANifmA m
SiGtM7CA8T BOCK CUTCI0f5. AM M 6i0iBi7:tRT MKTIOA IM PIAAMS AM ZNW OMlELTOR MAT AUN
A 1ARGEY BUIOEC DWEVE
3 ALL lBDStiL K BUYERS W ICTS MOIM now am I SHNL E if0 o CF TTE i'Rmna AC
ACM OF IM LA MyEUA ASPAM A FRUM AAI W L=M MLA CF Tr mom FRO?E M
BUYERS MU BE KM8 OF THE USE OF 06 AN WK AS A F M=AK 71044 BY =1 AJB WL
LEGEND
CL(X)
INDICATES CENTERLINE CURVE NUMBER
INDICATES LINE NUMBER
F(X)
INDICATES 100 YEAR FL000 LIMITS
S(XX)
INDICATES SLOPE LINE NUMBER
LC(XX)
INDICATES LOT CURVE NUMBER
INDICATES RIPARIAN LINE NUMBER
INDICATES
INDICATES CART PATH LINE NUMBER
P(
a.
INDICATES PONDING LINE NUMBER
CCEE
INDICATES CONSERVATION EASMEN' LINE NUMBER
XX
INDICATES SEVAM EASEMENT LINE NUMBER.
CAE(CC)
INDICATES COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT INFORMATION
• CONSERVATION EASEMENT LINE
���
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE
ADJACENT LOT LINE
CENTER LINE
—
EASEMENT LINE
— —
10D-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LIMIT
----- RIPARIAN AREA LIMIT
— - - —
SECTION LINE
— — —
SLOPE LINE
•
FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS ROTED
(IRON PIN, BRASS CAP. ETC•)
P.U.E.
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
N.A.E.
NO ACCESS EASEMENT
ESL
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
(R)
INDICATES A RADIAL LINE TO A CURVE
•
1/2- IRON PIN TAGGED BY
/I�NIDI�T�ES
6
INDICATES BRASS CAPPED SURVEY
MONUMENT STAMPED B'Y A REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR TO BE SEE UPON
Syr
ElL
COMPLERON OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE P.A.A.L.
_
SVT (SIGHT VISIBILITY EASEMENT)
DENOTES APPRWQMATE LOT ACCESS LOCATION;
DRIVEWAY LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED AT
TIME OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW.
®
10' x 10' ESMT TO TEP
0
C' x 0' ESMT TO TEP
M
Ur x 15' MAT TO TEP
®
10' x 10• ESMT TO 7EP
TEP
TUCSON ELECTRIC P0WER COMPANY
N.B.
NO BUILD AREAS
i
a• Ofnin 1— Planning Survsfi�g ..
LvWwp• /+ddbcWn tkGm O�Ipi
Cfgaw. qr khr %kbwA . PlwsdY Ca
1i' y N
Pk f 444 Eo.t BFA
P Tgc.wt ArCww
11� Da4 Ila S.W �. _ 2�• .
is�jj h.1�S1G•MD�
Dd. FM 2W
. a+b•.. 4 I ND
•.YYo. fi«isi q ..�
ANNOTATED COPY
F D 9 t 5 T. I u N •7 4a w.a dv p "PugL7C M
�. r, / SI11 163 '- .,�2 �'a$1371_�O+If / / 'y` 221 PRIVATE , n
S CART PATH EASEMENT 9} J y,�{,
1 1 N g b SEE ro BE GRAN EO $�T \ \ o e 4..745 u 2xo-x:
i 4 , 25 1.00 ACRES S'°a SM1 BY 1NI5 MT f�� b1 % �� \ L -f - 1.03 ACRES • 1!
I B A E5 ;� . 1ap 4Jd 'fs`/ ac7 ss* SHEET 7
AIN SYk n 7 70� QhA, 22.57 & 16Y FAS' g y.
B Ic'R'I1 f7 r 43.590 SF ^ lE 1 \'./ •9i". I ` i1B67� S�' as �' X
1 1.00 ACRES ^ e55i9. Imo.( ,ItP 59578
/f ♦ ' d,' n� 1Ji i - 1607 N J7k �� y~ 5'3d q•M.
PER STREET NAYS CORRECTION NA•ys , .es /� 7 b \ r 51 gee.95 71.11 .{7.
3 1,^R7 07}1yy 17'L 1 y ,b \•1 / ry
ON 11594 PG NTAI 11IIa le' wM�711,,t NI4!) k/ / P.i J� w N,l 151'1 ? €
TORTOLITA MOUNTAIN CIRCLE . / '0,6\. y55 162 500/\ CART PATH EASEMENT / %F a • /$ aP/ `+ 6J6N d a
J1.N / ., / TO BE GRANTE
A SEPARATE EASEMENT FOR AN NppERGROUNO ELECTRIC// �� C P.LLL 43,58/ Si /h / p) $I'-'{ By
DI STRIBUnON SYSTEM 15 GRANTED`WITH14 COMMON R\: ` 1.00 ACRES / y
AREA 'B' TO TUCSON ELECTRIC PO COMPANY. 'e Cpy "(
AUCgCC5517 Y 1'
TVA SE ESMT//ev4-v�// �Jla ��e 76.7x4 Si 51\1 7�1
`Y IBI-1 2-153-164 / ,D 0 r, / 1.74 ACRES sr IN.1/ EXCLUDED g
COMMON 40 U?�O y �,[ / 4-N%152'/5' S85'N'A E 15a49 : / N A / ] 9\ \0q.
AREA .NA.N �7• �. c y , 14.Iv .,
.�. Qf •� y \) / 17.599 SP F 8• \
a05 ACRES J 1.00 ACRES J3 160 rN? ';�� I EAZMENT Ip•C' 6(55rt' o
, J 6' P.UE h, 43.916 SF •v ' ,�601 - - N'1)VB 'All\ if
ORAINACE k /r 4i 1 94 0^ J'ff 7 f' / 1.01 ACRES I.r �{p w9 6}9 \ 'y�I"1, tzf
y, 6' P.U2. 7J. / i' KILL A` 5 S * \1 0 71 y \ Ng. `s p �
SLOPE ESMT:- / CA / 1 N.AE .11 7Jf, JO (• v Y J6' COMMON CC S I _ . r
BNSI U.ENi ry c?� 'e ^ 4 a''^' r� ' ,� 158 37':�P s' AR PA µf m1ENT y sua 217
PUBLIC U IL TY k n'-^17.00 , 1B6 \5'
" 152 •+ f,14? PRIVATE SEWER ESMT, i +p `7' 69,135 SF ,Ih 8T 1 PLA - 1 64.477 SI
f F a n 43.604 SF h -f� •151-155-158-157 ?l'1 1.39 ACRES �JO
�y �' / \ .158-159-160 Jf°J 1.18 ACRE:
1.00 ACRES ,a as ,E s�N\ J]Il �•. Nff']S'OS•E �� e f
pB• P.0 rk 1082 h o J' s a7 �%�j Iwo 5 \L �'R•o' "`'1P
O T' i f \ YJ N.A.E. 6'P.U.L W� \ \. ��.14 N.a "- 14500-N.
N 6. 6' P.U.L od11E W P.U.E. lC, '� i• \ $ JR
14500-N.76' la "",.5.1� g. 153 16 'N� ��\\ \\ �"157 NOT A PART
µ6Tp 'J��.+• - I \ \ 43,678 SF FY W
7 /� ,^ 1.02 ACRES / (�8I LL` \ � 1' NAE 44,275 SF\\ 1`I'A�\ *1.00 ACRES IID
DRAINAGE i S 111 \$ID" 151 /•7}7�•.�6 v �� a- .U.E \;°}`•J\ 3'•j 1 85 / 501 �' (]
I&B[ TAHT'Eb ^ Jr;/• 190 4fl� / Ji �`\ • ,6
BY THIS PLAT'`se, \a 4\ l0 1.00'ACRESF P g 15Y \\ \\� SyY/Ow9• P 17.06 00
')ZC r fl '�1`,,, \ 'lk.` 182 43.677 SF
N0� ! 8 Of'�•v0 1074 .{,°- b 1 N.AL 1.00 ACRES
�47J \ 6 tISUq \� .6 �,! �, ,�'Lq� LCB �E ," COMMON ACCESS RIVEN
r8 170 \$ ` 169 <o` a' ti'' �? ,� , 1 PUBLIC UTIL ft \ �i �`'S �/�19-y •' see lw
4/,482 SF C P.UE. 1` •� ` '' ti S�DL[RAIENAG51EETp! 74Y Jt�. P q P7511 753-156111SSL1T \••♦�. 75fL 9.aR NL ^ai
1.02 ACRES i BY THIS PLAT J 1 8% 6' P.LLE • �J' ^b\ \ �, W 1q BUlU7 'S0) L53
Nti O1079 a f�C°'° RPa ,& 150 �a s',qA' \$Sw \zee 156 4 Al�ti 7� W
ti.R, a],576 SF `tiS J `i�\ _ 43.590 SF �L1
�• wTb 5 ♦ �J. .a,\ U US 1.00 ACRES ,�(7 .('\`s' `S �I� 1 "IDy�\ 1.00 ACRES
6• P.U(.1E / `U.ay J` 'Ji ` 1 44 605 SF q I 1\f+� ILa� ✓�• �// 2ABMER E51AT.
169 V N.A.E ♦•7• , 3 1 066 n I.E. ACRES ry oII Sfi.D➢) S, \ \ O B{ius PANTS e
le 1.43 01 ACRES �\g ~ n l J 1 • o Aro° ux \ •�• fp S71
a 6' P.U.E. i . 0 155 7�7
�i JB' COMMON ACCESS DRIVE. [ '4 / iN•l n Ya \ \ a15\ d+�l NA \ 145 ` 70/
PUBLIC UTILITY i L•lt. \ 70 Y N.A.E• `A .00 AC SF / C" a3,794 SF 0 S9 'H !1f
PRIVATE SEWER ESMT. y B' PU.E / 1.01 ACRES
\ ,/ 1.00 ACRES
167-168-169 , •t .37.93 /f �LI 9538 [y! l S9 AINA k 6
{f / `L•ISe7 ` 1 109.47�I 101'ACR 5 183 \ S19\� SLgO[PE ESM''�•F :-
N ; N89S5'/6'E / N7• S84*3457'E ".ItS'31•E '�'� 'BY MISAPU x Niu 100 KM f1000
�a \'s �9404eW a 116.12 1.1PRIVAE u 1026 g-
216.01 9 IJ2. C. 26J e SEWER E. UYIi LINE
'�,' g/ q^}^B,, I Bs 'E [., 10$0 p ro BE cRANTEO / 9f ' �+ 6' P.UE. 1 : CONSERVATION .p
T T20� _�+ OJ 6' P.U.E O' �BYT 1Y 6 f5p �Eq^ OS,7 EASEMENT 144
tl �l6 Le' P.U.E Si rsi 71572 TJ L/� �� �•" "'1 /034 u.s62 SF $ \ ' 'q� • r'a4 \A1, IJ.s7J SF
,1r lilt •19.69 1.00 ACRES
P 1 DRAINAGE ! C� F60 \ DRAINAGE ! 1.00 ACRES ./14
b+ AOPE ESYi. Sd! �! f6-f61 •� Calf h •� ROPE ESMT. 7 / l•�fi.tl
B eE CRANTm \ fn S f TO B&OUNTm 1 PONDINC
i O MI5 PLAT E7t ? 1Y 7 BY 15 T 1 LIMITS 6 P.UE 6l 6' 1
168 1 100 KM RO(0 [4, 43604 SF q\/ N �y! 'LCT3-� 7591 7PJ
14.899 SF �" (�\'�i 167 1, `��uwT UK �' )Of 1.00 ACRES PONOINL��N• u\_p7 _ ,�.V ! f!\ /
I.03 ACRES \ S p I O f 1IM11S 1 __•'LI 1r 16 •"- A, J
a 4fi,020 SF ti A •Q 6' P.U.E. e1 9S� , i1�111.6 f73
1.D6 ACRES a L \Tp 1042 (EM1 10 q-t\ / \ Iy�1 J8 N.
(A°' 106 c! % I 49166312 E 6•P.U.E \ \T \ L. N WI _� i 103 WEST CADINET of
Ay 1.13 ACRES [. ` 2�7.IQ - 5T8'S1 y3 . )6 \7P
h\% 105 L4 �DUy 19�J•° Esur C.
A. .NA•° e4 \
ORO VALLEY laa as ` n q Ji �3-7_A!N DR�-V-R L� 1 xi I BY �TMIS�'� 1.WA RES
1Se.e4 18.7 'J'1-" Ia.e1 IQ,Ij{ C x�b�
S891r20•W 621.38 S895720 W 16529
La
p Ir
A SEPARATE EASEMENT FOR AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC RO41 ��,��• ea �� 1�COK� STONE CANYON II
DISTRI BUn ON SYSTEM IS GRANTED WITHIN COMMON P11 SEp/!wwATE 21
AREA 'B' TO TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY. IA157YLLEAe1,IF S� RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 11
ER STREET NAPE CORRECTION LOTS 135 THROUGH 234
' N 1,59. Pc J757 COMMON AREA A (OPEN SPACE)
The :«::L. Rom:° '" �° �i q k COMMON AREA B (PRIVATE STREETS)
WLB 0 •"' "" �'�'•^ [•tl ® •161"'" BEING PORTIONS OF SECTIONS II, t 15, T.I IS.. R.13r.. G.&S.R.M..
Group w.w aN«• iioil'.a1 7:r 0 t r TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY. ARIZONA
J" AUGUST. 1999 SCALE: I' s 60' WLB/ iB5050-A-SIC-0106 OV12-90-22
I' . 60
SHEET 6 OF 15
L
7
V P.
J � r
Eo a TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PLANNING AND ZONING
11000 N LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEY AZ 85737
PHONE: (520) 229-4800 FAX: (520) 742-1022
www.orovalleyaz.gov
APPLICATION FORM
OV Case # (Office Use Only): 0V 1 13
Application Type:_�1���
A.
10
Project Manager/Devel
Name: .�-VST
Firm: (a!' Pr✓ �i
Address: ; �,-
City: tJC�Gr�.J
Telephone:? p r�
Property Owner (s), if n
Name: Y 4
Firm:
AddresOe
_
City: i
Telephor1
C. Subject Property
Parcel/Tax Code: C� l r �! (0 yg 0
Legal DescriptionlProperty Address: J f7;I,
C
Area of property:
Existing Zoning: OilO 0A f N Pf Q Proposed Zoning:
Is Proposed Zoning in conforrAance with General Plan designation? j N/A [ J Yes [ J No
General Plan Designation:
Existing Land Use: I-P-LQPga l( __Proposed Land Use: )41Z�6
D. Previous Applications Relating To This Property
C911M
OV11-
Reason For Request
OV9
OV12-
OV10-
OV13-
This application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am the owner of the above described property or have
been authorized by the owner to make this application.'C2�?<Z
Date Signature
3200 E. CAMELBACIC ROAD. SUITE 290 . PHOE, IIX . ARIZONA 85018
602.952.6800
June 20, 2013
Town of Oro Valley
Planning and Zoning
Re: Stone Canyon Lot 167
To Whom It May Concern:
In connection with the above -referenced lot, this letter will serve as my approval
of the Minor Plat Change Application modifying the "no -build" area associated
with Stone Canyon Lot 167.
If you need any further information, please feel free to contact nie at 602-952-
6824.
Sincerely,
PIISG SERVICING, I'qC.
Thomas R. Hislop
President
cc: Suzie Corona, Stone Canyon
DATE: July 31, 2013
TO: Pima County Recorder's Office
Recording Division
P.O. Box 3145
Tucson, AZ 85702-3145
FROM: Town of Oro Valley
Rosevelt Arellano 229-4817
DIS Department
, REGARDING: Request for recording
Please record the attached Minor Plat Change and charge the recording fees to account
#23446. We request that the recorded documents and receipt of recording be
returned to the Town of Oro Valley.
Recorded By
?UTY RECORDER
4889
SOROV
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
11000 N LA CANADA DR
TUCSON AZ 85737
::--r~PI. �'� I�►11t IIIII IIIII IIII
SEQUENCE: 20132240429
NO. PAGES: 4
MISC
• `-• - 08/12/2013
MAIL
AMOUNT PAID: $8.00
OPO� �11E y q9/jO'Y
F0�'NCr_D 19�h
Development and Infrastructure Services
MINOR PLAT CHANGE
Re: Case Number OV1213-20, Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, Stone Canyon II,
Revised No -Build Area and Revised Buildable Area on Lot 167.
The existing no -build line shown on the final plat for Lot 167 (Book 53, Page 48) has
been abandoned and revised as shown on the attached exhibit. The existing buildable
area line shown on the final plat for Lot 167 (Book 53, Page 48) has been revised as
shown on the attached exhibit. The minor plat change has been administratively
approved.
David Laws, P.E.
Permitting Manager
D A. Williams, AICP
Planning Manager
Date
-7 3/ /
Date
O L,A R I S 3528 N. FLOWING WELLS RD.
\ AND TUCSON, ARIZONA 85705
=� 1. L [,'� TEL: 520-322-6400
SURVEYING,
FAX: 520-322-6401
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Job No. 13103
July 1, 2013
NO -BUILD AREA TO BE ABANDONED LOT 167:
r
The abandonment of a No -Build Area over a portion of Lot 167, of Stone Canyon 11, Rancho
Vistoso Neighborhood 11" as recorded in Book 53, Page 48 of Maps and Plats, Pima County
Records, located in the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 11 South, Range 13 East,
Gila and Saft River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 167;
Thence North 89 °57'20" East 104.29 feet upon the South line of said Lot 167 to the
Point of Beginning;
Thence North 24 °0620" East 36.32 feet;
Thence North 07 11'38" East 34.52 feet;
Thence North 50 °52'43" East 25.31 feet;
Thence North 32 c32'57" West 79.58 feet;
Thence North 85904'28" West 16.25 feet;
Thence South 02020'13" East 15.51 feet;
Thence South 38 °01'07" East 51.98 feet;
Thence South 47 °40'01 " West 31.95 feet;
Thence South 12 °53'34" East 43.68 feet;
Thence South 37°10'58" West 39.32 feet to the South line of
said Lot 167;
�5 �,cIOCATF �9 -
North 89°57'20" East 25.21 feet upon said South line to the ( ��` 35543 do Fo
Point of Beginning. TODD A.
HOuT
Said abandonment area contains 3,568.7 square feet, or 0.08
acres, more or less.NA
EXPIRES 12-31-15
ROLARIS +z'SURVEYINGI
3528 N. FLOWING WELLS RD.
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85705
AND TEL: 520-322-6400
L L C FAX: 520-322-6401
LEGAL DESCRIPTION — Job No. 13103
July 1, 2013
REVISED NO -BUILD AREA, LOT 167:
A dedicated No -Build Area over that portion of 4-ot 167 of "Stone Canyon II, Rancho Vistoso
Neighborhood 11" as recorded in Book 53 at Page 48 of Maps and Plats, Pima County
Records, located in the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 11 South, Range 13 East,
Gila and Salt River Meridian, Pima County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Lot 167;
Thence South 12003'44" West 6.00 feet upon the East line of said Lot 167 to the South
line of a Public Utility Easement per Book 53, Page 48 of Maps and Plats, to the Point
of Beginning;
Thence North 79 °40'46" West 19.04 feet upon the South line of said easement to a
curve, turning to the right, concave to the North, with a radius of 336.00 feet;
Thence Northwesterly upon said curve, upon the South line of said easement, through a
delta angle of 17030'45" and an arc length of 102.70 feet to the East line of a Drainage
and Slope Easement per Book 53, Page 48 of Maps and Plats;
Thence South 27Q50'00" West 19.74 feet upon the East line of said Drainage and Slope
Easement to the 100-year Flood Limits defined by Book 53, Page 48 of Maps and Plats;
Thence South 16027'10" East 14.32 feet upon the North line of said Flood Limits;
Thence South 59033'16" East 26.12 feet upon the North line of said Flood Limits;
Thence North 57°32'58" East 8.63 feet upon the North line of said Flood Limits;
Thence South 31 020'56" East 17.82 feet upon the North line of said Flood Limits;
Thence South 76°54'33" East 49.62 feet upon the North line of
said Flood Limits;
Thence South 88056'24" East 26.79 feet upon the North line of
said Flood Limits to the East line of said Lot 167; ��ticICA
�aTF9G�
Thence North 12°03'44" East 30.57 feet upon said East line to To3DD p
the Point of Beginning. HOUT ` J
Said revised No -Build Area contains 4,115.2 square feet, or
0.09 acres, more or less.
2onJA
EXPIRES 12-31-15
DRAINAGE & "y% GRAPHIC SCALE. 1 Inch = 50 Feet
SLOPE EASEMENT
120 0 25 30 100
PER BK.-'-53 30.00
PG. 48 M.&P. '
6' UTI LITY TO
EASEMENT PER ORTOLITq
BK. 53 PG. 48��l _
SF
100—YEAR FLOOD L8 `' NEW NO —BUILD
/ LIMITS PER BK. 63 L9 AREA DESCRIPTION
/ rc-, f L88-\\ PG. 48 M.&P. POINT —OF —
BEGINNING
LOT 167 T
I
<,Q� \ STONE CANYON II I
O \ BK. 53 PG. 48 M.&P. r ��
moo,' > \ A.P.N. 219-06-0480 r ��SCAT '9G
/ NO —BUILD i 1063 W. TORTOLITA l c� -
AREA PER MOUNTAIN CIRCLE J 3 3 =
BK. 53 r i �� 46,019.9 SQ. FT. r THOUTA.
�o,
PG. 48 N 1.06 ACRES r IS
/ TO BE ao
ABANDONED
r� 3,568.7 SF----*"j EXPIRES 12 31 15
`N
CURVEI
RADIUS
I DELTA ANGLE
ARC LENGTH
Cl
1 336.00'
1 17'30'45"
1 102.70'
LINE
I BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S
12'03'44"
W
6.00'
L2
N
79'40'46"
W
19.04'
L3
S
27'50'00"
W
19.73'
L4
S
16'27' 10"
E
14.32'
L5
S
59'33' 16"
E
26.12'
L6
N
57'32'58"
E
8.63'
L7
S
31'20'56"
E
17.82'
L8
S
76'54'33"
E
49.62'
L9
S
88'56'24"
E
26.79'
� ABANDONMENT
co
25.21' DESCRIPTION NOTE: THIS MAP IS INTENDED TO
_ _L POINT —OF —BEGINNING PORTRAY NEW AND ABANDONED
89 57 20" E 104.29- NO -BUILD AREAS OVER THE
SUBJECT LOT AND DOES NOT
REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
L10
N
12'03'44"
E
30.57'
L84
N
24'05'20"
E
36.32'
L85
N
07-11'38"
E
34.52'
L86
N
50'52'43"
E
25.31'
L87
N
32'32'57"
W
79.58'
L88
N
85'04'28"
W
16.25'
L89
S
02'20' 13"
E
15.51 '
L90
S
38'01 '07"
E
51.98'
L91 I
S
47' 40'01 "
W
31.9 5'
L92 IS
12'53134"
E
43.68'
L93 I
S
37-10'58"
W
39.32'
O LA R I S AN EXHIBIT OF. NEW AND ABANDONED
41jRAND NO -BUILD AREAS OVER A PORTION OF LOT 167
'�NFSURVEYING, LLC OF'STONE CANYON /I", BIG 53, PG. 48 OF MAPS
3528 N. FLOWING WELLS RD. AND PLATS, IN THE S. W. 114 OF SECTION 15,
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85705 T.11 S., R.13 E., G.&S.R.M., PIMA COUNTY, AZ
TEL.: (520) 322-6400 FAX: (520) 322-6401 DATE: JULY 1, 2013 POLARIS JOB No. 13103
Permitted Uses Include
Governmental offices
Post Office
Library
Museum
Art Gallery
Restaurants
Community commercial uses
Amphitheatre
Offices
Maximum of 300 residential units at a maximum of 21 RAC
Churches
Hotel /conference center
Recreational facilities
The Town Center is proposed to be a pedestrian -oriented space with
public plazas and parking located on the periphery as shown on the
accompanying illustratives.
Hillside District and Grading
The purpose of the Hillside District, together with the Grading Design
Standards, is to protect the mountains and hillsides in Rancho Vistoso. In
combination, these documents are intended to accommodate
development on the hillsides while protecting the area's natural
character, resources and aesthetic value. They also encourage
innovative hillside development while minimizing hillside disturbance and
potential problems.
The Rancho Vistoso site is characterized by a variety of slopes. Slopes
range from gentle (less than 2%) in Big Wash to extremely steep (25% or
greater) in the foothills of the Tortolita Mountains. The area has been
analyzed and considered for development suitability. Those areas with
slopes of 25 percent or greater are unsuitable for development and will
be set aside as Hillside District Area as shown on the Hillside District
Map. All of the area included within the Hillside District is also designated
as Hillside Conservation Area and the land shall be set aside for the
conservation of permanent natural space. Development in areas with
slopes of less than 25 percent shall be subject to the requirements set
forth in Grading Design Standards for Rancho Vistoso, found in Volume
B.
The Grading Design Standards provide direction for grading design in
order to reduce the visual impact of excavation and make the final
graded land form and development appear natural. Grading is the
mechanical modification and sculpturing of the existing land surface to
create special topographic features, or to solve visual and technical
problems associated with development. The Grading Design Standards
include guidelines which have been prepared to illustrate desirable
approaches to grading and contain standards for design and construction
of slopes, terracing, stabilization methods, dust control, drainage and
revegetation.
102
Development in areas in Rancho Vistoso PAD that have naturally
occurring slopes 25% and greater is generally prohibited, but limited
encroachment may be allowed under the following criteria:
1. Encroachment is allowed, without a trade, in sloped areas 25%
or greater that are less than 6 feet vertical from toe to top of
edge, and are less than or equal to thirty (30) feet in any
horizontal direction.
2. Encroachment is allowed, without a trade, in rock outcrops of no
greater than ten (10) feet high and ten (10) feet in any horizontal
direction.
Encroachment is allowed, without a trade, for a roadway if no
economically feasible alternative route exists or the road is
shown on the Rancho Vistoso PAD map.
4. Minor encroachments of up to 5% of the gradable area are
allowed, with a trade area, by Planning and Zoning Administrator
approval during the review of Type 1 grading permits.
5. Minor encroachments of up to 10% of the gradable area are
allowed, with a trade area, for development plans with
Town Council approval.
Minor encroachments up to 5% of the gradable area may be
allowed in new subdivisions, provided a mitigation plan as
required per this policy is provided.
7. No such encroachment is allowed into areas that are designated
as open space in the PAD.
8. No such encroachment is allowed if the encroachment would
violate other provisions of the Planned Area Development or
Zoning Code.
Trade areas required to offset encroachments into 25% and
greater sloped areas must be at least a 1:1 ratio, and they must
contain "meaningful' open space. Meaningful open space may
be defined as, among other criteria, open space that reduces
fragmentation, has recreational value, improves overall
subdivision design, or creates buffers along environmentally
sensitive areas.
10. All encroachment into 25% or greater sloped areas must be
mitigated to reduce the visual impacts of the encroachment.
Landscaping used to reduce the visual impact shall include
understory vegetation and reseeding to mimic the natural
environment.
11. This policy applies only to areas with slopes 25% and greater
and does not apply to any other open space encroachment
and/or trades.
(Ord. 02-18)
103
Permitted Uses Include
Governmental offices
Post Office
Library
Museum
Art Gallery
Restaurants
Community commercial uses
Amphitheatre
Offices
Maximum of 300 residential units at a maximum of 21 RAC
Churches
Hotel /conference center
Recreational facilities
The Town Center is proposed to be a pedestrian -oriented space with
public plazas and parking located on the periphery as shown on the
accompanying illustratives.
J. Hillside District and Grading
The purpose of the Hillside District, together with the Grading Design
Standards, is to protect the mountains and hillsides in Rancho Vistoso. In
combination, these documents are intended to accommodate
development on the hillsides while protecting the area's natural
character, resources and aesthetic value. They also encourage
innovative hillside development while minimizing hillside disturbance and
potential problems.
The Rancho Vistoso site is characterized by a variety of slopes. Slopes
range from gentle (less than 2%) in Big Wash to extremely steep (25% or
greater) in the foothills of the Tortolita Mountains. The area has been
analyzed and considered for development suitability. Those areas with
slopes of 25 percent or greater are unsuitable for development and will
be set aside as Hillside District Area as shown on the Hillside District
Map. All of the area included within the Hillside District is also designated
as Hillside Conservation Area and the land shall be set aside for the
conservation of permanent natural space. Development in areas with
slopes of less than 25 percent shall be subject to the requirements set
forth in Grading Design Standards for Rancho Vistoso, found in Volume
B.
The Grading Design Standards provide direction for grading design in
order to reduce the visual impact of excavation and make the final
graded land form and development appear natural. Grading is the
mechanical modification and sculpturing of the existing land surface to
create special topographic features, or to solve visual and technical
problems associated with development. The Grading Design Standards
include guidelines which have been prepared to illustrate desirable
approaches to grading and contain standards for design and construction
of slopes, terracing, stabilization methods, dust control, drainage and
revegetation.
102
Development in areas in Rancho Vistoso PAD that have naturally
occurring slopes 25% and greater is generally prohibited, but limited
encroachment may be allowed under the following criteria:
Encroachment is allowed, without a trade, in sloped areas 25%
or greater that are less than 6 feet vertical from toe to top of
edge, and are less than or equal to thirty (30) feet in any
horizontal direction.
2. Encroachment is allowed, without a trade, in rock outcrops of no
greater than ten (10) feet high and ten (10) feet in any horizontal
direction.
3. Encroachment is allowed, without a trade, for a roadway if no
economically feasible alternative route exists or the road is
shown on the Rancho Vistoso PAD map.
4. Minor encroachments of up to 5% of the gradable area are
allowed, with a trade area, by Planning and Zoning Administrator
approval during the review of Type 1 grading permits.
5. Minor encroachments of up to 10% of the gradable area are
allowed, with a trade area, for development plans with
Town Council approval.
Minor encroachments up to 5% of the gradable area may be
allowed in new subdivisions, provided a mitigation plan as
required per this policy is provided.
7. No such encroachment is allowed into areas that are designated
as open space in the PAD.
No such encroachment is allowed if the encroachment would
violate other provisions of the Planned Area Development or
Zoning Code.
Trade areas required to offset encroachments into 25% and
greater sloped areas must be at least a 1:1 ratio, and they must
contain "meaningful' open space. Meaningful open space may
be defined as, among other criteria, open space that reduces
fragmentation, has recreational value, improves overall
subdivision design, or creates buffers along environmentally
sensitive areas.
10. All encroachment into 25% or greater sloped areas must be
mitigated to reduce the visual impacts of the encroachment.
Landscaping used to reduce the visual impact shall include
understory vegetation and reseeding to mimic the natural
environment.
11. This policy applies only to areas with slopes 25% and greater
and does not apply to any other open space encroachment
and/or trades.
(Ord. 02-18)
103
Arrow Land Survey, Inc
3121 E. Kleindale Rd.
Tucson, Arizona 85716
(520) 881-2155
November 25, 2014
Gregory E. Good, Esq.
Goodlaw, P.C.
3430 E. Sunrise Drive Suite 270
Tucson, AZ 85718
Frank S. Bangs, Jr.
Lazarus, Silvyn & Bangs, P.C.
4733 E. Camp Lowell Drive
Tucson, AZ 85712
Re: No -Build Area Slope Analysis, Lot 167, Stone Canyon H
Dear Mr. Good and Mr. Bangs:
Attached is a slope analysis of the "no -build" area delineated on Lot 167 in the recorded
final plat of the Stone Canyon II subdivision; Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 11, in the Town of
Oro Valley, Arizona. I conducted this analysis in response to your request, dated October 31,
2014.
My analysis is based on a site -specific topographic survey of the no -build area and
subsequent slope analysis that I performed on November 12, 2014, independent of any
topographic. information generated iri connection with the .192-acre Stone Canyon II subdivision
plat. At your direction, I used the slope. analysis methodology prescribed by the City of Tucson
in that jurisdiction's Technical Standards Manual, Sec. 9-01.3.2.
My analysis confirms that the no -build area show# on Lot 67 of the Stone Canyon II final
- plat includes-slopes-of-5%-or-more; and -that the height -of some -slopes in the no -build area
exceeds- six feet.
Sincerely,
,ray
Greg Bauer
Arrow Land Survey, Inc.
Attachment
14