HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV121207i
F. ANN RODRIGUEZ, RECORDER
Recorded By: JCC
DEPUTY RECORDER
305
SOROV
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
11000 N LA CANADA DR
ORO VALLEY AZ 85737
oQOJPLIEV
^i ►
s
r
A'0
VNDED,9s
SEQUENCE:
NO. PAGES:
MISC
MAIL
AMOUNT PAID:
Development and Infrastructure Services
MINOR PLAT CHANGE
20132960565
3
10/23/2013
16:25
$8.00
Re: Case Number OV1212-07, Sunridge II, Revised Conservation Easement Area on
Lot 8.
The existing conservation easement line shown on the final plat for Lot 8 (Book 48,
Page 33 Maps and Plats) has been revised as shown on the attached exhibit. The
minor plat change has been administratively approved by the Town of Oro Valley.
vid Laws, P. E. Date
Permitting Manager
�� -��� o:z
David A. Williams; AICP gate
Planning Manager
Job # 13-85
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
2emaining of the Revised Conservation Easement
Revised August 6, 2013
The Remaining of the Revised Conservation Easement located over a portion of Lot 8 of Sunridge
No2 as recorded in Book 48 Page 33 of Maps and Plats in the office of the Pima County Recorder,
Pima County, Arizona said easement described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 8;
Thence South 00°33' 10"West along the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 24.59 feet;
Thence continue South 00'33' 10"West along the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 42.25 feet;
Thence South 43°53'49"West a distance of 48.25 feet;
Thence South 12° 10'56"West a distance of 38.68 feet to the True Point of Beginning of said
easement;
Thence continue South 12'10'56"West a distance of 18.30 feet;
Thence North 85*36'41"West a distance of 22.40 feet;
Thence North I l ° 20'07"East a distance of 11.1572 feet;
Thence North77°41'54"East a distance of 24.5671 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Revised Remaining Conservation Easement contains 328.62 square feet;
TOGETHER WITH all matters of record.
AUG 2 7 2013
o,P _EY
oP ?� Development and Infrastructure Services
Planning Division
11000 N La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 • 520-229-4815 520-742-1022 (Fax)
FOUNDED 19'a
NOTICE TO APPLICANT— It is the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and regulations of the subdivision
are adhered to. Contact your HOA or property management company to determine all applicable requirements. Initials
APPLICATION FORM ,,��-ll
OV Case # (Office Use Only): ��% �I I i� ` - 0
Application Type: M 6 1L c Tia.-L 4� i iCfAA im F' (f`&
A.
Project Manager/pevelopgr
Name: fy /J 01 Cl
Firm:
Address:
City: _< = �f State: Zip:
Telephone: 4c) CEO — Fax: S'��o 7 9 :2 a/ 37 Email: Ida ck 1c: L4uA4 e-s F� �e M
B. Property Owner (s), if more than one own r, attach list
Name: Ke" .%, {}ram, L� n 6 .. A4 " W
Firm:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Telephone: Fax: Email:
C. Subject Property
Parcel/Tax Code: of
Legal Description/Property Address:�51
Area of property: moo, 6Zb :s �:-- -f o- —
Existing Zoning: ao 13 Proposed Zoning: &; A -
Is Proposed Zoning in conformance with General Plan designation? (] NIA [ ] Yes [ ] No
General Plan Designation:
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
D. Previous Applications Relating To This Property
OV8- OV9- OV10-
OV11- OVII 2- OVII3-
E. Reason For Request I1
Z VVU re q 0 e cz '� S aX O✓l
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.
Date Signature
.4 P�IEY AR/
PO2O'L
o, 9 Development and Infrastructure Services
Planning Division
t`= 11000 N La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 520 229 4815 520 742-1022 (Fax)
ED �9�A
NOTICE TO APPLICANT— It is the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and regulations of the subdivision
are adhered to. Contact your HOA or property management company to determine all applicable requirements. Initials
APPLICATION FORM n
OV Case # (Office Use Only):_ 0 �i d. — 0_1
Application Type: J r I U10r
A. Project Mana
Name: /yl.
B.
C.
A
City: —
Telephone:.J-,�.o 5/UO
Zip:_S�7n Vf
ail:l'SC� c:� i ✓1c� Inr)n,+ •. c �JT�1 •CCci6ti1
Property Owner (s), if more than one owner, attach list
Name: I<P, �; i f1Y rw [ c� /iB A., f
Firm:
Address:_ S A Pr
City: State:
Zip:
Telephone: Fax: Email:
Subject Property
Parcel/Tax Code:_
Legal Description/Property
Area of property:_ _20. (T 5M -4 cr —
Existing Zoning: coo 13 Proposed Zoning: hl A -
Is Proposed Zoning in conformance with General Plan designation? [ J NIA [ ] Yes [ ] No
General Plan Designation:
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Previous Applications Relating To This Property
OV8-
OV11-
E. Reasnn Fnr Rannnef
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.
Date Signature
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Revised Conservation Easement
JQh # i L:72
CECCEHML = I
k JUN 7 2012
Ti o,,:vrl of Oro Vai,'
A Revised Conservation Easement located over a portion of Lot 8 of Sunridge No2 as recorded in
Book 48 Page 33 of Maps and Plats in the office of the Pima County Recorder, Pima County,
Arizona said easement described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 8;
Thence South 00°33' 10"West along the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 66.84 feet to the True
Point of Beginning of said easement;
Thence continue South 00"33' 10"West along the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 8.69 feet;
Thence South 23'02'21"West a distance of 60.77 feet;
Thence South 05°21'34"East a distance of 71.22 feet;
Thence South 20° 18'36"East a distance of 9.21 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 8 said
point being 12.63 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 8;
Thence South 88"43'40"West along the South line of said lot 8 a distance of 46.56 feet;
Thence North 00' 33' 10"East parallel to the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 55.00 feet;
Thence South 89*26' 50" East a distance of 16.24 feet;
Thence North 17°00' 11"East a distance of 16.50 feet;
Thence North 23° 02'21"East a distance of 68.57 feet:
Thence North 00" 33' 10"East parallel to the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 11.59 feet;
Thence South 89° 26'50"East a distance of 12.02 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 8 and the
True Point of Beginning.
Revised Conservation Easement contains 3413 square feet;
TOGETHER WITH all matters of record.
Sedona Ridge Place
SKETCH IT
Ealrting location of ■ C.-.tian Emanert MR a patina
of Lot 8 of Swridge 2 as recorded in Book 48 at Pogo 33 in
the office of the Pima Comity Recorder. Pfau County.
Arvntu.
Sedona Ridge Place
SKETCH OF
prefaced location of Existing Conservation Easement ova ■
portion of Lot 8 of Swridgo 2 as recorded in Book 48 at page
33 in the once of the Pima Comity Recorder. Phm Comity.
Arizona.
r
Board of Adjustment Staff Report
DUNDED 19e
CASE NUMBER: OV 1013-01
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: 3
STAFF CONTACT: Patty Hayes, Zoning Plans Examiner
phayes(a-orovalleyaz.gov (520) 229-4819
Applicant: Mike Arnold (520) 400-8535
Request: The property owner requests approval of
1. Rear Yard Setback Variance from 30' to 20' and
2. Hillside Development Zone Exception
Location: 752 West Sedona Ridge Place, Sunridge II, Lot 8
SUMMARY:
The property owner, Mr. Arnold, proposes to build a custom home on the subject lot
and is requesting a rear yard setback variance from 30' to 20'. The applicant also
requests an exception to the applicability of the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) as
defined in the Zoning Code Addendum I, Section C.3., to build a portion of the house,
yard and site walls into an area with 25% slopes. This Board of Adjustment case is
the first of two processes to allow the proposed development of the property. If the
Board of Adjustment case is approved, a Plat Amendment will be presented to Town
Council for removal of the conservation easement.
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site Conditions
• The property is currently vacant. The only area of disturbance was for the
installation of a drainage culvert located in the southeastern corner of the lot.
Proposed Improvements
• Custom house with a yard and retaining walls.
Related Approvals
• Property was rezoned in 1994 from R1-144 to R1-20.
• The Sunridge 11 Final Plat was approved in 1996.
OV 1013-100 Arnold Variance
Board of Adjustment Staff Report
Page 2 of 5
The Existing Land Use and Zoning for the property and the surrounding area is summarized
below.
EXISTING LAND USE
ZONING
SUBJECT
Vacant
Single -Family
PROPERTY
Residential R1-20
NORTH
Vistoso Ridge subdivision,
Single -Family
existing house
Residential R1-20
SOUTH
Sunridge II subdivision,
Single -Family
vacant residential lot
Residential R1-20
EAST
Sunridge II subdivision,
Single -Family
existing house
Residential R1-20
WEST
Sunridge II subdivision,
Single -Family
existing house
Residential R1-20
ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to build a 2,400 square foot custom home, three car garage and
an east facing yard on the subject property as shown in the applicant's proposal
Attachment 2. There is a conservation easement centrally located on the lot as shown in
Attachments 2 and 3. The conservation easement with the 25% slopes is the primary
subject of this variance. The applicant does not propose any modification to the
floodplain or drainage easement.
Hillside Development Zone
The Hillside Development Zone (HDZ), Addendum I of the Zoning Code, Section C.3.a.
provides the applicant an avenue for an exception to the HDZ applicability if the HDZ
standards prevent reasonable utilization of a property. The conservation easement is
centrally located on the lot and significantly limits the building area of the lot. Conditions of
approval related to the timing and details of construction in the conservation easement
are listed in Attachment 1.
Rear Setback Variance
The applicant has located the proposed house closer to the northwestern portion of the lot
which is the flattest section of the lot. The initial site plan for this variance was revised, at
staff recommendation, to push the house further back into the northwest corner of the lot
to reduce the impact of construction within the conservation easement. Reducing the rear
yard setback by 10' places the garage further on the flat part of the lot, with the porch and
yard encroaching into the 25% area.
OV 1013-100 Arnold Variance
Board of Adjustment Staff Report
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Page 3 of 5
• During the rezoning process, conservation easements were placed on the lots to
protect the 25% slopes and areas with significant riparian vegetation outside of the
floodplains.
• The applicant revised the site plan to provide a plan that shows the minimal variance
necessary to provide a viable area to build a house and reduce the construction
impact of the conservation area.
• Lot 8 is a 21,854 square foot lot with a Conservation, Floodplain and Drainage
easement. The three easements total approximately 6,025 square feet of land, in
addition to the area of land for the required setbacks.
• There is a 10,000 square foot grading limit for this subdivision. The applicant will be
required to keep the grading contained to the 10,000 square foot limit. Driveways are
excluded from the grading limit.
• Six other properties in the Sunridge subdivision were granted variances. Most were
for building height and setback variances.
DISCUSION:
The Board of Adjustment should consider the following findings in making its decision for
each variance request:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to
in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which
do not apply to other properties in the district;
The applicant refers to the topography and shape of the lot as restricting the desired
placement of the house while trying to preserve views for the neighbors. The lot is 79'
at the front, southern, lot line and the rear, northern, lot line is 127' wide. The bulk of
the easements are concentrated from the center of the lot to the east and southern
portion of the lot as shown in Attachment 3. The central location of the conservation
easement significantly limits the buildable area of the lot.
2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant;
The applicant indicates that the placement of the conservation easements did not
consider future home placement. The central location of the conservation easement
combined with the required setbacks may constitute a special circumstance related to
the property.
3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights;
The applicant states that without the variance he will be unable to construct a 2,400
square foot home, garage and yard on this lot, which is considered to be the minimal
marketable sized home for the area. The size of the homes surrounding this lot range
from 2,416 square feet to 3,100 square feet of living space.
OV 1013-100 Arnold Variance
Board of Adjustment Staff Report
Page 4 of 5
4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing
of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
located,
The applicant has stated with this variance that he can build a house on this lot that
will comply with the building height and cut and fill limitations of Zoning Code. The
applicant proposes to use terraced yard walls to mitigate the fill dirt over the 25%
slopes. The applicant indicates that the vegetation, which would be in the floodplain,
will remain in place to help screen the proposed home from the property to the east as
shown in Attachment 5.
5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons
residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare
in general.
The applicant states he has considered the views and privacy impacts of the
surrounding neighbors. The aerial photo in Attachment 4 shows the layout of the
surrounding neighbors and proposed location of the house.
PUBLIC PARTICIAPTION
All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of this hearing
by mail. The property is posted with a notice of hearing, was posted online at
www.orovalleyaz.gov and was advertised in the Daily Territorial. To date, two
neighbors have inquired about the case. No objections at this time.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move to approve OV10-13-01,
1. A Variance for a Rear Yard Setback reduction from 30' to 20'; and
2. Hillside Development Zone Exception as provided for in Addendum I, Section C.3 of
the Oro Valley Zoning Code to allow construction in the 25% slopes as shown on the
submitted plans.
Based on the finding that the five criteria have been met and further that the HDZ
prevents reasonable utilization of the property.
QV 1013-100 Arnold Variance
Board of Adjustment Staff Report
I move to deny OV10-13-01,
Page 5 of 5
1. A Variance for a Rear Yard Setback reduction from 30' to 20'; and
2. Hillside Development Zone Exception as provided for in Addendum I, Section C.3 of
the Oro Valley Zoning Code to allow construction in the 25% slopes as shown on the
submitted plans.
Based on the finding that the five criteria have not been met and further that the HDZ
does not prevent reasonable utilization of the property.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Conditions of Approval
2.
Applicant's Proposal
3.
Plat Map
4.
Aerial Photo
5.
Aerial Photo close up
Chad Dairies, Principal Planner
rr
QOJP 0
O�NDED
Development and Infrastructure Services
DATE: October 17, 2013
TO: Pima County Recorder's Office
Recording Division
P.O. Box 3145
Tucson, AZ 85702-3145
FROM: Town of Oro Valley
Marvin Miller 229-4823
Development Infrastructure Services
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 returned
to the Town of Oro Valley,11000 N. La Canada Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85737, Attn:
Patty Hayes DIS.
Planning Permitting Inspection & Compliance Engineering Operations Transit
(520) 229-4821 (520) 229-4815 (520) 229-4815 (520) 229-4894 (520) 229-5070 (520) 229-4990
Caring forourheritage, ourcommunity, ourfuture.
11000 N. La Cariada Drive • Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 fax: (520) 742-1022 • www.orovalleyaz.gov
Sedona Ridge Place
AUG 2 8 2013
SKETCH OF
Existing location of the remaining Conservation Easement
over a portion of Lot 8 of Sunridge 2 as recorded in Book 48
at Page 33 in the office of the Pima County Recorder, Pima
County, Arizona.
DATE. I RMSMNSS
AUG 2 7 Everett Trueblood Land Surveyin
bees V. W—ftge Tt
Tw AZ 65743
(320 BBB-23/9
Drt.n 1 � ETIf CMcMW 1 E1rt Dote M,p�t 6, E01
Page 1 of 1
Hayes, Patty
From: Hayes, Patty
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 8:42 AM
To: 'Michael Arnold'
Subject: Sunridge Lot 8
Mike,
Your case is set for June 5, 2013. The meeting starts at 6:00pm. At this time I don't know the order in which your
case will be heard. Your case may or may not be on a consent agenda.
Your case number is from your original submittal for this lot which is number OV12-12-07. The item is titled
Sunridge II Plat Amendment, Lot 8.
Staff will provide a report and all the previous documents from the Board of Adjustment case. The proposal to
Council will be for a modification of the conservation easement. Not a complete removal but a modification or
reduction. Mostly to preserve the southern tip of the conservation easement outside of the grading limits as
shown your site plan.
We do not need anything else from you at this time unless you want to add something extra. If want anything to
be included in the Council packet I would need it no later than May 16t'. You should be prepared to speak or
present at the meeting but the item might be on the consent agenda. If it is on the consent agenda, the Council
Members could pull it from that agenda and add it to the main agenda during the meeting. In other words we
don't know for sure until that night.
Patty Hayes
Zoning Plans Examiner
Town of Oro Valley
(520) 2294819 or phayes@orovalleyaz.gov
05/10/2013
Page 1 of 2
N
Hayes, Patty
From: Hayes, Patty
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 4:42 PM
To:
Subject: Sunridge Lot 8
Attachments: BOA+Application.pdf
Mr. Arnold,
I wanted to follow up with you about Sunrige Lot 8. We met before the holidays and discussed some options that may help you
provide a better buildable area for the lot. Conservation easements were placed on the final plat as part of a rezoning condition to
preserve 25% slopes per the Zoning Code at that time. Reducing a conservation easement with a 25% slope is not something that
staff can administratively approve. There are some other options that help you develop this lot.
The HDZ regulations shall apply to all property described in Section 24.2.0 except where
the development standards prevent the reasonable utilization of property as determined
by the Board of Adjustment through the approval of a variance. All HDZ applicability
appeals shall be heard by the Board of Adjustment in conformance with the variance pro-
cedures established in Section 21.6.
This code section allows you to submit for a variance to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. You could also apply for setback
variances at the same time if you feel that would help you with the lot
Please keep in mind the limitations on cut and fill for the area:
Cut and fill slopes shall meet the following requirements:
a. The maximum depth of a cut or fill shall not exceed six (6) feet measured vertically from
the existing grade to the finished elevation. The depth of a cut or fill slope may be
Increased to eight (8) feet when terracing is utilized In conformance with Illustration 27.9 -
3. The terraces shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town. For any construction,
the height of exposed, constructed slopes shall not exceed 12 feet in vertical dimension.
B. Height
1. Measurement
a. Building, Height
The vertical distance measured from the grade found along the outside walls of a building
to the highest point of the building, excluding any chimney. This definition applies only to
a building footprint where the natural cross -slope is less than six (6) percent.
b. Building Height (Sloped Area)
The maximum vertical distance measured from natural grade to the highest point of the
building directly above, excluding any chimney. This definition applies only to a building
footprint where the natural cross -slope is six (6) percent or more.
One other code section that may help you as a standard allowed encroachment into setbacks is:
05/08/2013
Page 2 of 2
r
ii. Terraces, uncovered porches, platforms and ornamental features which do not
extend more than three (3) feet above the adjacent natural ground level may
project into the required yard provided their projections be at least five (5) feet from
the adjacent side lot line.
iii. Balconies and stairs may project four (4) feet into the required yard, but not nearer
than five (5) feet to an adjacent side property line.
iv. Covered porches may project into the required yard provided they are not nearer
than ten (10) feet to the rear property line or may project three (3) feet into the
required side yard.
I attached the variance application to this email. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Patty Hayes
Zoning Plans Examiner
Development & Infrastructure Services Department
Town of Oro Valley
520-229-4819 (office) 520-742-1022 (fax)
05/08/2013
Page 1 of 1
Hayes, Patty
From:
Hayes, Patty
Sent:
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:20 PM
To:
'Michael Arnold'
Subject: RE: Sunridge Lot 8 correction
Mike,
I reviewed your most recent site plan with Mr. Williams. The recently revised conservation easement is much
better than the previous submittal however the newest proposed conservation easement still lacks an equivalent
area to the one that Council approved. Could you have your designer enlarge the easement just a bit more closer
to the walls or house?
Thank you,
Patty Hayes
Zoning Plans Examiner
Town of Oro Valley
(520) 229-4819 or phayes@orovalleyaz.gov
From: Michael Arnold [
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:43 PM
To: Hayes, Patty
Subject: Fwd: Sunridge Lot 8 correction
Patty, Butch has moved the lower drystack retaing wall to 8' from the house. Does this work ok ?
Forwarded message----------
07/ 16/2013
Jun 27 13 07:48p Everett Trueblood 520 292-9516 p.1
.LN:%W=7 lr� J✓0�1
—AO N4�1�p
�0 7 i
1/VG✓3sb-7
116VY-YISNDJ
C
Z
ns G
c
M
r Z
r � N
M,
O � 9
s
M v Z
O C
m;O
rm
0
-q
00
AL
I
I' 1
I 1
I
I
I 1
I
1
I
I
I
/
I
I I
I
/
GRADING/SITE PLAN FOR
SU N RIDG E II LOT 8
PARCEL # 219-50-0160
CONSTRUCTION KEYNOTES
(D s a m4cE
OO ROCK RIPRAP OVER FLIER FAMC 0=B'; T=I2' (TYP.)
Q2.5'ACONCAS
Q4 (ETAHM WALL BY STRUCRIRAL ENGNEER
Q (ROUTED RIPRAP
iE
d
F!v
cmTouFt wrmAL- i Ffff
cTm O'
10' 2(' 30'
LAU
g
FWJECr
AS SHOWN in ip CED2013-040
IMISM PLAN FOR IN
y�h 07/10/13
Caaredol"ft
iwana®
ry
lr. el a
Tp0• NBBB�dI Low aIb i"Im tAiMT10
���
O®® B! PKN
019
��B �B �B. �/ ��y�B�
PAsnB: {W lD{7 � M W � � PL � V/Mi f B IFi�M ft MM
•1-Bk
F f 1r� �y
E)P�.�467/7IM
B9H8Q B6i
Note: Lot lines are off center
Location Map Aerial Photo
Arnold — Plat Amendment (OV1212-07)
OVNDED �g1
Attachment 1
5.
to
r Y
I
1�
AR A-
2184
0 00
ell
_CN I
CN LI17 '�
L -7
79.19
Green = Conservation Easement, Blue =Floodplain, Orange = Drainage Easement
OQO�P��EY gq��o29
FUNDED �9�A
Plat Map
Arnold — Plat Amendment (OV1212-07)
Attachment 2
1 "-1
1
1 :.
I.�i.(;ne (unu�n:uirm I ascmcm
•
'err, 3,402 squmv Icc(
•
1 f�
•
1
•
•
• �..
•
• J
_ Y
.--I (N) Yc:u Ffood PL•un L.un(1 Area
S -
•�r� 4o
10
C.
1
1 j
2 7 ^(�
1 •
Applicant's Site Plan
Arnold — Plat Amendment (OV 1212-07)
Attachment 3
.1PLLEY AR,,
f�.
� I.�r.un� l'�m.cn ;iUnn Iascmcnl
'402 .q uarr 1icl
/—lun Yc;u Flied Pl:un 1 unu Area
SITE PLAN WITH A PORTION OF THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT PRESERVED
ARNOLD - PLAT AMENDMET (OV 1212-07)
FUNDED �ql
Attachment 4
Job ##11-79
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Revised Conservation Easement
A Revised Conservation Easement located over a portion of Lot 8 of Sunridge No2 as recorded in
Book 48 Page 33 of Maps and Plats in the office of the Pima County Recorder, Pima County,
Arizona said easement described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 8;
Thence South 00°33' 10"West along the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 66.84 feet to the True
Point of Beginning of said easement;
Thence continue South 00"33' 10"West along the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 8.69 feet;
Thence South 23`02'21"West a distance of 60.77 feet;
Thence South 05°21'34"East a distance of 71.22 feet;
Thence South 20'18'36"East a distance of 9.21 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 8 said
point being 12.63 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 8;
Thence South 88'43'40"West along the South line of said lot 8 a distance of 46.56 feet;
Thence North 00' 33' 10"East parallel to the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 55.00 feet;
Thence South 89'26' 50" East a distance of 16.24 feet;
Thence North 17°00' 11"East a distance of 16.50 feet;
Thence North 23 ° 02'21 "East a distance of 68.57 feet:
Thence North 00' 33' 10"East parallel to the East line of said Lot 8 a distance of 11.59 feet;
Thence South 89' 26'50"East a distance of 12.02 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 8 and the
True Point of Beginning.
Revised Conservation Easement contains 3413 square feet;
TOGETHER WITH all matters of record.
- �P�LEY qq
QQO" ti, Development and Infrastructure Services
Planning Division
x Qw
��l$ru it 11000 N La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 • 520-229-4800 • 520-742-10��`f ax2 ] 2013
mrj
DVNDED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION -
NOTICE TO APPLICANT— It is the applicantlowner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and
regulations of the subdivision are adhered to. Contact your HOA or property management company to
determine all applicable requirements. Initials
FOR t/Zoning Variance Note: Submittals are due by noon
_ Zoning Interpretation
Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.: OV /U / 3 G/
NATURE OF REQUEST:
C;3 a
If necessary, please attach a written narrative.
APPLICANT:,'^'CZL'!""l
PHONE:
� FAX:
ADDRESS: /
106-jz StatezfZ—Zip� &5mail LL�
�SCL�t.��,
ADDRESS:
City State Zip
PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: -7 Sa W2c�onc��e
PARCEL #: 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
CURRENT ZONING: 2 /c2 O APPLICABLEEE:
ATTACHMENTS: ,
SIGNATURE OF"P�ANT ,(ALSO PRINT NAM) n Al
Board of Adjustment Application
Attachment
1. The topography and triangular shape of this lot requires the -home to be set back to the rear of the
lot. I can design this home to comply with all grading and height restrictions however part of the home
and the backyard need to overlap part of the conservation easement and 10' of the rear yard setback. If
I move the home to the front of the lot it would be a narrow design and take the mountain view away
from the home to the west of this property and would not have a yard area.
2. Conservation easements were originally placed on these lots without consideration of home sites.
3. Yes. I will be unable to provide even a minimal yard and 2400 Sf home and garage without building
into part of the conservation easement.
4. Home and yard will be a stepped design to follow contour of hillside and comply with all height
requirements. 6' retaining wall at low end of lot for yard will be barely visible due to existing heavy
vegetation that averages over 6' in height.
5. Surrounding properties will not be affected with this approach. If home is built more to the front of
this lot it will take most of the mountain view away from the home to the west. Home to the north
would be impacted if yard were placed adjacent to his rear yard as neither home would have much
privacy in their rear yards. The home to the east would have the same outcome no matter where home
is sited. Home to the east also has the wash as a wide space buffer.
�PLIEY ARi
°P° ` �Oti, Development and Infrastructure Services
' - Planning Division
rA 11000 N La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 • 520-229-4800 •520-742-1022 (Fax)
-DVNDED i9�a
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
NOTICE TO APPLICANT— It is the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all private rules and
regulations of the subdivision are adhered to. Contact your HOA or property management company to
determine all applicable requirements. Initials
FOR _✓Zoning Variance Note: Submittals are due by noon
Zoning Interpretation i t �,--, I
_ Appeal of Administrative Decision CASE NO.:
NATURE OF REQUEST:
If necessary, please attach a written narrative.
APPLICANT: �Aki � 2P Z zy�D L
PHONE: FAX:
ADDRESS:
Cit O oa-ho State_kZ_Zip$.-? Email
OWNER: 5 AA
ADDRESS:
City
State Zip
PROPERTY LOCATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST: 7.<Z 6d ,�e��� /Pgje
PARCEL #: 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: a/9- 5-0-0/(00
CURRENT ZONING:_ JZ 120 APPLICABLEEE:
ATTACHMENTS:
SIGNATURE
(ALSO PRINT NAME) DATE
6%71'�t &'e-1 Ae✓1151fi /
Page 1 of 1
Hayes, Patty
From: Hayes, Patty
Sent: --Friday, May 10, 2013 12:09 PM
To: 'Michael Arnold'
Subject: RE: Sunridge Lot 8
Mike,
Staff will add an informal line. Nothing with metes and bounds and such but something that will show the area
It's the area that is the southern chunk of the conservation easement outside of the grading limit next to the
driveway.
Let me know when you want to come in talk.
Thanks,
Patty Hayes
Zoning Plans Examiner
Town of Oro Valley
(520) 229-4819 or phayes@orovalleyaz.gov
From: Michael Arnold [mailto:kachinahomes@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:51 AM
To: Hayes, Patty
Subject: Re: Sunridge Lot 8
Who is drawing the line of what gets removed? I need some room here as I have yet to do the final
design. Can we meet to look at what you are proposing? Thanks Mike
On Friday, May 10, 2013, Hayes, Patty wrote:
Mike,
Your case is set for June 5, 2013. The meeting starts at 6:00pm. At this time I don't know the order in which your
case will be heard. Your case may or may not be on a consent agenda.
Your case number is from your original submittal for this lot which is number OV12-12-07. The item is titled
Sunridge II Plat Amendment, Lot 8.
Staff will provide a report and all the previous documents from the Board of Adjustment case. The proposal to
Council will be for a modification of the conservation easement. Not a complete removal but a modification or
reduction. Mostly to preserve the southern tip of the conservation easement outside of the grading limits as
shown your site plan.
We do not need anything else from you at this time unless you want to add something extra. If want anything to
be included in the Council packet 1 would need it no later than May 16t'. You should be prepared to speak or
present at the meeting but the item might be on the consent agenda. If it is on the consent agenda, the Council
Members could pull it from that agenda and add it to the main agenda during the meeting. In other words we
don't know for sure until that night.
Patty Hayes
Zoning Plans Examiner
Town of Oro Valley
(520) 229-4819 or phayes(cDorovalleyaz.gov
06/14/2013
r1
a►� rr-
�irur •:,r•: r
1. The collector roadway serving the western portion of the site be aligned
with the roadway south of this site in the adjacent Tangerine 160
rezoning such that no broken back curves or deflections in roadway
alignment occur.
2. No roadway, or roadway associated fill, encroach into the 100 year
floodplain associated with the major wash traversing the center of the
site.
3. Discharges are to be added to the tentative development plan.
4. All-weather access is to be provided to each approved building site.
5. All road rights -of -way shall be dedicated to the public.
6. Access to the abutting developable prcpe ties in Rancho Vistoso (to the
east) shall be provided as indicated on the TDP.
7. Recreation areas will be required at the time of platting in acoordance
with adopted 'Town codes and policies.
B. All Saguaros shall be preserved in place or salvaged and re -planted on -
site.
9. Arizona Game and Fish Department's guidelines for harui].ing desert
tortoise specimens shall be followed, if these animals are encamtered
during development.
10. Cnly native plant materials shall be used for the purposes of site
revegetation.
11. The spine wash on the site shall be fenced off and protected from
disturbance &alxg construction.
12. A homeowners, association shall be formed for this subdivision, which
shall be charged, with preservation of the spine wash natural open space
in an undisturbed state.
13. The preliminary and final plats for this subdivision shall be in
substantial conformance with the tentative development plan approved by
the Mayor and Council.
14. Per the HDZ, no 25% slope can be graded unless the lot size is a
minima 1 acre. It is understood that building pads (grading) will not
be permitted on 25%- slopes for lots of this size (20,00 square feet) .
1
15. Add a trail network linking the subdivision together and providing non -
vehicular access to the recreation area(s).
16. No grading permits shall be issued for development of the property until
paved access to the site has been ccnstzucted.
17. The cul-de-sacs in the area of lots 2 & 3 and lots 88 & 105 shall be
shortened to the minim required to provide access to the lots which
they serve.
18. A revised MP in oozporating all Commission adapted conditions shall be
submitted for staff review prior to Town Cot=il review of OV9-94-7.
19. Lots 86 & 87 shall be removed and replaced with natural open. space.
20. Grading shall be limited to roadways, driveways, utility installation and
house pads.
21. Lots 22 and 23 shall be constructed with the assurance that bad weather
access is guaranteed.
22. Significant and/er unique riparian habitat shall be maintained as natural
open apace
23. The spine wash(es) shall be preserved as natural open, space due to the
Planning Cmmusion having found that one or all of the following
criteria to exist:
a) Uaiquely high density and/or quality of vegetation
b) High quality of wildlife habitat per the Arizona
Department of Gene and Fish
c) Linkages to public preserves and major washes
d) Continuity of the wash through developed areas
7be area to be preserved shall include the 100 year floodplain unless
otherwise stipulated in these conditions.
24. Salvageable trees shall be either aide -boxed or spaded and incorporated
into the project landscaping or onto residential lots.
25. Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways or sidewalks shall be included in
the development and shall be integrated with such facilities, existing
or planned, on adjacent properties.
26. The Tentative Develcrment Plan or (PAD docwmt) will be revised to
inoorparate the conditions specified by staff and the Planning Cmmnissim
as approved by the Town Council prior to adoption of a final zoning
ordinance.
27. Density is limited to 1.3 RAC and/or 105 total
dwelling units.
2
28. A conservation easement shall be reeorded along the spine wash and
associated minor washes, consisting of the 100-year floodplain area.
Along the spine wash, the conservation easement shall also include areas
containing significant riparian vegetation outside the floodplain, as
identified by a qualified field biologist's report shall be attached as
a part of preliminary plat submittal.
Standard C-m&tions
Prior to adoption of a rezoning crdinance, the following requirements must be
completed within the time frame specified herein fran the date of approval by
the Town Clrnci.l.
I. Submittal of a complete hydraulic and hydrologic drainage report.
2. Approval of a development plan and/or recordation of a final plat as
determined necessary by the appropriate Town Departments.
3. A suitable arrangement with Pima Cbcmty health Department or Pima Comity
Wastewater Management for sewage disposal.
4. Recording a covenant holding the Town of Oro Valley harmless in the
event of flooding.
5. Provision of development -related assurances as required by the
appropriate Town departments.
6. Recording a covenant to remove only that vegetation that is necessary
for building pads and accessory uses and the necessary roads and
driveways and to salvage all healthy Palo Verde, Mesquite, Irmwood,
Saguaros and Barrel Cacti for on -site landscaping purposes.
7. Recording any other develgpment-related covenants as determined necessary
by the appropriate 'Town departments.
S. Roads shall be constructed in conformance with the Town of Oro Valley
standards.
9. Landscaping to co silt of low water use and low pollen -producing
vegetation.
10. Adherence to the Tentative Development Plan approved by the Oro Valley
Town Council.
11. Significant charge to the tentative development plan or conditions of
rezoning, as defined by Sec. 3-104B, shall require re -review by the
Planning Commission and Town Cbiuncil in accordance with Chapter 3 of the
Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
12. The relocation and/or extension of utilities pursuant to the development
or development of the subject parcel will be at no cost to the Town
3
r
of Oro Valley.
13. Dedication of public rights -of -way through plat recordation in accordance
with cnze.t Town ordinances.
14. Posting Development Opportunity Assessments (DOAs) in an approved form
as deteztnzned necessary by the appx+opriate Tbwn departments.
15. Suhadttal of a traffic i,npact analysis in accardance with Sec. 9-110N,
unless modified by the Town &xjineer and zoning Ad dni.strator.
16. Oacpleticn of the requireamts for a zoning ordinance within three
years fran the date of approval by Town ocx=il. If the specified time
frame is not met and no extension is granted, this ional approval
shall lapse.
Rural or ResuJenti.al
1-80 acres 2 years
over 80 acres 3 years
lei -Residential 2 years
9-94-7\CCniitM.fin
4
r
ORDINANCE NO. (0)94- 19
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
ZONING MAP BY CONDITIONALLY REZONING THAT
PROPERTY KNOWN AS SUNRIDGE (OV9-94-7), FURTHER
DESCRIBED HEREIN, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED
ORO VALLEY R1-144 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
TO ORO VALLEY R1-20 (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL), AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH.
WHEREAS, that certain real property known as Sunridge,
approximately 80 acres in size, and further described by map in
Exhibit "B" attached herewith, is currently zoned R1-144 in the.
Town of Oro Valley; and
WHEREAS, an application requesting that the property be
rezoned to Oro Valley R1-20 has been filed with the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered
said application and request at a duly noticed public hearing, in
accordance with State Statute, and having made its recommendations
to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has considered the
requested rezoning at a duly noticed public hearing and finds that
it is consistent with the Town's General Plan and Ordinances,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY:
SECTION 1: That certain real property, known as Sunridge (80
acres), and further described by map in Exhibit "B" attached
herewith, is hereby conditionally rezoned to R1-20 (Single Family
Residential) subject to those conditions, stipulata.ons, plan for
development and all other conditions of approval established in
Exhibit "A" "Conditions for Approval of OV9-94-7, Sunridge
Rezoning".
SECTION 2: That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent
of such conflict.
SECTION 3: That this ordinance and the various parts thereof
are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, sub -section,
sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for any
reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance.
1
SECTION 4: Any person found guilty of violating any provision
of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed
one thousand dollars and/or by imprisonment. Each day that a
violation continues shall be a separate offense punishable as
hereinabove described.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town
Of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 3rd day of -August—, 1994.
Richard S. Parker, Mayor
Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM —
Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney
1
.�
ORO VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEER'S REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 14, 1995
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
DATE: January 17, 2013
FROM: Joanne Homer
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: OV12-94-32 SUNRIDGE II
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUMMARY
Sunridge II is the eastern half of a previous rezoning case called Sunridge. The terrain of
the site is rugged, with several portions containing slopes of 25% or greater. There is one
wash on the west side of the property. Several of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Conditions of Approval for the rezoning case concerned this wash. There is a second
wash, termed a minor wash in the rezoning meeting, within the plat.
With respect to drainage, there was a rezoning condition that required that all washes
would be placed within a conservation easement. Additionally, this conservation
easement was to include not only the 100-year floodplain, but also areas of significant
riparian vegetation as determined by a biologist. In reviewing the rezoning minutes for
this plat, it was determined that, although most of the minor wash was to remain within a
conservation easement, it is possible to cross this wash for the purposes of roadways or
driveways. The plat as shown conforms with this interpretation.
The proposed grading concept of this plan encompasses roadways, lot access and
drainage only. This site is being developed as a custom lot design. Therefore, each
individual lot will require a separate grading analysis and approval. In order to accomplish
the grading plan as shown, a grading waiver will be necessary for the roadways.
There are two street cross -sections proposed for this plat. One cross-section is proposed
for the cul-de-sacs and would provide no curbs. The other would provide 2-foot wedge
curbs and is proposed for the north -south through street. Rancho de Oro to the south
was approved with one cross-section showing 2-foot wedge curbs for all streets. The
Public Works Department believes that this plat should be consistent with the plat to the
south. Additionally, because these will be public roadways, the town will be responsible
for maintenance. We believe that maintenance costs would be lessened by providing
curbs.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
FEBRUARY 13, 1995
PAGE 2
Finally, the rezoning conditions required that no grading permits be issued for
development of the property until paved access to the site has been constructed. The
developer believes that this condition referred to lot grading permits and not to a grading
permit for the roadway and drainage structures. It is unclear from the rezoning minutes
whether this was the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The risk involved in
developing the site without paved access is that the site infrastructure could be built and
access to developing the lots could be delayed until such time as the adjoining properties
were developed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Public Works Staff has reviewed the above subject development and would not object to
approval of this proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1.Horizontal and vertical centerline data shall be provided for the on -site and off -site
Street "A" alignment. These data are necessary to ensure that the proposed
alignment within Sunridge II Preliminary Plat is compatible with the alignment of
the Rancho de Oro approved roadway.
2.The means of providing all-weather access shall be shown for Lot 22.
3.Slope maintenance easements shall be provided, as required by the Town Engineer, on
the Final Plat.
4.Per the rezoning conditions, the conservation easement shall include areas containing
significant riparian vegetation outside the floodplain. These areas of significant
riparian vegetation shall be in a report attached as part of the preliminary plat
submittal. Show all conservation easements per this rezoning condition on the
preliminary plat.
5.General note #9 shall be modified to end "...and/or the building official."
6.The typical street section for all streets including cul-de-sacs shall be the street section
identified on sheet 5 as "Typical 50' R/W Street Cross Section." This detail is
consistent with the streets approved for Rancho de Oro to the south. All locations
of curbs shall be shown in plan view.
7.All post -development floodplain limits shall be shown on the preliminary plat.
8.The slope analysis as shown on the preliminary plat appears to have minor errors. All
locations of 25% or greater slopes shall be identified.
9.All common areas shall be labeled.
10.A 1-foot no access easement shall be shown along the frontage of the higher class
right-of-way for all double frontage lots, including lot 18.
11.Horizontal and vertical centerline data shall be provided for all proposed streets.
12.All retaining walls required to construct streets shall be shown.
13.All sight visibility triangles shall meet Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards.
14.The 100-year floodplain limits along the western side of the plat (Lots 1-4 and the
recreation areas) shall be shown on Sheet 2.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
FEBRUARY 13, 1995
PAGE 3
15.AII 100-year flow volumes to be carried in the streets shall be analyzed in the
hydrology report and shown on the plat.
16.All contours 100 feet outside the property boundary shall be shown on the north,
south, east and west sides of the property boundary.
17.All proposed sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be shown.
18.All locations of proposed fire hydrants shall be shown.
19.All sewers shall be designed such that flow patterns are maintained.
20.All vertical curves shall meet the Town of Oro Valley Subdivision Street Standards.
21.The preliminary plat shall be revised to agree with the boundary closure.
22.All street names shall be in conformance with adjacent plats.
23.All lots shall have a 30-minimum street frontage.
If this preliminary plat is approved by the DRB, resubmittal of the preliminary plat
addressing all these concerns shall be submitted to the Town of Oro Valley on or before
March 1, 1995 in order to be considered for placement on the March 15, 1995 Town
Council meeting.
f:\...\12-94-32\dftdrbrt.pwd
ORDINANCE NO. (0)96- 47
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
ZONING MAP TO PLACE PERMANENT ZONING ON REAL
PROPERTY KNOWN AS SUNRIDGE 11, LOTS 1-65,
REZONING SUCH PROPERTY FROM CONDITIONALLY
ZONED R1-20 TO HARD -ZONED R1-20 (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL), AND AFFIXING A PERMANENT R1-20
ZONING DESIGNATION TO SUCH PROPERTY, WHICH WAS
CONDITIONALLY REZONED TO R1-20 BY ORDINANCE
NO. (0)94-19; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH.
WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of August, 1994, the Oro Valley Town Council adopted
Ordinance Number (0)94-19, conditionally rezoning that certain real property known as
Sunridge (80 acres) from R1-144 to a zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential;
and
WHEREAS, oit the 27th day of September, 1995, the Oro Valley Town Council adopted
Ordinance Number (0)95-75, affixing permanent zoning that certain real property known as
Sunridge (80 acres) from conditional R1-20 to a zoning designation of permanent R1-20, Single
Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the owners of Sunridge II, 41.96 acres, have now satisfied all conditions
attached to the conditional rezoning set forth in OV9-94-7 and Ordinance No. (0)94-19;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY:
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Map of the Town of Oro Valley, as adopted by Ordinance
No. 58, as amended, be, and the same is further amended to reflect an R1-20 zoning designation
on that property known as Sunridge I1, a 41.96 acre parcel further described by the map attached
as Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. That the conditions set forth in OV9-94-7 and Ordinance No. (0)94-19
affixing conditional R1-20, Single Family Residential, zoning to that certain real property known
as Sunridge II are hereby determined to be met.
SECTION 3. That certain real property conditionally rezoned by OV9-94-7 and Ordinance
No. (0)94-19 and further described by map in Exhibit "A", attached herewith, in the Town of
Oro Valley, is hereby rezoned from conditional RI-20 to Oro Valley permanent R1-20, Single
Family Residential.
Ord. 96-47 Page 2.
SF&TION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, including
Ordinance No. (0)94-19 be, and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be
severable. If any section, sub -section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for
any reason, held to be unconstitutional, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley,
Arizona, this 4th day of December, 1996.
Cheryl Sailsky, Mayor
ATTEST:
KathryiYE. Cuvelier, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tobin Sidles, Town Attorney
POSTED 12/10/96 - 1/10/97
4:30 p.m.
jr
PUB: Daily Territorial
Dec. 12, 13, 16 S 17
REQ: Jane Roether
Dep. Clerk
EXHIBIT "A" is on file in the clerk's office, 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley.
RIMIDIT V'
Moore Road
Rl-144
NUNN go
14 p
'j
Sunridge 11
OV12-94-32
v
NO
350 0 350 700 Feet
IV13/96
i
LJ
0
,%ILNL;'1'FS OF TIiB MEETING
OR.O VALLFY II.ANN `t. AND :tONJJNG CONKNIMION 11T r:i'1 iG
JUNF. 7. 1994
CAI . TO M R: 7-.05 p.m,
Barry Gillaspie, C►taiitnan
Be" Baker, Vice -Chair
Bill Adler, Cotnrnissioixr
Oscar Rothenbuocher, C.ummicsioner
Brent Cluff, Cormaissioner
A@S�T=
Dennix Douglas, Commissioner
OTHERS PRU NT-
David'Wiilfams, Assistant Director
Dot Chatfield, Planner .11
)=than Crawl, 14&nneT I
Linda Thixnpsttn. P&Z CLrk
MINUTF5;
Bored, seconded (AdlerlRothenbtrecher) and carried by a 5.0 vote (Douglas -Absent) to
approve the minutes of the May 3. 1"4 PRT. meeting, a+rttended as follows,
Pare 2. Pamararh 2:
...Ben Baker agrrr0 tt►nt+++r�rkat*rtisce-ls#Ar► it; lrw-*sl*o nee8+ebeeitcminbir
that it is time we step back and take a real look at this, and encourage our Mayor
and Council to work with the Supervisors to develop an area plan that works and
the Town can afford.
Moved, seconded (AdlerMaker) and tarried by a 5-0 rote (Douytas - absent) to approve the
minutes of the May 12, 1994 p&Z Study Session, amended as follows:
Pane 2, t vat sentence.
Barry Gil laspie..questioncd why.the'Town apposed mixcddcmity .. simply assume that
property value is loo due to this. ► ' ^'TWA we
should question .what it is the 1 own Is doing that is causing this type of attitude and
try to find souse type of standards that would balance out lower densities next to
higher denshics, but in the past we haven't been able to get there.
6.7.94 F9anning and Zoning Coauniv.'i(tn,tlinutts
Page x
bi ge 2.. E auo +Y�.'
Bea Baker conunented that it might be in Ihcir I)w.intere.st if all five property owners
would kell out alulror pw-iuc a rezoning together. iic-whf; the
fwe wished tn-pursur sued a eaxcm'r ki l,e iixlu ird to suprdti-ih t3owever,
he is teal ettncerned about the five people out there and doesn't feel it would be
appropriate to go thong with four and abandon one. If the one nelghbor didn't have
I Iegitiettate concern, curh as his lifestyle, and was 5imply trying to hold things up,
he would not be as sympathetic to them.: However, %1r.. R.*uuTWs reluctance is eery
much a fircayte issue.
1. NTIN It FDPl!Bl1[ IMARML S).y2_29 RAticti0 Y1S705O
� IRQRH04D 7 pARCFI K RFol!n5r-* A!1.1ND THE plANN D AREA
D�[STP14F-NT
BarryGillaspie infenned be Commissiun that Bill Zadina has, ua mined;a letter, a copy of
which is before them. summarizing the outcome of diwussiunzs bCtween the residents, developer
aad builder. Judging from the contents of this letter. Barry elated heist of the problems concerns
seemed to have been worked out. Barry then asked DmM: to Fresent the staff report.
• David <(t:viewaf the staff report and stated that staff recommcrxls the acceptance of a minimum
5 acre park site on this Farrel, to be initially dedicated to the Town of Oro Valley. The Town
will then convey the property to the Amphl School District, with the addition of a deed
restriction assuring that the site will be uscl for recreational purposes. David rcferemcd Mr.
Zsdina's letter, which indivatcs:thal dire are property 0Wncrs opposed to the placement of a tot
lot north of Arrowsmith. Mr, Zadim also detimi that the neighboring residents would prefer
to go with a builder vAU will provide quality homes, such as UDC, than another builder who
maycume in and produce:lower•valued homes, However. UDC has indicated they would drop
the project if.required to redesign their plans in order to conform to the RI-7 restrictions.
Thereftm, the resldcnu of neighborhood 7 would like to cc the RI-7 resaictions removed from
this parcel, and the PAD restrictions adopted. David then outlined the three' recommendation
the n ighborhuod residents developed, which are as follows:
1) the 5 acre park site he accepted as a condiiton.of ilea rrzeenUC approval. -The
site khovid.bc deeded to Oro Valley and the Oro Valley.piamxn Should place
deed murk6pns on the land to preserve It as. a park.
2) The firn tier of lots ckrsest to Wvudbusne. Avenue (Lots 95. 96. W and 98) be
tcstrieted to singfc story.
3) 'FM developer will work in good faith with the residents of Neighbothood 7 and
the groups "Aing an Oro 'Valley's Master Plan for Parks, Open Space and
Trails, to create recreational spacc and facilities tectwecn parcels G and H of
:
. ... .. . . . ..........
1...-
0 h-7-94
1113rrtiing rend 7.o016g tas►tni.Won \IiuuErx
page
Ilntry' earl iiiicd 1n Mr, Ih•.ard:irf tt,:u it is his aced rat itx!ir>g dial the plat liar been arncnded..
I aking lbcsc.lots out bf the th-wdriaill.
MR )lalkrr;arpr[sctrlingsh \�'LU Gfoup nspl.-smicd ilsat the nrrwff will he divericd imth of
:%bore Road, rots,:the lligUutds 1\'acb, 11c Isla it :cssuld fx +(prbpriate 1a add r condition to
this rVicnint requiring divcr.ki n of the rurx>:T, Mr. Walker pi.•intcd cart the route the divicr icm
will take. alai comrrxrucd that l?A ds will hi di,�cricd to start with. -fix Cornrnission further
discussed flic wording frsr thi condition David suggested the cooditkin state that rfse upstteAm
improvernents; which rc,lbwe peak slows dtiriitg.lhc. ltx)-.year sturtn, tx completicd ptito to:
approvij of the plat for Pane! K.
JIM Adler inyuited if this diversion wcwtd have A r>4gstivc:impact cn the vCgrution in.the area.
Dtvid'x reply *35 yrs. it will hac'c;A txgative :impact, ahilse vc.'elation will be rrcciving irsx
water. :f1o%Vvcr. as futurc.tic••ch,pinem txcltrs adjacent to the wash. additional runorf will he.
created, David added that the vegetation in this vs -.tail is leers cigrt'iftcan;t than originally:thou.ght;
Hill Adlcr Alen axkcd \i!r. 1Yalker alitsut thr )ors or the *.ett ition, .and if they have ntf coucted
any i�pe of analysis that might address users cOnt.rrns. .Mr : Walkm replied that they have not.
perfomxd any studies ihataddresc this tslurslsecstr ally, Ile did }.rate, however, that the now.
coming frivu the lots to tba. nordt is dit"Eed timaids iltiS «asli area. f3n:nt Cluff etpressad it.
is in his cxperfence, that when water is rclslaccd friim,an.adjacrsrt area with paved services, it:
can, in fart, enhance the WEctatit,g becauw, they kvt W atvicd more frcrpscttily. 9i;, :WAIker_
concurred, and added that tst: divsn't,icct this will IV aiiemCndl?Lx detitttti llt 35 there w'Ifl tall
IV quite a hit of flow ttuuugh the area.
Hen Baker aakcd till. Vacs ivhitwiil Bcctrnle a>f the area they pt*x;cd io use as a tot tot Sim
the ncigbbors are igaimt consuticting 11, Mr. ;Maus de piirrd d that the Area will stay jrast as it
is now Ben dicn yucsticnted Mr. 7.adirta about the hnuschrlds oppascd to the tot lot, and hour
nrsrry'Of them there were. Hill Zidiita scplicd dial dw rkighlnyrxliving adjacent to the site W=
the ows guestionvd. which totaled 7 hotv4xilds. T\%o nelghhors, whose Nck-yards abut this
area, objected to the tot lot,
Bert Baker questioned the deed restriction which is ao be placed on the land being dedicated to
the s hool. and also questioned what the s:htxst irgCials to do withrhis property. sic wmild like
a beater ssrsdcr4landing a[xiut whether this land will retrain vacant sir it the school tvrn,td like the
option of placing buildings tin it. David •advised the Curnntistiion that the restrictive clause was
added in:rrslsc�n%e to neighhrultood concerns that the School District Might U$4 the site for
Wilding, parking or other »an leersatinrsal u.,es., In r�tdtT it,)pt:sce this restriction on the site,
David stated the Town would have to first take title, and then convey the site to the: District with,
rise addition of 3 rvstriction:stipulating Cite use of the prcilxrty. M i sty replied rlsat the tistal.
acreage hiring dedicated is suffrcicnt to cimsmwt the with a play field. However,
. ..... ..
0
i
•
' .xwNs S'•:J,Li6. AKv:JTXr.Ji. },.J �`^'^
6.7-94 Planning and Zoning Commission Al nutm Page S
them may be a need to place buildings on the C.e acre site, which would then cause the play
field to cross over, omo the s<hral site. Ikn Capirswd that he would like the deed restriction
to be.compatible with the School Districts nteds. David feels confident that staff can work out
appropriate language with the District, to ensure as much security as possible for the Met and
still provide Fite flexibility Commission desires. njcm Cluff exptesscd that he would like a
phrase,addW to be deed res"-1kan requiring ¢fat this, S acre site be:devclopcd at the saute time
the school is built:. Dr. Frey stated this restriction would he appsupriate and agreeable with the
School District.
Ben Bxker asl<cd Air. Mars if they have considered widening the entry way in order to rrttvitte
a left turn lane out of the subdivision. Air. Maes contmerned that it would be possible to do.
this,.but he is tot sure h is accessary since tidier points of egress are provided. If a traffic:
engitrtxr a=rted. that,a left turn lane was rscccsrary, Mr. Macs stated he wouldn't )rave a:
problem providing it. Hill Waller contends that with all the mber egress points available, this
left turn law is not nectssary. Ile added ►hut there arc not enough lots within this subdivi*m
to generate that much traffic. Hen expressed that.be..wtiwid like the Town's cogimefing-
department to rook into this issue.
At this time, Daffy turned the gavel over to `'ice-Chaimtan. Raker and nude the fullowing
Sian:
MoTlova Moved, wounded (GillaspietCfurl) and carrkd by a 5-0 vote (Douglas - absent).
to approve OV9.94-2 Rancho Visfusn Neighborhood 7, Parcel K Request to Amend the
Planned Area Development, subject to the standard and special cmditkms as 0711ten by
staff, wM the following udditiuns. 1) The area dedicated as a park rate. adjacent to the
school 0e, be. noiess than 4.93 acres, and that sufficknt ne%zhity be provided to staff
anowing them to develop deed restrictions which will be compatible to the School District's
heeds;1) Recommendation 93, of Mr. Zadma's triter, be attached to the rcxoniuf, sharing.
thai. the derelop¢rs win work in good Nib with the residents of Nefghborbood 7 and the
groups working oa Oro V211CY's Master Plan for Parks, Open Space and Trails,lo create
recreational space and facilities between parcels G and it of NOghborhood 7, and a natural
patbway along the power casemcnt.:In Bea of a got lot north of Arrowsmith,Road; 3) that
ats additional coadition 19) be, added stating that the upstream Improvcm uts, which reduce
peak flows during the 100-year stotvn, he completed per to plat approvsJ of 1'arccl K:
4) that condition N10 be added, stating tbe:enitre 15 a<re.aehool site shall be developed
simoltarteously,.which includes the school and associated recreational uses: and S) the
retuning be amended_to reflect the PAD standards.
Barry stated he would like to take agenda item 84 out o` bonder: atxl hear: it at this time.
i
6-1 ..' .
b7.y4 1'Iunuing and zwring C.arrmission ;Minutes Page 5
4.;�(t;C(it� (2E ALP_ t 113'ijlt)R11,�( nF MUM
David Will't;uns ii rMuccd lonathan Cruwc, tht:7own.4 pew planner 1, to the Commissiars, and.
commented that Don Chatfield. Pl:,nrex 11, was attending;tnnight topresent this item.
Dan reviewed ,the >taff rrixott with the Commission, informing than :that lbe Capital
Improvents Pmgram's (CIP) approved Will' iucludcs 512,i)01) to be used
meto hire a coiuvltant
to assist in preparing the CIP. The Town's rrntainutg S.I.O t match requirement Ntll be.
provided in the form of staff time for plan pteparation. Don explained that otti of 18 firms
invited to: submit.pioposals.:only four responded. Out of tbtsc four.firms (Gruen:Aswciates.
Partners for Strategic Action. Tiszhier an? Associates. and Willdan Associates), the CIP
Coruuhant Scirction Panel Invited three back fot interviews. The Comultans ScIM6011, panel
consisted of Steve llagedorn, Jim DeGrood, ilancy Gill, Dcut Chatfield, atxl Gcrte Riser, fie
three forms itt' C"cwed.crtnsistcd of Grocn Associates, partners, for Strategic Action —and
Tiscblcr and Associates::Don briefly described tJ,e process the selection pyrtcl resat! to score the.
the:
originai`four proposals. as.weli as the procedures used during the itaerviews. Raeod.un
ten Its of the irttcrxiews; tlx CtY COrsult= Selection Panel recommends that do Town contract
with Parmcrs for Strategic Action to complete the CIP::
Don concluded by cmpt:asiting the importance of gathering reliable data on public ptioriurs`Fat
Capital improvements. The selection panel lucarnc:au'ate. through the. Interview process, that:
a random telephone survey would greatly enhance the reliability .and validity of CIP priorities.
After much discussion, the panel agreed that die: CIP $Mold be Amended to include & random;
telephone survey, at which point they soti6wd aril accivrtl tv?o f•.apasals to comucr.sue}i a
wrvey, Proposals ,,ttc tccci►cd Room p6almrs for Suaw& Actian,(PSA) and Arizona Opinion.
and Yolilical ftescarch (AUR). Dan outlined the:cliffcreticcs in>nn tlnrlology heroin the two
firma::soul the costs Involved with Caen.
Gene Riser stated tic ebrnutx with the recommendation for additiOnA funding W. provide the
survey. Mr. Riser related Payson's experience in the CIP process, and added they strongly'
resisted thtt telephone survey. However, .cult, -inducting the survey, they found it be an
esaettdal part of the program: Mr. Ricrr couvcycu that the survey has to be totally unbiased and
the guMions correctly atructurrd and as*. If Rate in,tbi5 matter, it can be very useful and
even chartge thn direction of the results. Mr. Riser strongly recommends Commission accept
PSA's proposal. 11 is his opinion thot PSA would better coordinate the efforts ,Of.the survey and
provide tree services rheapes than AOPR.
Aarry.coaimt=4 that:he has always been under the assumption that staff knew what to.include
in CIP$.. Mr. Riser replied that this is true, however, nobody uvcr.knnwa:wh&t ttx public may
want, Typically; the. public won't participate in meetings. Tclepbtme surveys have proven to
be the best means far obtaining their input.. Barry speculated that this. may be ; good
Xede #Ai ....
... .. . ..
..................
J�5oa'cY:itioo�&.w.a�
................................................
....,��,.w�.,� �....,,Y�:Nl• eta. o:w,�.x> :j„:! ;
¢�:g t I*ianning and7nnfng Comntisuun Minutes page 7-
oppomutity sot pro Vailcy to become mum �cry a uriemcd suHarilx it's citizens,
Don:advised the Commission that the Department t)f Cumrrnt[x fccis.it is very int 'rant: to
;j,pocsihfc. Ile >pokc to elm administrator of dtis p,rgram about
gather as mt* h public inpirt
sckling ;he. icieplone sur►cy. and stated she was. exa iti d abcsut ttte possihility. Don added
al
this should rut be a 1}�pical
that within:the 3rant`wrifing.guidclitus, it wAs made ulcarthat
list, but a s tnutnunity driven effort. By, amdding this componcra, it fits with the
rnginccriag wish
lkpattmcrA of'Com erce's suatrgy and aiso ptovida a wliq t u►cmeau, and jxjrWrji(y fortcithcr tool
<.:...;.
obtain the cWjxas'.thoughts snc': feelings sfwut infrasttucturc., l . n
expenditures:
Bill Adler .oavcycd that it Us lv:cn his. cxprticstec.►hat nothi 'I new is usuait' learned fready lacca
to reinforce what
lthat
icesve
.surve s: nodan that wasn't a;feady i:zwwn• SurVc>s tend
Y ot reveal
slstcd to be the priorities.. It is his opinion tclrphorursri run t to be a Scrod
ltt a c>`i
priorities or ehanges:.dircction vf:thinking_ that sebatd, ..
investracnt:.
eTc
Baal Cluff:feels that the Town would get a lot more of.. the su..ey If the public R ter.
the ey to conducting.A. M r.
•
�i red far : tt, and iofotmatioa regarding s priot
reiterated that the. language and the suuct= of:the questions are cxtti:inely impottan+
Oscar Rotticnturrc I;ct menEwnod that ifs survey is done, the Town needs to keep in mind that
113 the residews go ay.•ay in the summer: To avoid'upscning any of these
had
upproximawly :of
residents. consideration should be given.to the timing or the survey_ Don voiced. that this
on conducting the umcy this f
been taken into account. and they have, ibcrctim. planned
the Town is samew•hal u.+nstraincd.duc to the fact that quarterly updaux are requ
.:
However:
by the DepkAmclu Of Commcice.
t
In Bea'; Opinion, conducting the survey this Sommer shmidn't be a real problem. Tho done
Pl be
can;be called, hack is the fall. There is al%'ays inte+im.vcork ► cbstttmttiaa
uen't:mailable the
itrbctwcen.. It is: his feeling that we almost have to do these S)rvcys in order to
l,e for the sunny w'Lvk as Well, lit then
dtrisintts. Den strongly agrees tbat PSA fUvld used
YSA's Proposal to have staff do the calling, and the ensti that will be involved whit
questioned
this. Dori clarffrcd iitat +his staff time wilt be additional ism. asidt from the $9.000.09 match
he asked AQPR their opinion
to prepare the CiP: He informed the Commission that previnuvly
Using Town staff w �10 the calling, AvPR goest,tx,cd the ahjcetivity of :Town Stott to ask
about
file i(t7CSif0ni and rill ixtt t11e. fontls, as well. as Staffs wdlingncss-_10 stay Involved with .the
...
in tluse::Instames. that staff mrmbcm will start out w:th a lot of.
:::•:::
Project. it is thcit'cxperiestcc
on,. his Interest sterns: to dwindle.
at ..
irduest. twt time goes
Brent Cluff asked Don how much additi<I funding he is rcyursiing. j)vtt szts cn d that he
Punching to meet ttte costs of AOl'R's`prvpvut of 37,250.00: Ben
would like crxntgh additional
.................
6-7.94 I'Luming and Zoning Commission Minutes >�
Hakes atggestcd that he cote of staff, time be added to pSA's prrslxnst to make the difference
in price cleat. Hilt Adler conumnicd that be Mxiwd to xprrrding nxwey on this anyway, but
if it is something the Town is geeing to do the mcUxxioingy slnzaW :l>L:lcw1 at melees Hiatt cost:
If tlr.Tov» is going to :spctxl the:momy on ihc.survey, mcthadolsryry >hould be the deciding
factor. Don cxprp;wd that in terns.5 of ntr&Aulogy he kauld mcommcnd AOPR. In running
the a tmtrrs, it appears their xairplc,size rouses much cancer to pmviding the 4% margin of
,error. Don has worked with this firm in the pAst, ;114 has ticen very pleased wyth their
pn-yi'eminnaiism.
Hcn aAier concurs that this information >tiswld prrkabiy be, some I credible if coming from a
rese.uO group. rather than Town employers, aW would truly reflect independent rexponscs.
Gene Riser shared that in his:exprrienee the caliers wrtrn't,allowed to comment on their
op'mlon, biittold to only: tad the gtiestions directly. According to Grnc, if thc.surveys are done
rigM, using staff can be :very effective. Barry :Gillespie $tated he is to arrcttet with strtfi
and the selection committee report.::tte feces the planning commission shiwhd support their
reeommendatimn nn the selection of the con+ultaw and be wppor}ice of tho additkutal funding
for the telephone survey. 'Ilse Town should be more coma niry. oticntrd and rww wxrukt be a
gored time to start.. Harry added that he has the utmost confidence in the recommendations made
by the selection committee.
MOTION. Moved, seconded (Baker/Adler). and carried by tr 5-0 vote (Dolton -, absent)
to positi+Ay support the Selection Panel's rrcornmendmion, and ask that The T OW n Council
support of the CIP St;lection Conunittee's.choice for a OF Cvi>sultarrt-
MOTiObi::tloved, seconded (Daktr/Cluff) and carried by a 4-1 vote (Adler -no: Douglw
absent)) to poxitipely reeummend to the Town Council, authorization for additional funding
to conduct a sttr+ry in wpport of the CIP proses
�„fyv.t
......................................................................................................... .............. .
G-7-94
Phwning and Zoning CtouniWon Minutes
Page 10
ominrd from the konditions, ;Mr. Wituen.would consideration to
the eastern tierof lots, 15• 28, in telation to the height tcstric•ticnr listed in Gandilion 011. These
lots are separated from Naranja Rancb by the wash. C.spcvially lists..?-2-& which so west of
thc.wash creating a considt-tsble separation. Mt. Wimers:4tatcJ thcy have no other objections,
aside from the rbovc-mentioned cnnsiiksw1i*nas. Fir.ally, in rcguds to the eonct:ra over tttass
grading, Mr. Wuurrs beliuvcs the corxlition regtiring them to set aside a
reastatues) preservation
a, 20 - 70 Net wide alwtg the ttwo*ulrsasds, in coo juta:tion with preserving the wai;has,
will prohihil the disturbance of avast majority of the vrgctation. The areasalong the edges of
the pralxrty Will also be supplenarmcd to enbarwc the tots_ Ms. Winters expressed that they
need to be able to develop enough units to make the a+st of the buffers, trails, aW open space
teasorsahle:
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
protMrlents; No orx: from the public wished.to speak, at this time.
Kathryn Mthosn.. 9140 N Manse. Place, expressed that she is very happy to>hear 'about the CIP
study and the inclusion of the community. Tonight, Wwtvet, the is cotxetned with the nutaber
of tezonings that have occurred in Oro Valley. and the limited amount of low. density toning that
still remains.. Ms. Ehrhoro voiced: her opinion that pro Valley nerds to be able to provide the
diversity and ,lifcstyletliat iirigimily:tmsughi people to nno Valley. She:speeulated that there
is pu twbly only 4.5 % low density zoning kti:in tine Town for devekspmept::Open space Is very
important to most of the propleresiding here. She<que,%iros if the Town wilt pay muo
attention to the results of t1te: rrlrphone survcy:.thal will be conducted in accordance with the
C1P. According to Ms. Ehrbora the residents tit Oro Valley arc Using pitted againg each other
in An effort to maintain their chosen Way of life. Ms. Ehrhorn is afraid the low density zoning
is rapidly disappearing,.and with it, the`extraordinary riparian hsbitats.. The -thought of tntu;s
grading this area:'S Very unsettling to her.
PUBLIC IIEAAING CLOSED
Bill Adler commented that during the on -site eater, he made it known to:WI:B's represeotstive
that he was conccrwd about the: cxrnridor around the wash., lee doesn't feel the lot layout
provides any protection to the vegetation surrounding the wash ar. ,had d.ornted WiB's
representative that he would kilt to see the corridor widened. In his opinion,_ the vegetated area
is much wider than it appears to be on the snap presented. toniglx which dtxsn'! address any of
his concerns: Mr. Wirurts, rrplied (hit he pass unaware of Alt. Adler's cotr4ms.: Ile did not
attend the on -site tour and his conuntrus were never rcla)vd_ to him. Hill then explained the
area surrounding lots 7.39 and 6-100 tacompasses cotsiderabtc vegetation, which he feels needs
to be pmtecied. lie would like.to sec the cull -de -sacs in the eastern portion of thcproj=
A
_...................................................................................................................
.
............................................................
.. .
. T
6-7-94 Inanning and Zoning Commission tfinutes Page 11
shortened. Carl counttett rd that he 6wld accommodate this change and make the tors larger
which would open the atea up. morc. Mr. Winters would prefer that. rather tban cont'sstuiug this
project. Commission approve it sub*( to Mr. Adler's cc+nrcrns.M is:g raken:cue, at.
Ben Baker exptt;ssed that he can't support mass grading of dies area, but is willing to accept the
same density and conditions as approved for .'tfr. Donicy's prtilway. which is adjacent to this
site. :Mr. Wintcts said he understands Mr. Baker's corncetns, lwwtver, this parcel is very
difficult to honk with due to the tocirlion of the wa-sh. The parcel artoss the street and the
corner lot ha►e abcady bccn desigimucd ascomincrcial property. Mr. Wintersdoc>n't feel that
it makes *,whole lot of sense to require lower densities amongsl,ibc commercial uses. Ben
tIcmarkcd that the market. will delenuine what is sctaally built tin the two precis Mt, Wiwi$
Is referring to.
Bany:askal io be reminded of rlx conditions plaLc,d on Donicy's property. lie then asked M5
Ehiborn if the tow density zoning remaining:within Oro Valley:nccessarily needs to occur here,
on this project. The Town of Oro VAlcy . made a commitment to a kit of people with .the
adoption ofit's first General Plan. It may be more 41rropriatc, at this time, for Oro Valley to
start Icasstossinit the remaining undeveloped property, and decide where the Town wants to go
in the: future.
In response to Barry's,question concerning Imniey's conditions, David replied that there is a
height restriction or.18 feet, mars grading. don: occur on the site, and Mr. Donley is'not
restric,cd to 1/2 acre lots, as thought by a few of the Commissioners, In fact, there are many
smaller loft located within his pmjcct. David explained that it is the gross density that allows
tht:1.7 RAC, trot she lent sixes. The hits are narrow and small, which is the basis of most of the
rtcightiming'resLI&nt's.complaints. To say that there is no mass grafting on Naranja Ranch is
inaccurate; David rccotnutended;to the Commission, if they are interested in eliminating the
mass grading, 'that the lots. be a minimum of 112 acre lots:Ben Bakes stated he is in support
of 1J2 acre lou with no mass grading.
Mr. Winters' feels that.the most efficient density would be one tlrr allows a 70.90 fixer minimum
lot width. As the lots get larger, there is a tendency to create urban sprawl. Mr: Winters
maintains that he would personally identify dense areas unptniasl enough not to grants and.5ct
that they Are preserved. lie then indicated that he can point out nanny arras around town. with
low density zoning, what the vegetation has been dcstro>ed by horses, corrals, etc. Low
density and yrgetatirm presevation don't necessarily go hand-in•hmtd.
Barry stated that both sides have twcn well stated. Mr. Baker has trade some very valid points,
howxver, the trend for this area has been set long ago. Barry sees three choices.available., go
with staff recommendations as they am, continue the case to deal with the setbacks from the
Wish as Air. Wintrrs.has offered, and see if he can come up with a better design, t.+r deal with
..........................................................................................
N 1 A€ a 4.
d n in nrissit n. 1 u i ' rni d Com n ti• 9 PI; and 7.+m 1
8 tf �
»:>
...«.><-
the mass grading:by changing the densities. an Harry's t5Qirtiun, larger kxa dot t always rrca3c
she desired outcama due to the larger hinncs built on Ihm arnt the additional amenities these
1ximeownets want.
Bill J�dier ,asked if the rt+tridur uve wed =d nn either side of the wash, snot ft lots
immediately abutting the wash rliminatcd, would the cconaniiey of the balance of the :s�rte
f ..,
ntandate that the: lots be larger. :Mr. Winters replied that be mould prolnNy end. up with
»>:<:;:r>..........
......:w: •. n.. r
Itl.000-12.M01square fiNx lots, hmsever, they prabat;ly wouldn't get all the way to 112 acre
After: furtherdiscussion teSarding the lot sizes, and posaiblc changes in design adjacent to the
iK •;:...................... _
WAFh,:Ben BakGr:el?mmenled:that he didl►'t. Want to place a 112 3Cte.t:ort5:tatnt On MT. Wiattxs
iS......................:-
: .
at this . int. lie recuni rends a continuance to allow them mete time to. rc arc a fe►ised ma
: :i : : ' :" '::;
showing lhG ratan C.5 t0 the wash area, as discussed tonight.; 1 1C develapershautd be given an
g
'
opporttmity to come in with a plan that Meets the Cpamiiscions concerns.. Bill Adler concurred
with Mt, Baker. At this time. Barry ce<:}wraged ,the Conuuissit to go with a motion to this
cffczY, but suggested Mt; Winters might want to talk further w ith. David regarding condition 917,
;:::::;:;::;<;<:,:.::;c'•:.�..::::..::::..
which an attempt to do a more xw:ccssftrl Sub with the wallies.
.;
MOTION: >�fo►rd, seconded (8al:d/Atlkr) and carried by. 'a'St)rvite illotrglat - abscxtt)
to continue OV9 94,9 is Cholla/\arartja Drive. Rezoning Request to the stet rrgularty.
•:,;;;.;;;;;::;>:;;>;::;:;:;.;::;;'
scheduled Comrnl4xlrra. trcctirtg uiJuly -% 1944..
3. Ylllii.]('HEARING - f)v4-514-7 Si:T!S'r 3tl=lba'ro
t itta thu this Barry Gillaspic asked, due o the incennpleicness of the: rezoning subm I, item be
continued to the next regularly scheduled Ci-rntrtisskrn netting.
MOTIM Moved, seconded (BakerlCluM and carried by a i 0 watt (Douglas - absent) to
txintinue 0V9.94.7 Suoridge Rtronlog Requesd to the next regularly-wheduled Cornmiseiorr
'o#:.....a..........
>:>#:<:>:»;
surctlug'of July S, 1994.
w t a 't i u and Bear It at this i Barry stated tic Hold. like . o take agenda i e n pb out f yrdrr. s time.
6. t'O\1MISS(CMR5 OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION
v
k :x
k a
Hatiy Gillaspic nrqucsted That staff place clue fntaenving two itcrns on the upcoming P&rZ agenda.
~^�4: ou* "
Tbe'first item is to bring to the Planning Commission, an initiation of Gemal Plan update. 'the
pugose.for the updaic relates to the fact that.ii has been S:years since it's adoption and he would.
r
like to evaluaw the plan and it's consistency With the Town to provide for,growth.
p 8 .Barry is also:
S .,,yr>.,:..,:,:.::....
conamud about Oro Valley's small-time budget and big-tirnte developirem problems. in his:
.. .:..R <000..caca.:R>- .oYsi:$C+kRC47Ct vaw•..:•.N'w✓an,
.. .. ::. .:> u. c'
opinion, the Town ircds to re•rvaluam .the General Plan and oildicss the issuci tieing, brought
up to oFtpWW611 to the CttrrCttl Wf}nfns.4. *I'M Town 3150 MCOS W CVaIWIC She: substanct. and
fumm, of how Site. Town is going to treat PADS. 'file stcond item is a.study sessiim relating to
the addition of a tipar an habiut vidinatwe for the Town of Oro Valley, I1en ifaker asked if this
could be combined a ith a ttati>e plain utdinattec. Flarry puintcd uut that wjt�n ;he scope of an
ordinance :is btmden, it tends to uwke them Itstd t0_1i910w. Nvid advisrd Son tltat:the
preservation and salvage of vegrtalit is Imated in.ft. landscape vidinince, which will br
placed on a future agenda for discussionlrevision,
Breal Cluff addCd that not im long ago, the Commission discumd the fact that OIL GeW12.1 Plan
did not spmiry which one of the R1-144 proipcatics were gc+ing to the kfl ss RI-144. .Brent
inquired as to these discussions and waled he was under the imprrssiva this IcTic was relegated
to the brae rite faiwnission would go back aitd aiimid the Gemml Plan. Barry answered yes..
that was the plan.
David briefly updated the Cm=ission on the tluee ante mioit areas. in the Peninsula
Annexation, petition cirt:ulators are continuing to canvass the Copper Creck Subdivision area.
rite possibility of adlttlonal pm•annexation agrcrtnents for the M&Cor pfoperty and New
Worts Development still exists. Ttuse agmements. if they cone ituo being, .►ill he presented
to the Commission for review prior to going. to :Town Ccwncil. Prescady, the Town has
acquired appraximatcly 300 signarures, with 300:more reyttircd prior to Oc:low, 1994..fax the
annexation to be succe6srul.
The Southem Arutrxatinn is still in the information gathering tage, which should be. complete.
early this fall. once the,newsary information has been gathered.. laps will ba recommended
to:ute:Town Council.
7tte_ Westetly:Anncnation will go back to the Town C..ouncil :in a study simitm, in order to
resffirm ihr Coumil's commitment to the annexaticwaf unincorporated areas west of Oro
Valley.
'1 4MUMPS
Dayid repot" dut ire received a>note from the Town Attorney's orftce, requesting that the
parking cock be,updmcd to meet ADA stamlards. Fie would like to. do a comprehensive rewrite
of tore parking 'Code. due to the fact that Ft is prescntly Very gt rtcrol arid. dose tun irxlude.
specificity to certain tppca of land asses. For example; any typo of.commercial land use is
ttquired to provide the sarnc arnount of parking as arty:o1ltcr.c�uuttrnial use. Fle:wsmki like
to sec she parking rryuirernems mume Tccific to the types of use: on the land. lie anticipates
bringing this to the Commission in July and comrrtcnted dot .is tlxwldn't be a complicated
9
procedure: Bang suggested that David invite a Building Cole offCirl from Pima County, t
give prekntation on ADA requirements. In ot& to m Wify it con"tly, it would help.i
cvcgnne involved Nttcr understood the requiremcmx. ►avid than advised dw Commission tha
he -is ,asking for CAmmitSfon agtemrent to initiate the larking cndc rewrite.
MOTION. Slut ed, seconded (Cluff/Adler) and earful! by a !4 vote (Douglas - absent) to
request that staff initiate a rewrite of the Parking Code Section of the Zoning Code
Raised:
At this time a member of the audience asked to address the Commission.
Paul Crawford, 14565 N. Twin lakes Dtive, Cawlins, informal the Commicsi-i dml be likes
getting involved with Town istucs, but has a problem getting through the legalese and the
concepts of the:meclUV. lie wtwld like 'ta,sce more of the public involved in these meetings
and: feels they may be intimidated by the reasons be, mcntiorgad. It secros.to him. that the
dc►elopets.come to the meetings, ptccent theVpnijee . and move an without taking the area
and Tesid6us imo ateouar, fie %VVow like to we. the commiukin ante up with a. way to enspge
Or. public, and.kccp them here t4omghout the entire meeting.
MOTIO.M.: hlo►ed, seconded (BakeriCluM and carried by a ." vote(Dougtas-.abwnt) to
ADAOI.t12N the: meetlag at 10.00 p.m.
Submitted by.
C
Luxla Thompcan, P&Z Clerk
... ...
.. .:. ...:.:.
WAWNSOMOM
\lid! 11,5 Ul= Iilii 111:i:i XG
GRO Vs1�i.LEY LA:'�NING AND ZONING C,t MMISSlt)N �1EE -TIN
JULY 11, 1994
t ,I:L, 7 h (2Rl)l:R .7 05 p.srt..
PBj:_S F:
Brent Cluff, Gonuni.ssioner
Bill'Adler, C.oulmissioner'
Oscar Rothenhucchex.:Cesmmissioner.
I}rnnis.Dougins, Contmissioncr.
Miriam Kennedy. Commissioner:
OTliFlt�$ PRESENT:
David Williams, Assistant Director
Jonathan Crowe, Planner i
Linds Thompson, P&Z Clerk
Commission r Cluff aiitiiscd that an acting chainrtan would need to be appointed to chair
tonight's meeting due to the fact that harry Gillaspic has.resigned from the Comtnissivn.
MOTIONt ':4 ot<etl, Winded (DougW Rothenbuecher) and:carrird by a 4-0 vote '(Adler-:
Absent) appointing Comm.I � oner Brent Ctuff as acting chah man for tonight's Planning
Commis on meeting,
Brent Explained to all tho.s.c: prmml tonight that Baitry Gillw<pir and :lien Baker are no tongrr;
scaring on.the Planning Cuinin64i6n, atul stated his alp eciation for all their years of, service.
MjN jt Fj:
Mated, scctntded (Ruthenbumher/Douglas) and tarrlcd by a 4-0 vote (Adler-.ibsent) to
approve the Woutes :of t e June 7, 1994 PRZ met -ling, wriended as rollo irs
rage 4. farm, PAA:
Been Cluf f expressed it is lets + xpcdence, thm that when crater is
c� e � P .i•�;t<i.I?.h��.
In :order to: place this restriction in the site;
C' .mMisxion Adler joined the meeting at,7:?Ct p>sn.
PUBLIC M.-,AKIN(:....t�y..•.�
REZONING R 01.11-ST..R.l i :t,.::,�t) L-72
David inircduced the half repo" into (lie recutd, During the Julie Inecting s ntlinber:.of issues.
were; discussed, which have 1-cn.addressed in tits rcvtSvd platt'ltf►:ire.Compl scion tonight.
David in i)rmcd Commission that she numbt:r (if lists gave beer► ticcreasid by .I A recreation
area htts;bcen dexignatcd on the xcts�kd plat, that is t1w right size: and in a very suitable location.
Tbe ove tall density for this •tiNivision.-is now 2.7 units per acre with an average lot size of.
10.0(* set, ft. and a ntiniinum lot see of rJ.t> * sy. ft, Due to the fact that 'the prescmcd
I�cgclatiott areas have hcet> huffiring is being provided,. David feels that,
niass grading of the lifts tl ouscivcs should be pi:rxnissihle:
.Carl Winters. Winters & f1mwr6ates, gave a MCI` synopAs of this project to bring thc:rncmbcrs,
up to slate. lie: adviscd the Commission that Kit f)onlo is prc;.e:nt.tonightnnd is:now in support
of the revised Tenutivc Mvelopnient Plan. Mr. Winters continued mvicu.-irig the changes nktde
to the visa plan in comparison with last montli's plan. In rwspanse :a :sir. Adlcr's contme nts,
they have widened ttse riparian itret significantly. 'Mis does two things, first it takes the area:
where thcrc:is,the grcatcu amount of vegetaiivn and prescncs it. Socandly. they are %.-ay back
from the edges of the wash now. They have tied the rccruationa tea into the riparian area and
10 provided linkage thruughaut the subdivision.
Bill Adler commented that tic is concerned with the La Cholla c.nl.ry and the sp ed.w uch traffic
mores along the thoroughfare. Ile would like to avoid having: cars.pedestrians, and bicyclists
moving.. in find out of this area until it hats X-en sig.pliz.0 to slaw traffic down. Bill asked
David if there was some way that .this traffic' situation could be connected to Clover.,to
coprdinatc the aniMpatc-d devels);?mcot and traffic of -leis area, so tlxarc is only ooc entryonto
La Challa as apposed to multiple entries: David replied ihat they have discussed providing
wccss to that parcel to the north without mandating. miry onto La Cholla and circling around.
Omther: pmr ihility is to determine iltc .recess ,onto- la Cholla as temporary. but in David's
opinion, it would (le better to slave the Ilaflic down on La Cholla. T c Town will.ttced to work.
With pima County oil this issue. Carl Winters stated they inay be able to add deceleration and
acceleration '.antes at this point.
Oscar Rothrnbus c)tCr 'stryuircd ar,tcr ttti;ricrrcral dirt.Ytion,,ctf:the draina
ge aver the site, and if this
could possibly cauke a cascading etfcet irtto<dw floWplain. In particular, he is .concerned about
lots 1.8-26 and 73-83, which are every close:to the floodphin limits. lint questioned if the Town
half taken into comideratii?n, the potential of additional drainage :frinn the lots to the north. Jim
DeGrood advised the Commission that this project. is rcgoircd to. form a mietttiortfdetcntit}n basin
on•.sne. Depending upon the clas%ification of the basin. they wilt either nerd todctnanstrate that
tlx y, on their own, arc not irurcasing rltc flow 6-cr the OanncL or they will havc to provide
additional rapacity in time Channel or build Tlreir houses and lots, up high enough that the future
flo.%vs can be pasx:d Nvithout hamming the properties,
... ':: .: . ,..:>h{2JD�74.424A0..wK.'CYri•::J..{.{{:µ�Ci�Ti?•'1,1�P
r
11
0
7-M-914
['lamriryti ;isrtl zollittf; C (linutlsslon Minutes
Pstar 3
Dwit)ia Douglas :sited David alxrut the buffers .;ts;l right-of-way oil
llaranja and La Cliolla. 1)a►id atuwctcd that a minintuin 25' buffer-:consikting at natural
vegctatinn: ctihanL d ticgetatiust and larKl :ipittg is r�guirc�d, 16'lsLrc. flit pretirycd rwcution
is not 20 fr ct it) ►width, the develcjper leas cspMCd to lzrOVide latldscaping in'the: right -of: way to
meet the 15, requirettlent, with the Town'] igine-er's ;lpprov;d. Iknlrts lben questioned why the
Town is giving Property to the dt vOoper. 3iin [cplied fh;;t the Town is not giving t ropcsty: to.
the developer, butatcquiring; landscaping in flu rig.tlt•of-w;ly at no centio the'ro.wm They will
not. how&tier; allow dw ilcvcltrlscr to place. lan&c spin_ In any aTca this ik liere:«ill W needed
f6i future toodway improvements. There will plobahly ;mat be any :mutt; Hull) a lo' width of.
landscapins within the right-of-way for ba fet. Ifix. Douglas tli ri asked shy David is looking
at;lot 1 rather than ,lot 2 for the trail area.. David collunciiied that the Town.is loOk-ing :rt the
area between lots l an&2 or be;twcen lots :2 and 3, 11c would Prefer th;ir residents are:not "ent
out into,the right<of-w.iy to get to - the trail. dwrcf ire. he is intoeited in, come type: of: irttcroal
access. Dennis then commented on the recremion area and; its prc+itusion .into the natural
corridor atca, and if this cruses staff arty co crtt: in response, David stated in this particular.
case it does not cause staff any concern, This recreation arcs+ fills within the expanded grcentx:tt
area, toot in the riparian area or the flood zone, as seen in tether instances, MOWN cornmcmcd
on the first tier Of lots and the I 18' height limitaticin. David teplicd that this restriction was
based on an objecti zn letter the Town rcceiv<d fume all adjacent PrOPMY akvcicr, hflwevCr, the:
objection teas been withdrawn, so ibis condition can also be wit!tdratvn. Dennis gbcstuancd the
setbacks on :lot 65 and ackcd staff if a reasonable huildintt site could be treated. tin this lot
David expressed that staff has netted concerns ogee this lot, however. :icappurs that. it will be
passable. Any lots that are being planrwd which arc not buildable, will during the.
platting stage. There is a sight visibility iswc in question here, and theof the.
roadway :will shift when these reads ar4 deAigtu:d to Town standards which may itifart enlarge
this fat. If sight visibility and set back requirements cannot be inct, the lot will simply go away.
Arent Cluff questioned the trail access: and if it's :placement along the West boundary of lot 1 is
still comet, David replied that if it were to be located outside of the public right-of-way along
tltc'west boumlary, i1 woul;l be okay, but not the best choice:. Staff would rather sec it between
lots 1 and Z or 2 ;Ind 3. David further sp1-cified0at the bust access would be:Nt-,vccn lots l
and 3. Carl W-Onicrs -stated this location is. fine with them.
8 t111dler <addreSscd ilu rsctie of tlrovrding>a tinear:park along the: outer regkm of the preserved
area: in order to achieve greater acce'SMbility. CArf Winters coinnicaud that they can either snake
This a part of a lineal aria that.is along the floodplain or they can plant.grass. llc7 personally
would like to sce it.extcrid all through this area.. Bill vi;iccd a preference where tttc option is;
availablc,;to leave the recreation arras out of the wa<ltcs in order to provide better accessibility
to the residents of flee area. lle finds that the sttiall designated areas crt.Me. acccss:problems
ratltt;r :dean alleviate them. .David concluded by saying that there arc no established design:
standards ror rectcation areas at.this time, IIe reels, howcver.:that Ole slt;cpc of the rcercation
areas provWyd tin the rcvis.ed map provides a better opptirturiity at iltis time: A linear park is:
scinicwhat lunited to traits and picnic facilities.
-11-94 Planning'and Zoning Page 4
PUB11C HE-MING OI' 'hED
�_I?Pn..9JRtS:
Patrick Riley, 11401 N La Tan -•a I.}tiv4, inft)slatctl the. C()rtlnli«ion that he lives directly
ix�rtheast of this Project. 'fie ,tins yell that it has lxcrl a lung baldc to get lower dcnssities in,
tht$"area. is still quite high. and Still Ntjuitcs Mass gmding. The
rc id[nts in tliiS area %&)n't agree with their conditions a11d dc,5ire lower densities and olore
natural Vegrtation, 11e docsll't reel this ky O t3 VOoptnrrit is appropri:atc for this area and is
wondcring :%410vvit.11in the Town is allowing thus,.: high dellsitit:s 10 O)nlc in. Thnlughout all of
these nletlings. he keeps hcal:ing staff rcfer to detentia)Cl4clention Inisins but doesn't see any
deru)tetl on the plans; IIc ag e.cs with Adler. in th a the cnttlace into this project,
off of La CholIa: is very darlgcrtlus I>ecstuse )f'the Itigh specils. lie then tluestioned the.
County's plans for: cotlstruc.ting. asix-l:truz rnadway lure, and asked if there is c11(u)gh right -cif
'way for this. Jinx DcGraod wnfirined that: there is ct)oupli. room for what. the County is
Contemplating. :sir. Rilcy.cupressed that tht: Town is setting a>prcccdcuce by allowing this
density, *Wllen lots adjacent to the sitc..,a t".12.00O - 18.000 sq. ft.
In res�i.n�c, Mr. Winters staled that thc�: issues have t, ell diu t3�scd extcnsiucly over the past
several Ynenths, and unfvrtunalcly.tln,te was never any attempt on Mr. Riley's part to attend the
public hearings or m akc his conccrns known dorirtg the c►rMe of this ptoJwct...°I t)c:zn'snirrium
lot size for this subdivision equates a' 5 RJ%C,;18,gW sq: ft. lots. would equatc a 2.4 RAC.
which 1s riot tllat ix -stable of a difference.'It is leis feeling that t1w majotity of the community. is
interested in saving the riparian areas: whi6 is achievcd.by clustering the lots. It has bcen his
expericru AhIat t}rc:first thing owne:rs.of.larger lots do is fig up the cac1U%; and clear a major area
for hotsa s,. dogs, etc.. which itt:ths lung run. has the same effect. W1131 he is; proposing sets
a new standard t nnitting the w•ashcs tt1: he left .aInne anti press:rving; Marc open space than in
the past.
PUBUC HEARING CLOSED
Dennis Douglas agrecs'with the ctirlcrpt i)f Ieadiciing i>ut developpicnt:as it moves toward the
Ton olita Mountains, which this sulidivision does IIe: shun mentioned, the FAC of adjoining
develtal�tsk gilts, Which fiialicr:bids;to the <:t>ncept,of feathe-ring <11tt as the develuptncttt prttcecds
ntlrtll.
Bill Adler`staud: that he has capresscsl .bi.S:vk s:a►past meetings .arW will iruntit ue to take each
property into acsou.nt based on its ►ncrits; _.lie is not influt:necd by pn'udena c. and, therefore,
not: in luctxcd hy':tdjaccnt.ur abutting propertit s. Col Ivanissiaa)er Adler feclx the vegetation has
ba:cn ptcscMd in the Ixst;ix ssibte manner. and he is prepared it.-, t►)ppo thisapplication subject
tc� scvt:ral ctiputatictnc. .
In Ilrc C opin.on, %he pctitiolle hats cone a lung u;ty in addressing tI1c Tnv►n's. various
:::.
... _ ....
7-11-94 Planning and hieing COMnyis4011 ,-NUnules: Page 5.
i
requests. If the Town required a st;itrslarcl 1f2 a tc Toning. on this Parcel, the out olttc Uvid he
a less dcsivablc project. Public aiccss: Weald is; very litttited acid dic ovctall prtsjc4t Nvould not
he as visibly attnitaive:
David p0intLd ottt 10 the Ccrrurtissis?n th;li SN"ll Condil''(in #21 should show a limited density
of:.2.6..:trr 93 lotal dwelling Units. al requests that Commission except this I change in their
motion. David Would also like a stipulation added. with requiring the:
trail access it), be lc?cated between lots I 1 and 2,
liU!'1C►; :'Ifo�c�d, seconded (Douglas/Adler) and curried by S U Viatr appruvirxg t)V9-34•4.
I.a +Chollall\Tarailja Drive Rezoning Request.(RI-14i to 111-7), subject. to the standard and
3perlal conditions stet forth by the �'o+ntt's Planning and E 1., tscrring staff, ;unending spiclal
i ondition 121 to show that the dc;rtssty is limited to 2.6 RAC arldhir gar total.dtirt�lling units, :and
adding stipulations requiring that tile trail acct.�as e2.seinent 1)v pro. id bct~<�,ern lots 1 and 2,
'and a decc:leratiun lane be added Ili the entry point on La Choila Boulevard.
David reviewed tlac staff rept:rt with the Cornmission and infs>rmed there that ths- RAC slu>Wd be
atttertded to:1.3 ratites than the 1.6 listed in the sta1T report. lie adviwd the GO !mission th.I he
lies n�seffect a letter from an adjaccstt property owner. who is requesting he be granted a sewer
caseznt:nt.:acceptablc to Pinta County 1'►'rs4te�iater �lastagetnent;.ssi}pre l+rialc ly l< :ites3 for connection
f am hit property to the st wt;r Sy in the proposed development. David . repor ed that the
Tentativs l3sevclt>pint nt Plan is sensitive to tiu: spins: 'wash, traversing the .site: prese.rvittg it as
common area open space. however. there is a ru:9 tivc isnpact to the Iwo smaller Hashes; on the site.,
In order to permit striding of 25%..slopes, a minimum oac•acre of is required and .staff'
tccommcrxls that lot 96 he deleted as it creates significant aisturhance to the wash: Staff also
questions the feasibility of lot 87. tts the building pad is,itvated barely outside:. of the tloodplain.
Jim DeGros-A reported that public works has no objections to -this project subject to the especial
conditions listed in his staff rcix rt. Dennis Dituglas ass cd Jim to clarify condition #3, acquiring
discliargcs`to be added to the tcruatiVls: dcveloprnent plan. Am explaincd that this requires the IO -
Year flow, rates to be. identified on the plat prior to going b&)rc .Council.
Clscar Rutixnbueeher asked David to vrhat extent the twos 4mali�r washi'a �vcwld l>e iinpactcd and
if I,h CYIWOitId be eliminated. David eotunh:nted that they would rvotbc eliminated, to the order that
elimination will t.>i4 occur on the. plat erty tc> tltt: south, v"here Hutt w'sti:t>c a road where there was
once a " ash. 'Ills: tyres.of impacts that s4ill. occur will be numerous crossings nexcssitated for
drivC.W,J}sand �:i>tttc ens:roaaclunctit fr Mtn a house pad. I o vcvs r, this is Mtn impr<►vetrticnt over. tlts
treatment of smaller waslhes on the ptolnFty tv this se?uth: Ilic are mins.. washes and the.amount
of riparian ticget:ttii>tt in !he'll is t:c>t signific:utt in most areas Qsi:ir refuted this -�tatcmcnt claiming
that"thc �°gCtatinn in the smaller H.a.14 s is sigttificant.: 1 urthLr, fit would, challenge anyone to walk
7-11:94 } lami;►it; and Zoning e►)ntnlicsiu#r #i,iritcS page b
tlrc:rt a. nd say �)ther�visc. Tbc lets al(►nl tits western edge, sly , tfi :etly.l<zts ? 1>35 anti .16- 3. require
soine assurance that tlic vcrctati<)n eurrentl in Phee .kill rc tcriri Undisturbed as touch sirs possible
as there i5 Ci►ncicierabir vcgctatit in thus area. Along tliv. e�� ctn'tivaalt:[herr is a yue*tson as tt#:tl;
dcprec the.rond u ill.oced iti absorb tits: water flcSts• that will cv;;w froart tl►c wash. ;David agrees with
these: eorrimenis and and rsl3n& tl>�jt the :tpplicani liars ;,giced to crmscrvation casements ns'cr:I.I?th.
of: these wa-shies, which 'Would furilla lirrst:r-Vr tlx: %ceclation:ft(strt dimurhancc, except for the
drivr�vay crsrssinfws and rtaixd i#ilpri»erl►rnts. Therefore, it is ;t title titsn as t(i ti;hither or not
C.o"101111Mon IS C0111forl;t111c'Leith o)nsefv;jtit2n t.3�rnxt t1[S ;r.S ;i'Jrie:trrs ()f pfcKeIr ing the Necgodion,
Again, in tixc,castt rn e'ruitluzrte e , �prrii#►airy lots Wwid.87 swff.shares this concern and has asked
that these lots tx: Wontil ur ilof chill.ttxated. t ,war rtx{ucstcd that condition M.vvhich. addrthzrs>
the spine ova -di 3r)d #t's ctrrikx rr3ti<in, also acWtcss tire: ticondarywashes.
tliil! llalhnan, 3,0 lNorth Jttcslcr Court. advised file C" It;iskion that they will snake every effort
to preserve the vegelation 'a)id the, t•;rshes. hie explained the type c)f;project they are planning on,
bonding attd the dctlsity itrvcrlvcd. <'fhc avetage lot size: it: the subdivision is 31,000 Sq. ft. and will
include custcittt homes 2,200 to 2.80l) $q fl. on the cast and 2.500 sq. 11 on the tit-cst. h r. Dahlman
ptriii;ed out that this design will allow a very ininimutn disruption t(t the kits. In addition they plan
.ongoing, in and revc9etating the arc;►s (fiat arc dkrupicd. A trail system has been provided that will.
file orpUrstC scveral different areas. Sever access has (seen piovidcd to the 'west per Dr. Haber's
irequest. 'Mt, Millman stressed that they have been very scn. vc to the treatment of thus washes.
but printed out that they Sic minor washes. NIT. Dallinan assc ns that they wiU: have a very slow
build out of this sulxlivision, so She itripact txt the schm)ls will N: very. minimal. 11e advised rht.
Commission that he is willing to:dcsi�ir Ult 86 as n:creatinn opep. space. hlowever, W 87 is an
excellent building site. and he-mquests that Commission take ant 1i.�t?k at the hat, it in :hrtpesit
Sin remain its such.
Don Brooks, WON. reviewed his, background as a registered civil co rme-er. a registered hydrologist
31A a trained biialogist, fie.uent out and...mapped the lloodplains and the vebemcd arras, as Well
as 1lirtA Southwest and lucid Biologist to review file property. Mr. Brooks reviewed the present
layout, which he has discussed in depth with tt;iff )i&r the ptlst several snonths. Based on these
meetings, They Inc. iified all the l0l. lines so the loi_c arc_txtw ci)il)pletcly Out of the iltxxlplain:and
riparian ;bees. excerpt for a minar intrusion into the sc. dark• wash.. With n garb to the minor
washes, ttxe lots can the wcstern h air have been laid out so that tit rear lot lines run co linear with
rile riparian vegetation in rider t )ninitrtize the.distutbance to the area. As for the conservation
easement, he has found theta to he s.cry;v ial►lc mid a strong :method of protection. Therefore. they
hate no Objection to a vonscrvat un ct.wincli over this spine:Wash. NIT. 13ractks;concurs with his.
client's. suggestion -regarding. the e:t:sign of 1,ot O as recreation open spate. 11c stated thtat List 87
lias liecn crtla�rh ed:ene>r)bh tt ;xlk)w a building rnvclupt: Wadeyuate site:; Tiicrcicirt , he tna, would.
apprc-ciate Curtimission's ccrn,rdcrat on on this lot. fir, l3r(-wk. cxplainrd that tile. have a;6p' right=
of -Kay, which irii:ludes a hike path as requesicd tsy the Town Enginr:er. They have shortened all
.tit cul-de•sacs and.pullctl Aicm away from tine wa%h. `file.y wouicf like to have thostc cul-dc•sacs
;rpl oimcd as ctrtry tx+tuts-intit the trail arp. Mi. Brooks then explained, at Contmissio ncr
ltathenhuccher's uquot, ihi#t Lots 22 and 23 ;err called "flag lots". `nic:y have ken designed in
7-11-94 Plarming and:'lonftig Cctinnlissi rn Minutes Page 7
a Way that minitniz. s the overall pavcrnctit of the area, utaXimtn:s the sill of file Jots. :end
ttlirii Mixes the ((verall distuthInce of the +ite. Ill dri'mWaj s i+ sr o sC tivo lots arc to the :,ccondary
wash area.:'i his wa_�h is less t} n rc�ulatory 'north of the Property line:
Bill Adler questioned the dimcnsiun of tin romervatiun cascmern astd it',r. rxat lcx sti(in on the site;
Dan Itrooks tcplied that the eaKulcnt'Lt�ill f6110 �. t1ic. sptnc; wash. ,Ia al a niimmum cover the IW
year: fktodplain area. The areas c(inlaiai:i� >t�:itti .attt tipai u vegetationoutNide:the fltxxlpla'tn, as
identified by .Southwest and Field Iliolopist, will he included as we I': 'Cltc:ref€;rc, the .actual
dimctisiun of the ccanserv�ation s ascment t�°�suld cart' friritr ]i)(i' ;tn ?--0* for: the spine wash and
approximately 30' to 40, for tltc ntiriur u:�sh�s. 'flx rc w:ss 5(�ttt� cittcu�si( tl r(w.tr(llrtg<thc curvours.
of.this site and Bi11 t ur3tuiz>zd if any of tfii l:ctuscs ws�uIcl he lsu It on slopes. ►ouch lie understands
is not be perinitted. David. confirmed that slap". £;tenter than 35 r will not ear: Immded upon. Ile
explained that it is not the petitioner's intVat:tcs 9rt'de these-;Iopc�, as addressed in the st:iff.rzp►art.
Hill then asked D(sn Btooks howthey';itttend tta build cart these lots without grading. In response.
Don stated that he has checked the slopes on all of the, lists tti cnsutc that tht rr :is adequate spate
available in wbieh to pla( t.• the building envelope:. This will be better illustrated on the Final Plat.
Osrar shares Colnmi.mioner Adlcr's concert regarding the slopcs. It lie?t s10 him tikr t.Ots 34 and
3 have a sharp drop-off andhe � iu:sn't understand how:fficse can be leveled for a hontcsitc. fir:
Brooks prtsenled the Comntizion-with a snap of, Iutget scale.:si-gyWing the liipc:s a.(td lass, lie
pointed out that only a small portion of Lot'34 is affec:led by the. 5% $1 11-C 't`h(crr is at least 3,Sfi4}
sq. fi. available on this teat for a httilding cnvel(�pe. C(ftrtsttissionc'r R(�thrrihuec her again questioned
Liar 22 and its accessibility during tainy pLritxls. lie tnaintains Iluit the Ice owner will not bcable
to access his property. by Kay: Of .the wash, in periods of rainy Nvewher. Jim DcGrood cited
condition !#4 of,thr staff report, .which`�siatcs that all-weath(:r access is to ter prodded weach
approved building site. Ilc. adJed ihat a cultcrt. crossing would need to br placed in the driveway
area. Commissioner Rothenbucciser reconuncrldcd that Jirii take an 6verlay of a plot map, showing
the Contours, and a hydrology neap and checking to sev Where: the. rush pocs. lie cannot envision,
even:with a culvert. how "Orne uti would be able to acccss the Wash. :Jim replied that -tith some
fill, this problem can be.atidressed.
PVBIJC HEA)UNG OPENED
Ken Olsen, 610 NY: Sloore Road, stated that thr properly in question is an island and must Win
egress from litsth the tttarth:stnd:snuth.. lic:has t+tikcd tivith:l4ir. Dick i<ia�.s at Wolfswinkcl, who has
infurnwd .him that dwy have no rttenticin:af de+sloliing their profxrty in the foreseeable..future.
'fhis portion.of Mmire Road is neither County nor Tawn mainiairod. Un b Sys that'it rains:more
than 1'. tie has to stay hpttir Ex�cazfsc l`jwrc i2.oad. nut passably; The Wid to the +cast; also washes
out and is definitely not passahlc. Ilis rniin qucsticin is, �zho:Will be respomible fur bringing Moore
Read up to County Ior State staff lords. Ile thin prt'l nti d �onirntysiun with psttur�cs; cif Moore
Road and an additional mash that has.not been 41OWn on neaps. 1im replied that
a:s a. cetitclitiun of thsr dcvrlc�pment:.cof Rartcht� stuso. ;Vcighhcsrh<►sxt lQ there. will be a n40 to
install and c evellap M(x-)re Rvc lfd to at least a 2 lane allA-caillau road. Additionally, one -of: the
0
?-ll- 11,1wilaing and vattint; C'oitlttti«if)n Minutes Ya c 8
re uuiremcnts of that particular ncighho>rhood is that tlicy adhere to :the Pilots Wash Basin
ltlanagcntclit plan. which 11ccessitatcs tic deVelopincnt of wwrttio n-Wetcation facilities at the Wwre
Roa- d crossing. Past ally,'heY 1113W to irt:-rall culverts us force the detrntiom to fluty upstixam. ML
Olsen painted out oan th.c Rancho Vissaso PAD, amartltat need tolx developedprivr.tq installing,
thtr culverts, Ile thctl p.?inted <ut other areas, th;rt probably. %voil11 he dcvf:lclfxii far another viola
years. where the roads becoinc i npmsahle during stornts: 1t is lr. blsen's feeling. that if they ;trc
going to dcvcto)p.t.his Site now. �czrncone la;ts to t:a.} a care ui :t' More Road.: This is sorttrthing.that
needs to bewnsideted row. not When ot1wr %itcs are dcvcloped. David replied that staff sltalcs
these colr rns- and added that condition #13 does state lhat no mading pennits for &VclOpntcttt cif
ibis site :are:: to be ;4sued, until there is paczd. Public access to 11W �rnperty. It ;:is staft"s
understanding that acco will come from tltE: south: ,aE rEiss tltc"Faltgerittc;lrat) pmprrty and not frortr
More Rc�;ad 1 tn;addf ll that it iz;a condition of the Tang6ijw 100 prEIperty to provide access up
to this site. which will seIr►e as the original access 1() this property. Additionally, this projmt:%vill
need to provide a coittinuaticm of that ;io ctxs to the ixnefit a. tlrr:'i' mgcrinc 160 parcel as well.
Don Droit'ks concludcd by wuyinQ that this propm..rt} is the kcy to providing thxvugh.sccess to:all
property in the area. Thera is a historical access easi�tncnt ,acION's this Property. In ;sir. flr(K:�k's
opinion, the only solution for trams rtat ion problems it) this area, is for all. of the property owners
to work'togvtlicr,.
Mari: %Yciriberg, 1166 %N',csi %laslers Circle, cxpreswd that the property owners to the sopt# or
Tangerine 160 support this property: The owners of this pro>po:r1 have met several times with the
developers of Tangerine 160 to discuss roadway aligtuttent, widths and cross -sections of t€le
ro.jdways. utility inspections and tile. iat)provemcnts of.Tangetine Road. 'iltcy hsve beat very
cooperative and professional throughout these mcrtings. 1Ie also informed the commission that the
dmlopmcnt plan for the'Tdoperine 160 property sla)uld fie subatinr.d to the Town within the nc)(t
several months.
Angela ?�ic.ndara, 1 lSi let ti4caatz Rf1<ui: msidrst�cst of 'his propE rty. She is glad that thcrc: ♦till
not be any: mass grading ref this property and stated there is a lot of Nvildlife in the aria. She is
concerned .with the height of the hcausuig tin the west sidle of this property. She %v�uld like to be
assured that the ltcatnes will only be`« k> story. Nis. %jcndttr.� inyuirfxi as to how the utilities would
be brought in and questioned if hu rsnt could tx�,usa�i to:mret the 2S slope require 13ro nt
Cluff. replied if they. could go in with a a' cutand fill.. f visible from the mad. If riot visible, 8'
of cut and.fill w uld iae acceptable. 'his. Undo7a them questioned the type of roofs: would be
required on the houses. David:replied ih;tt if the hj)mes are tn)ly custd)1rt hutrteS. theY won't havar::
to. 6. thiough:the architectural review; tlie.design. would lie ut the discrction of .,the owri If there
is a builder conmructing a group of Iomes, they will lie r6juired Wgo. through the DRS :for
architef:turA review; In an.s.wer to Ms. 1lcWoza's curlier questions rvgarding the building height;
DavidcontnlcntCti:that the maximum height is 18, which would>x►crrttit two. -stoat bones, as long
as they don't ence 3 14e.187height limitation...
I)on Brooks addremed:the issue of the utilities and cumancnsed that the Tangcrine.160 property. will
A, w
7-11-9-i 1'lanriing alto %iliing Cotlnirissitril Minutes P. 9
bring utilities to this pacrccl's prvrwny 1iix. nc y are ourtmoy in file pfocess of roquesting that
Rancho Vistoso Water Company inclucic this site in icir service area.
PUB11C 1 &%R1\G CLOSED
Bill Adler cxpressed that he ocedc l a lViler undcrstat.Win g of -the tl.ig f(�ls alixig the actin iary cvash.
lie askcd Don to :point out the p:)rd.0ns nt 111csc . aishcs that will be covered by the cumervation
casement. Dun stated it Would be ealsicr.tci.exfllain where the ca�enicllt will 11rst he. which is Where
the cirivraays are. It is f7ae;id`s ass unllitii; i that the ca,intent will lx ++rittcn to. cover: thosc Pon tons,
of the wash that die Town requires by he c 3vercd, alto will include a;stipulation perrilitiing cfrisci+aay
crossings within tic cascmcttt, O'War again rs,ii rated that he would like the "1'cawn rigini:er <and
Planning staff to formulate a condition. stipulating that a ccss to.l.cAs 22 and 23`W constructed in
such a Wray to assure theiraccessibility in flash flood situal k, I ris,1itn DcGrood stated he is not sure
he understands this stipulation. lie t,upfxirts.hat tale Cortlmission is trying to accomplish but feels
this has been addressed with C(tiWitikm #4 of his staff wport. mquiring all-wcat.her ;icccss. Oscar
responded that be understands this. but would feel mote ccfnlfortaibl:; if a stipulation Was added to
the staff report, as �Cundilion #15. stating that ,trews to all 1. -S +inch may have special problems
with flood simations. be construcird in such a way thast had weaftr access is guaranteed.
INJOTION: Boxed, seconded (Rothcahuccher/Douglac);and ,carried by a 5-0 rote zlpproving
OV9-93-7, Suaridge Rezoning Request (I11•144 to RI-20). subjc�et inthc stslndard artd special
conditions set foriit by the Town's Planning and Enginveripg Maff, amending special condition
#21 to show that the density Is Limited to 1.3 RAC and/or 1A5'total dwOling units, and -adding
Acondition #1S, stipulating that tuts 22 and 23`be constructed %%ith the assurance that had
weather access is guaranteed.
3, t-I1 Al -jZN9 - R OPOS D A ti Nl)lvi1'NT5'" _�"ft " C.l t)'VAI., :t; ?C'v v
SS?l)I t2rti'1sI i��l��tY�-k� z a1y
David informed the Commission that this is 6:ir first look at a significant revision that relates to
off-street parking tequircinents. Aincndipents to Chapters 2. 3. 4. S and of flit 7A)ning Code have.
al.so.been proposed: however, the Amendments to Chapicrs 3. Q, and S and basically housekeeping
amendments, a#licit arc unrelated. The amendmcnis to . Cllapter 11 were prepared to . bring the
regulations into compliance with the American's with Disabilities Act. and. updates: the Town's
Parking.C.cxic. Stuff.ltac sue a}cci parl<ing:codc 'atlsl ciriJinarkcs>ircitlt l(} cities;artd towns and the
majority. of tits amciuilt3cnts WereadapfiM from Pima County and the City of Tuc um
Jim'stated.that these anlendmrnts,gives:the Town a gre:it'opportuniity to update Ilic.codg.and address
several design stantlaard problems the Town. has recently bean facing. Ile pmsented the .CoMmi&sion.
with several haphazard conimercial<parking designs, along with designs that lie.. Would: prefer to sec,
set as standards, which takes traffic away fmin the front of comincrcial buildings. Jim further
teviewed Several desiorls that plovide easier itil;rCSSIC rc S to tics and rOuceS the nWl1bVr ;of
conliicIs bctw°een traffic anti pcdestriantbic cle uses. Jinn disCir,-, if the idea of right aniz.1c.parking
.i
7-1.144 Y#atL3riltl; :lE!(! I(�ni3tl; E'n�nrrti{ ic�3L �iiinr cs f'•n10
cersus,attgic parking and:p(tinlcd tacit itiat right Angie pa.tung hops to decrease unnecessary trips
through the liatking lot. 'fh(xe Was :�c?1tte.(9iwkusaion regsrJitag tlae pn?s and C in of Wth.anglc atad
right angle 1%irking:
bill Adler yucstiomd if 111C'i(Mil is in a [xisititn of 131aricl:ating un(icrgrr�trnd:piirktng in cs:r{ain
situatiians. I m replied thaat'whenever {lic 'Tm%n is r. c llingwith underground packing'thty rLfCr to
thc:.l.lhifornt Building C uJe- Jonathan. pOintcsl Out tli'rt On pagc 9 of the anicridnicnis. the. last.
scEit( lice states that parking: 4truclures, including utsdct€Rrc?utsti :parking. tnay.bC uscd> in Iieu of
surface parking, subiect to ra �Iuirsra3ents c►f Ilac 'TOW I nccr And the Building Official. Brent
Cluff st,ggoted that corer tyfw of enhalwcancni nlav ticcd to :be pruti&d. (:Mok rasing ; the
construction of :undrrgroun d parking. 'Dav id c61111tetiteii Ilia( thac is d(,ftwiely an econo pic
pr(tblem xvith underptolind parking in rtiizona due to the Batt th:rt;l::txl N. so cheap. It is Moro (:cast
efficient for developers to buy the land and park the cars. on the surface than to canstrucf an
underground facility. lie would like to make sate Ibrat this (irdirr once does, not create any barriers
or obstacles to constructing uttdergrourtd facilities and would like to osffa some irlwitives Supporting
them. Tiru:refore, if the Cartarnissinn is : interc led in (lirecting staff to la:1c nt(a the typos .cif
incCillives that can ttc provided, staff Would be willing to ilea so. Went tiuggcsted that it: would
worthwhile to have this i"saic further researched. ball ::Mlcr asked :if there is away to add, a
ssipulatian:requiringiarxlctgrruEad parking> 1)avid rrplrcdthtattile,<�nlyvway he cancnlis onthis:type
of •.ripula(ion'being tnandatf. d. is as a condition (if xczoning.
PUBLIC HEARING OPlrNEM
.,Mark U- is; '11910 N. Copper Butte. c(?ncurs Kith #. oanutissioncr Adler's cnmmrnts regarding the
right angle paxking'and the v6ibility proMetn ctr:rt,;d by larger vehicles. Ik agrees that dlerc it a
lot to gay about the Oc;isa of a parking I(Et once)urag.ing :anti discouraging different tSTjcs of vehicles
fmM .parking in certain :areas. Mr. Lewis erxittarap. s Llle placcirtem of wider spaced stalls
throughout pal king bats to acce"Unodate'larger vChickw:
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Dennis I3csnblas asked if it is ra(cE nary,:under pavement in;rrking, to tic lituate,erta( rgency parking
in the float of buildiia&s, ttt preclude pceple from parking there temporarily to ��nlnad Passengers.
Jina.txtlieves this would be the.approprisate place to address suiping. Ile will further -review .this
issue. Cc?mmission briefly discussed other areas of ct. overt such as lighting :and buffering
Jonathan clatifred that this ordinance does not require that a ;roll be 'carastrtimd as: part of the
buffer, but t-atttcr one of i11c ctcmetats :ttaat can be uud::as a. l sndu.alwd buffet: Other element&
spprus'LKi for use consist ayf:car{h txr3ns, pl.rnt rnitlrrial: err a c(?rnbiiiatictn I reaf:. Aertrtis:#3acn
questioned if there is a tray to quantify these t:Icnti:nts to ciasiirr a comgfrte:ittrffer is prnvi�etfi.
David landscape l�r�#inatt; c addre�sE s In rn of {hc'+e..0 rt er3it� issues:. :Fort eT, :it
is a fun(.tion of IW DIM to rtvicw tile' iicnsit} o f the hind waging to: ensurc it meets the Townsrequircrlaents. The Gnrrnnission;furtha di-�usscd'Rr:oral uEicta ng optic?ns aantt requirrrrtctLts.
0
0
7-11.94; Manning and Zoning ['omlttissi011: ' iinutt.-s Page 11
MC.q�ION-. 'Moved, sicsirtded (rldterll;trEttctittutrht=r} .7tld carried by a;" vote to continue the
publk hearing for the prtiposcd arnetysittte[tis to the Oro Valley toning Corte Revis<d. to the
next 'regularly- sc:heduled Planning X 7,011i'19 CM1111*40,ian.filetling of 18119ust z, 1994.
4, �t3ii� IIC iiCi;►i?1_" t;' t'i2t°li'()blj�'��1t:*�1)�51..�:15..i Lli� �1ltt}.r�r::� 11- ` ZQNl:'�IC3.
-- .--- -_ ....., w•r cfs a �rrtv�t L: e_f'_t _ 1..Ah!n4zrAhI: P1 AN
David advised the. Cttmrnissic:n.tilat the dtaft Mdin lrxe is .tzs�t icli yuatGlt`, c>ntl+lcte for Ctunut;1sstort
and pub3.i� nc�'iew::IIc regc�rrsird. tF t this I�ul>hc hc:.rting N. C«ntlnucd to tine Au ttst 20 Planning
anti 7_uning Commission muting:
PUBLIC HEARING t'}1'I=NED
rs�nent.sj,( st } ts: ; h t�n� from'thc I?ublic i►iahc-il try ct�n3sncn at this tune..
PUBLIC HEARING. CLOSED
MOTION -.-.,loved, Wended (DouglaslRothenburcher? and t:arrh-d by a 5.0 vote to continue
.the public hearing' far the proposed arnendinents to the Oro Valley Zoning Cutle revised.
Chapter 4 - Landscape. Plan Revisions, ,to. the, uxt regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning
Ctymrnission meeting of ,august 2, 1993.
5 1i`Ih'F&l' QN-1:21-Q-M
David ; twits are still eking gathered in the Peninsula Annexation area,
through a m2iling:program to the property owners within the Highlands -Niabitc: liomr park
Subdivision. To date approxintAkly OW.Isign;ltures 1mve been obtained in favor of the annexation.
and, roughly 100 More ate rcguirrd in older for the annexation to be .succ:cRsful-
Staff is still in the prckcss of developing a data base -of property uwlu-rs within the Southern
Annexation aria. Qncc . flic data. base has brew completed, the annexation team will forward a
tccott mcndation to titc Commission and 'rown Coutwil regarding the annexaticri neaps needed to be
Oiled with the County Recorder' s:c�fftcr tU lx l;in the ti* c line. I'rc>pr xty ntirxrs within the C:inytart
Shadows Subtiis i. ijo hair shoun;aEp interest in annexing into Oro Valley: An infortttalloml tncvting
♦with ttte:prc�perty:.F3�irxirs of the Can}cYn ShadatEs ..
ubdivision tnay take place in.SepicmDcr of tills
Yea -
The
'To n Mant[gct Will Ile. taking the 11�'t:stcrn Atinnation Nark it) Town Council as a study Session
to rcafriIup or intxlify the current annuxation.polky for: this area.
_. .
0
14.11311iiig arid%(miltg Comm ission lifttiti.'Vs.
6; A 1.. X L f)1€2€-L"lfl€2'l_it€ i't)K'
p1ge 12
David advisvd the xhat tlxre Itas Is en !iitnIc permtnnrl activity within the Planning
Department stcve Ila"e orn r sig.11c € ahcfut two wcck:� ago and last "Iliurs .3 Mlle f���►t# Manager
named Wvid, Interim Dircclor. The To n is hoping; to fill the Dirccior's vacwxy within tht; next
couple (if weeks.
David corn tinted that lie is rt'il 0, ing a 23iUtlirn f1k)1 i tttc. C(r:xanlzs c?n tonight, initiating thr
decctoPment of a golf course ordinisme, which regulaics tl:i devcli,pinrnt t�f: sut)livisionc adjacent
to golf cour.«s. David hated he %vvuld like to have it dt-aft c4)py tff this ordinance rack to the
commission at the St:pteniirer InWing.
Ikciutis Douglas asked if this ai:titsil'tvtsuid j)Peh tlt+c Rancho Vistoso P.A.D. David replied w., it
would 13i>t, but it would regulate devOopinrnt in Rambo Visle-so..as WCHAVOIC rest of the Town.
David Wes:thcse two itcnix Mrs eery dirtit�it itc-1", "]lii:`gt)lf cour{� a:tditiitrrct '1<t?uId be pan of tltc
Zoning C'odr. which would irgulate ciry lS?pmcnt at<:und golf courses mW the actual development
of the golf Course. After further discussitai regarding the, Rancho Vistrssu PAD and the intent of
the golf cotirte ordinance, David titItied tilt scol?i of the ordinance Nvould need to be defined right
away, in terms of what the 'rown is wing to regulate. Bill Adler `spra&sed €tat lie is interested in
not littl:+ng residential ilcvclopment'with the development `1 f gvlf C01%104s, Dayiid:contieyed that this
e�rd'inanCe ����uld ixti h:sed upi�n rn :lssuniptiisn t11at d rclt�pntcnt %vi11 take place :around the, golf
course. 1t %would be a larger planning issue; to detcrliiine: what t€te appropriate land use mixture is,
and would havc to be handled sep tratcly.
MOTION: Moved, 'seconded (AdletrlRothenburcher),ind carried by a 5-0 voteauthorixin,g staff
to proceed with the Initial drafting of a golf course ordinance, with the Initial drift anticipated
no later, than the Srptcniher Gth Planning and 7.aning nxvting.
MOTION: 'Moved, seconded (Kt:nnedylRuthvubuc-rher) Mid carried by a -1.0 rote to
ADJnUWN the nxxting at MO p P.M.
Submitted by,.
Linda ThOmpson,: P&W Cleric:
Page 1 of 1
Hayes, Patty
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:38 AM
To: Hayes, Patty
Cc: hbwitlow@yahoo.com
Subject: 752 W Sedona Ridge, Lot 8, Sunridge II
Ms Hayes,
Could you please pass along this letter to the Town Council members.
Thank you,
Rick Ward
Oro Valley Town Council members;
I am writing this letter to express my objection to the current zoning changes for Lot 8, SunRidge II, 752 W
Sedona Ridge. My opposition is to the infringement into the green zone which contains mature desert growth.
In my opinion, there is no need for destroying this much desert growth because the proposed house could
simply be moved further west. This would not change the size of the house or affect any neighboring properties.
Building into the green zone seems to be merely a convenience for the builder. I'm sure none of the zoning
committee members viewed the property to see what the impact would be. However, as a resident living on
Sedona Ridge, I view the lot every day.
I moved to Oro Valley because I had heard that the town had a strict policy concerning the merging of the
natural desert landscape and building construction. I hope that I wasn't wrong in my assumption.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard L Ward
05/15/2013
Page 1 of 1
Hayes, Patty
From:
Sent:
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:47 AM
To:
Hayes, Patty
Subject: Proposed plat amendment for Sunridge II, Lot 8 (752 Sedona Ridge Place)
Dear Ms. Hayes,
We are writing you (and the Town of Oro Valley) to register our objections to the subject amendment.
My wife and I live in Sunridge II (lot 61) and have a vested interest in maintaining the existing
conservation easement untouched, especially since the proposed home could be sited on Lot 8 without
infringing on the conservation easement. Thus, we are asking you to maintain the conservation
easement as it is and deny this amendment. Thank you.
Peter and Ann Wallace
05/15/2013
Mayor Satish I Hiremath, D.D.S May 16, 2013
Vice Mayor Lou Waters
Councilmembers Brendan Burns, Joe Hornat, Mary Snider, William Garner, Mike Zinkin
Town of Oro Valley
11000 North La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing to oppose the Sunridge II Plat Ammendment, case number OV12-12-07,
as current homeowners adjacent to the east of Lot 8, owned by Mike Arnold.
Our intent is not to analyze the previous Board of Adjustment meeting regarding Lot 8
and Mr. Arnold's request for an exception to the applicability of the Hillside Development
Zone (HDZ) on April 23, 2013, however, we do believe some information has relevance
to this case. Moreover, we would like it to be noted that Chairman Bill Adler voted
against the exception to the HDZ for that request and we have attached his reasonings
transcribed from the meetings minutes.
In addition, we would also like to point out that we do not oppose the building of a home
on Lot 8, nor have we opposed any home being built by Mr. Arnold. Unfortunately, we
feel inclined to express this because it was stated at the Board of Adjustment Meeting,
by Mr. Arnold, that my husband and I have had an "issue with him building next to us
from day one," referring to a build he completed beside us last year, as the reason we
now oppose the development into the hillside/conservation easement to Lot 8. However,
that is not true. On the contrary, we signed documentation, at Mr. Arnold's request,
allowing for an extension of the rear yard for that home. Following completion of the
build, we had an obvious issue with drainage (we have attached photos of the drainage
issue for reference). That "issue" has long since been resolved; our concerns now are
legitimate and pertain exclusively to the current matter at hand.
My husband and I purchased our home, (736 W Sedona Ridge Place,) after considering
other properties. Outside of appealing to us aesthetically, we most appreciated the
benefit of residing beside a flood plain/conservation area, and consequently, an
abundance of vegetation. Granted, we did not realize Lot 8 was buildable when we
bought our home. But we knew, at the very least, we were purchasing beside a
conservation easement. As such, we felt confident choosing our home and forewent on
a home with more marketable views. Sometime later we discovered that Lot 8 was
buildable. However, we had always known the easement existed and therefore
remained fervent about our decision to buy adjacent to a: designated "green area,"
zoned conservation easement and 100-year wash, and were assured it would remain
exactly as it was intended because they were designed to be preserved and protected
by Oro Valley.
Unfortunately, we are now at an impasse as my husband and I have decided to sell our
home and have been made to feel that we shouldn't have an opinion about the
impending amendment to the adjacent plat. And although we may not be witness to the
final developed property and therefore our personal interests may not hold weight, we
are unsettled and deeply concerned about the interests of our property, including and
most importantly the value, and the interests of potential buyers. Had we known, when
considering the purchase of our home, there was even a remote chance for building
within conservation easement, we would have unquestionably passed on the
purchase of this home. Our home does not have mountain views, the elevation is lower
than all adjacent lots so with that receives an excessive amount of rain run-off, and all
adjacent homes are built considerably higher than our ground floor. Therefore some
might consider this lot at a disadvantage. What does keep this lot premium and
comparable to neighboring lots, and what we hope will continue to do so, is the
substantial width between any neighboring home to be built on Lot 8, as well as, an
impressive row of mature vegetation and trees (located within the proposed area to be
amended) to help block/screen any eventual home. Feeling as though we are rational
homeowners, we maintain it is realistic to assume potential buyers would hold that
same degree of objection now in the purchasing of our home, should the amendment
pass.
We have spoken/met with architects and an engineering firm regarding the build on Lot
8; they have assured us there are definitely suitable design options that substantially
minimize and/or eliminate encroachment into the conservation easement while
maintaining comparable/ "reasonable" value for the builder. As such, we have attached
their work, recommendations, and reasonings. In addition, we have included
photographs of our views to Lot 8 and have highlighted the vegetation that would be
removed as corresponded with the information produced by the the engineering team
and as presented by Mr. Arnold. As well, we also invite Councilmembers or appropriate
staff to view Lot 8 from our yard in order to gain accurate perspective, especially if the
photographs are in any way ambiguous. Finally, we have attached both Mr. Arnold's
reasonings for proposing a home requiring the amendment (as transcribed from the
Board of Adjustment meeting) and our supportive material refuting his justification.
In closing, we believe that we have shown without a doubt, the need for and availability
of, alternative options not requiring, or minimally so, encroachment into the conservation
easement. We hope to have moved Councilmembers to require, at the very least, a
reconfigured site plan that is as mindful of minimal encroachment as our examples have
offered you, before making a decision about amending the plat. We appreciate your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Heather and Lonny Nenadovich
Oro Valley, Arizona 85755
SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS
I. PHOTOGRAPHS:
1) Nenadovich View of Lot 8 (1)- View from our backyard facing Lot 8 to the
west. It includes the neighbors to the west of Lot 8, as well as the trees that
would be removed as a part of the amended plat notated in red. They are the
only vegetation to provide privacy to our home. It was suggested by Mr. Arnold
that there is plenty of vegetation to screen his proposed home that remain
untouched as part of the flood plain. In reality the vegetation highlighted in the
green box would serve as the only screening remaining to his proposed house
and the location. It was also suggested Mr. Arnold would be required to replace
any trees removed. However, it is our understanding they can be replaced to any
where on the property, which does little to help our cause.
2) Nenadovich View of Lot 8 (11)- This is a continuation of Nenadovich View of
Lot 8 (1) to show a panoramic view of the lot to include the adjacent neighbor to
the north. Trees and vegetation to be removed are notated in red.
3) Nenadovich View of Lot 8 (III)- Confirmation that the vegetation in the flood
plain is lower than our wall and view line, and in most cases lower than our
ground floor as the flood plain elevation is lower than that. Though there is an
abundance of vegetation in the flood plain, it does not provide any privacy from
the proposed home and is primarily out of our line of sight. To rehash, this was a
primary reason we purchased our home.
4) Nenadovich Vegetation Identified- (as borrowed from attachment 2342
proposed Lot 8 building envelope.pdf (1))This depicts the palo verde trees and
other vegetation, highlighted with red arrows, that would be removed as part of
the amendment as they are located inside the easement. Once again, these
are the only trees that would provide any sort of privacy for our primary living
space and backyard. Although it appears the extensive vegetation to the east of
the conservation easement would provide screening, highlighted with green
arrows, the vegetation sits well BELOW our wall and ground floor, as it is part of
the flood plain, and does not offer any privacy.
5) Nenadovich Drainage Issue (I)- depicts the issue with drainage to the side of
our yard, in July of 2012, following the build by Mr. Arnold.
6) Nenadovich Drainage Issue (II)- Erosion began to change the grading of our
yard and ultimately we involved The Planning Division of Oro Valley. The issue
was addressed by Mr. Arnold.
II. DOCUMENTATION FROM BAKER AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING, INC.:
7) 2342 bldg env comparison color.pdf (1 page)- William Baker Jr. P.E.,
R.L.S. of Baker and Associates Engineering, Inc. has provided plausible
alternative build options for Mr. Arnold while keeping in mind his requirements for a:
2800 sq. ft., 3 car garage home with east facing views. In doing so, Mr. Baker and his
team have rendered a more than comparable building envelope with little to no
encroachment into the easement, which overlay in pink, Mr. Arnold's proposed
plans.
8) 2342 proposed Lot 8 building envelope.pdf (1page)- a view of the plat of
the proposed building envelope, by Baker and Associates, which illustrates two
alternative options for placement of the garage, thereby minimizing or eliminating
the need for encroachment into the easement.
9) 2342 summary memorandum.pdf (1page)- Summary of findings as provided
by Mr. Baker P.E., R.L.S.
III. DOCUMENTATION FROM KELSI MONTGOMERY RA, NCARB :
10) KM-analysis.pdf (3 pages)- Includes summary of analysis and potential for
alternative development option, comparable site layout and buildable area
overlaying ( in pink) Mr. Arnold's site proposal, and viewshed and context
diagrams. The architect allowed for rear yard space to the north. Mr. Arnold did
not propose for yard space as to not put adjacent yards close together. That
option can be disregarded. Buildable area at 5480 sq. ft. exceeds comparability
to that of Mr. Arnold's sq. ft. requirements with no encroachment to the
conservation easement. Sq. ft. used on the northeast corner, would block
some views for the northern neighbors and that concerned us. Because of time
constraints, as we wanted to submit this to Council within the deadline, she made
us aware that the large portion of unused buildable area to the west not impeding
on the space provided for the driveway could be maximized instead, protecting
the views for those neighbors.
IV. SUPPORTING REASONINGS
11) Chairman William Adler Reasons for Opposing Exception to HDZ-As
transcribed from the Board of Adjustment Hearing on April 23, 2013, case
number OV 1013-01. This section of the hillside is within the conservation
easement pertaining to this case.
12) Mr. Arnold's Reasons for Encroachment into The Conservation
Easement - As transcribed from Board of Adjustment Meeting April 23, 2013 for
case OV 1013-01.
V. Conclusion
Bi
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
William 1-I. Baker jr., F.E., R.r,.S.
Marlin V. MageifJ. P.E.
156.1 E. Sunrise Ur., Suiie 225
Tucson, Arizena 85.718
W.318.1950 Fax 318.1TiO
At flue request of Heather Nenadovich, Baker & AMsociates Engineering, Inc. has prepared a conceptual building envelope
for Lot 8 of Sunridge 11, Lots 1 through 65 (and Common Area "A"), M&f 48/33.
The proposed building envelope was constrained by the existing 15' building setback along the west lot line, the revised
20' building setback atrng the north lot line and the conservation easement reflected on the recorded final plat. The
proposed building envelope was configured with right angle and 450 corners to facilitate eventual house configuration.
The resultant building envelope is nominalQOQ sduate feet.
Two options vrere shown for typical 3-ear garage configuration, with the tear -garage upiion entirely within the proposed
building envelope; and the front -garage option primarily wittun the envelope. The front -.garage opt on as shown, would
require some encroachment into the. conservation easement.
Grading can be expected to be nominally at existing grade (other than the encroachment option shown for the front -garage
option) therefore no significant grading or retaining walls are expected to be necessary outside of the proposed building
envelope:.
Baker �ineering, Inc.
WILLIAM HUGH
a SAKEt~, s )
William H. Baker'. Jr. P.E.
5/14/13
2342 Summary Memorandum.wpd
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM ADLER'S OPPOSITION OF MR. ARNOLD'S REQUEST FOR
EXCEPTION TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE
As transcribed from Board of Adjustment Hearing on April 23, 2013, case number OV
1013-01 for request for exception from the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) heard
from audio files located on the Oro Valley Town Website (www.orovallevaz.pov) under
Live and Archive Media Page.
(As transcribed 01:21:08 minutes into the meeting):
"I would prefer that the variance to the rear setback be
actually be increased to reduce the setback further, at the
back, in order to try to reduce to some degree, maybe to
some large degree, the encroachment into the hills. I feel
strongly about our Hillside Ordinance, which is not terrific,
but it tries to prevent the destruction of slopes and I feel
that is one of the amenities that people want to continue to
enjoy."
-Chairman Adler
MR. ARNOLD'S REASONS FOR PROPOSING A HOME REQUIRING
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
As transcribed from Board of Adjustment Hearing on April 23, 2013, case number OV
1013-01 for request for exception from the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) audio files
on the Oro Valley Town Website (www.orovalleyaz.gov) under Live and Archive Media
Page. Time into the meeting minutes have been notated in parentheses.
1) (36:08) Referring to the plat as is if the request to HDZ not pass:
"You can get 2600 feet in there, it's just how you do it. Where you put the
garage is the big one `cause it needs so much space to get in and out of.
It's why it can't be at the front because the front comes down so narrow.
We've tried it and you're either backing in over towards the wash or you're
into the side yard set back." - Mr. Arnold
2) (1:08:46) Responding to a Board member's need for clarification of why the garage
couldn't be placed in front:
"You're not going to back straight all the way back out to the street 'cause
that's ... it's about sixty, seventy feet back there so you've gotta be able to
back out of the garage and go either to the west, to the east. Well, the east
has a conservation easement, a part that I'm not touching, and the west
has a property line. You need thirty feet to turn a car around. Any garage
has gotta have that." - Mr. Arnold
I ask Council to consider that Mr. Arnold has said putting the garage in front requires 30
feet (meaning a turnaround to be able to drive out forward facing toward the street) and
is in part of the easement he would not be touching. However, it would be significantly
less encroachment to the easement would Mr. Arnold modify his plans to use "that part"
he wasn't "touching" for a turnaround given that it would only require 30 feet of
encroachment verses a majority of the 3,401 square feet he has proposed. In addition,
this notion to sacrifice 30 feet for the purpose of the turnaround as opposed to the
majority of the easement has been substantiated by both an architect and engineer (see
documentation attached.) They have also purported that it is entirely possible to avoid
all encroachment into the easement, maintaining garage placement where Mr. Arnold
currently proposes, by slightly reconfiguring the design.
3) (35:17)
"And remember too, you look at that rough outline of a house there, you
know that's not the house. That's just a, OK ... a roughly, what we're trying
to do, 'cause it costs about five to six thousand to design a house... that was
drawn to say, 'OK, this is roughly where we need to be."' - Mr. Arnold
I bring to Council's attention the proposed home/site plan is a spec build and Mr. Arnold
does not have floor plans or a buyer. I believe this should allow adequate time and
motivation for Mr. Arnold to reconsider his design.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, since floor plans and a buyer do not yet exist for the proposed home, we
hope Council would take into consideration the interests and opinions of: neighbors, and
owners of adjacent homes, as well as Mr. Arnold, when making a decision. Do recall
that Mr. Arnold's primary reason for encroachment into the conservation easement is
because the front of the lot does not offer, "enough space ... so the garage has to be
in the back on that lot...," and he believes that considerably prohibits his options.
However, we feel that we have provided: sound proof that it would be possible for Mr.
Arnold to build a comparable home and reasonable alternative(s) that minimize and/or
eliminate the need, altogether, for encroachment into the conservation easement. We
understand that Mr. Arnold strongly believes that he only has but one option available to
build. As such, we have submitted documentation from professionals (i.e., both an
architect and engineer) who attest otherwise. Therefore, if Mr. Arnold can be just as
profitable with a comparable build without having to bleed into the conservation
easement, allowing homeowners the enjoyment of areas deemed protected for many
years to come, then there doesn't appear to be an obvious reason why Council would
move to approve Sunridge II Plat Amendment Lot 8, case number OV12-12-07.
Page 1 of 2
From: Pfeffer Washek [washek@q.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 8:19 AM
To: Hayes, Patty
Subject: Case No. OV12-12-07
Ms. Patty Hayes
Zoning Plans Examiner
Town of Oro Valley, AZ
Dear Ms. Hayes:
I am writing to support my neighbors in their opposition to the
Sunridge II Plat Amendment, case number OV12-12-07.
Conservation easements play important role in the
architectural structure of every subdivision. While they are
valuable assets to the whole neighborhood, they are
particularly important to houses located in the proximity of
such easements. A purchase of a property is largely
influenced by the layout of adjacent properties. When a
conservation easement is indicated on a particular lot, people
who buy houses on adjacent lots have a right to expect that
such an easement will be honored. Thus I believe very
strongly that variances to conservation easements should be
given only in cases where no alternative design of a house is
possible. This is certainly not the case to which I am
addressing my concern.
Prior to moving to Sun Ridge Subdivision, I lived in Albion,
California, where I served for 15 years as the Chair of the
Architectural Approval Committee for the Pacific Reefs
Subdivision. Pacific Reefs is an ocean property where the
position and design of each house is critical to achieving a
harmonious neighborhood. Based on my experience, I see
file:///C:/Users/Phayes/Documents/OV 1212-07%2OAttachments/Pfeffer.htm 05/17/2013
Page 2 of 2
no reason whatsoever for the house on lot #8, 752 West
Sedona Ridge, to encroach on the Conservation Easement
specified on the Subdivision Map. The submitted position
plans for the house are drawn with a complete disregard for
the existing restriction. They should be modified, since there
is an ample space outside the Easement where a spacious
house can be build.
Sincerely yours,
Washek F. Pfeffer
Oro Valley, AZ 85755
(
file:///C:/ Jsers/phayes/Documents/OV 1212-07%20Attachments/Pfeffer.htm 05/17/2013
May 16, 2013
Oro Valley Town Council
cc: Patty Hayes
Re: Sunridge 11, Lot 8, Plat Amendment
Oro Valley Town Council,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the above Plat Amendment.
I plan to attend and speak at the Town Council meeting on June 5`h, but I wanted you to be aware of my concerns with
these proposed changes in advance. When we purchased our home in 2012, we researched the flood zone and
conservation areas adjacent to our property to help us make an informed decision about the long term planning of the
surrounding properties. The natural beauty and privacy, as well as the erosion protection provided by the native
vegetation, afforded by the flood zone and conservation were naturally expected to remain.
A main consideration in our move to Oro Valley had been our impression that the Town Council has an eye toward
responsible growth and development and the preservation of this unique and rare vegetation zone within the greater
Sonoran desert. The precedent set by planning and zoning in the adjudication of native preservation zones and building
restrictions should stand as we all, including Mr. Arnold, were provided the benefit of perfect foreknowledge of any such
protected areas and/or building restriction long before each of our individual investments were made. These standards
are relied upon and, in fact, stood upon as mainstays in some of the most significant investment decisions made by the
residents of this town. Furthermore, as these planning and zoning decisions were made on the behalf of the betterment
and good of all Oro Valley citizens, I expect not to be alone in saying that a precedent such as this should not be undone
for the betterment and good of only one.
Since it is my understanding that it is possible for Mr. Arnold to build the same sized home under the present zoning, it is
also difficult to understand why he would be interested in destroying this natural, mature landscaping and leave
potential buyers backing up to neighboring lots with little to no buffer. The current zoning seems much more appealing
to potential buyers as it offers more natural beauty and privacy and an increased value to the home.
By no means do we wish to impede Mr. Arnold's ability to build on his property; however, we do expect him to honor
the restrictions agreed upon and in place when he purchased the property, especially as it seems to benefit most, if not
all, parties involved.
I trust that the Town of Oro Valley will determine what is in the best interest of the majority of its citizens involved in
this issue. Thank you for your consideration and service.
Respectfully,
Scott Speder
Page 1 of 1
From:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Hayes, Patty
Subject: Proposed plat amendment for Sunridge 11, Lot 8 (752 Sedona Ridge Place)
Dear Ms. Hayes,
We are writing you (and the Town of Oro Valley) to register our objections to the subject
amendment. My wife and I live in Sunridge 11(lot 61) and have a vested interest in maintaining the
existing conservation easement untouched, especially since the proposed home could be sited on Lot
8 without infringing on the conservation easement. Thus, we are asking you to maintain the
conservation easement as it is and deny this amendment. Thank you.
Peter and Ann Wallace
file:WC:/Users/phayes/Documents/OVI 212-07%2OAttachments/Wallace.htm 05/17/2013
Page 1 of 1
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:38 AM
To: Hayes, Patty
Cc: hbwibow@yahoo.com
Subject: 752 W Sedona Ridge, Lot 8, Sunridge II
Ms Hayes,
Could you please pass along this letter to the Town Council members.
Thank you,
Rick Ward
Oro Valley Town Council members;
I am writing this letter to express my objection to the current zoning changes for Lot 8, SunRidge II, 752 W
Sedona Ridge. My opposition is to the infringement into the green zone which contains mature desert growth.
In my opinion, there is no need for destroying this much desert growth because the proposed house could
simply be moved further west. This would not change the size of the house or affect any neighboring properties.
Building into the green zone seems to be merely a convenience for the builder. I'm sure none of the zoning
committee members viewed the property to see what the impact would be. However, as a resident living on
Sedona Ridge, I view the lot every day.
I moved to Oro Valley because I had heard that the town had a strict policy concerning the merging of the
natural desert landscape and building construction. I hope that I wasn't wrong in my assumption.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard L Ward
file: WC: Msers/phayes/Documents/OV 1212-07%20Attachments/Ward.htm 05/17/2013
Hypothetical comparable sitee layout and buildable area for
752 Sedona Ridge Place to avoid Conservation Easement
Kelsi Montgomery, RA 3441 E. 3rd St,, Tucson, A. 8.5716 520 390.5141
N
Viewshed & context
diagrams. ��U
752 Sedona Ridge Place
Kelsi Montgomery,.RA 3441 E. 3rd St., Tucson; AZ 85716 520 390-5141.
CD
O
z
T •:yt k.
V k
k
k
1
0 20
SCALE IN FEET
L=50,65;
S14M3
23428ASEMN
z
5�
20,
PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPES COMPARISION
o
Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc.
3561 E Sunrise Drive, Sure PM Tucson, Arlam 85718 (520) 318-1950 Fax
318.1930
5/14/13
2342BASE.DWG
W►.stvyt Va I1V VV Vf Vi..�V V- a�llylttV-Vlil;l%A j: IIIV'.
3561 E. Sunrise, Dive, Suite #2?5. Tucson, Arizona 85718 (520) 310.1950 Fax (520) 318.1930
NI
N N
N W
LU N
N b
fir' S88043'40"W 87.44 ��
Sedona Ridge Place
SKETCH OF
Existing location of a Conservation Easement over a portion
of Lot 8 of Sunridge 2 as recorded in Book 48 at Page 33 in
the office of the Pima County Recorder, Pima County,
Arizona.
V1 fV I
(V N
N
W W
N
N �D
� O
S88043'40"W 87.44 ; J
Sedona Ridge Place
SKETCH OF
Proposed location of Existing Conservation Easement over a
portion of Lot 8 of Sunridge 2 as recorded in Book 48 at Page
33 in the office of the Pima County Recorder, Pima County,
Arizona.
Scale 1"=20'
JUN 7
Town of Oro Valley
no
9999.4905
10,000 092999,9946
rtheast corner lot 8
9872.5756 10,000 \0.0008 Closure
N89°46'14"E 127.42
30' Rear setback line10
Lot 8
The shaded area of the
original Conservation Easement
has been removed from this property
by the Town of Oro Valley
.t.
v
Lot 7 Lot 9
N � ,It: l O
Location of ~ --`Ad
o proposed house
! _:}s - �►
� � o
..,
L' P.C.B.
Exhibit A
w ��N'1'1°415
24.56"11
100 Year Flood Plain Limit Area
°N
9787.531
9918.7%
Z 9 —._ 22.40
N85136'41 "W
Existing Conservation
Easement to remain
Area= 328.62 square feet
30' Front setback line
O S88043'40"W 79.19
N
CID
N
W
O
N
I�
S88°43'40"W 87.44
Sedona Ridge
Place
M
9789.2898
9997.9670
SKETCH OF
Existing location of the remaining Conservation Easement
over a portion of Lot 8 of Sunridge 2 as recorded in Book 48
at Page 33 in the office of the Pima County Recorder, Pima
County, Arizona.
Scale 1`20'
AUG" 2 8 2013