Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOV110803May 30 08 01:15p Sidney Lex Felker, P.C. 520 622 7337 p.2 LAw OFRcES LEONARD & FELKER,P.LC. ATTORNCYS AND COUNGEU]R.S. AT LAW DAVID J. LEDNARD" 7440 N. ORACLE READ, BLDG. 2 Las ANGELES OFFICE L SIDNEY EX FELKER TUCSEN, ARIZONA 85704-6376 5757 WILSHIRE 6LVD. DONNA M. AVERSA TELEPHONE FACSIMILE SUITE 460 BROOKE FELKER-JOHNSTON (5201 742-0440 (520) 622-7337 - LOS ANGELES, CA 90036 -AL50 ADMITTCO IN .=.ALIIOMNIA (3) ❑) 205-4B20 May 30, 2008 By Fax 742-1022) and Regular Mail Sarah More, FAICP . Planning and Zoning Director Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 RE: OV11-08-03 Ta teerine & First. Kai General Plan Amendment Dear Ms. More: John and Herbert Kai asked that I inform you that they hereby withdraw their request to amend the Oro Valley General Plan as it relates to the property at the Southeast Corner of First Avenue and Tangerine Road. Please remove the matter from all hearings that may be scheduled regarding the matter. The Kais also asked that I express to you their appreciation for the courtesies and professional treatment received from your Oro Valley Staff and to all involved in this matter. Sincerely, "Sidney Lex Felker cc: Mayor Paul H. Loomis (via fax: 297-0428) David Andrews, Town Manager (via fax: 297-0428) Tt WL Group Inc. April 28, 2008 Mr. Bayer Vella Planning and Zoning Department Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Engineering • Planning Surveying • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Subject: OV11-08-03 Proposed Major General Plan Amendment -271 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of First Ave. and Tangerine Rd. WLB No. 182053-A-003 On Monday, April 28, 2008, The WLB Group mailed the attached public meeting notification letter to all individual property owners within subdivisions that contain at least one individual property owner within 1,000 feet of the amendment area. This mailing was intended to supplement the original April 10`h mailing to all individual property owners within 1,000 feet of the amendment area. Sincerely, THE WLB GROUP, INC. / ustav Paul Oland Project Manager State of Arizona County of Pima Subscribed and sworn to before �me this 28th day of April, 2008 by Gustav Paul Oland. ,: OFFICIAL SEAL Notary lic TIFFANY GORRELL My commission expires 3 i ao NOTARY PUBLIC•ARIZONA PIMA COUNTY 0My Comm. Exp. Mar. 31,202 (seal) LA182053\2008 GP Amend\Notarized Statement of Mailing 4-28-08.doc Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas • E-mail: tucson@wlbgroup.com 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona 85711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 T�B Liroup Inc. April 10, 2008 Mr. Bayer Vella Planning and Zoning Department Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Subject: OV11-08-03 Engineering • Planning Surveying • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Proposed Major General Plan Amendment —271 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of First Ave. and Tangerine Rd. WLB No. 182053-A-003 On Thursday, April 10, 2008, The WLB Group mailed jhe.,attached public meeting notification letter to the address list supplied by the Town of Oro alley Since HE,WLB GROUP, INC. R bert G. Longaker III, R.L.A. P oject Manager State of Arizona County of Pima Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of April, 2008 by Robert G. Longaker III. Nota IIc OFFICIAL SEAL TIFFANY GORRELL NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA My commission expires H w rl-, at, 2-o1 Z PIMA COUNTY Lm19y Comm. Exp. Mar. 31, 2012 (seal) L:\182053\2008 GP Amend\Notarized Statement of Mailing 4-10-08.doc Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas • E-mail: tucson@wlbgroup.com 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona 85711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 T MB GmUP Inca April 8, 2008 Engineering - Planning Surveying - Urban Design Landscape Architecture Re: OV11-08-03 Proposed Major General Plan Amendment —271 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of First Ave. and Tangerine Rd. WLB No. 182053-A-003 Dear Neighbor: The owner of the above -mentioned property is proposing a Major Amendment to the Oro Valley General Plan from Neighborhood Commercial Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community (MPC). This change would designate the entire —271-acre property as MPC and allow for its future development to include a variety of residential housing types, community commercial uses, a professional technological business park environment, continuum of care facilities and open space. It would also modify the Special Area Policy that is specific to this property. This amendment to the General Plan would set the stage for a future submittal of an application for a zone change on the property to Planned Area Development. Please find enclosed a location map and an exhibit showing the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. We are at the beginning of this lengthy process and would like to take this opportunity to discuss the project with nearby landowners. A neighborhood meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on May 1st, 2008 at the Oro Valley Municipal Complex, 11000 N. La Canada, Oro Valley, Arizona in the Hopi Room of the Community Development Services Building. This meeting will allow surrounding residents the opportunity to provide input, ask questions, offer opinions and obtain more information on this project. Should you have any questions in the meantime, please email me at rlongaker@wlbgroup.com or call me at (520) 881-7480. The planner at the Town of Oro Valley assigned to this project is Karen Id, who may be reached at (520) 229- 4814 or kberchtold@orovalleyaz.gov. GROUP, INC. G. Longaker III, R.L.A. Manager C: Bayer Vella, Town of Oro Valley Karen Berchtold, Town of Oro Valley L:\182053\2008 GP Amend\Public Participation\Tang & First Neigh Mtg 1 Invitation Ltr.doc Engineering - Planning - Surveying - Urban Design - Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas • E-mail: tucson@wlbgroup.com 4444 East Broadway - Tucson, Arizona 85711 - (520) 881-7480 - FAX (520) 881-7402 Page 1 of 3 Berchtold, Karen From: More, Sarah Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:05 AM To: Vella, Bayer; Pelletier, Pamela; Michels, Matthew; Ronquillo, David; Berchtold, Karen Subject: FW: AZStar First/Tangerine plans upset nearby residents Attachments: 237781&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=892&bh=536&ct=Ian&hp=N&[AQE]; 237781&ot=A&oi=272&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=892&bh=536&ct=Ian&hp=N& [AQE] Sarah S. More, FAICP Planning & Zoning Director Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4807 (direct) 520-869-8189 (cell) smore orovalleyaiaov From: Davis, Mary Sent: May 08, 2008 8:54 AM To: Abbott, Paula; Carter, Kenneth; Dankwerth, Helen; Gillaspie,Barry; Loomis, Paul; Parish, Terry; Abbey, Sandra; Andrews, David; Civalier, Craig; Cuvelier, Kathryn; Dunscomb, George; Garrity, Brian; Jacobs, Amanda; Jones, Jennifer; Lemos, Stacey; Michels, Matthew; Miller, James; More, Sarah; Anzalone, Paul; Reeder, Ainsley; Rosen, Tobin; Saletta, Philip; Schlievert, Tory; Sharp, Daniel; Smith, Suzanne; Verville; Kevin; Watson, Jerene Subject: AZStar First/Tangerine plans upset nearby residents Afizia=V affm S-Rar www.daitystar.com` Qwww.azstarnet.cam` Published: 05.08.2008 First/Tangerine plans upset nearby residents >'We want the view, we want quiet' < By Lourdes Medrano ARIZONA DAILY STAR Some Oro Valley residents are up in arms over a proposed Coming up development near their homes at North First Avenue and East Here's a schedule of public Tangerine Road. meetings on the proposed Kai WLB Group Inc. submitted a general -plan amendment request for the property project. 271-acre property that would incorporate a technological -business Unless otherwise noted, sessions park, offices, shops, restaurants, housing and a continuing -care center will take place at Oro Valley for seniors. Town Hall, 11000, N. La Canada The property is owned by Marana Vice Mayor Herb Kai and his Drive. family. • First Planning and Zoning public "I'm appalled and I'm dismayed by this proposal," said Bart Schannep, hearing: 4 p.m. July 10. who lives near the property. • Neighborhood meeting: 6 p.m. 05/08/2008 - - _ Page 2 of 3 r Schannep was one of several residents at a jampacked meeting at July 31. Town Hall last Thursday. He and others expressed anger about a • Second Planning and Zoning potential general -plan amendment to accommodate the development. public hearing: 2 p.m. Sept. WLB Group representatives Paul Oland and Rob Longaker reviewed 5,Casas Adobes Baptist Church, the proposal at the meeting. 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd. Oland said the company's plan reduces the allowed number of • Town Council public hearing: 7 residential units on the property to 235 from 255. p.m. Nov. 19. The plan also encourages clustering of small lots, he said. Housing could include single-family homes, condominiums or apartments. Oland and Longaker provided little information on density or other details. "This is something that will morph as time goes on," Oland noted. Before voters in 2005 approved Oro Valley's general plan, a blueprint for the town's growth, the Kai property was highly debated. The area's designated land uses were the result of a compromise after months of meetings involving the Kais, town officials and citizens, resident Patty Estes said at the meeting. That compromise capped the maximum number of houses on the property at 255, Estes said, and designated 30 acres for neighborhood commercial uses. The existing underlying density on the property is one house per acre, she said. Estes rejected the idea of changing land uses that would allow for greater density. "We are the community and we have spoken to the general plan.... We want the view, we want quiet, we want to be left alone," Estes said. Kai, who was not at the meeting, said he is surprised by the citizen opposition that has surfaced so early in the process. He and his family believe that a technological -business park could be a great asset for the town, Kai said. "We just think that Oro Valley can benefit from having some high -paying jobs," he said, adding that no developer has made a commitment to the project. Bayer Vella, principal planner for Oro Valley, said the proposal puts the care facilities on 42 acres on the northern portion of the property, which is bisected by East Palisades Road. The housing covers 61 acres, mostly south of Palisades. The commercial portion, also on the northern end, would include community -commercial uses on seven acres and the business park on 29 acres. Existing land uses spread the housing over the entire site, and confines neighborhood -commercial uses to the area's northern portion, he said.. The request for a general -plan amendment was submitted March 31— the first step in a lengthy process, Bayer said. The WLB Group is looking forward to gathering public comment, Oland said. But residents said they were skeptical that their input would make much of a difference. "We feel like these developments are deceptive," said Patricia Poe, who has lived near the Kai property for seven years. She, like other residents at the meeting, alluded to feeling duped —just as they did when they found out that a Wal-Mart Supercenter, not an upscale store, would anchor the Oro Valley Marketplace at Tangerine and North Oracle roads. "They want to scrape the desert again, and their plans are always so nebulous," Poe said. Coming up Here's a schedule of public meetings on the proposed Kai property project. Unless otherwise noted, sessions will take place at Oro Valley Town Hall, 11000 N. La Canada Drive. • First Planning and Zoning public hearing: 4 p.m. July 10. • Neighborhood meeting: 6 p.m. July 31. • Second Planning and Zoning public hearing: 2 p.m. Sept. 5,Casas Adobes Baptist Church, 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd. • Town Council public hearing: 7 p.m. Nov. 19. 05/08/2008 Page 3 of 3 f ` • Contact reporter Lourdes Medrano at 618-1924 or Imedrano@azstarnet. com. All content copyright © 1999-2008 AzStarNet, Arizona Daily Star and its wire services and suppliers and may not be republished without permission. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the expressed written consent of Arizona Daily Star or AzStarNet is prohibited. Mary K. Davis Communications Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 p. (520) 229-4712 c. (520) 260-5063 05/08/2008 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 1 1000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 (520) 229-4800 Fax (520) 742-1022 April 4, 2008 Robert Longaker The WLB Group, Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85711 RE: Formal Application, OV11-08-03, General Plan Amendment submittal to change the general plan land use designation for 271 acres east of First Avenue and south of Tangerine Road from Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community, and Text Amendment to change Kai - Capri Special Area policies, parcel # 220-06-001F and 220-06-001G. Dear Mr. Longaker: Thank you for submitting the request for the above -referenced Major General Plan Amendment for the Kai property at First Avenue and Tangerine Road. In order to process this General Plan amendment, additional information is requested for review. Please keep in mind that these items are a minimum — and during the review process, we reserve the option to ask for additional information. These items shall be submittal no later than noon on April 14, 2008: 1. Twelve copies of a narrative addressing all pertinent General Plan policies, with particular emphasis on the following elements: a. Open space and Natural Resource Conservation; b. Land Use; c. Viewsheds; d. Drainage; and e. Traffic. This narrative shall also include "substantiation" for a General Plan amendment. This substantiation, in letter form, shall address the four "findings of fact" that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council utilize to evaluate the requested amendment. Those F:\OV\OV11\2008\OV11-08.03\Correspondence\OV11.08.03 additional items needed 040408.doc 1 www.townoforovalley.com four findings of fact are found in "Focus 2020 Town of Oro Valley General Plan" and are as follows: • "That the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan and is not solely for the benefit of a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time." • "That the amendment is consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the general plan." • "That the general plan land use map does not provide appropriate optional sites for the use proposed in the amendment." • "That the amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes." 2. Twelve copies of a Site Resource Inventory Plan as specified per OVZCR Section 27.4, as well as a narrative addressing what the plan is to mitigate and/or preserve these areas. 3. Two copies of all digital files on CD (CAD files/GIS shapefiles, as well . as PDF of maps). Neighborhood Meetings: The first neighborhood meeting for Kai property at Tangerine and First is scheduled to be held May 1, 2008. Staff requests review of the neighborhood notification letter no later than Tuesday, April 8, 2008. Staff will approve this letter no later than April 10, 2008, in order for the applicant to begin the notification process (the letter must be mailed by that day.) As a reminder, mailings shall be sent no later than twenty days prior to the neighborhood meeting. Enclosed with this letter is the mailing list of all properties within 1,000 feet for the subject property. At a minimum, the neighborhood notification letter shall include the following: o A description of the subject parcels and location. o The current General Plan designation and what it means. o The proposed General Plan designation and what it means. o A map of the subject parcels. o A request to attend the neighborhood meeting. o The date, time, and location of the neighborhood meeting. The meeting will be held in the HOPI Room at Development Services and the meeting shall begin at 6:00 pm. o The contact information for the project planner for additional information. F:\OV\OV11\2008\OV11-08-03\Correspondence\OV11-08-03 additional items needed 040408.doc 2 Additionally, twenty-eight copies of the following shall be submitted prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission: a. A notarized statement from the applicant that the letter for notification was sent out to all neighbors on a specific date. b. Copy of the letter sent to residents as notification of the public meetings for the General Plan amendment. If you have any questions, please contact me. Most Cordially, Karen Berchtold Senior Planner 520.229.4814 kberchtold@orovalley.net Cc: Coordinators Paul Keesler Herbert Kai Attachment: Mailing List; Public Works comment letter. F:\OV\OV11\2008\OV11-O8-03\Correspondence\OV11.08-03 additional items needed 040408.doc 3 KAI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OVI I-08-03 Engineering Comments - Submittal Certification Paul Keesler, P.E. April 4, 2008 General Comments: 1. The Department of Public Works finds that this submittal contains the requisite items needed for our review: a. Topography b. Hydrology c. Traffic d. Sanitary Sewer Thus we certify that this submittal is complete for our review to commence. 1 FIRST AND TANGERINE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP 220-06-001F CAPRI CO LLC 2305 W RUTHRAUFF RD TUCSON AZ 85705 220-06-001G CAPRI CO LLC 2305 W RUTHRAUFF RD TUCSON AZ 85705 PAR 3 0 T I2008 ownofOr / Mar. 28. 2008 11; 35�M No. 1179 P. 2 Friday March 29, Zoos. To Whow It May Concern: UWe Herb JW as representative of Capri Co, L .C., authorize the WL$ Group, Inc. as my/our represexatative during the entitlement and development of the Tangerine and First Avenue project Sincerely, Tq! �,roup Inc. March 27, 2008 Sarah More, FAICP Planning and Zoning Director Town of Oro Valley 11000 North La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Engineering • Planning Surveying • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Subject: Kai Property General Plan Amendment —271 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of First Avenue and Tangerine Road Dear Ms. More: This property is uniquely positioned within Oro Valley, surrounded by existing development on nearly all sides and located within close proximity to the commercial hub located at First Avenue and Oracle Road. It is also located adjacent to two major arterial roadway corridors, those being First Avenue and Tangerine Road, providing excellent access to the property. Further, all major utilities are located either adjacent to or on the property. Several years ago, a sewer line was constructed through the property with the expectation that future growth would occur on this property. And lastly, the Town .of Oro Valley General Plan land use designations on this property, being Master Planned Community (MPC) and Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO), provide the foundation for a future master planned community on this property. The owners of the property, Capri Co LLC, have .held this property for many years and have been carefully considering development options. They wish to devise a well -conceived development strategy that will allow for the creation of a master planned community that will be an asset to the Town of Oro Valley and blend well with existing surrounding land uses. As such, they have established a development goal for this property that involves a variety of different, yet complementary land uses. In order to fully achieve this goal, we ask that the Town consider an amendment to the General Plan that will improve the development diversity within the Town. This request seeks to accomplish two primary goals. The first is an amendment to the land use designations on the property whereby the entire property would be designated as Master Planned Community (MPC). The existing General Plan shows approximately 30 acres in the northwest portion of the site as Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) and the balance of the site is MPC. The current thinking is that the property could accept a variety of residential housing types, community type commercial uses, professional and technological offices, a facility which provides a continuum of care for those in their later years of life, as well as open space and recreational uses. The area south of East Palisades Road would remain residential in nature, whereas the area north would be designated for the commercial, professional or technological offices and mature living facility. The areas north of East Palisades Road also enjoy convenient access to existing major transit corridors, thereby allowing this area to accept Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Offices located in Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Las Vegas • E-mail: tucson@wlbgroup.com 4444 East Broadway • Tucson, Arizona 85711 • (520) 881-7480 • FAX (520) 881-7492 Sarah More, FAICP March 27, 2008 Page 2 The Group Inc. this type of development as appropriate. In order to properly plan for all of these uses and attract the appropriate developers and end users, the property owner requests that the entire site be designated as MPC in the General Plan to allow for the best possible development of this site. The planning of the site as a master planned community will also allow for the utilization of continuous design themes for landscaping, walls and building architecture. The second request relates to a text amendment to the Kai -Capri Special Area Policy. The primary reason for this text amendment is to introduce the ability for the site to accept the new land uses that were described in the previous paragraph. The text amendments proposed focus on the ability for the site to accept professional office and technological park type uses, as well as a facility that would provide for a continuum of care for those in their later years in life, in the area north of East Palisades Road. The proposed changes to the Special Area Policy are included in this submittal. As the Town of Oro Valley has matured, new land uses have been introduced that have contributed to the sustainability and vibrancy of its living environment. This requested amendment to the General Plan would further contribute to the long-term health of the Town through the introduction of needed, logically placed and well -planned land uses. As such, we are pleased to submit this proposed amendment to the General Plan, and look forward to its consideration bysta#f, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Mayor and Town Council. rely, Rcpert�'"Longaker III, R.L.A., ASLA S nior Project Manager LA182053\2008 GP Amend\Cover Letter & Narrative.doc / stav Paul land Project Manager APR 1?408 Proposed Revision to thep Kai -Capri Special Area Policy4frfj (Including the approximately 10-acre Steam Pump Ranch Estates 1i property in the southeast corner of the area) 1. The areas within the Special Area Policy shall be designed and developed as an overall master plan (PAD). Uses shall include community commercial establishments, professional offices, research and development / technology park facilities, continuum of care facilities, a mix of residential densities and significant open space preservation as conceptually depicted in the attached site plan. The master planning effort shall include the creation of landscape design guidelines using a native drought tolerant plant palette to ensure continuity of landscape theme throughout the master plan. 2. The area south of Palisades Road is restricted to residential and open space uses. Housing types may include attached and / or detached products in order to increase clustering and open space preservation. 3. Care should. betaken to minimize visual impacts of development.on the "Palisades Splits" area. 4. The commercial areas shall not extend, on North First Avenue, to the south of the Evergreen (Walgreen's) development. 5. Any change to the General Plan that would allow more than 1.0 unit per acre on the property shall be treated as a major amendment. As currently mapped, the maximum number of residential units on the Kai -Capri Property is 121 on the area south of Palisades Road and 114 on the area north of Palisades Road; and up to 10 are allowed on the Steam Pump Ranch Estates property. Any change of the non-residential areas to residential uses shall also be treated as a major amendment. The transfer of residential units between development parcels is permitted. 6. Primitive . trails, with public access easements, shall be provided unless otherwise prohibited by law. These will be within the existing wash areas, will connect to the open space area adjacent to the north boundary of the site, and will provide a connection from the Palisades Split Area southeasterly to the wash. 7. There shall be no development in the 100-year floodplain, riparian areas or on any slopes of 25% or more, excluding roadway.and utilities. 8. Any commercial building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalina Mountains. 9. No building within 150 feet of Palisades Road or existing development shall be higher than 18 feet, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalina Mountains. 10. A minimum of 40% of the North First Avenue frontage to a depth of 300 feet must be maintained as a view corridor and not used for building purposes. LA 1 82053\2008 GP Amend'Kai Capri Revised SAP.doc o�O Jp,LLEY AR�Zoy �9 ED TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PLANNING AND 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE, ORO VALLEI PHONE: (520) 229-4800 FAX: (520) 742-1 « www.townoforovalley.com APPLICATION FORM OV Case # (Office Use Only): U V 11 G o'— 0 c 3 Application Type: P,IA►OR GENERAL PLAN A IENDMENT A. Project Manager/Developer Name: ROBERT LONGAKER Firm: THE WLB GROUP, INC. Address: 4444 FAST BROADWAY BOULEVARD City: TUCSON State: AZ Zip: 85711 Telephone: (520) 881-7480 Fax: (520) 318-6170 Email RLONGAKER(a,WLBGROUP.COM B. Property Owner (s), if more than one owner, attach list Name: HERB KAI Firm: CAPRI CO, LLC. Address: 2305 WEST RUTHRAUFF ROAD City: TUCSON State: AZ Zip: 85705 Telephone: (520) 744-1573 Fax: Email: C. Subject Property Parcel[Tax Code: 220-06-001FAND 220-06-001G Legal Description/Property Address: PTN SE4 NW4 LYG N & ADJ RD & LOT 3 & PTN LOTS 4 & 5 LYG & ADJ RD 149.22 AC, SEC 6-12-14 AND PTN E2 SW4 LYG S & ADJ RD & PTN LOTS 6 & 7 LYG E & ADI RD 121.30 AC SEC 6-12-1 Area of property: +/- ?,4 ACRES Existing Zoning: R1-144 Proposed Zoning: N/A Is Proposed Zoning in conformance with General Plan designation? N N/A [ ] Yes [ ] No General Plan Designation: NCO AND MPC Existing Land Use: VACANT Proposed Land Use: MIXED USE residential housing types, community commercial uses, a business park environment, continuum of care facilities, and open space D. Previous Applications Relating To This Property OV8- OV9- OV10- OV11- OV12- --Avd11- E. Reason For Request WE REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING ORO VALLEY GE RAL PLAN 2/OFROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE CO TO bIASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY A, 1PQ TO ALLKW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT Of A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES CONBIUNITY CONEMERCIAL USE A PROFES ONAL TECHNOLOGICAL BUSINES PARK ENVIRONMENT CO� TINUUM OF CARE FACILITIES, AND EN SPAC WE ALSO REQUEST AN ANNIENDMEI` TO THE KAI-CAPRI SPECIAL AREA POLICY This application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am a ow of the above described property or have been authorized by the owner to make this application. Date k i Ai ,ems NOTICE M4R312008 In addition to the Town of Oro Valle e ownthere maybe other jun T Y (the "Town'), )� Y � evelo of this property. If a property developer waits until late in the development process ent governmental agencies or bodies, additional expense and time in coordination, redesign and dev y be a result. Examples of other governmental agencies and/or bodies that may have overlapping jurisdiction r this property include but are not limited to the following: Federal: ♦ The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for Endangered Species Act compliance, etc. Please note, habitat has been designated within the Town. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Field Division 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 850214951 Phone (602) 640-2720 Fax (602) 620-2730 ♦ The United States Corps of Engineers: This agency is responsible for management of jurisdictional waters, etc. Section 404 consultations may be required on properties that contain washes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5205 E. Comanche Davis Monthan AFB Tucson, AZ 85707 State: Phone (520) 584-4486 Fax (520) 584-4497 ♦ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: This agency has multiple responsibilities. Please contact directly for further information. ADEQ 1110 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 County (602) 771-2300 ♦ Pima County Department of Environmental Quality: This agency has multiple responsibilities. Please contact directly for further information. PDEQ 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2"d Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 740-6520 Please be ad"*ed, issuance of a permit DOES NOT, nor should it be construed, to imply compliance with Federal, tor County regulations. If you have any questions concerning your responsibilities under federal law, ease c tact the applicable agency. PLIC T NAME: (,JL CD &Zvv� ,L\TV\) , F_Cj &F_ F—T SIT OCATION: �7S,N � � � 1►v � ��D � ��- �� N � P POSED USE: Ni i X � � US 7~_ cant Case/File Number 11 Robert G C Property Owner Capri Co. LLC 2305 West Ruthrauff Road Tucson, Arizona 85705 520.744.1573 Prepared By The WLB Group, Inc. Longaker III, R.L.A., ASLA, Sr. Project Manager Gustav Paul Oland, Project Manager Gabriela Kinkead, Senior Planner 4444 East Broadway Boulevard Tucson, Arizona 85711 520.881.7480 WLB Ny�yo. 182053-E-003 G��Pvv�s TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Introduction............................................................................................................................................1 A. Existing Land Uses............................................................................................................................. 1 B. Topography.......................................................................................................................................9 C. Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................11 D. Vegetation...................................................................................................................................... 15 E. Wildlife........................................................................................................................................... 22 F. Viewsheds.....................................................................................................................................23 G. Traffic............................................................................................................................................. 26 H. Recreation and Trails....................................................................................................................... 31 I. Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources..................................................................................... 33 J. Schools............................................................................................................................................37 K. Water---..... ...... **,,**, ...... ater.................................... ..........................................................................................................37 L. Sewers............................................................................................................................................ 37 M. McHarg Composite Map.................................................................................................................. 39 N. Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................................ 41 �. Site Analysis j Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 I EXHIBITS A. Location Map...................................................................................................................................4 B. Aerial Photograph............................................................................................................................. 5 C. Existing Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 6 D. General Plan Land Use Designations.................................................................................................. 7 E. Existing Land Uses............................................................................................................................. 8 F. Site Topography and Slopes............................................................................................................ 10 G. Watershed Map.............................................................................................................................. 13 H. On -Site Hydrology........................................................................................................................... 14 I. Arizona Game and Fish Department Response Letter...................................................................... 16 J. Vegetation Densities....................................................................................................................... 21 K. Viewsheds Map............................................................................................................................... 24 L. Visibility Map..................................................................................................................................25 M. Existing Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................................. 29 N. Bike Routes Map............................................................................................................................. 30 0. P. Recreation and Trails....................................................................................................................... Arizona State Museum Letter.......................................................................................................... 32 34 Q. Existing Sewer Alignments............................................................................................................... 38 R. S. Composite Map....._..... ... ...... Conceptual Site Plan 40 41 ........................................................................................................................ 7 1 1 Site Analysis II Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 PART I — INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This site analysis and Tentative Development Plan have been prepared in support of a proposed major amendment to the existing Oro Valley General Plan 2020. The proposed amendment focuses on an approximately 271-acre property located at the southeast corner of First Avenue and Tangerine Road. This proposal is to make two changes to the General Plan. The first involves a change to the Special Area Policies that apply to this property. The amended Special Area Policies would allow for a greater variety of land uses on this property. The uses now envisioned for this property include a variety of residential housing types, community commercial uses, a professional/technological business park environment, continuum of care facilities, and open space. The second change is an amendment to the land use designation as is currently shown on the land use exhibit. The current land use designations consist of Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) at the northwest corner of the site, with the balance of the site as Master Planned Community (MPC). This request is to designate the entire property as Master Planned Community (MPC), thereby ensuring maximum flexibility of land uses that will be further defined during the future zone change of this property to Planned Area Development (PAD). As such, we submit to you this site analysis and Tentative Development Plan as part of our efforts to amend the existing Oro Valley General Plan 2020 on behalf of Capri Co, LLC. I -A. Existing Land Uses 1. Site Location The subject property consists of approximately 271 acres located at the southeast corner of First Avenue and Tangerine Road, Township 12 South, Range 14 East, Section 6, Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona. It is bounded by First Avenue to the west, the Catalina Shadows Estates subdivision to the east, Tangerine Road and vacant land owned by Pima County to the north, and privately held land to the south. The Pima County tax assessor designates the subject property as parcel numbers 220-06-001F and 220-06-001G. Refer to ExhibitA for a location map of the subject property and to Exhibit B for an aerial photograph of the subject property. 2. Existing Land Uses - Onsite The subject property is currently undeveloped and vacant. The subject property is currently zoned R1-144 (Single -Family Residential District). Please refer to Exhibit C. Existing Zoning. The Town of Oro Valley General Plan 2020 designates a portion of the subject property as Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) and Master Planned Community (MPC) with portions of the subject property located within the General Plan Site Analysis Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 1 Ul Significant Resource Areas Overlay District. Please refer to Exhibit D: General Plan Land Use Designations. 3. Existing Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses Please refer to Exhibit C. Existing Zoning and Exhibit E. Existing Land Uses. The subject property is surrounded by the following existing zonings and land uses: a/b. North: Existing zoning: R-144 (Single -Family Residential) and Rancho Vistoso PAD. Existing land use: Vacant land owned by Pima County, Tangerine Road, and further north Safeway Vistoso Plaza. Northeast: Existing zoning: Catalina Shadows PAD and Rancho Vistoso PAD. Existing land use: Vacant land and Big Wash. East: Existing zoning: Catalina Shadows PAD. Existing land use: Catalina Shadows Estates residential subdivision. Southeast: Existing zoning: R1-36 (Single -Family Residential). Existing land use: City of Tucson Palisades Reservoir site and Palisades South residential subdivision South: Existing zoning: Rooney Ranch Area Z PAD (OV9-03-03) Existing land use: Vacant. Southwest: Existing zoning: PSC (Private Schools and Churches) and R1-144 (Single -Family Residential). Existing land use: Resurrection Lutheran Church of Oro Valley and Tangerine Meadows residential subdivision. West: Existing zoning: Commercial District (C-2) and R1-36 Existing land use: First Avenue, Oro Valley Retail Center, and Tangerine Hills residential subdivision. Northwest: Existing zoning: Rancho Vistoso PAD. Existing land use: Vacant land. The Town of Oro Valley General Plan 2020 designates property to the north as Open Space and Neighborhood Commercial (NCO), to the west as Neighborhood Commercial (NCO) and Low Density Residential 1(LDR 1), to the east as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and to the south as Master Planned Community (MPC). Please refer to Exhibit D: General Plan Land Use Designations. Tangerine Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District Site Analysis Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 K A" The subject property is located within the Tangerine Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District. Regulations and guidelines required per this overlay district will be addressed during later stages of development. Significant Resource Areas Overlay Portions of the subject property fall within the Significant Resource Areas Overlay District (SRA) as identified by the Oro Valley General Plan 2020 (OVGP). Detailed environmental studies will be performed during a future rezoning effort. These studies will identify accurate boundaries of sensitive areas to be used to guide detailed site planning and development. C. There are both one and two-story structures within one -quarter mile of the subject property. d/e. There are no pending or conditionally approved rezonings within one -quarter mile of the subject property. f. There are no pending subdivision and/or development plans within one -quarter mile of the subject property. g. Architectural styles of the homes to the east are contemporary and Mediterranean style. Homes towards the west and south display adobe/block characteristics. A variety of contemporary styles are found in the Safeway Vistoso Plaza, the Resurrection Lutheran Church, and the fire station. 4. Well Locations According to the Arizona Technical Services (Arizona mapguide), there are no wells located within 100 feet of the subject property. Site Analysis 3 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 a LEGEND ---- ... -- SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY SECTION LINES EXISTING WASHES U15205=M GP AnWW%Gr l Plan Sae Analysl$WF h A Ln Mn Map.dn PbIMa: M-. A 2M 4 •� _. A is ell �-_ .,F� '�,'.��il •, i' a � �_. . • �, � _" �f`�� „�� is ar gyp° , M-A M, 00 ' ,5. 4s ',r ,Ir' .C, �� •.� ' R'r ail '^ .t i. ;. �: � 2 • L_ 4 x ` F a y r AW r }��-�'':''f"f. ix h'�l`�e. � •r �tls".''t!''' '/� .✓a'' •I'.p •::�'ih��.�.�\ Thewig FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD o" 1000" croupEXHIBIT' B' - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WLBNo. 182053-E-003 F9sa qj / /RANCHO VISTOSO PAD I I --------------- Z-\ Xnoolle_ -V RANCHO VISTOSO PAD \ RI-144 \ I PALISADE \ap LEGEND SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY R1-144 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) R1-72 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) R1-36 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) - - - - - - - 1/4 MILE DISTANCE FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY PAD (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT) C-2 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) - PSC (PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES) CLLAUND L:\182053\2008 GP A—MG21 Plan Site A-lysis\Fsh C F 'kiting Za W.tivg PLOW: Mar. 28. & NARANJA DRIVE INN LEGEND r7ii, • • • • SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY RLD (RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) LDR 1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) MPC (MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY) HDR (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) CRC (COMMUNITY/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) VA - - - - - - - 1/4-MILE DISTANCE FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY 1 PSP (PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC) NCO (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) OS (OPEN SPACE) ® RGC (RESORT/GOLF COURSE) /X SRA (SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AREA OVERLAY) L:\102053\2009 GP A ,,MGral Plan Site Malysis\Ezh D F lsHnp Land Use Desigmbo p• OV.tivg Rolled!: Mar. 28, 20D5 7 m I LEGEND -" SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY - - - - - - - 1/4-MILE DISTANCE FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PAG) DATED 2005. L.\18205312008 GP Amend\GmI Plee S8e Aeelyslq\E d E Exl�g Leed Ueeadwg Pl d : Me 28, 2008 1 I-B. Topography 1. The topography of the subject property is characterized by rolling hills and braided washes. The subject property generally slopes downward from northwest to southeast towards the Canada de Oro Wash, located approximately one -mile south of the subject property. There are no rock outcrops or restricted peaks on the subject property. Refer to Exhibit Ffor a map of site topography. Slopes less than 15% characterize the vast majority of the subject property with elevations ranging from approximately 2,760 feet at the highest point on the north side of the subject property to 2,680 feet at the lowest point on the south side of the subject property. An unnamed wash traverses the site, dividing itself into two branches and creating low ridgelines. The site contains limited areas of slopes greater than 15%, which primarily exist along the banks of the washes. The site does not contain any restricted peaks/ridges, or rock outcrops. No areas of this development are subject to the Hillside Development Zone, Section 24.2 of the Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code. 2. The pre -development average cross -slope The pre -development average cross -slope for the subject property is approximately 11.8 percent. This figure is derived using the formula set forth by the Hillside Development Zone, section 24.2.K of the Town of Oro Valley Zoning Code. Average cross slope was calculated as follows: Site Analysis Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 (I)(L)(0.0023) _ (10')(139.392)(0.0023) _ -11.8% A 271 ac. G b v" r s L �j �' Y ^1 ti w.t- wig FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD o soo c'°°Pk EXHIBIT' F' - SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND SLOPES CONTOUR Z No.182053E-003 — M�.m, 10 I-C. Hydroloey 1. Description and map (aerial photograph) of perimeter of all off -site watersheds effecting, or affected by, the site, upstream and downstream. The perimeter of all off -site watersheds affecting or affected by this property are shown on Exhibit G: Watershed Map. a. Notation of all balanced and critical basins. The subject property is located within a critical basin. 2. Description of significant off -site features, natural or man-made, with above watersheds effected by, or affecting, the site. There are no significant off -site features, natural or man-made, within the watersheds that affect the subject property. 3. Acreage of upstream off -site watersheds Preliminary hydrologic analysis suggests that there are four upstream offsite watersheds, which deliver a 100-year discharge to the subject property that is greater than 100 cfs. The concentration points for these watersheds are shown on Exhibit G as Concentration Points #2, #5, #6, and #17. The drainage area and discharges at these concentration points can be seen on Exhibit G. 4. Description of characteristics of on -site hydrology including: a. Approximate 100-year floodplains with discharges greater than, or equal to, 50 cfs. Please refer to Exhibit H: On -Site Hydrology for an illustration of the estimated100- year floodplain limits with a discharg le s an 50 cfs. b. Areas of sheet flooding and average depths The areas of sheet flooding range between approximately 0.5 feet and 3.6 feet. c. Federally mapped floodways and floodplains Portions of the subject property are not located within a federally mapped floodway or floodplain. d. 100-year peak discharges exceeding 50 cfs The estimated 100-year peak discharges exceeding 50 cfs are shown on Exhibit H. Site Analysis 11 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 A qualitative description of existing drainage conditions along the downstream property boundary The central wash that courses through the subject property exists in a natural condition along the downstream property boundary. The wash then drains to the Canada del Oro Wash which is located approximately % mile south of the subject property. Site Analysis 12 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 ,25 `1y :.rr"-j 28W*1 II Ill � Y'� � _ l .�- IQ / �,• ry�� - j r I1 nU W li r ---'-- - _- _- 1 it `_-�-_ --- �- +-.,---24—�-- -- I--- ---�— �E Well \\ it q it I WATERSHED ;� I IH BOUNDARY ' 270p I — - 11 \ I TAN ROADn �JMAn TA 14 i / ■ 2763 ■ \\ It I /� ■ f, j r i ■ Ir I ■ I i i II A well 11l 27►9� fi _ 7f2BM 21 2 I II AnAn it —_ Historical o ell 9 I; ? — -- —. Mon 2BZ8 �� w 3 n�i I Q 1 f IL Steam Pum LEGEND ORO VALLEY USGS QUAD SHEET WATERSHED BOUNDARY © CONCENTRATION POINT L:\182053UM8 GP A—M\Gral Plan Site A-Ipis\Exh G Wat—rs ..d g �: Mar. 28, 2008 13 The JQrM FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD 0' 600' WL Group_ EXHIBIT' H'- ON -SITE HYDROLOGY CWLBNo.INTER-E-003 WLB No. 182053-E-003 I-D. Vegetation 1. Vegetative communities and associations on the site The vegetation community on the property is typical of the Sonoran Desert Scrub Region, Arizona Upland Subdivision, Palo Verde -Cacti -Mixed Scrub Series (David E. Brown: Biotic Communities). Typical species found in this biome include Bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea) and Foothills Palo Verde (Cercidium microphylum). Wash and drainage areas are characterized by Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Desert Hackberry (Celtis Pallida), and mixed scrub vegetation association. Significant cacti and groups of trees and Federally -listed threatened or endangered species. Please refer to Exhibit 1: Arizona Game and Fish Department Letter. The following significant plant species were found on the project site: Fishhook Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii), Ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), Engelmann Prickly Pear (0. p. var. discata), Foothills Palo Verde (Cercidium microphyllum), Velvet Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentata), Cat -claw Acacia (Acacia greggii), Desert Hackberry (Celtis pallida), Strawberry Hedgehog (Echinocereus engelmannii, Teddy Bear Cholla (Opuntia bigelovii), Jumping Cholla (Opuntia fulgida), Brittlebush (Encelia farinose), Desert Broom (Baccharis sarathoides), Fairy Duster (Calliandra eriophylla), Triangle Leaf Bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea), and Saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea). More dense and diverse vegetation occurs along the washes crossing the subject property. According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, in a letter dated January 12, 1999, the following species are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site —Pima Indian Mallow (Abutilon parishii), designated Sensitive and Salvage Restricted and Trelease Agave (Agave schottii treleasei), designated as Sensitive and Highly Safeguarded. 3. Vegetative densities by approximate percentage of plant cover As determined by field reconnaissance and analysis of aerial photographs, the subject property is characterized by a moderate amount of vegetation. A wash traverses the site from north to south. In some areas, the wash gntains_dense stands of mature ve n. The density of the vegetation gradually diminishes with distance from the washes. Refer to ExhibitJ: Vegetation Densities. Site Analysis 15 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 Exhibit I: Arizona Game and Fish Department Response Letter Ct Es e � Grtsaur Jam Dee Hun THE STATE OF ARIZONA C—aw.,,., o• • . '� : man. Herb Guenther. Tacna Mkhad M. GoL;MIt. Fla;sari 9 W0Urn UrLu. Twwa GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT DenmsD M aruIL ;. Alpn 2221 West Greenway Road. Phoenix. Arizona 95023-4399 (602) 942.3000 °"""" thane L shra,re www.gf.u=.az.us rhprty Am ro Thomu W. spal,Ln; Tucson Utrice, 555 14. kireasewood, I ucsou, AZ 5574.) January 12, 1999 Ms. Melanie Ormsby Planning Resources 270 N. Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Re: 300-Acre Parcel at Naranja & 1st Avenue; T12S, R14E, Section 6. Dear Ms. Ormsby: Due to excessive workloads and limited personnel availability, the Arizona Game & Fish Department (Department) is, at this time, only able to provide you with the list of special status species that are known to occur in the vicinity of the above -referenced parcel (Attachment A). This list is based on the review of records in the Department's Heritage Data Management System" (HDMS). Any of these species are likely to occur on -site to the degree that the parcel provides the species' habitat requirements. For information that will assist you in identifying the on -site native vegetation communities and their values as wildlife habitat,. the Department recommends the following references: • Brown, D.E. (ed). 1994. Biotic Communities - Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, 342 pp. • Shaw W.W., L.K. Harris, M. Livingston, J.P. Charpentier, and C. Wissler. 1996. Pima County Habitat Inventory - Phase 3 Information contained in the Department's HDMS is dynamic and updated on a periodic basis. Any information, therefore, is likely to become outdated shortly after its release. Such"information is intended to serve as a guide regarding what species may be found in a particular area. It does not represent the results of comprehensive species -specific surveys. An Equal Opportunity Reasonable Accommodations Agency Site Analysis 16 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 Ms. Ormsby January 12, 1999 2 II. Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Contract No. G50028-001, Phoenix, AZ. 94pp. (Pima County maintains GIS coverages from this report.) • Pima County's 1986 Map of Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitats. The following measures that relate to Federal/State regulatory compliance should be applied when appropriate. Those practices that pertain to landscape design and site planning are practices beneficial in maintaining habitat elements compatible with native desert wildlife. Implementation of these landscape design/site planning practices will not totally mitigate for the loss of native desert habitats, however, evidence shows that incorporation of these practices will foster the retention of those native wildlife species which can exist in urban/suburban environments. The Department recommends these landscape/site planning practices be implemented as part of any anticipated on -site development. • Apply the attached guidance from the USFWS regarding the Endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy -owl and contact them as appropriate. • If plants protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law are likely to occur on the subject parcel, contact the Arizona Department of Agriculture for additional information regarding potential restrictions which may apply to the salvage or removal of plant species. A suggested contact is: Mr. James McGinnis Manager, Native Plant Law Plant Services Division Arizona Dept. of Agriculture 1688 W. Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 602/542-3292 Site Analysis 17 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 Ms. Ormsby January 12, 1999 3 • Adhere to the attached tortoise handling guidelines for development projects if Sonoran desert tortoise are likely to occur on the subject parcel. • Contact the Department's Tucson Regional Office immediately for direction regarding the disposition of an active bat roost site(s) if one is found on the property. • During pre -construction and construction activities, contact the Department's Tucson Regional Office immediately for direction regarding the disposition of an active raptor nest (s)'if one is found on the property. (Please note that an active raptor nest can also be located in a burrow as well as the more common arboreal situation. Nests of the burrowing owl is one example.) • Maximize the amount of interconnected open space within the development. • Utilize native plant species for all on -site vegetation and revegetation. • Employ revegetation schemes that re-establish.and maintain vertical diversity (ground cover, shrub layer, and canopy cover) with native plant species. • Retain in place or salvage mature woody vegetation including saguaros and ironwoods (mature adults as well as immatures). • Maintain the vegetative and hydrologic integrity of all washes, especially those which Pima County's 1986 Map of Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitats identifies as Class I or II Riparian Habitats. Site Analysis 18 Tangerine & First rkblv" WLB No. 182053-E-003 Ms. Ormsby January 12, 1999 4 Please call me at 520/628-5982 Ext. 137 if you have questions. Sincerely, Sherry \X.I Ruther Habitat Decialist i K�^ SAR:sr CC: John Kennedy, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor, Habitat Branch, PHX (AGFD Log No. 12-31-98/04) Bob.Fink, District Wildlife Manager, Region V Dave Harlow, Supervisor, USFWS, Az Ecological Services State Ofc, PHX James McGinnis, AZ•Dept. of Ag, Plant Services Div., PHX Attachments C:\PROJECTS\CITIES\OROVLLY\NARJAIST.PLN Site Analysis 19 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 Ms. Ormsby January 12, 1999 5 ATTAC11MENT A SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 300-ACRE PARCEL AT NARANJA & 1ST AVE cactus ferruginous pygmy -owl lowland leopard frog Mexican long -tongued bat Pima indian mallow Sonoran desert tortoise Trelease agave Glaucidium brasilianum Rana yavapaiensis Choeronycteris mexicana Abutilon parishii Gopherus agassizii Agave schottii treleasei LE, WC, S WC,S WC,S S,SR WC,S SIBS LE - Listed Endangered. Species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act as being in imminent jeopardy of extinction. WC. - Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Species whose occurrence in Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived threats or population declines, as described by the Department's listing of Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (WSCA, in prep.). Species included in WSCA are currently the same as those in Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona (1988) . S - Sensitive. Species classified as "sensitive" by the Regional Forester when occurring on lands managed by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service. HS - Highly safeguarded. Those Arizona native plants whose prospects for survival in this state are in jeopardy or are in danger of extinction, or are likely to become so in the foreseeable future, as described by the Arizona Native Plant Law (1993). SR - Salvage Restricted. Those Arizona native plants not included in the Highly Safeguarded Category, but that have a high potential for theft or vandalism, as described by the Arizona Native Plant Law (1993). Site Analysis 20 Tangerine & First Tlv WLB No. 182053-E-003 LEGEND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PAG) DATED 2005. • - - SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY HIGH DENSITY VEGETATION M MEDIUM DENSITY VEGETATION LOW DENSITY VEGETATION LA182MV008 GP Amend\Gml Plen S8e An elyels\Exh J VegebMbn,d g Pbeed: Mer. 28. 2008 21 I-E. Wildlife A detailed response letter from the Arizona Game and Fish Department dated January 12, 1999, providing special status species information, is enclosed as Exhibit 1. Please refer to this Exhibit for status definition. The special status species likely to occur in the vicinity of the project site are listed in Table 1: TABLE 1: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PER ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy -Owl Glaucidium brasilianum LE, WC, S Lowland Leopard Frog Rana yapapaiensis WC, S Mexican Long -Tongued Bat Choeronyctens mexicana WC, S Pima Indian Mallow Abutilon parishii S, SR Sonoran Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii WC, S Trelease Agave Agave schottii treleasei S, HS Site Analysis 22 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 1-F. Viewsheds 1. Views onto and across the site from adjacent properties that may be blocked by development of the site. Please refer to Exhibit K. Viewsheds Map. The Tortolita Mountains to the northwest are slightly visible from the subject property. The Santa Catalina Mountains, including Pusch Ridge, to the east and southeast are highly visible from the subject property. Due to the undulating terrain, rolling hills, and relatively flatness areas of the site, views of the mountains will be minimally impacted by the proposed development. There are no views or vistas from areas beyond adjacent properties that may be noticeably affected by the development of the site. The views from existing residential subdivisions surrounding the subject property will not be adversely affected by the proposed development. 2. Areas of high visibility from adjacent off -site locations. Please refer to Exhibit L: Visibility Map. Due to the undulating character of the site, portions of the property may be visible from adjacent roadways and properties. On -site areas of high visibility include portions of the subject property immediately adjacent to First Avenue, Palisades Road, Tangerine Road, and Catalina Shadows States residential subdivision. The development on the northern portion and eastern portion of the project site will be visible from Tangerine Road (to the north) and First Avenue (to the west). The southern portion and the eastern portion of the property may be visible from Palisades Road and Catalina Shadows States residential subdivision. The areas of high, medium, and low visibility were determined by field observation, topography, and aerial photograph reconnaissance. 3. Provide photographs that depict proposed structures superimposed on existing landscape. The proposed development will consist of residential and non-residential components integrated in a well -designed manner to fit with the existing nature of the site. However, at this time, a developer for this property has not been selected and the specific nature of structures has not yet been determined. Site Analysis 23 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 MUM LEGEND ■ ■ ■ ■ SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY HIGH VISIBILITY LOW VISIBILITY IMMEDIATE FOREGROUND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PAG) DATED aM. LAM2057\2008 GP AmeeEU .1 Pl— SBe AnelyalelEch K Vlewshe Mep.dwp PFLBtl: Mar. 25. 20OB 24 LEGEND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PAG) DATED 2005. ■ ■ ■ ■ SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY AREAS HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ROADWAYS AREAS OE MEDIUM VISIBILITY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ROADWAYS - J AREAS SLIGHTLY VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ROADWAYS Li18205312008 GP Amentl\GmI Plan She Anelye1e1E,h L Vla6■y Map.Ewg PbRsd; Mm 2B, 2008 25 I-G. Traffic 1. All existing and proposed off -site streets between the development and the nearest arterial streets. Please refer to Exhibit M: Existing Traffic Volumes. Primary access to the subject property will be from First Avenue and potentially Tangerine Road while secondary access will be from East Palisades Road. Other major streets within one mile of the subject property are Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, Moore Road, Naranja Drive, Lambert Lane, and Oracle Road. Roads adjacent to and within one - mile distance from the subject property are in excellent condition. 2. All arterial streets within one mile of the project site: First Avenue First Avenue is a four -lane (two in each direction) paved road with a landscape median and left/right turn -in lanes at the intersection with Tangerine Road and Oracle Road and a left turn -in lane at the intersection with Palisades Road. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The existing right-of-way is 125 feet, which is continuous as it travels south of Tangerine Road. First Avenue ends at the intersection of Tangerine Road and continues north of the traffic light as Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. The ultimate right-of-way is 150 feet. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) is 16,000 south of Tangerine Road and 34,000 south of Lambert Lane. Please refer to Exhibit M. Tangerine Road Tangerine Road is a four -lane paved public road (two lanes in each direction) with right and left turn -in lanes and a divided landscaped median with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The existing and ultimate R.O.W. is 300 feet, which is continuous east and west of First Avenue. There is a traffic light at the intersection of Tangerine Road and First Avenue/Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) varies from 12,000 east of First Avenue to 17,000 west of First Avenue. Please refer to Exhibit M. East Palisades Road East Palisades Road is a two-lane (one in each direction) paved road with a left and right turn -in lanes and a posted speed limit that varies from 45 to 35 mph. The existing and ultimate right-of-way is 90 feet. Palisades Road ends approximately one mile east of First Avenue at the Palisades Point States gated subdivision. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, there is no current ADT data available for this road. Moore Road Site Analysis 26 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 Mwmffm H Moore Road is a four lane paved road with a landscaped median lying within a 150-foot right-of-way. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) is 3,000. Rancho Vistoso Boulevard Rancho Vistoso is a 4-lane (two in each direction) paved road with right and left turn -in lanes and a divided landscaped median with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The existing and ultimate right-of-way is 150 feet, which is continuous as it travels north of Tangerine Road. There is a traffic light at the intersection with Tangerine Road. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) is 8,000. Please refer to Exhibit M. Naranja Drive Naranja Drive is a two-lane paved public road (one travel lane in each direction) with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The existing R.O.W. is 150 feet, which is continues west of First Avenue. Naranja Drive ends at the traffic light at the intersection with First Avenue. The ultimate R.O.W. is 150 feet. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) is 4,000. Please refer to Exhibit M. Lambert Lane Lambert Lane is a two-lane paved public road (one lane in each direction) with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The ultimate R.O.W. for Lambert Lane is 150 feet. The existing R.O.W. is 90 feet (as per Pima County Assessor maps), which is continuous. Lambert Lane ends at the traffic light located at the intersection with First Avenue. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) is 11,000. Please refer to Exhibit M. Site Analysis Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 27 Oracle Road Oracle Road is a six -lane (three in each direction) paved State Route with right and left turn -in lanes and a divided landscaped median with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The existing and ultimate right-of-way is 200 feet, which is mostly continuous as it travels north and south of Tangerine Road. There are traffic lights at the intersection with Tangerine Road and First Avenue. According to Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2007 Traffic Volumes in Metropolitan Tucson and Eastern Pima County, the average daily trip (ADT) varies from 38,000 north of Tangerine Road to 30,000 south of Tangerine Road, and 50,000 south of First Avenue. Please refer to Exhibit M. Existing and proposed intersections on arterials within one mile of the site, most likely to be used by traffic from this site Arterial intersections within one mile of the site that will likely carry traffic generated by this development include Tangerine Road and First Avenue, Tangerine Road and Oracle Road, First Avenue and Oracle Road. 4. Existing bicycle and pedestrian ways adjacent to the site and their connections with streets, parks, and schools. Please refer to Exhibit N: Bike Routes Map. According to the Oro Valley Bikeways Map Existing Routes and Surfaces 2006, there are paved shoulders along Tangerine Road and First Avenue, which are classified as follows: • East of First Avenue, along Tangerine Road (paved shoulder) • West of First Avenue, along Tangerine Road (shared use path and signed bike route w/on-street bike land) • First Avenue (paved shoulder) • Naranja Drive (paved shoulder) • Lambert Lane (share use path) • Oracle Road (paved shoulder) There is a shared use path and signed bike route w/on-street bike land along the south side of Tangerine Road west of First Avenue, which provides connection to paved shoulder bike route along First Avenue. According to the Oro Valley Bikeways Map Existing Routes and Surfaces, First Avenue paved shoulder also provides connectivity to the Naranja Drive paved shoulder bike route and the Lambert Lane share use path. Ultimately, First Avenue paved shoulder connects to the paved shoulder bike route along Oracle Road. Site Analysis Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 Wmffm TRAFFIC DATA INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (PAG) 2007 TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN METROPOLITAN TUCSON AND EASTERN PIMA COUNTY. LEGEND - - - SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY - - - -- ONE -MILE DISTANCE FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY �^ •, / EXISTING WASHES L'%IBM T,M GP A—.MC,d Pbn Sib Are".e Tr.ft.Nq Pbftt M-. M MM 29 Y l • 1/ • 'NE -MILE DISTANCE \ LROM SUBJECT -PROPERTY \u r Iz ! E ff 71 •D- 7A__LI!;AD_E_9 RbaIJ 00 _ I • 1, •. • .... •.... •. •... NARANJA DRIVE •. � .. � .-. � .. � / _•• t I ` • /aaaa0 � •� �� � •� •�a_ `• / % _T_T- • /// ---------------------------- INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ORO VALLEY BIKEWAYS MAP EXISTING ROUTES AND SURFACES 2006. LEGEND ------- SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY - — — — — — — - ONE -MILE DISTANCE FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY • • • • • • • • PAVED SHOULDER •••••••• SHARED USE PATH • • • • • • • • SIGNED BIKE ROUTE W/ ON -STREET BIKE LANE L:\18205312008 GP Amend\Graf Plan Site Anelysls0ke Pmtes Map.d" Ploftd: Mar. 20. 2008 30 I-H. Recreation and Trails 1. Trails, parks and recreation areas within one mile of site Trail #328 traverses the subject property from north to south, ultimately connecting to trail #33 located approximately within one-half mile east of the subject property along the eastern side of Big Wash. Trail #328 also connects with trail #2 located approximately % of a mile south of the subject property along the Canada de Oro Wash. The proposed Naranja Town Site Park is located approximately one -mile west of the subject property, located north of Naranja Drive and approximately one -mile west of First Avenue. On November 2008, Oro Valley citizens will vote to authorize the Town to issue and sell approximately $49 million in general obligation bonds to pay for the infrastructure, play fields, ball courts, parking areas, and earthwork for this project. The Naranja Town Site Bond Election was approved by Council in March, 2008. The Catalina State Park is located approximately within one mile east of the subject property. Please refer to Exhibit 0: Recreation and Trails. 2. Size and type of the parks and recreation areas identified The proposed Naranja Town Site Park consists of approximately 213 acres. This park will feature active and passive recreational areas. Site Analysis 31 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 RIWUM L• • / \ -- — • / O • ! 1 i• •A-0 • • -0 - --jr ■ • ■ - •I I air-C a I . I\ ■ r� i„9 • �i� .r • I ~� I N� I PROPOSEDW`.. NARANJA I 7 PALISDS I�ADI —� �® I I - TOWN I • WI ■ �■ co % • CATALIN� SITE PARK i • >I ■ I ■ • STATE I • • • rl I �_ ■ — PARK I #329 ■ I f i �• -- • •_� r— I ---- y / �•� y�a5 OPT I I J �-N ONE -MILE DISTANCE / 1 \ O GV� FR M BJECTPR PERTY / • - $a \ LEGEND --- SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY ••••• TRAIL#2 ••••• TRAIL#180 00000 TRAIL #33 00000 TRAIL #326 00000 TRAIL #327 40000 TRAIL #328 00000 TRAIL #329 INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ORO VALLEY TRAILS MAP 2006. PROPOSED NARANJA TOWN SITE PARK (+/-213 ACRES) CATALINA STATE PARK L118205312008 GP Amend\Gal Plan Sit, AmlysislRecaetlan end Talls.d,g Plotted: Mar. 28, 2008 32 1-I. Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources 1. Please refer to Exhibit P: Arizona State Museum letter. a. Determine whether the site has been field surveyed for cultural resources All of the northwest quarter of the subject property has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. Identify any previously recorded archaeological or historic resources known to exist on the property Tierra Archaeological & Environmental Consultants recorded six archaeological sites. C. State the probability that buried archaeological resources not visible from the surface would be discovered on the site There is a high degree of potential recovery of prehistoric and historic sites in the northwest quarter of the subject property. Therefore, ASM recommends that an archaeological surface inspection be conducted on the property prior to any ground modification of the site. Site Analysis 33 Tangerine & First � WLB No. 182053-E-003 R.&O I Exhibit P: Arizona State Museum Letter Arizona State Museum Tucson, Arizona 85721.0026 (520)621.6281 FAX (520) 621-2976 October 26, 1999 Ms. Renee L. Carrasco planning resources 270 North Church Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 Dear Ms. Carrasco: TA UN(vERSnY Or ARIZONA® TucsoN AR(zoNA o C . L ' ts5( Thank you for your letter of October 18, 1999 requesting an archaeological site file check for the W1/2 and NWSWSEI/4 of Section 6 in Township 12 South, Range 14 East. Your request is related to a 300 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of East Tangerine Road and North First Avenue. The Archaeological Site and Survey Files at the Arizona State Museum have been consulted with the following results. All of the NW l/4 has been examined for archaeological sites. Tierra Archaeological & Environmental Consultants recorded 6 archaeological sites. Tierra recommends test excavation on sites AZ BB:9:337(ASM) and AZ BB:9:338(ASM) "in order to determine the presence, nature and extent of subsurface deposits". 'I Terra also recommends limited data recovery at AZ BB:9:342(ASM) and limited work at AZ BB:9:339(ASM), AZ.BB:9:340(ASM) and AZ BB:9:341(ASM) that would involve surface collecting artifacts. The ASM has no record of testing or data recovery on these sites. The SW1/4 of Section 6 and the 10 acres in the SEI/4 have not been inspected for archaeological sites. Based on what is known in the NW 1/4, there is a high degree of potential for the recovery of prehistoric and historic sites. Therefore, the ASM recommends that an archaeological surface inspection be conducted on the SW IA and on the 10 acres in the SE1/4 prior to any ground modification activities. I have enclosed a list of archaeological contractors for your review. In the event that cultural remains are found, the archaeological contractor shall make recommendations regarding the importance of the remains and how to protect and preserve the information contained in sites believed to be important. I do not have the Tierra survey report at this time and only a preliminary map of site locations. If you have any questions pleas,- -ontact me at (520) 621-2096. Sincerely, Jo A. Madsen` P is Coordinator Site Analysis 34 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 May 14,1999 Mr. Michael M. Orr Construction Director Amphitheater Public Schools 701 W. Wetmore Rd. Tucson, AZ 85705 ENVIRONMENTAL . CONSULTANTS Re: Survey results and management recommendations for archaeological resources heated on a 150 acre parcel near Tangerine Road and First Ave. (LPC Site #6) in Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona Dear Mr. Orr, During May 1999, ambaeologists from Tierra Archaeological and Environmental - Consultarrts (`Tierra') conducted a Class III pedestrian cultural resources assessment survey of 150 acres located an the southeast comer of Tangerine Read and First Avenue, spproxauiately-1.5 miles slang first and .3 miles along Palisades Road in Oro Valley, Pima County, Auizooa {Figure 0. T IM legal description of due property surveyed is T12S R14E Sec. 6 (Gila -Salt River Meridian). The arcbmlogists surveyed the property in 14 transacts spaced 20 m apart ensuring 100% coverage of the -rea. Six sites (Field Numbers 4-9) and 10 isolated oeourreaas of cultural material were identified duff the survey. A brief description of the sites and mamagauent relations are given below. The location of the sites and isolated occurrences are shown on Figure 1. ' Field Number. Site 4 ASM Site Number: AZ BB9:M7 Descriptim This is a small, law to uoediuum density prehistoric sherd and lithie scatter covering approximately 15 X 20 m and curtaining plain ware ceramics, flaked stone, and ground stave artifacts that are eroding down -slope. The number and variety of artifacts present suggest that submuface remains may be present, however, the soil color and texture suggest that the probability of subsurface remain being present is low. Management Reeommendadorm. The site and density of the artifact scatter as well as the variety of artifacts present suggests that subsurface archaeological remains may be present. Test excavations are recommended to assess the presence, mature, and extent of subsurface remains. . 3501 N. Campbell Ave., Suite 104 • Tucson, Arizona 85719 - (520) 319-2106 - Fax (520) 323-33J2� Lee Fratt, Ph.D.. Director ' Site Analysis 35 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 %WNUM Field Numbs: Site S ASM Site Number: AZ BB:9:= Description: This is large, medium to high density prehistoric sherd and Uthic scatter covering an approximately 65 m diameter area that contains plain ware ceramics, flaked and ground stone artifacts, and rock features (alignment and cairns). The soil is a modirmn grey reddish -tan with an ashy icy. Management Recommendations: The sire and density of the artifact setter as weft as the color and texture of the soil suggest that them is a high probability for substantial subsurface cultmW deposits and features to be present. Test excavations am recommended to assess the nature and extent of any subsurface archaeological remains. Fedd Number: Site 6 ASM Number. AZ BB:9:339 Description: This site consists of 3 rock cairns and an associated light density artifact scatter. These remains suggest that substantial subsurface archaeological deposits and features are not present. Management Recommendations: The associated surface artifacts should be collected, but no other work or subsurface test excavations are txomrrra>dad. The rock cairns have beat measured and described. � �� i` T Field Number: Site 7 ASM Number. AZ BBJ:340 Description: This site consists of 4 features that include 3 rode cairns and o 0 possible roasting pit with an associated light density artifact scatter. The possible roasting pit contains no charcoal but does have thermally altered rocks which may represent damage from deliberate heating or natural spalling. Management Recommendations: The associated surface artifacts should be collected, but given the tentative evidence for a roasting pit and the small member of features present, no other work or subsurface test excavations are recommended. All features have been measured and described. Field Number: Site 8 ASM Number: AZ BB:9:341 Description: This site consists of a small, low density prehistoric artifact scatter covering apprvxi<natdy 15 X 23 m and contakinng plain ware sherds, flaked stone, and one ground stone 5sgrna t. The variety of artifacts suggest that subsurface remains may be present, however, the sold color and terdare suggest tbat the probability of subsurface remains being present is low. Management Recommendations: The associated surface artifacts should be collected, but gh= the small size of the surface artifact scatter and the absence of any other indications that subsurface remains are: present, subsurface testing is not recommended. Field Number: Site 9 ASM Number: AZ BB:9:342 Description: 'Ibis site contains at least 9 rock cairns and associated artifacts in a 55 X 25 m area. The site is relatively close to AZ BB:9337(ASK the large scatter of prehistoric surfam artifacts that probably represents a habitation site. Management Recommendations: Its proximity to AZ BB:9:337(ASM) suggests that the prehistoric occupants of the habitation ssite probably used AZ BB:9:342. 2 Site Analysis Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 36 Amax I I-J. Schools The residential portions of this property will likely generate school -aged children that would likely attend the schools within the Amphitheater Unified School District. The owner/developer will address the needs of the District during the zone change phase of this project. 1-K. Water 1. Indicate name, address and contact person for water service provider. Contact information: Mark Moore, Oro Valley Water Utility located at 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, AZ 85737. 2. If not within a defined water service area, explain how domestic water supply will be provided and address adequacy for future uses on the site. The subject property will be served by the Oro Valley Water Utility. The nature of offsite improvements will be determined during the platting process. I-L. Sewers Refer to Exhibit Q for a map of existing sewer alignments. Site Analysis 37 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 �N" G57-,os p vAo ,2" —� I I 1 I I I PALIS r _, N I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I J l NARANJA DRIVE •❑ I loa � I I I N� N G I Nm N IN � � 1 12 LEGEND SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING SEWER AND MANHOLES STRUCTURES L:\18205312008 GP N -MGml Plan Site MalysiMExlsling Sewer Nigmen6.dwg Plotted: Mar, 28. 2" 38 I-M. McHarg Composite Map Exhibit R: Composite Map offers a graphic representation of a cumulative number of site inventory characteristics. The following is a list of such characteristics: • Topography. • Hydrology (100-year floodplains, sheet flooding, federally mapped floodplains, etc). • Vegetation (areas of high vegetative density, etc.). • Wildlife. • Viewsheds (areas of high visibility). Site Analysis 39 Tangerine & First WLB No. 182053-E-003 All r o: L T—mams W��—W—Ydmbe F/00 Will" WAR WLBWIaB FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD o soo GrouP.. EXHIBIT' R'- COMPOSITE MAP CONTOUR INTERVALS: WLB No. 182053-E-0(13 ___-__ _ ......-, , ,o., .o, ,.o y ,.n, o. 4U LISAD-S ROAD The FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD 0, 200' Grog CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN o.183.28.08 Group WLBNNo. 182053-E-003 KAI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OV11-08-03 Engineering Comments & Conditions Paul Keesler, P.E. May 14, 2008 General Plan Land Use Comments & Conditions: 1. The Department of Public Works approves this submittal with the following conditions for the Town of Oro Valley General Plan land use designation change of WC and NCO to MPC as outlined in the Site Analysis Conceptual Site Plan. 2. This development shall be subject to the Tangerine Corridor Overlay District frontage tracts access control stipulations as outlined in the Oro Valley Zoning Code, sections 24.1.D.l.a & b and 24.I.E.l.a and 2.a. Essentially these provisions do not allow direct access to Tangerine Road within 330' of the First Avenue intersection or within 1000' from any other tract crossing. This criterion also prohibits connectivity to First Avenue within 660' south of the Tangerine ROW. 3. Any connections to First Avenue beyond the Tangerine Road Overlay District shall utilize existing median openings for full turning movements. Any access point that does not line up geometrically to the breaks shall be right-in/right-out only. No new First Avenue median openings shall be allowed. 4. If this development requires that Palisades Road be modified to provide adequate and safe traffic access to the site, separate pedestrian and bicycle multiuse paths shall be provided in accordance with General Plan section 5.3.1 directives. This shall extend to the eastern terminus of Palisades Road contingent upon approval of the affected/bordering HOA's. Among all he standard elements set forth for the submission package (site analysis and TDP), the follow represents minimum detail required by the Department of Public Works to review any future rezoning: 5. For any future Rezoning of the subject property, the Department of Public Works shall require at a minimum, the following hydrologic information submitted as a part of the application/site inventory submission package: a. Describe and map on an aerial photograph the perimeter of all off -site watersheds that affect, or are effected by, the site both upstream and downstream to their logical conclusion and note all balanced and critical basins. b. Provide a description of any significant off -site natural features and manmade features located within the above watersheds that may affect or be affected by the site. c. Indicate the area in acres for those upstream off -site watersheds with 100 year discharges greater than 100 cubic feet per second (cfs). d. Describe and map the characteristics of the existing on -site hydrology. Include the following: i. Approximate 100 year flood floodplains with a discharge greater than or equal to 50 cfs. ii. Sheet flooding areas with their average depths iii. Federally mapped floodway and floodplains iv. Peak discharges both entering and leaving the site for 100 year events which exceed 50 cfs using approximate methods such as the regional area versus discharge graphs. e. Provide a qualitative description of existing drainage conditions along the downstream property boundary. f. Describe how the Tentative Development Plan responds to the hydrologic characteristics described in the Inventory and Analysis for both existing and proposed conditions. (Examples include building setbacks, density, building placement, location of open space and recreation areas). g. Identify if any features of the development (i.e. structures, roads, lots), as shown by the Tentative Development Plan overlay, encroach on and/or modify existing site drainage patterns. Explain why this is necessary and other alternatives that have been considered. h. Describe and map potential drainage impacts to off -site land uses both upstream and down stream due to the proposed development. i. Describe and map approximate location of engineering and design features that will be used to mitigate drainage and erosion problems for the proposed development. (Examples include detention basins, revegetation, rip -rapping and preservation of channels in their natural state). j. Describe how the Tentative Development Plan conforms to all applicable area plans, basin management plans and Town policies. 6. For any future Rezoning of the subject property, the Department of Public Works shall require at a minimum, the following Traffic information submitted as a part of the application/site inventory submission package: a. Map all existing and proposed streets on and between the development site to, and including, the nearest streets as shown on the Oro Valley Transportation Plan. Also map all arterial streets within one mile of the project site. For all streets identified, provide the following general information: i. The existing and proposed rights -of -way widths. ra ii. Whether these rights -of -way meet minimum Oro Valley width requirements. iii. Ownership (public or private) iv. Whether the rights -of -way are continuous or whether they jog. v. The number of travel lanes, theoretical capacity and design speed on existing roads. vi. The present Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for existing streets vii. A description of the surface conditions of the existing roadway which provides access to the site. viii. When roadway and intersection improvements which are programmed to be completed by public or private entities. b. Map existing and proposed intersections on the arterials within one mile of the site which will likely be used by traffic generated by the development. c. Map any existing bicycle and pedestrian ways adjacent to or on the site to their connections with arterial streets, parks and schools. d. Provide a traffic impact statement (attached as an appendix) which shall include: i. A description of the proposed internal circulation and access to/from arterial streets included in the Oro Valley Transportation Plan for the project, their location and the rationale for their placement in terms of circulation. ii. If the tentative Development Plan depends upon future off -site road improvements for access, state which roads, the projected time frame for their completion. iii. Discuss the projected ADT at "build -out" for the internal circulation system and the level of service to all streets and intersections as outlined within the study area. Provide a projection of traffic volumes and capacity analysis, based upon the development's "build out", on the arterials and at the intersections within the study area. iv. Describe the impact to existing development abutting off -site streets listed above. v. Provide capacity analysis for proposed internal streets and proposed off -site streets and describe the right-of-way and pavement widths, geometrics, design speeds and traffic control improvements which will be needed. 3 vi. Describe the types of improvements specified in (iii) above which will be needed thereat vii. A schedule listing who the applicant believes is the responsible party or agency for making said improvements. viii. Provide evidence that proposed turning movements will meet safety standards in relationship to traffic volumes. e. Describe proposed on -site street right-of-way, indicate their proposed ownership and show typical roadway sections. f. Describe any proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathways within the development and indicate whether they are constructed to external pathways, arterial streets, parks and schools. g. For proposed developments within 1 mile of a public school, describe and map safe walk/bike paths for students. Student walk/ ike paths should be designed, with easements between selected lots, as required, to reduce walk/ride distances. h. For proposed developments greater than 0.5 miles from elementary schools and greater than 0.8 miles from middle and high schools indicate safe bus stops and safe bus turnarounds, if required. Bus stops should be designed to allow residents to monitor the safety of children while at the same time minimizing the impact of waiting children on the adjacent residents. i. Provide a letter from the school district indicating review of, and concurrence with, the proposed student walk paths and school bus provisions. 7. For any future Rezoning of the subject property, the Department of Public Works shall require at a minimum, the following Sanitary Sewer information submitted as a part of the application/site inventory submission package: a. Map the location of the existing public sewers in relation to the project site. b. Describe the method of providing sewer service. c. If Pima County Wastewater is projected to serve the site, provide a response letter from Pima County Wastewater Management addressing capacity and ability to serve the site. 4 I a ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: SHIRLEY GAY, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR FROM: MARK MOORE, NEW DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SUBJECT:CAPRI GPA OV-11-08-003 DATE: 03/10/2008 CC: DAVID RUIZ, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR • The proposed development lies in die utility's E Zone. • If an extension of existing infrastructure is required a water improvement plan will need to be submitted to the Utility for review and approval. • Before submitting a plan to the Utility, the engineer must receive from the Fire Marshall specific fire flow requirements, i.e., capacity, number and location of fire hydrants. This information must be submitted along with the plan to the Utility for review and approval. • A PCDEQ Certificate for the Approval to Construct or a Waiver will be required and provided to the ihility before construction can begin. • A Line Extension Agreement must be signed and returned to the Utility before construction can begin. • A PC,DEQ Certificate for the Approval Of Construction will need to be issued and provided to the Utility before water service can begin. • Easements for the placement of public water facilities, i.e., water lines, fire hydrants, etc., on private property must be submitted to the Utility for review and approval. The approved legal description and sketch will need to be recorded by the Engineer and a copy provided to the Utility before construction is finaled. • The contractor must arrange for a pre -construction meeting with the Utility before construction of the water system can begin. • These comments are in no way all inclusive as a hydraulic review of a submitted water improvement plan must be completed. • All comments must be acknowledged in writing. All Preliminary Plats, Final Plats, Development plans, Development plans/Plats or minor land subdivisions shall include the following General Note : "Water Service will be provided by Oro Valley Water Utility." 2 TO: Ainsley Reeder Parks and Recreation Administrator FR: Nancy Ellis Multimodal Coordinator DA: March 21, 2008 RE: OV11-08-03 Capri Co. General Plan Amendment The following comments are offered regarding this general plan amendment and proposed subsequent development plans: 1. The development includes Trail #328, as noted in the Oro Valley. Trails Task Force Report. 2. The trail should be identified as a "non -motorized public recreation easement" and be a minimum 15' in width. •* r A®® T Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Arizona Department of Transportation Intermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Ms. Shirley Gay Town of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Division 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 April 7, 2008 Re: SR 989 (Tangerine Road) @ First Ave./Rancho Vistoso Blvd., MP 34.44 Project Title: Kai General Plan Amendment — Change Existing Project Number: OV 11-08-003 Site Analysis Dear Ms. Gay: Sam Elters State Engineer We have reviewed the March 28, 2008 Site Analysis Report for the approximately 271-acre property at the southeast corner of First Ave. and Tangerine Rd. and the following comments are provided: Section I-G Traffic Page 26, Subsection I., Second Paragraph: The first sentence states: "Primary access to the subject property will be from First Avenue and potentially Tangerine Road....." However, there will be no access from Tangerine Road to the subject property. This section of the State Route Corridor of Tangerine Road was established as a State Highway by the Arizona Transportation Board Resolution No. 91-09-A-73, dated September 20, 1991. At this location Tangerine Road is a highway with controlled access. As per "Agreement" filed with the Secretary of State on 9-18-1991, File No. 16042, access along Tangerine Road, from First Ave. to Oracle Road, shall be prohibited except at Oracle Road (SR 77), Hospital Loop Road (Innovation Park Drive) and First Ave. All parties to the "Agreement" (State of Arizona, Pima County and the Wolfswinkel Group) concurred that this section of Tangerine Road shall be developed as a controlled access highway. The Warranty Deed from The Wolfswinkel Group to the State of Arizona conveying the Tangerine Road right-of-way with the limited access provision was recorded in the Pima County Recorder's Office on 3/5/92, in Docket 9240, at Page 322. Therefore, the location for the proposed collector road as shown on the "First Avenue and Tangerine Road Conceptual Site Plan" is access controlled, meaning that the proposed development is prohibited from direct access onto Tangerine Road. s 2001 Award Redgent At Ms. Shirley Gay April 7, 2008 Page 2 First Avenue and Tangerine Road Conceptual Site Plan See comments above. It should be noted that the September 18, 1991 Agreement also states that the intersection of Tangerine Road and First Ave./Rancho Vistoso Blvd. shall ultimately be grade -separated. General With the addition of the site generated traffic onto Tangerine Road (SR 989) and Oracle Road (SR 77), we will require a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) by an accredited engineering firm. The TIA Report will assist us to determine what improvements will be required to maintain the safety and efficiency of traffic operations on the state highways. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the "Tangerine Road and First Ave. Site Analysis" and are looking forward to working with the developer and/or owner of the site toward the satisfactory completion of the project. Sincerely, a�:AQA Maria Deal Arizona Department of Transportation Southern Regional Traffic Engineering 1221 South 2nd Ave. Tucson, AZ 85713-1602 c: Greg Gentsch, P.E., Tucson District Engineer, ADOT Dan Williams, P.E., Tucson District Development Engineer, ADOT Reza Karimvand, P.E., Southern Regional Traffic Engineer, ADOT Frank Smith, Transportation Engineering Specialist, ADOT Donna M. Jones, Tucson District Permits, ADOT Paul Keesler, P.E., Department of Public Works, Town of Oro Valley f a 2001 Award Redo ent The FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD o 2000' Group wog LOCATION MAP 6VLB No 182083-E-003 F- LL l ...��-, u xf The qroupurim. FIRST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 0' 200' DATE: 03.28.08 WLB No. 182053•E•003 w J May 29, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Subject: Palisades/First (Kai Property) As residents of the neighborhood in the center of the proposed Kai property development, surrounded on three sides by the Kai property, we strongly object to the Kais' requested changes to the existing General Plan. I. THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD Our neighborhood, which is situated southeast of the intersection at Palisades Road and First Avenue and which is sometimes referred to as "Palisades Splits," has been conveniently ignored in the proposed development submittal. The proposal has inexplicably ignored the fact that our neighborhood consists exclusively of custom-built homes sited on 2-, 3-, and 4-acre parcels with superb views of the mountains and adjacent rugged natural wildlife habitat areas. There is not one peep in the Kai submittal about this up -scale neighborhood. Not one peep. Why would the multi -page proposed development submittal ignore our neighborhood? Apparently because, for the proposed development, this neighborhood represents an "inconvenient truth." Here are just a few pertinent facts about our neighborhood. Our house (at was pictured on the cover of the October 2007 Oro Valley Magazine. Our house was also the subject of a different feature (accompanied by pictures) in the June 2007 Issue of the Oro Valley Magazine. More recently, our house was pictured in the March/April 2008 issue of the Tucson Lifestyle Home and Garden Magazine. And long before that, this same house was pictured in a feature story in the December 1987 issue of the Tucson Lifestyle Magazine Not only that, but the house situated immediately north of our house and the house situated immediately south of our house have also been featured in Tucson Lifestyle Magazine in recent years. The willingness of these magazines to focus on houses in our neighborhood in illustrated feature articles is an indication of the attractive, upscale character of the neighborhood that the proposed development submittal has so conveniently ignored. Ignoring our neighborhood is one thing. Worse yet, the representatives who presented the Kai proposal at the meeting in the Town Council Room on May 1, 2008, referred to our neighborhood with the disparaging term "wildcat development." This offensive slur was voiced in the presence of approximately 100 people. The term `wildcat development" as applied to any neighborhood in our immediate area is, in our opinion a false and mean -spirited defamation. Their statement would unfairly degrade the market value of all of the homes in our neighborhood. We hope that your Commission members understand that none of the custom -built -home neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Kai property should ever be characterized as a "wildcat development." Page 1 of 3 pages U. THE GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS Page 2 of 3 pages The Kai Proposal conflicts with the policies of the General Plan in the following ways. 1. Instead of low density residential development (less than one house per acre) on terrain with slopes of less than 15 percent, the proposal would permit a variety of residential densities and unwanted commercial uses. (General Plan # 1.1.2 ) 2. Instead of protecting washes and riparian areas, the proposal may be expected to disrupt such areas. (G P # 1.1.3) 3. The proposal would be visually repugnant to a neighborhood that the General Plan provides are to be surrounded on all sides by comparably low -density residential housing. (G P # 1.1.4). 4. There is insufficient demand to justify the proposed multi -density residential uses. The threshold of sufficient demand must be an extraordinarily high threshold in this instance. Ordinary market demand always exists at some level, but could never be considered adequate to justify introduction of multi -density housing in the vicinity of the Kai property because of the incongruity that such densities would bring this low -density upscale community It is apparent that no justifiable demand exists now or in the foreseeable future.. (G P # 1.4.3) 5. The proposal may be expected to unduly burden the existing infrastructure, introduce greater truck traffic, and introduce visually unattractive structures, along with environmentally unsound changes that would be incompatible with this community's deeply -held standards. (G P # 1.4.5) 6 The General Plan prohibits the channelizing of water courses. Soft materials, not concrete, are to be used for control of runoff. The proposal for the huge commercial area north of Palisades Road presents serious water runoff concerns.. During the past 12 months, this neighborhood has already been victimized by increased rain water runoff that has been generated by the expanded commercial development at the southwest comer of Tangerine and First Avenue (with the addition of Ace Hardware, etc.) in the past year. That runoff water passes under First Avenue and then under Palisades Road via culverts and passes across our neighbor's property and then across our driveway and eventually passes across the property immediately south of our own property. In the monsoon rains of 2007, our driveway was washed out more severely than at any time in the past 20 years. And the driveway of the property immediately south of our property had the same experience, causing that family to spend thousands of dollars repairing the monsoon rain damage, which was for them more severe than at any other time in the past 20 years. Our driveway was repaired without such an extreme cost. Much of that uncontrolled water was runoff from the new Ace Hardware roof and parking area. We and our neighbors lodged complaints with Town officials, but nothing has been done to fix the problem. The Town told us that hydraulic engineers would study the problem. Then, as of February 2008, the Town imposed a new $2.90 charge everyone's monthly water bills to help pay for control of rainwater, including salaries for hydraulic engineers. We are still waiting for the rain water control for which every Town resident is paying the extra $2.90 fee each and every month. Enough is enough. Our neighborhood does not want any more commercial rooftops and blacktop parking areas north of Palisades Road (G P # 2.1.2, # 2.1.3, and # 11.1.11) N Page 3 of 3 pages 7. The proposal for the expanded commercial areas would unacceptably modify existing topography and vegetation. (G P # 2.1.5) 8. The visual impact of commercial buildings on our neighborhood and other adjacent neighborhoods ,which are presently zoned as low -density residential would be repugnant. It would lower our property values to an unacceptable degree. (G P # 2.1.6) 9. The proposed development north of Palisades Road would have access only to Palisades Road and would generate much more traffic on that street than would be generated by the zoning in the General Plan. This additional traffic would adversely affect the entire Palisades community. (G P # 5.1.1 and # 5.1.4)) 10. The proposal would degenerate the quality of all of the neighborhoods surrounding the commercial high -density development proposed for the area north of Palisades Road.. The General Plan provides that the area of the proposed development should be low -density residential. (G P # 7.1) 11. The proposed change from low -density residential to commercial and mixed -density residential for the area north of Palisades fails to recognize natural features of the vicinity and fails to adequately incorporate open space and trails systems.. (G P # 7.1.4) 12. The proposed change from low -density residential to commercial and mixed -density residential fails to adequately protect riparian habitat. (G P # 11.2 and # 12.1.1) 13. View protection is an essential issue for all of the neighborhoods near the proposed development. The introduction into this community of many acres of commercial and low -density residential development would severely and unacceptably clash with the existing character of this community. (G P # 11.3.1) 14. The Town of Oro Valley has identified four Growth Areas for multiple uses (commercial, industrial, tourism, and mixed residential), which are (1) Oracle & Tangerine, (2) Oracle & First, Avenue, (3) Oracle & Magee, and (4) Foothills Mall at Ina & La Cholla. The First Avenue and Palisades Road area is not included in any of those identified Growth Areas. Therefore it would be grossly inappropriate to rezone any ofthe property in the First Avenue & Palisades Road area from its existing low -density residential use to commercial and/or any other residential use. III. SUMMARY In summary, as residents of the custom -built -home neighborhood surrounded on three sides by the Kai property, we strongly object to the proposed change in the General Plan for the Kai property. The proposal is a blatant insult to the community -spirited citizens who worked so hard to formulate the ex' eral Plan. We urge you to reject the proposal in its entirety. 'chard Bauer Barbara Bauer Tucson, AZ 85737 Phone: 297-5980 Page 1 of 2 Chapman, Diane From: Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:10 PM To: More, Sarah Subject: Kai Property General Plan use change request To: Oro Valley Planning Commission From: Frank Engle, President Palisades Point HOA Subject: Proposed amendment to the General Plan for the Kai Property. Amendments to the General Plan must be given careful consideration, particularly where the subject property is infill to adjacent communities that have been established for over 10 years. In addition, the subject property has previously negotiated a use plan with the City and the surrounding community representatives. Therefore, to be considered there should be an overwhelming necessity for a change that complies with the City's General Plan guidelines. The WLB Group has not offered any evidence of need, or compliance to the General Plan. Here are a few observations of the proposals deficiencies. 1. With respect to the proposed light industrial park acreage. This would put commercial buildings of a typical height of 18' along both the Tangerine and Ist Ave, both of which are designated scenic corridors. That end of the property is elevated and its use must preserve the view corridor. 1.1.1 This industrial park proposal is also based on two access roads that would probably require stoplights on both roadways. This would adversely affect traffic flow on both busy corridors. 1.1.2 The proposed roadway impacting Tangerine would require crossing property not offered as part of this requested change, or controlled by the requestor. How do they propose to deal with this? Have they even thought this through? Do they plan to later come back to the City and say they were unable to gain access and now want to dump all of this traffic onto 1 st Ave? 1.1.3 If the Tangerine roadway were allowed as submitted, it would likely be too steep a grade to be constructed as drawn. How would the developer handle this? (It is approximately 30 ft in 200 ft intersecting a major thoroughfare.) 1.1.4 A 70-acre site at 25% build in would have 764,400 sq ft of building space. If we take one employee per 500 sq ft for light industrial, that would put a traffic burden of over 1525 employees entering by those two roadway access points. (This is a liberal number, and could easily approach 1 per 250 sq ft, as often happens as business parks mature) 1.1.5 The residents of the surrounding properties have no street lights and prefer to preserve their evening skies even though it necessitates flashlights to walk safely in the summer evenings when snakes may be out. This is already going to be adversely impacted with the parking lot lighting of the Tangerine Crossing and Steam Pump Village developments. Further parking lot lighting in this area is not serving the interests of those residents or preserving the Scenic Corridors. 2. The roadways proposed that would intersect Palisades Dr., are shown with significant lengths crossing or running adjacent to designated riparian areas. Even construction alongside, would drastically change the watershed forever. How much thought have they given to these drawings, and how many supporting documents are offered with this request? 3. In the May 1st meeting, WLB made mention that Palisades Dr. would have to be widened by one lane from 1 st Ave. out to the existing developments of Catalina Shadows and Palisades South. The City just last year added 5 ft of paved bicycle path to both sides of the entire length of Palisades Dr. 06/02/2008 Page 2 of 2 The current proposed use of the property would not require changing this road, or burden this roadway with more traffic caused by the proposed use change. How does the WLB Group defend this requirement as better for the community? I understand that all property owners are entitled to due process. However; the WLB Group has not made a compelling case for change. They have not adequately supported any of their proposals. I h�v_e been president of 3 Corporations, and hold 5 US Patents. I have never seen a business proposal with more ambiguous notions, inconsistent documents, or so poorly supported. It is a shame that the City of Oro Valley cannot require a checklist of documents confonning to the guidelines of the General Plan as to be given the fair consideration by your office and the public. (IE- Traffic, hydrology, environmental, habitat, etc.) It is my sincere hope that by the end of the meeting on June 3rd, your office will entice them to get serious and provide clear written support for any land use change. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Frank W. Engle Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. 06/02/2008 MAY 16 2008 Oro Valley, AZ 85737 May 5, 2008 Mayor Paul Loomis Oro Valley Town Hall 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, 85737 Dear Mayor Loomis We are residents of Catalina Shadows and are extremely concerned about the proposed First and Palisades zoning change requested by the Kai property owners. Before purchasing our home three years ago, we carefully researched the zoning of the properties abutting Catalina Shadows. We learned that about five years ago, the Oro Valley General Plan was carefully reviewed and updated. It was our understanding that due to the steep hills and riparian areas, the Town of Oro Valley decided that the Kai property was most appropriate for low density single family homes. The zoning of this adjacent land was a key reason we chose to purchase in our neighborhood. The opening page of the Town of Oro Valley web site states (bold emphasis added) Oro Valley is a well -planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today with potential impacts on future generations. Oro Valley's lifestyle is defined by the highest standard of environmental integrity, education, infrastructure, services, public safety and economic sustainability. We are a community of people working together to ensure that the Town government remains responsive to the citizens' needs while maintaining the long-term financial stability of the Town. If these words are to be matched by actions, it is imperative that you oppose unwarranted changes in our planning and zoning. We must protect the desert hills and riparian areas that would be leveled if the requested zoning change is granted. We encourage you to stand up for the "highest standard of environmental integrity" and the values that we and other Oro Valley residents support... controlled aappropriate development following the existing guidelines and zoning of the General Plan. Sin ely, Elia4Gold nd Thea Chalow Berchtold, Karen From: Patty Estes[ Sent: Monday, April 14, 20081:32 PM To: Loomis, Paul; Abbott, Paula; Carter, Kenneth; Gillaspie,Barry Cc: Berchtold, Karen; Bill Adler; Carl Boswell; C. Smith Subject: Kai Property: Major General Plan Amendment Dear Mayor and Council Members, I have received notification from the WLB Group about a public meeting which will occur on May 1st regarding an upcoming Major General Plan Amendment for the Kai Property on the east side of First Ave. between Lambert and Tangerine. Most of you were either on the Council or involved in the General Plan at the time of its last revision. You might recall that the resulting designation for the property was the result of many meetings and involved considerable compromise on all sides. Since that time, the neighborhoods in the First Ave/Palisades area have been under great pressure from adjacent development. You are probably very familiar with the strife caused by the Vestar Development, the Walgreen's/Ace shopping center and the impact of the Spendido complex to the north. In those cases, PADS or hard zoning were in place which severely restricted any citizen -originated changes in the uses of the property. With the Kai Property, this is not the case. A similar plan has resurfaced several times over the last ten years to change the General Plan designation and later zoning, from one of primarily low -density residential to mixed uses. The nature of the current surrounding neighborhoods is largely low density residential including some horse property. In addition, the Palisades neighborhoods have been particularly impacted recently by large scale commercial development to the east and south and industrial park to the north. In the discussions with the landowner's representatives during the last General Plan update, the neighbors made a few points very clear: 1. Any business/commercial development on the property was to take place in the already disturbed northwest corner, away from most of the current residential areas. This was a bonus for the property owner as no commercial entitlements were in place prior to this. 2. The cap in density for the property was to be set at 1 house per acre, clustered away from the riparian/open space areas. 3. Further clustering could.take place to allow for greater density on the southern end of the property adjacent to Rooney Ranch. 4. First Ave. was to be preserved as a residential area, with commercial/industrial/hospitality/healthcare development being steered toward Oracle Road, and areas of the Rancho vistoso PAD already designated or zoned for those activities. 5. In addition, we were assured that the designation of Master Planned Community (MPC) was necessary to allow for the careful planning of roadways and utilities, and clustering of homes away from the washes, and in no way would give the property owner any entitlement to anything other than residential development. We hope that you will follow the General Plan Amendment process carefully and give the citizens the same consideration that was shown during the last General Plan update. I assure you that the neighbors will be interested and participating and we hope to have the full and energetic cooperation of the Planning Staff in this matter. Sincerely, Patty Estes Tangerine Hills 1 Page 2 of 4 Ty Bowers/The Explorer, Dale Fox, here with his horse Sam, lives in a neighborhood surrounded by Herb Kai's 271-acre parcel at Tangerine Road and First Avenue. He's concerned about Kai's request to have the town's general plan amended for higher - density housing beyond his property line. By Patrick McNamara, The Explorer Published: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:18 AM CDT A few well -hidden rural enclaves remain in Oro Valley. For their residents, these areas represent private pastoral islands amid the swelling seas of civilization. "I can go through this property and ride all the way to Catalina State Park without going on anyone else's property," Dale Fox said of his relatively isolated stretch of land stowed away in the town's bustling center. Fox, a retired U.S. Department of Agriculture ecologist, bought his house near Palisades and First Avenue in 1992 when the area was unincorporated. Oro Valley annexed his property and the surrounding area in 1994. His land still boasts enough room for his horse, dog and two pet goats. 05/21 /2008 Page 3 of 4 "They're just like a dog or cat," Fox said of his goats, Judah and Elizabeth. He often opens the gate to their pen to let them roam. When he bought the house, Fox said he could ride his horse from the property all the way to the Tortolita Mountains and into Pinal County, unobstructed by neighborhoods, shopping centers'and golf courses that line the way today. Now, Fox and his neighbors worry that a requested change to the town's general plan could hasten the march of earthmovers, further shrinking their rural refuge. Fox and his neighbors reside in a plot surrounded by a 271-acre stretch of desert owned by Herb Kai, a farmer, businessman and Marana Town Councilman. Kai wants to the town to allow him to build a larger commercial presence there. As currently zoned, the property is designated a master -planned community, but only a small northwest portion is marked specifically for commercial development. . "We thought a technology park would be a good use for the land," Kai said. Kai's plans for the property include a clustering of residential development in portions south of Palisades Road, which would surround Fox and his neighbors with new houses and town homes. The possibility of hundreds of new neighbors, who might not want to share space with horses and other livestock, worries Fox. "They're not going to like the dust, they're not going to like the flies, they're not going to like the smells," Fox said. "It's a culture, you either like it or you don't." The town's general plan permits 255 houses, each built on one -acre parcels throughout of the property. Protected riparian areas run through portions of the land and cannot be developed, according to town regulations. Kai wants to build fewer homes, including town homes and condominiums, on fewer acres. Under his plan, the majority of houses would be built on 59 acres south of Palisades, with the exception of one 4-acre plot north of the road. The plan also details retail and business park uses in northern and western portions of Kai's land. At the western edge of the property, north of Palisades along First Avenue, Kai proposes building retirement and nursing homes. Land fronting Tangerine Road would be earmarked for retail and technology park ventures. "I think we're trying to attract the high-tech businesses that would pay a lot more than a Wal-Mart employee would get," Kai said. Town leaders have long been cognizant of Oro Valley's bedroom community status, with the majority of its workforce traveling to Tucson for work. Pima Association of Governments data from 2000, the most recent available, shows that more than 10,000 of the town's 12,335-strong labor force — people 16 years and older — worked in places outside Oro Valley. 05/21/2008 Page 4 of 4 In 2007 the town's civilian labor force grew to 15,376, according to the Arizona Department of Commerce. Local leaders have long wanted to increase opportunities for high -paying jobs in town. A development like the one Kai proposes might increase the pool of technology -based employers in Oro Valley. "It's something that not only lacks in Oro Valley, but lacks in the (Tucson) valley," said David Welsh, the town's former economic development coordinator. Welsh works for Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Inc., which promotes economic development in the Tucson region. Welsh hears from numerous companies whose interest in the town is fueled in part by Ventana Medical Systems, the town's largest employer, and the other technology -based firms based in north Oro Valley. "We definitely see a cluster developing in the area ... These aren't folks that want to do call centers," Welsh said, referring to the types of employers a technology park might attract. Kai's plans to build a technology park ultimately would benefit the community, Welsh suggested. Yet, Kai's plan highlights the growing rift between the town's established communities and developers. "We're not saying that we're anti -growth, we just want it to be considerate," Fox said. Kai's proposal doesn't take into account enough the concerns of people already living in the area, Fox said. "There's no justifiable reason to ruin our property values." Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More said she's sensitive to citizens' concerns about increased traffic and the development's impact on the environment. "That's an important community value," More said. Voters in 2005 approved the town's general plan. Significant changes to it are likely to stir controversy. Like many in the town, Fox thinks that developers have the twin luxuries of time and a government that sees growth as the key to bringing in tax and construction fee dollars. "That has been the history of Oro Valley," Fox said, "if you're persistent enough, you can get what you want as a developer." Copyright © 2008 - The Explorer Newspaper [x] Close Window Mary K. Davis Communications Administrator Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 p. (520) 229-4712 c. (520) 260-5063 05/21 /2008 . ................................... ... foiqt Certificate of Insurance Certificate Mailed To: Name of Insured: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ATTN: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL GRACE INC 11000 N LA CANADA DR 1430 E Fort Lowell Rd Ste 200 ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Tucson AZ 85719 Date Issued: 10/28/2008 Certificate Number: 203 Policy Number: 304982 Origin Date: 11/03/1999 Expiration Date: 01/01/2009 Liability Limits: 1000/1000/1000 (000 Omitted) Proof of Coverage DRAFTING EMPLOYEES, ENGINEER/ARCHITECTS -CONSULTING Job Number: KAI No. 9143.0 Location: Oro Valley,Arizona Will be renewed for the next policy period unless we are otherwise directed by our policyholder. It is agreed that waiver of subrogation is effective only as respects to the above Certificate Holder for the project described herein. This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit any other person or organization. Should the above policy be canceled by the SCF ARIZONA before the expiration date thereof,the SCF ARIZONA will endeavor to mail 30 days written notice to the above named Certificate Holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the SCF ARIZONA. This Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed hereon. This is to certify a workers' compensation policy has been issued to the insured listed hereon and is in force for the period referenced. Certificate Issued To: Town Of Oro Valley Attn: Public Works Department erow.725 11000 N La Canada Dr Oro Valley AZ 85737 Authorized Representative 61-810 01/20/2006 • SCI : . *,.: A workfill Certificate of Insurance Certificate Mailed To: Name of Insured: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY STRUCTURAL GRACE INC 11000 N LA CANADA DR 1430 E Fort Lowell Rd Ste 200 ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 Tucson AZ 85719 Date Issued: 10/28/2008 Certificate Number: 229 Policy Number: 304982 Origin Date: 11/03/1999 Expiration Date: 01/01/2009 Liability Limits: 1000/1000/1000 (000 Omitted) Proof of Coverage DRAFTING EMPLOYEES, ENGINEER/ARCHITECTS-CONSULTING KAI NO 9143.00 ORO VALLEY Job Number: Location: Will be renewed for the next policy period unless we are otherwise directed by our policyholder. It is agreed that waiver of subrogation is effective only as respects to the above Certificate Holder for the project described herein. This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit any other person or organization. Should the above policy be canceled by the SCF ARIZONA before the expiration date thereof,the SCF ARIZONA will endeavor to mail 30 days written notice to the above named Certificate Holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the SCF ARIZONA. This Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This I certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed hereon. This is to certify a workers' compensation policy has been issued to the insured listed hereon and is in force for the period referenced. Certificate Issued To: Town Of Oro Valley j /� 11000 N La Canada Dr ' Oro Valley AZ 85737 Authorized Representative 61-810 01/20/2006 WIRIERINIIMMINIEW . i.}---s....; :, 1.2..., ....1.4...;_iii="111.,:':,7"....'."11:III .......,,lijimi,_ E:Tr 1n,'-,1111111N111 • a I.A1..-r.d 1111111111,_.. ' i -atill11„LAN c 1 : ilifills:- iiiiiii 1 r 0:= MIME.I • .LLSrist. , F . . . ..., ... .._, ... ... . . . 1.1-H.M_-5171•11110' ,--,.. :,---- m•, .,17,4„ :--tilaltim. , m- . .„,„,• um= .,..t. 11•111111 I ,--4118,725gi MI ....111.1. . „ t v--- /7\-4-- .• Y, ARROYO GRANDE • -,,,, , , , ...., ' - \ •,--, , V1 • ................' '...........m---,••• ... • .Ik'' . • ,-111111.7 : . , . , .e. . " ' .I.':'-''•"-.••IR-,-L,L• f ; ; III ' liriftFst.'sil! -.._,-_4...,.._ •,.,,4-4.9,..„.4',.-;,. .„. ' ,E '--'.-'•,c--c1:3.<4'\'\:.,A-''',:,':- --'' -1-,.\,I MI,t.Vi • i -:-...,46 u .... . 1 , . - • , c:-=•';:-•-•...%-c,,i."----1.e;-;:"."1 i)\':i.5A- 1... lain 1 ,_:.77-s,'Ti .- --;:----•=1,„1,(„,-,--'.17,77::::.>"--,__.t,:,-'-',.\-, - t'-- '),;-.1- --,,AKT:firl,:.9f14 1::;'''''''''''''''''''''' r --- , IL rl,/'-•--1-- -; 1.12-,=-3(-4/_- :' \' A, ., 0 , ,,,'Pm:- -.'14,, ,'--..;.- . MIMI I 1 \ / , \..-_:„---,.... _.-, ,, ,_ --.---, . -...----. ... .--7, -•,‘-1,,--- • --• ,),:xt:,•-<•",. . .,. : isiiiIIIII ., .,,,,,,,,•)„ IA:It:1,4%,..' `-;/-,Q., ' . '• r= 1 1...41/ - it.tVt.;41: ''',‘5%-'` ' -' 1 • , ...% ' STONE_CANYON 9 -- <---( ',, "NA• (-1,,-.--•/,:-..\...>. 1:4-"r7.11:;00- ‘ .• o' _ :-.• i ,, ..3., ' ,,,. --,:isti.:,..... „„ .maril ..,:, --,.. ...„,.., ----, , '011` '1''', .--z,-. .- \‘, Q ,,,•,,!,, ,,,,,,i4•.•',V.1.11 '.. '\ ' um" '1.1::g Mtn M ... III - 1M "1/1.1`;I 1 Mirm1111ali MEM 2. v- „is -k-,...Is , „ ..,--;- 1,--,.". /I -..... II;u....,1.:,..!....4,,1,.1;-,S isf,.. -o•-s.,,, i ris.,C,,,, ,,,,,4,1 {'(-- ;''s..'4-4-4.7_147-4*--;'---T---..2.-,- ,40--1--4 /-, ,-- -2„ .7/-..kn•• .M...,/ mil \:i. , .,-.•,- L_t_[.,-..7 ---,.//:'->."..----. ..--- ,-'-'',..e. ,(1),-..--..,-••- -- ,..<1 ,. ..-4,,,, , v.01: fii_ ,-‘, ---. \,. 1••, BV,•,Z?.,'•!.-1 .,-., •,`„.4:--,f1-4, I I I 1111 M', 11.--.7 :'.''0:Ai- '1 ,,A,.. - *..ir',.,4;•-.:.\ -1-` __Z.-•4,..1,,C•••--c-"0 -------\'''`, ''''' ',If:2,-J; 42, ' ,,,,,,.- , I, MM..=./.. , IINIMI , . L ORIN _1- , ----1L-----1.- ---- ,.. - r . .11- '.1-1, 11,111--,:n..,-- -;*>,-.., ,-t.','A- i„ ," •.,''1 . ..,,:.•- ,.....__, ,-„ ‘./.,"-;,.' --.. ,,,,-,, ,,;--.4\ ,.. - ' 4 1 -...4 ,,,.. • 4 - 'W --. ice, I .__-.:-11 .. :11,111111111 -<11 c1 1:11- 1--- Ill----- T 1 ,-L 7-- 14711' '11%, /111--..,_ . •..„.„_,....„ ..,it:,i,,,i. '1"1-- I ,' ' ! _ 1 ,, ..,,:=3.,- . -s g_,,. • , . . 1_. . - INII : Illt, / 1-- i 1 •-••• I e' --` '''' --V,... VI MI‘ • („/"-..., ,,,,, 4,) -,./ . ' ," ,..• . '' Mil -----/i . , w, - .. ,,, ,,,.. , / 1 ____ ..,,,,-„....-,...., ,:_;'!.. -::----•,-'0;PA;••---i,- ::_,', . , .., 4,r,,, , ;1.1-. , ,- I I ,,,, ill NE •-•:Tt. - . „...... 4,j, ... -.,. . I Y 1111111111111 H 111 1\- MEI 1 I-4-1. - ... ,. —7--- _. ! 1 /-1 / z •-z,w , ,g,k-z:."4.4.•, : 1 - ' • 1, -4' - sRA • HO VISTISO e El i1 , ' - .--- , L/-----,-,/ -----1 1 ,,,k, ,,-.......,,- .,..,. ,,,,,.„,_..„., .,„s .,,,.,, ,,, • .,,,,, .6.,... NH IIIIIN I.__1 ,i . /. - , . -- — --Pv‘‘,.:4F--: 1,' '',0-t'v, ---J:--4\' Li_ . I / , , , ,,,, ,,,„, ,.: - ,* - ‘ _ - , ,.., ....1 ,, s ._.____-- ,....,,,, , ,„,..„,,,\„ oq- ._, wimi , - 1_,0.- ,,,, ,*,. 4.,t. All 'Ns lell i / iiiL 1 E ,.+-i.;:i.:r''''44',,',4; 19'-&I At :•,,,,,,,,t e$0.„,, e-i--‘'..1 f;'l.V'''''. glt- ti ' 1_ I If i 1 1 IIIMI lir '''• •• tca,` ',..-::',' 'ID ‘1 '\ .- i•\', 1 \ IMMi •", 1 '1!--=\ 1,,,1 . - ..,-,.,s.. . 1 IM 1 Minn .1 ......BB mi 211:21100 Bri . , • ,A1E; ._1= ....111 * -- ' lin MI BM IIIIIM1111111 Ill= ___ mar iii/71!-:'::,',„,,,% y E CSI 1" ,,,",-!. ..'";-), 111,,, set. .."-• -...,'.-‘,SS,I , ) ,s 1 ar r------I-- - II -4, ,i1k7 -i'si-__.-'7 I:.1"1-11-11c7/ r 0 1 ik' o . 1.)c •-''' . --., -,"•,..- , -__I I Eng-1 -- --- 11111 ..= Ais:,ini700„.-Aig,;---='- „, ,-.,,,, ,,,„.1.: ,,,,,.- 1 .44.;Ar •--\---1 ild N Ai.- ,Alln Maw -:1-=-.awl imni-„,' ( '-'-' .,.,,,, ;k' . \.3 r 1 „ .'7_-_i I , ,-1.1'1"4‘. i'',"!..Q,///SCil--• •". - . - ''''' / ..., ".z..S.4",...-..•it. ,a,r44. • IIII I 47-i:-.-1181Ili.)11:1,,,:::::14-_-_,--,‘A)"1... 4,.._,,,,, ',!.. • .... 111Plu 101 ,potf •k -,•,4.-, ,,,r,- :,_„- r,„, ,, ,,,,,,A,.,:),„„______),„:„., ,.., ,,,, __ , r 1--,'-1'' -I,-'''''11., .1",,,, '±-,----,.. ':t-s.',' -,, ' - s.i...S":""" ,'- ___I --,--z- 11_ r/ 1.111.11 i 1 1.T. , ' ' ' ' \ '4`,-,. -..4. t.-_ \._,. 11')_t 1 1...„ - • m•—„,,,-,-, - -,—,--- 7'e''......,,,,''..,,,,`en-', e'1 illell•1 '-i;•e,"':r.,e• ', ...'-..j'12'4.,'MEM .- ey'''''........,,. p... '"\-c;,, ''.;!'..t.:47.-4`,',.. ,i-,...t '1 'fi'.'.','' .'*M4 i 1. • ' -' ''f-'L'''.- Ail l ''''. ' ,1 III _11 I r• .1 't..mn'.•••1;r.r.., 4., ,.., . ,r, il..m/ , -s,-„ 7 0-IV:. -.-INNS . . \ .---- -.I C) - ,A,' c -.--.-------\---Ls--• - 1,--ti- 4 ,-.,:,,,,.:.-,•=79,,,*:. , ',!,,,,N , `;;41 --,.,-- ,-- •,.,,,.;,,, ,„,.. EN !OIS,Aall ' -- --(a'r W NARA A OR ..''...- • • ..........; ,,' ,,„...lig",..,,,„...-y,' ...;,,,k,...- 1 -7--' "V., .- ;1(-, :.,i V,,,.• I IRV L.,. _-,/,.,, 1 : Fri.- .... —V •-i--4 •-ti 0 =-T-Js,-.4 . . .. ,.. . F?").1=114,,,prokA, t:". '•- ' '' ''1'4 -, - .:,-Iki ,-. '.---,r m , _______, mom hir;r• ' l''',- its • i k NON • _ ,,,., -,, •mon - ,--, ,, III MIMI , ,,,. -,;-i'''' ,k L.kg 'tli, f . 111 . LAMBER ;, - ,,, 1 r RN s • ,..,,,•„, _1,0„ .,.,_ ..... -,.. ,,,,,,,„; ,,,, ,,,,-,,,..-.., ?_ ,- 1 i '..'' , . 4L..,v, . 'T 14 ff W L 1 i 1 ------.!'''',..'.* ',•:.'•--- '',-4,'''•',,''''''r'iy.., ., ' ' --.,-.---'''-1--'•• , t '' '' - / I m 7. •• ' ,_. iimailimpt:11,11,,1 . . : ,_ W LAMBERT LN .., , , ,., , . 4- • [• ,,,..,-H• ' , ' ' ,, ', - 'q:, - ., " / ,;C;',/7/1, ';''''71-'-----=;-,Y ,_ r,._ ,,, :f : ,i../.,,,,/,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,•1:1„\•ii,..,, ,,m..,. ..."-t.,--i. 2 '.. -,-i'---4 - 'lf-5- , . .i - ,) / ,....„--,,..„.. .. ,, -.E:,mv,,4,,,,., ,, , \ , ,-- Milit-. 'Mill T griiiE 1 .._11111 '- .7r-''.. --1 .'-.VR;oi-•'.•-..-- ----...----- ,.--".---': . -- ---,..- ---.•,,--..r- r.- •-•,-._„-:::.--.z: i-.. ,..s, r...i.• ;-'c'T-A1----1-. 4,-.-W-' 4!:----.---- .-----'-1-,,..'iLY:' 1 T11.--c.')... ' -'-:$•--- --s ------...--- -1 Th',":•.\, `,,,_, ,,r, .2:aili_or.. •4 sit,til'e ,,,' .t.01::`'-'-' , ..1-4--7-7--'- ' i ',I,' ilk -----.„-1.,-, [. -T:af.'-i-r'''' ': -,':'•'', ) '') 1,-,te-'''' --: ,,C,,.-5-'...,--- ,;•,--;'.• ,' -1-1--,174-,P4:4-,'-`,','I'c'E7ni,,, , :- -- . - ''-- .-- ', . ;ir,' .17,,,,,,,-,.,- Tderie"'S....... ,:e-In-r..:..m.mt,Z,...! ;••• -----, , , , .,,,t, •, -. ..0, n,t..t. ,,,,.-..)k, ,--,,, •, -1 '' -11 -1 r: L''' -Am :n.:•:77, 1-4,----,----, t. - Eill ,./..] ,--,.. „.: . ..,•,-, ,,,, ,..„•.,..,...-. s,.... . -,„ , „ , ••,\.,.„..,--„,j ,.„....,,,„:,„-,, i vico: , ,.-,,e.• --.1=1--•,,,e,.---,--.Ti...,.._----• • 4 ,n.-- ,'•7i/ ','-'-' ' ' -- ':n''' -' 14-'1 ''' )1— ' ''.4,41-40•71'' I 1 i Bill .....,. , ,,.. . ME a ,--T-T-F . , ,_L,. ,, 1 . .i. ,1 ) , '1 . - ' -1 ---"' " J.,..... .. , i ---f------ ------ 0 ____, --'1 2008 .0 iiii mil ,., 1E11 1r.4.:-• •-'PT-1.---- ‘ 1 '/5,,,,„,4-:14, •;. -1 r--,.:T-- ''-'- "-f- 1 MEW 46/1 -,..-:,- • F- ,--,-1 ----, ....- -4175: 2 ii i 46.11 . ..,/"‘k, , " ,,-"r'. PROPOSED GENERAL ..,-,..,_ w OVERTON RD hfir I -- lit I Li e.,, ' '11.131 ,1:41,,,4,6,---. in \„„,:w 1 ... ..ti _i_I---,--'--- ----+---1.,E17 ills,. •-----„,k-----..,.' 11---:•-" • ,9- . ,,_ .. - A _ 111."---",;•.-ITTPTit.:7'".... 1 -1„ =AA -,,,--, ,,:,,W1.1, \ ._1-', ----ei ) '1/2, fa'.'i,RS': PLAN AMENDMENTS triplip, -1 111 !'",,:- -lk - 7, -7-- :- • ma tt. : til ISM . , CC k,__ WI ,-"-"' •---4,- . _ , • " ;Ai i11571',..0 ii-,41'.,r'4" ITMI{ - ''-;-- ,'7:;,- . ,-, ,. .m,L.t.-,,„,..1„w• LE',:' ,E.-,•:7,.,"_4•4.-i '- r.:•,,,Z,,T.,_' •'.! •-.,';,. ':g...'"7:-,_„,---gril. ad ..1.:::: s_,..._-.4.,m:: .1-: t. ,•.1 _ ..[Tr7--, - , , sou HARDY RD --Pa.---.--=-/:--_, 141,--, -,1 f , , , -7'-:-4:H1J-1 P RA c E AN D wir ...., ,.,,,.. . ..,,,,---- ----1-:•,_ : ,.. • . ‘.3 Ip-_-,,,, ,4*,,,. / .t.2,,, - ,- , „, , ,„,,,,. ....--.1 Iffli.mi IL . ,,„ • . ,,,,,....• + dr,in ,_.,-_,•:,.:::•74:444 ' .,::: •'sE s.s.,. • t'All g4E4N "' 1r----4(lic,----__,/ ,,, .- anhi-:-- r if 4 RD Y .. ; , iTi-___- irfoista ,, _, .::-. . . 0,,,,,uuuj___,,,, , ,-, 0 rmir*fp,'. / , ;- ,, .. ; : /____„,_ ,,,,,,,,,„ „ .,...aqiNTio 1.,,,,7„.4-7--+ty",, ,,,,--- ,11-7,,,,,,,, "",, S.::"S't.-:',.•\.,;'1" : 1 ----iiiitcj,' ' ,/ ,i4, ",.,." Y'-'':'% . ite4/.,,r 1•> ,•,.,,4hi: /').a/a( f1.:,e' 1.1 j(fii r'--./14P l're,-:. ''7,121::::- fr:`,-.(r:e:i' ' '1 ' '.--;:''‘e., cT--- --F---i .-;.- -iR‘.."I'''',, ''.' •' ' '' __ei ' .,, i..,,, --- -12-f-4,--, , ,---, - - rl - ---r-- .'?. i p, ---'07 - I. •-- '-''' . '''-1,' -'' ,_.-' , , - III ' I- . *e tt#,4 ,,,, -.,,, ,„,,„ „., .,-,, / .•,,,, . -Imri La, ' '.' ;' A 1 A , liatkt` 11, /1.' ' ' .<14-.)11 I ' 2 WMAGE4 RD \ i ' A , i ...„. 1111 '-- 7-'7' .-r -'1 1 111 \' - • "-- ' '' ...?••••41ti#3, 1s:.1 1.••-:,•;:- ',.,---,2 1 A.-11..,:i- . _ _.. , . . 1_ _-,- ,./.. E ..i. .,;611441 rik.">.-..,,,s:'.' L': •'..- ,.'',..,."..: I..'"il ',.., ...,1,..:;. ,T-1.- ' n 1.1 ,„ , ittirt:IT:17..- •:',''-9' -,',1 n'S-4, ..' ::'',-T--.4-4:i .,,-,,•3:<,\A".. , --5: li,„,A,..-,2:17,-Fr \?-- ,1 I I c, , 4' - , •%'`.1' '',--- Itiiiii'1.10/..'---. 1111- .,, . : :'.,1,,_. ' -- --1-----, c) <3 ,-- -.-, ),,, -,-:,% , .-..,... ., lir 1 I I ' ,---•:-- s, 1).%:-,-',-*--- ,.,--v-^ '-'-- - . - --II IL, , -_,. „ :--•,,y,›,\"4-tj:1--„•,7. ,,,,,-,...,,k0---- • :,...., . , , . 0 . A,r_Avi,p- . <4, mg,-,-• •I, itir„ ._._,- : -•,,,,,.. ‹, a - , -", ..---,L--1 -`:,.• ,...-. ICr1 .1.; ::'n.,,,...-• , 111187110P ii..4114: ' ' '''''t'l ._ '":.."'---", ' • • '-‘,..,, --,n tA•:'"^,,,.,? 1--,_ :,, ,...,.. .7.1\.•11;: -'',:t..1:.,• ,-,-- -., rant --i -.•-. ., , .. • ., . \ .,. L 1e'-- 1 T--I : III c--- •ir, 'f-- •,•• •v''' ''' •••• --‹. •}.,.,,••-, , •-..,,, •••••,r, ..: ,_,,, ,., N.. ..\.„.„<"-, L.,...,L)6,..y „.„,,_ ,,,,4,,,..,.,.,._,,..,.,. ,J •,„ 2 ' ''- L,'-- A, '44'11. -'vi'6'. ,•--"- 'i-la 6 . ri:M11.15.p .:11.i ,/ - ,:7.,rTsT.,"7Or, .....4.,,Ter --,,, _., _•,,, ., ,•:,..-,,I.,,, ..,,,.t v.-jr;s.,t,••:,-.-„.: , ,=-4,--p,-,54-.-,-.i.. -..—c,--1 • 1.. ., '''''''''''' ii 1,: ',' .•:,----' APPROVED MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION June 3, 2008 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Doug McKee Vice Chair Teree Bergman Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin Absent: Commissioner Pete Bistany Also Present: Mayor Paul Loomis Vice Mayor Al Kunisch Council Member K.C. Carter Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director Joe Andrews, Town Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager Matt Michels, Senior Planner David Ronquillo, Senior Planner 3. Call to the Audience opened and closed with no speakers. 4. Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve the May 6, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes are written. Vice Chair Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. 5. Appointment of a Planning & Zoning Commission Member to a Landscape Code Update Committee. Ms. More said that staff and consultant have started work on a landscape code amendment. If any commissioners are interested in volunteering to participate in that code amendment, it would be appreciated. Commissioner Adler and Vice Chair Bergman would like to participate. June 3, 2008 Apprr Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Se 6. OV4-08-04, Mary Stafford, requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to conduct a counseling and training of mental health professional business. Located at 9941 N. Placita Papalote. Dee Widero, Zoning Program Supervisor, gave the staff report. Applicant Mary Stafford gave a brief report and answered questions. - Not acupuncture, but use of pressure with finger tips only. - Certified profession. - Occasional evening and weekend appointments. - There is lots of parking space. - Applicant has read conditions of approval and agrees with them. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 6:15 p.m. Richard Almer, resident of Oro Valley was opposed and thinks it is not wise to approve something like this without more evidence of the professionalism and effectiveness. PUBLIC HEARING closed at 6:17 p.m. The Applicant stated there has been a lot of research in this process, and there are multiple internet sites stating the usefulness of this technique. Commissioner Adler pointed out that the purpose of this hearing is not to put a stamp of approval on the profession, but to approve the activity in the home. MOTION: Commissioner Adler MOVED to approve OVO4-08-04, a request for a home occupation to conduct a counseling and training of mental health professionals business at 9941 N. Placita Papalote, subject to conditions in Exhibit A. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. 7. Future Agenda Items None. 8. Planning Update None. 9. Adjourn Regular Session MOTION: Commissioner Paolino MOVED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission regular session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. 1. Call to Order Study Session at or after 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call June 3,2008 Appn Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Se PRESENT: Chair Doug McKee Vice Chair Teree Bergman Commissioner Bill Adler Commissioner Ray Paolino Commissioner Clark Reddin Mayor Paul Loomis Vice Mayor Al Kunisch Council Member K.C. Carter Sarah S. More, Planning and Zoning Director Joe Andrews, Town Attorney Paul Keesler, Development Review Manager Matt Michels, Senior Planner David Ronquillo, Senior Planner 3. Study Session: Capri Co., LLC represented by The WLB Group, requests a major General Plan amendment for approximately 271 acres south of Tangerine Road and east of Palisades Road. The request is to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community, and modify the Special Area policies to allow future development of a variety of residential housing types, community commercial uses, professional technological business park, continuum of care facilities and open space. The parcels are 220-06-001F and 220-06-001G, (OV11-08-03). Ms. More, Planning and Zoning Director, stated that this item has been withdrawn. A letter was received from Mr. Felker, representing Kai Capri General Plan (GP) amendment, asking that the Commission be informed that the request to amend the Oro Valley GP has been withdrawn as it relates to the property at the southeast corner of First Avenue and Tangerine, and to remove the matter from all hearings that may be scheduled regarding this matter. The Kais expressed their appreciation for the courtesies and professional treatment received from the Oro Valley staff and to all involved in this matter. 4. Study Session: Vistoso Partners, represented by The WLB Group, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, located within Rancho Vistoso on both sides of the Honey Bee Wash (OV11-08- 04). Applicant, Paul Oland, The WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners gave a PowerPoint presentation on a GP Amendment for Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5. Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response: - What is the comparison in number of dwelling units between the existing plan and the proposal? Response: It is a range in the PAD. The MHDR designation in the areas proposed would be an increase of 64.3 acres. The increase in dwelling units would be 6-8 times that or 328 to 399 units. Neighborhood 5 is entitled to 3,555 units overall; right now we have under 1,000. 3 " June 3, 2008 Apprc,.— Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session - How is reducing the amount of park space justified? Response: The proposal is to reduce the amount of golf course and recreation area by 175 acres. 144 of those acres will be recouped as open space. Every development going in will still be subject to Oro Valley's recreation area requirements. Some commercial area will also be eliminated. The commercial area was intended to be used for the golf course clubhouse. - What are the areas along Rancho Vistoso Blvd., that are indicated as high density built at? Response: It is less than the 21 maximum, but didn't know what the densities of those plats are. He will find out. - Were the lots already built on in the vicinity marketed as golf course properties? Response: Did not know how they were marketed? All the lots that currently exist are up the hill and are 500 to 600 feet away from what is proposed. - What are you doing about trails through the area? Response: There are several trails on the Trails Master Plan and we will work with Parks Department to secure alignments as necessary. - Who has title to the trails in Rancho Vistoso? Response: When the trail is within the public dedicated right-of-way, the Town has title; in common areas trails are under control of the Master HOA. In some cases when a subdivision is completed, public trail easement is included. In those cases trail maintenance would be held by the Town. In areas where that doesn't happen then it would fall to the Rancho Vistoso Master HOA. - Is there a sewer line issue? Response: As the PAD developed there was a Master Plan for sewer. The proposal is to locate a sewer directly behind bank protection alignment to serve this area. There may be a problem with an ADOT right-of-way which they are working to remedy. The sewer line will replace a lift station. - Regarding hydrology and bank protection, will the lower sections be brought up to grade? Response: Significant fill is not anticipated in those areas. The PAD originally had a Master Hydrology Study that defined the flood plan limits and maximum encroachment boundaries that were sustainable for the wash. We don't propose "pinching" that down anymore. Either bank protection or erosion protection device will be there. - On page 23 of the packet, explain the conflict existing between the Rancho Vistoso PAD and SRA designation. Response: The PAD predates the GP and SRA designation. The SRA was placed on top of about 125 acres or otherwise developable property. The proposal idea is to pull disturbance areas out of the SRA zone so the PAD isn't in conflict. - Is the intent to dedicate the school site? Response: That dedication has not occurred yet and is tied to approval of the Stone Canyon 8 final plat. 4 June 3,2008 Appro— Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study - Why can't dedication of the school site happen now? Why is the school site tied to something that is unrelated? Response: Ms. More stated establishing an acceptable school site for Amphi School District was tied to a rezoning case in Pima County that is connected to Stone Canyon 8 subdivision. Pima County required that the developer provide a school site that the school district would accept. Stone Canyon 8 cannot be approved by the Council until such time as we get the school site assured for Amphi. In March, Amphi accepted this location as an appropriate site. Schools, as entities of the State, are not subject to local zoning ordinances. - Could the site be dedicated now? Response: Yes, there is nothing stopping that, except the fact that it was tied to an approval years ago and they intend to follow through with that. It will be years before the site is needed. - Discuss the condition in the proposed area regarding the riparian condition on the property and how it relates to the habitat protection policies in the GP. Response: A good deal of the property is designated as SRA, presumably for environmental reasons as opposed to archaeological or historical. It is tied to the environmental conditions along the wash. In future PAD amendment phases, a biologist would be hired to determine truly sensitive habitat. The SRA is overlaid on existing entitlement, but a development pattern is being proposed that the Town would find consistent with its goals. - Where building is planned has riparian conditions on it. Would like to see something that overlays more clearly where development will occur as it relates to the riparian designations. - How will Arrowsmith Loop be configured and managed? Response: Most comments regarding Arrowsmith Loop related to the school site chosen. Making the road one-way was not acceptable to the school district. - Will the proper amount of space be designated for parks and recreation space as described in the zoning code? Response: As subdivisions come in for platting they will have to show that they are providing the property amount of space. This proposal doesn't designate a location for a larger, centralized park. Oro Valley park requirements would have to be designated by individual subdivisions as they come in for approval. Chair McKee told the audience that no decisions will be made this evening. This is a session only to ask questions and gain information. The audience can submit questions in writing for discussion. Matt Michels, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. A map with overlays showing the encroachments into SRA will be brought back to the next meeting. Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response: 5 • • June 3, 2008 Apprc.. Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Se - Regarding park space, why can't we take the total density proposed for this area and allocate recreational space based on that density, as opposed to the densities submitted with each plat that comes in? Response: This is being looked at. - When looking at residential construction adjacent to a sensitive area, is the area being cramped and damaged even though not being built on? Is there a reasonable setback that could be applied to do what is intended to preserve the sensitive area? Bring information on this to the public hearing. - Deborah Pemberton, Oro Valley Citizen, submitted: Has there been any traffic study completed on Arrowsmith Road going down to the school to determine how to make it safe for the children? Paul Keesler responded: At this point we have stipulated minimum requirements to the applicant, but it would be confirmed at the time of a PAD amendment. A traffic analysis is not typically done at this level as there are several unknowns, i.e. densities. Staff wants a multi-use path on one side of the road and a sidewalk on the other side at a minimum, separated from the road itself. Bob Becker, Oro Valley resident, submitted the same issue of traffic flow. - Detailed traffic studies are not generally part of a GP process, but will be considered at the PAD. Ms. More said regarding the loop road, Moore/Arrowsmith Loop, has always been in the approved Rancho Vistoso Master Plan. This will be addressed at the public hearing. - The school has preference over the Town on siting the school. Break: 7:25 to 7:35 p.m. 5. Study Session: Skyline Ridge LLC., represented by The WLB Group, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property located in proximity to the southwest corner of Oracle Road and Hardy Road, (OV11-08-02). Applicant Paul Oland, The WLB Group, representing Skyline Ridge LLC, gave a PowerPoint presentation. A boutique hotel is envisioned, with a low profile and highly landscaped. Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response: - With the property owner owning adjacent property, why is just this piece being changed? It appears to be piecemeal planning. Response: The intent is to avoid piecemeal planning. The rest of ownership already has Neighborhood Commercial (NCO) designation. He intends to apply for rezoning all of the pieces that don't have the NCO zoning with the intent to develop the Oracle Road frontage all at once. The piece of land further to the west would have trouble with access. - The water utility that serves this area is Tucson? Response: Correct. 6 • ' June 3,2008 Appro vlinutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session - Will Oro Valley be taking over water service? Response: There is an agreement between Tucson and Oro Valley Water, that if Tucson is unable to provide adequate water for fire flow, then Oro Valley will provide that. - Is hotel property a use in Neighborhood Commercial? Response: If looking at the GP as a whole you end up all along Oracle with Neighborhood Commercial. Service capacity and scale of development would be designed in harmony with the surrounding area. - Is the hotel a wish or definite? Response: It is not definite, but an interest has been expressed. - If not a hotel, would it be other retail? Response: That would be decided at the rezoning stage. - A hotel is not a permitted use in the zoning code. Why not ask for community commercial at this point as a GP designation, which would be consistent with the ultimate goals? Response: The applicant needs feedback whether the proposal he is making would be allowed. - Regarding the SRA overlay, increased density is in contradiction to policies in the GP. Response: If the SRA requires development at the lowest allowable density of the land use designation, and you are proposing to increase the designation, what then becomes the lowest allowable? Mr. Vella's answer at last night's meeting was there was no specific guidance. The proposal would need to demonstrate compliance with the preservation goals of the SRA policy. In the rezoning stage, the design would: a) be designed around a more detailed definition, b) beyond those defined constraints, are we in consistency with the intensity of development that would be appropriate next to those areas, not in them, but also within the SRA? Either way, we will need to adhere to that policy in rezoning stage. - What is a boutique hotel? Does it have a dining room? Response: A hotel large enough to draw people other that hotel patrons and it would probably have a dining room, but probably not accommodate business meetings. - Does this respond to market demand? Response: He has heard from several brokers that hotel developers are interested in this area. - Requested that at the Public Hearing, have information to help understand how market demand is being analyzed. - The Commission is not being asked to approve a hotel, just a designation. Of more concern is the surroundings, extra curb cuts, 100 year flood plain through the middle, etc. Response: The flood plain does run through the property and would not be filled in. Washes which exceed a certain cfs require preservation. It is unknown where the northern edge of the flood plain is. This is to be combined with the property to the north to develop 7 ^ June 3,2008 Apprc Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Ses.^,— together as a whole. - Is the change of conditions along Oracle Road justification for why the GP amendment makes sense? Response: The first finding of fact is difficult to answer for any application. Development continues to occur along Oracle and available sites are being reduced in number. More information will be brought back to the next meeting. - This application falls in general compliance with the goals and objectives with what we are trying to accomplish in the land use along Oracle Road. Having an SRA along Oracle is the wrong land use. - Criteria item 3 is not a convincing argument. Basing a request on the hotel designation is not a compelling reason for approval. It should be aimed at the range of uses in that designation rather than on a specific use. Response: Would addressing it from the stand point that there is greater market demand for this as a commercial piece rather than an SRA piece be better? - Yes. David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response: - There is larger lot residential to the rear of this property and adjoining property already designated NCO. There is an incompatibility with the existing neighborhoods against what has been proposed. How does staff approach this type of situation trying to use the GP to mitigate obvious incompatibility of the two adjoining uses? Response: There is still a lot that has not been evaluated yet. Buffer yards and/or additional setbacks could be used to mitigate. - A detailed study of section 7.1 policies should be provided for the next meeting. - A financial comparison of what this change may mean to the Town and what it means from the developer's point of view should be provided for the next meeting. 6. Study Session: Shannon Road Properties LLC., represented by the Planning Center, requests approval of a General Plan Amendment for the property located in proximity to the southeast corner of Shannon Road and Naranja Drive, (OV11-08-08). Applicant Bob Conant, representing Shannon Road Properties LLC, gave a PowerPoint presentation. Water is currently being served by Tucson Water and doesn't have enough pressure. Oro Valley could service the area but would have to have a pipeline extended along Naranja to Shannon and down to the site. Questions and comments from Commissioners and applicant's response: - Could the lots be pulled away from the high school ball park light towers? Response: There are two designs: one is to pull houses away with larger lots, and another doing a 300' buffer with a cluster development. Other options are being considered. 8 • June 3, 2008 Apprc,,,,„Minutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session - Regarding the urban service boundary change, what would be involved, what is the costs, and who would pay? Response: The applicant is responsible. They will need to install a water main near the high school, down Naranja to Shannon and down to the property. - School is served by Tucson Water. Does this proposal have the School changing over to Oro Valley Water? Response: No. The school may eventually want Oro Valley water, but it is not part of this request. Mr. Keesler said there is a 12" water main along north side of Naranja to serve Naranja Ranch. - What is the state of development of the property to the south? Response: Sporadic, there are 5 or 6 houses along the private street. Some are horse properties. - Are there any provisions or discussion of direct trail connectivity to the schools? Response: Not at the moment. The school doesn't want internal connection. There will be a multi-use path along Shannon. - #1 Finding of Fact: How does the proposed amendment provide greater control to protect home sitting and resources? Response: They are not changing anything, only adding a little density. - #2, how does putting higher density in a lower density development achieve neighborhood compatibility? Response: Doing a GP amendment and the rezoning process, the Town has control. Ms. More stated that with the exception of designated riparian areas, that is correct. - #4, won't the higher density development change the character of the area? Response: No, it will still have the same rural feeling that is there now. There will be some slight density, but with proper design it won't change in appearance. - As currently written the findings of fact are not compelling reasons to change the GP. Would like more thought to them prior to having to vote on this amendment. - The school is what changed the character of the area. Getting control over the riparian areas is more important that a little density. - Consider a special condition that limits the number of residential units to no more than the 40 to 45 mentioned. Response: The final design will probably only have 45, and they don't have a problem with that. The lot count will be determined prior to voting on this. - Under the current zoning, how many lots are allowed? Response: About 22. 9 June 3,2008 Approv.0.vlinutes P&Z Regular Session and Study Session David Ronquillo, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Questions and comments from Commissioners and staffs response: - Is the parcel to the east owned by the church? Response: It is within the church property, but it is a separate parcel. Staff will verify this. Mr. Conant didn't believe it was owned by the church. - At the Public Hearing could staffs presentation focus on how clustering might service the property and the adjoining neighbors, and how GP policies 11.1.11 and 11.4 work? - What are the neighboring resident's comments on the size of the proposed homes? Response: Neighbors are concerned they are too large. - Has there been any thought to extending the Urban Service Boundary to include the area to the south that is developed? Response: Staff didn't know if Oro Valley Water would be willing to extend service further south. It is not part of this proposal. Ms. More said that generally the Town is not going to extend urban services to these large lot areas unless they come together to form an improvement district to fund services. - Do we have to go through a GP amendment to expand the Urban Service Boundary? Does it automatically require us to extend service to those that already have it from somewhere else? Response: All of this is negotiated at the rezoning stage. It is a working relationship between Tucson Water and Oro Valley Water utilities as to when a shift in service occurs. - Does it make sense to prepare for that now instead of having to go through another GP amendment to move that boundary a little farther south? Would like to have that answer at the Public Hearing. - Would like to have an economic analysis on doing versus not doing this amendment at the Public Hearing. Ms. More pointed out that staff is trying to do notification into subdivisions when touched by the 1000 foot mailing area. 7. Adjourn Study Session MOTION: Vice Chair Bergman MOVED to adjourn the June 3, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session. Commissioner Reddin seconded the motion. Motion carried 5:0. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Prepared by: Diane Chapman Senior Office Specialist 10 -1 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: June 3, 2008 TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: Karen Berchtold, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Study Session: Capri Co., LLC, represented by The WLB Group, request a major General Plan amendment for approximately 271 acres south of Tangerine Road and east of Palisades Road. The parcels are 220-06-001 F and 220-06-001 G, (OV 11-08-03). OVERVIEW: Capri Co., LLC has requested this amendment to the General Plan land use designation and special area policies in order to develop the proposed site. Staff is unsure of the status of this project. A resubmittal for Commission review was not provided. This is a study session to review the proposed amendment and for the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to provide input and questions in preparation for the first public hearing on this proposal on July 10, 2008. If the amendment is approved, it would be followed by a proposal to rezone the property to a Planned Area Development zone. The applicant proposes to change land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community and modify the Special Area policies to allow future development of a variety of residential housing types, community commercial uses, professional technological business park, continuum of care facilities,and open space. DESCRIPTION OF AREA: • The property is vacant except for a wireless tower in the northeast corner. • The subject area is approximately 271 acres and zoned R1-144. It is bounded by Catalina Shadows (single family residences) to the east, Rooney Ranch PAD (residential) to the south, Tangerine Meadows and Tangerine Hills (single family subdivisions) and an existing neighborhood commercial center to the west, and by undeveloped land and Tangerine Road to the north. A Fire Station and • subdivision are located in the center of the subject area on Palisades Road. • There is Significant Resource Area (SRA) designation that includes braided riparian corridors (low xeroriparian) and mesquite bosque in the north-central part of the site and steep slopes on the eastern part of the site. There are additional slopes greater than 15% in the north-central, southern and western portions of the site. • The site includes substantial floodplain area that drains to Big Wash to the south. • The majority of the site is included in the Tangerine Road Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. • There is a degraded area in the northern portion of the subject area. • There is an existing Town designated trail across the property. REVIEW OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The primary elements of the proposed amendment are: • The General Plan land use for the subject area is Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) and Master Planned Community(MPC). The request is to change the NCO portion to MPC. • The General Plan contains Special Area Policies to guide rezoning of the site. These are provided in an attachment. The applicant is proposing to amend the Special Area policies. The proposed policies include: F:\ov\ovi112008\0V11-08-03\Reports\OV11-08-03 study session memo backup.doc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 2 of 3 o Change in land use designation: expansion of uses to include community commercial (approx. 7 acres); professional office/research/technology park(approx. 29 acres); continuum of care facilities (approx. 42 acres). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, continuum of care is defined as, "The entire spectrum of specialized health, rehabilitative, and residential services available to the frail and chronically ill. The services focus on the social, residential, rehabilitative and supportive needs of individuals as well as needs that are essentially medical in nature"; a mix of residential densities(61 acres); and open space preservation. o Residential may include attached/detached homes such as apartments and condominiums, and would be restricted to the area south of Palisades Road. o No building within 150 feet of Palisades Road or existing development shall be higher than eighteen(18') feet,unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalina Mountains. o Commercial area would not extend south of the existing Walgreen's at Tangerine Rd. and First Avenue. o Primary SRA areas are preserved; however, there is some encroachment into riparian and floodplain areas. o Development is proposed on slopes 25% or greater. • A proposed conceptual site plan is provided that depicts areas and approximate acreage of land use. Areas of steep slopes on the east side of the subject area are largely preserved GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA: As specified in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, a General Plan amendment is to be reviewed "based on consistency with the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan, with special emphasis on: a. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification; and b. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility; and c. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance; and d. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes. " The General Plan states: The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting these facts and other materials to support these conclusions. Please see the attached materials for the applicant's response to the above criteria. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be reviewing the submittal based on these criteria,policies and public input. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE: A site visit for Commission members was held on April 29, 2008. The first neighborhood meeting was held on May 1, 2008, at the Town Council Chambers.Notices were sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject area, and additional notices were sent to property F:\OV\OV11\2008\OV11-08-03\Reports\OVI I-08-03 study session memo backup.doc • • t TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 3 of 3 owners outside of the 1,000 foot boundary in order to include all owners within a subdivision. Approximately 100 people attended. Primary issues discussed included: • Area residents worked extensively with the property owner in 2005 to develop the existing General Plan policies; this revision goes against that agreement. • Technology park development should not be located in a residential area. • Concern about building height, views and attached residential development. • Preservation of slopes, ridgelines and riparian areas must be accomplished per General Plan policies. • Concern about locations for access to the site and possible changes to Palisades Road. • Request more information about subsequent rezoning and specific densities planned. A synopsis of the neighborhood meeting is attached. NEXT STEPS: This proposal is considered a major amendment to the General Plan. As such, two public hearings in different locations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are required. Prior to the public hearings, staff will prepare an analysis and recommendation on the proposal. • The first Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on the amendment is scheduled for July 10, 2008, 4:00 p.m., Council Chambers. • At least one additional neighborhood meeting will be held on July 31, 2008, 6:00 pm, Hopi Room, Town Hall Complex. • The second Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing is on September 5, 2008, 2:00 p.m., Casas Adobe Church. • The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will be presented to the Town Council at a public hearing on November 19, 2008. Attachments: 1. General Plan Special Area Policies 2. Application for Major General Plan Amendment (refer to original previously distributed) 3. Summary of May 1, 2008 Neighborhood meeting Cc: Paul Oland Herbert Kai arah S. More, Planning & Zoning Director F:\OV\OV I I\2008\OV I I-08-03\Reports\OV I I-08-03 study session memo backup.doc Kai Capri General Plan Amendment Notes from Neighborhood Meeting on May 1, 2008 • The neighbors have negotiated with Kai's on numerous occasions over the years. Each represented by a considerable effort. Agreements are broken because the property owner keeps asking for more. • Fatigue of having to go through this property yet again-we just did this in 2005 • Existing GP represents a major compromise-so stick with it • Concern about excessive building height of 34 feet • The proposal should be denied • Need thorough explanation of what constitutes"continuum of care" • Concern about the proposal to include attached homes • Oro Valley Marketplace construction and negative impacts • Why should we change the General Plan for Kai's profit? • Considerable anger about Vestar(Oro Valley Marketplace)-so we don't believe anything a developer presents. Developers tell us one thing and do another... • Building heights are a major concern from the Tangerine Heights neighborhood perspective • Request for"before"and"after"picture of development • Request for specific detail on all policies-restrictions proposed • No improvements to Palisades Road • GP policies do not support this...not a growth area etc. • Commitment to recall any TC members who vote for this • Don't want mass or anticipated building heights • Density is over the top • Concern about Splendido happening here • To much commercial • Water concern. Is there enough water to supply this development? • Protect slopes and washes as accomplished in current GP • Don't put Tech Park in a residential area • Anger concerning proposal to measure building height from intersection of 1st and Tangerine • Request for existing GP Kai Policies to be redlined,cross-outs,and with new verbiage double- underlined so we can compare. • • Keep existing zoning • Concern about locations of access • Preserve riparian areas and slopes • Keep low density expressed in plan • Concern about destruction of views • Don't make public go through this..stop • What is plan for subsequent zoning and specific densities planned? • No zoning for senior care facilities • Promised low density buffer to enable horse access for Palisades Splits area • No CPI onsite—not in residential area • No condos,attached housing,and apartments as proposed • Keep public forums open—do not use proposed Council of Neighbors meeting approach • Request for Mayor to stand behind neighbors • Keep homes away from ridgeline. • Maintain open space setting • How does Town and residents benefit from this plan? {. 1 Oro Valley General Plan Policy Document Adopted June 15, 2005 SPECIAL AREA POLICIES Kai-Capri(including the approximately 10-acre Steam Pump Ranch Estates property in the southeast corner of the area) General 1 . Transfers of residential densities are permitted and encouraged in the area. Primary receiving areas are: (1) the graded area in the north central portion of the site; and (2) areas adjacent to Rooney Ranch no more than 660 feet north of the south boundary and no farther east than the east edge of Palisades splits. Units should be transferred off the following areas: (1) SRAs, (2) areas along North First Avenue (especially the area between the road and the Palisades Splits parcels), and (3) the area southeast and visible from Palisades Splits parcels. 2. Transfers of densities from SRAs that are not riparian areas (including 50-foot buffers), floodplains, or 25 percent slopes may be calculated at up to 1 .0 units per acre. Transfers of densities off the other SRA, or building within any SRA, should be at no more than 0.4 units per acre. 3. Primitive trails, with public access easements, shall be provided unless otherwise prohibited by law. These will be within the existing wash areas, will connect to the open space area adjacent to the north boundary of the site, and will provide a connection from the Palisades Split Area southeasterly to the wash. 4. Any change to the General Plan that would allow more than 1 .0 units per acre, over all, on the residential area on the property shall be treated as a major amendment. As currently mapped, the maximum number of residential units on the Kai-Capri Property is 255; and up to 10 are allowed on the Steam Pump Ranch Estates property. Any change of the commercial area to residential uses shall be treated as a major amendment. 5. The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised will apply. Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) 1 . Must be developed for commercial and office uses as part of an overall master plan that includes planning for the MPC property to the south. 2. Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the 35 Land Use • c Policy Document Oro Valley General Plan Adopted June 15, 2005 applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. A minimum of 40% of the North First Avenue frontage to a depth of 300 feet must be maintained as a view corridor and not used for building purposes. 4. The commercial areas shall not extend, on North First Avenue, to the south of the Evergreen (Walgreen's) development. Master Planned Community 1 . Must be developed for residential uses as part of an overall master plan that includes planning for the NCO property to the north. 2. No building within 200 feet of North First Avenue, or within 1 50 feet of Palisades Road or existing development shall be higher than 18 feet, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. There shall be no development in the 100-year floodplain, riparian areas or on any slopes of 25% or more, excluding roadway and utilities. 4. The only housing type permitted is single-family detached residence. 5. Mass grading for residential uses is allowed only in disturbed areas. Any mass grading shall require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 6. No buildings shall be constructed within 100 feet of the east property line adjacent to existing residential areas. Rooney Ranch-North - ___ __--_.-- --- — The area designated as Master Planned Community may be developed at up tthree units per acre. Kelly Ranch Seek to acquire the Kelly Ranch property through a ' effort with the National Forest Service, Arizona State Parks, and Pima Cou , monitor the Keller Nursery property, and maintain the Significant Resource a designation on the whole property. La Cholla-Tangerine For the safety o school children and to reduce impacts on surrounding neighborhoo , access onto Glover should be limited to the extent possible. Primarily, access ould be onto La Cholla. Land Use 36