HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (142)
AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION
December 10, 2014
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE
SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below:
ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING
REGULAR AGENDA
1. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND
USE MAP TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES
RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA
DESIGNATION PERTAINING TO 194 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND
NORTHWEST CORNERS OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-63, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE
MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCE AREA FOR 186 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA
CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
B. RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-64, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE
MAP, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCE AREA FOR 8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA
CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas.
Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS
38-431.02H)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 12/3/14 at 4:30 p.m. by mrs
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24
hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. –
5:00p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a
disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior
to the Council meeting at 229-4700.
INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS
Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those
items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during
the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these
topics at the discretion of the Chair.
If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card
located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on
the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak
during “Call to Audience”, please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue
speaker card.
Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are
interested in addressing.
1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.
2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will
only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed.
3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
4. During “Call to Audience” you may address the Council on any issue you wish.
5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.
Thank you for your cooperation.
CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town
Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda . Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law,
individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a
future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not
discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to
Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.
CC-1587 Item # 1.
Town Council Special Session
Meeting Date:12/10/2014
Requested by: Bayer Vella
Submitted By:Chad Daines, Development
Infrastructure Services
Department:Development Infrastructure Services
Information
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION
PERTAINING TO 194 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF LA
CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-63, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP,
ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA FOR
186 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND
NARANJA DRIVE
B. RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-64, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP,
ADOPTING SPECIAL AREA POLICIES AND DELETING THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA FOR 8
ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA
DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the requested amendments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The requests pertain to 194 acres at the southwest and northwest corners of La Cholla Boulevard and
Naranja Drive. These two (2) separate requests are being master planned as a single development and
therefore are combined within this report.
The requested amendments are comprised of three parts:
1. Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to Master Planned Community. The proposed Master
Planned Community contains a variety of residential and non-residential land uses as depicted on the
applicant’s Concept Plan (Attachment 3).
2. Adoption of Special Area Plan Policies (Attachment 4).
3. Deletion of the Significant Resource Area designation.
The applicant’s narrative, response to Code evaluation criteria and market study are provided as
The applicant’s narrative, response to Code evaluation criteria and market study are provided as
Attachment 5. In addition, the current and proposed General Plan Land Use Maps are provided as
Attachments 6 and 7.
Public comments address an array of concerns:
Opposition to the apartments, which were part of the original request
Increasing the density beyond existing plan designations
Traffic
Variation in land use
Lack of market for proposed uses
Lack of compliance with evaluation criteria
Impact on schools
Other (please refer to Attachment 13 for all resident/interested parties emails and letters)
In response to neighborhood and staff input, the applicant modified the requests to:
Eliminate apartments and replacement with townhouses/condominiums
Narrow the range of uses in the High Density area
Delete the southern "Flexible zone," replacing it with medium density residential
Establish a 778 dwelling unit cap on the entire project area
Added a one-story home height restriction along the western and southern borders
Added an open space buffer on the western border
Amended the general plan criteria and submittal of a market study
The amendments were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at two (2) separate public
hearings. On November 20th, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendments.
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
Annexation / Existing Zoning
The property was annexed in 2002 and is currently zoned R1-144, which permits residential development
on 3.3 acre lots.
Analysis of Requests
Roads
Expanding La Cholla Boulevard to a desert parkway will provide another important major north–south
transportation corridor within the community. A key objective of the roadway improvements is
to provide an alternative route to Oracle Road. Once the roadway is expanded, it will significantly change
the character of this area and the applicant’s request is to align the planned intensity of development with
the future function and volume of this roadway.
The funding and planned expansion of La Cholla from a curvy two lane road to a straightened four lane
desert parkway (similar to La Canada Drive) is a key component of this request. In 2006, voters
approved funding this expansion to occur in 2021, although the Town is working to expedite the planned
expansion to accommodate the additional projected traffic volume in this area. Traffic impact on La
Cholla related to this request is summarized as follows:
Current traffic volume is approximately 7,000 - 9,000 trips per day
Projected traffic volume from this development is approximately 17,000 trips per day
The future expansion to four lanes will accommodate the projected traffic volume from this
development, with full capacity at approximately 32,000 trips per day.
Residential and Commercial Designations
The proposed Concept Plan (Attachment 3) provides for a range of single-family residential,
townhouses/condominiums, parks and commercial / office uses. The Concept Plan is provided for
illustrative purposes and will not be formally adopted as part of the General Plan. The land use
designations and mitigation measures shown will be adopted though.
Low Density Residential is proposed along the western boundary with a maximum density of 2.0 homes
per acre to provide lower densities adjacent to the 3.3 acre lots to the west. A 200 foot open space buffer
and 300 foot one story home restriction are proposed along the south and west boundaries to further
reduce impact to these areas.
Neighborhood Commercial / Office parcels are proposed at the northwest and southwest corners of
Naranja Drive and La Cholla. Additionally, the applicant proposes an expansion of the existing
Neighborhood Commercial / Office property at the northwest corner of Lambert and La Cholla. The
proposed commercial parcels are consistent with General Plan policies which support the location of
higher intensity uses near major arterial streets.
Recreational Areas
Recreational areas are provided along La Cholla Boulevard and along Cross Road. These larger
recreational areas will consolidate the smaller recreational areas which would normally be provided
throughout subdivisions and result in larger, more usable open space areas. The Town's Parks and
Recreation Director has reviewed the sites and determined that the size of the recreation areas is not
conducive to a dedicated Town park and therefore the recreational areas should remain private.
Compatibility/ Special Area Policies
The applicant proposes a number of Special Area Policies to implement the proposed Master Planned
Community (Attachment 4) and to address compatibility issues with adjoining areas. These policies
include the following notable elements:
Elimination of apartments and replacement with townhouses/condominiums
Townhouses/condominiums not to exceed 12 units per acre
Delete southern "flexible zone," replacing it with medium density
Narrowing of the range of uses
Establish a maximum 778 residential dwelling units over the entire project site
Medium density residential allowed on commercial parcels only after all other residential developed
Open space on the west and single-story residential building height restrictions on west and south
Amended the general plan criteria responses and submittal of a market study
Requirement to master plan the entire property as one Planned Area Development as part of a
future rezoning process
In summary, the resulting policies will ensure comprehensive planning of these properties as a single
master planned area. The land use modifications, unit cap and mitigation measures included within the
policies will lessen the impact of this development on adjoining areas. The moderate increase in intensity
is consistent with the General Plan policies with regard to locating higher intensity uses near major
arterial streets and will result in an efficient use of infrastructure and complement the planned expansion
of La Cholla Boulevard.
Significant Resource Area Deletion
The applicant proposes to delete the Significant Resource Area (SRA) designation on the southern
portion of the property. This designation, adopted with the original General Plan in 2005, proceeded the
Town’s adoption of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations in 2011. The ESL ordinance
establishes comprehensive environmental conservation standards and regulations which provide for a
superior level of resource protection when compared to the SRA designation.
The property contains the following ESL conservation categories (Attachment 8)
95% Open Space: Washes and riparian areas (Critical Resource Area)
66% Open Space: Lower resource value lands with lower intensity growth expectations in the
General Plan (Resource Management Area Tier 1)
25% Open Space: Lower resource value lands with moderate intensity growth expectations in the
General Plan (Resource Management Area Tier 2)
If the amendments are approved, Critical Resource Areas will continue to require 95% open space and
the remainder of the site will be designated RMA Tier 2 and require 25% open space conservation.
General Plan Amendment Evaluation
The Zoning Code provides that amendments to the General Plan are evaluated based on two measures:
Consistency with the Vision, Goals and Policies of the General Plan
Compliance with the four amendment criteria
The applicant’s analysis and responses to these two measures is provided in Attachment 5. Staff
analysis of the applicant's response is provided as Attachment 9.
In summary, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendments were consistent with the
General Plan Vision and many Goals and Policies, including:
Support for higher density residential and commercial near major arterial streets
Support for commercial uses and services in proximity to residential neighborhoods
Master planning of large parcels of land
Establish a complementary relationship between development and roads
In regard to the four amendment criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission found the amendments to
be in compliance. Additional evaluation detail is provided in Attachment 9 and the Planning and Zoning
Commission staff report (Attachment 10). The Planning and Zoning Commission draft minutes are
provided as Attachment 11.
Public Participation
Three neighborhood meetings and an open house on the proposals were held as follows:
April 15th (75 attendees)
August 13th (65 attendees)
September 10th Open House (90 attendees)
October 20th (40 attendees)
Public Comment is provided in the following attachments:
Attachment 12: Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes
Attachment 13: Letters and emails from area residents and interested parties
Attachment 14: A letter from Amphitheater School District confirming the ability to accommodate
the projected enrollment from this development.
Planning and Zoning Commission Review / Action
The amendments were considered at two public hearings on October 7th and November
20th. Discussion at the hearings focused on density, traffic, market demand and neighborhood
impact. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission voted to recommend:
Approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment
Adoption of the Special Area Policies with an additional policy clarifying that the property could be
developed for the expansion of the Casas Church
Deletion of the Significant Resource Area designation
The Commission draft minutes are provided as Attachment 10 for additional information.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development of commercial, retail, office or employment uses on the property should have a long-term
positive impact on revenues to support Town-provided services and reduce sales tax leakage to other
communities.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Agenda Item A
I MOVE to adopt Resolution No. (R)14-63, approving the Major General Plan Amendment requested
under case OV1114-002, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 7, adoption of the
Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 4 and deletion of the Significant Resource Area, based on
the findings that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies and in
compliance with the four amendment criteria in the Zoning Code.
OR
I MOVE to deny the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV 1114-002, based on the
finding that ______________________________.
Agenda Item B
I MOVE to adopt Resolution No. (R)14-64, approving the Major General Plan Amendment requested
under case OV1114-003, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 7, adoption of the
Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 4 and deletion of the Significant Resource Area, based on
the findings that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies and in
compliance with the four amendment criteria in the Zoning Code.
OR
I MOVE to deny the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV 1114-003, based on the
finding that _________________________________.
Attachments
(R)14-63 Major GPA Southwest La Cholla & Naranja
(R)14-64 Major GPA Northwest La Cholla & Naranja
Attachment 3 - Concept Plan
Attachment 4 - Special Area Policies
Attachment 5 - Applicant Request
Attachment 6 - Current General Plan Land Use
Attachment 7 - Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment 8 - ESL Planning Map
Attachment 9 - General Plan Amendment Evaluation
Attachment 10 - Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 11 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Attachment 12 - Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes
Attachment 13 - Resident / Interested Parties Letters and Emails
Attachment 14 - Amphitheater School District Letter
RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM
RURAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RLDR, 0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE),
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR 0.4 TO 1.2 HOMES/ACRE),
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR 2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE),
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC,
OPEN SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER
PLANNED COMMUNITY (MPC) COMPRISED OF LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE, SENIOR
LIVING USES, CASAS CHURCH EXPANSION AND PARK. THE
APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES
RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
PERTAIN TO 186 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA
CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley residents ratified the Oro Valley General Plan on
November 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Paul Oland of WLB Group, (“applicant”) is requesting a Major General Plan
Amendment to change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-
0.3 Homes/acre), Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density
residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public,
Open Space and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of
low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood
commercial office, senior living uses, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also
proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant
Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 186 acres at the southwest
corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-461, et seq. and OVZCR, Section 22.2, the Planning and
Zoning Commission held two (2) duly noticed public hearings, the first on October 7, 2014, and
the second on November 20, 2014, at which the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the application requesting Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land
use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-0.3 Homes/acre), Low Density
Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1-5.0
homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and
Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density
residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial
office, senior living uses, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also proposes to adopt
Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area
designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 186 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla
Boulevard and Naranja; and
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Section 22.1, General Plan
Amendment Procedures, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of any
amendment to the General Plan, a public hearing before the Mayor and Council shall be
scheduled; and
WHEREAS, Mayor and Council duly considered the proposed Major General Plan Amendment to
change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-0.3 Homes/acre),
Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1-
5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and
Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density
residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial
office, senior living uses, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also proposes to adopt
Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area
designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 186 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla
Boulevard and Naranja Drive;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of
Oro Valley that:
SECTION 1. The Mayor and Council hereby adopts the Major General Plan Amendment to
change the future land use map from Rural Low Density Residential (RLDR, 0-0.3 Homes/acre),
Low Density Residential (LDR 0.4 to 1.2 homes/acre), Medium Density residential (MDR 2.1-
5.0 homes/acre), Neighborhood Commercial/Office, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space and
Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of low density
residential, medium density residential, high density residential, neighborhood commercial
office, senior living uses, casas church expansion and park. The applicant also proposes to adopt
Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area
designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 186 acres at the southwest corner of La Cholla
Boulevard and Naranja Drive as depicted on Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of the resolution or
any part of the General Plan Amendment adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this
10th day of December, 2014.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor
3
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director
Date: Date:
4
Exhibit “A”
RURAL LOW
DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 2
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 1
RESOLUTION NO. (R)14-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR 2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) AND
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY (MPC) COMPRISED OF MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE. THE
APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES
RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
PERTAIN TO 8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley residents ratified the Oro Valley General Plan on
November 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Paul Oland of WLB Group, (“applicant”) is requesting a Major General Plan
Amendment to change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0
homes/acre) and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of
Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also
proposes to adopt Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant
Resource Area designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 8 acres located at the
northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-461, et seq. and OVZCR, Section 22.2, the Planning and
Zoning Commission held two (2) duly noticed public hearings, the first on October 7, 2014, and
the second on November 20, 2014, at which the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the application requesting Major General Plan Amendment to change the future land
use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre) and Significant Resource
Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special Area Policies
related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation. The proposed
amendments pertain to 8 acres located at the northwest corner of La Cholla Boulevard and
Naranja Drive; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Section 22.1, General Plan
Amendment Procedures, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of any
amendment to the General Plan, a public hearing before the Mayor and Council shall be
scheduled; and
WHEREAS, Mayor and Council duly considered the proposed Major General Plan Amendment to
change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre) and
Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium Density
Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also proposes to adopt Special
Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area designation.
The proposed amendments pertain to 8 acres located at the northwest corner of La Cholla
Boulevard and Naranja Drive;
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of
Oro Valley that:
SECTION 1. The Mayor and Council hereby adopts the Major General Plan Amendment to
change the future land use map from Medium Density Residential (MDR 2.1-5.0 homes/acre)
and Significant Resource Area to Master Planned Community (MPC) comprised of Medium
Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial Office. The applicant also proposes to adopt
Special Area Policies related to the development and delete the Significant Resource Area
designation. The proposed amendments pertain to 8 acres located at the northwest corner of La
Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive as depicted on Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of the resolution or
any part of the General Plan Amendment adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this
10th day of December, 2014.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Dr. Satish I. Hiremath, Mayor
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie K. Bower, Town Clerk Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director
Date: Date:
3
Exhibit “A”
RURAL LOW
DENSITY
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 2
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 1
CONCEPT PLAN
LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST
(OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003)
Attachment 3
Special Area Policies – Attachment 4
La Cholla and Naranja Southwest and Northwest
General
1. Planning unit boundaries are shown graphically. The actual boundaries extend to the
centerline of adjacent rights-of-way or property boundaries as depicted on the Concept Plan.
2. Lands outside the Critical Resource Areas shall be considered Resource Management Area
Tier 2.
3. At the time of rezoning a master plan shall be prepared through the use of a Planned Area
Development zoning for the entire site, including a Master Land Use Plan, Master Drainage
Plan, Master Traffic Plan and Master Recreational Plan. The master planning shall include
anticipated development phasing, main trunk infrastructure, master schedule of
improvements, landscaping, signage and thematic elements.
4. A single-story residential building height limit (not to exceed 24 feet) shall be in effect within
300 feet of the west boundary of the master plan up to a point approximately 2,570 feet north
of the northern right-of-way line of Lambert Lane, and within 300 feet north of the northern
right-of-way line of Lambert Lane.
5. A 200 foot natural open space buffer shall be maintained from the property lines of existing
homes to the west of the Master Planned Community.
6. A maximum 778 residential dwelling units shall be built within the boundaries of the Master
Planned Community.
7. Expansion of the Casas Church campus will continue to be an allowed use.
Neighborhood Commercial / Office
8. Neighborhood Commercial / Office parcels on Naranja Drive and La Cholla Boulevard have
a back-up designation of “Medium Density Residential” that may only be utilized once the
remainder of the Master Planned Community residential parcels have been developed.
High Density Residential
9. Apartments, as defined by the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, are not allowed within this
Master Planned Community.
10. Attached residential development shall be limited to townhouses or condominiums as defined
by the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, with a density not to exceed 12 homes per acre.
Medium Density Residential (2.1 – 5.0 homes per acre) and Senior Care Facilities shall also
be permitted within the High Density Residential area.
Senior Care Facilities
11. Senior Care Facilities shall feature a design palette of colors, materials and architectural
details that are compatible with the surrounding community. All design elements must meet
or exceed the Town’s Design Standards.
Park
12. The Park areas within the Master Plan shall count toward the recreation area acreage
required by Town Code for residential development within the Master Plan. The Park areas
shall be improved by the developer with a commensurate level of amenities as required by
the Zoning Code.
QUIKTRIP STORE #1481
ORACLE/ORANGE GROVE
Pima County, AZ
DUE DILIGENCE PACKAGE
06.22.2011
Prepared for:
La Cholla Commons
Narrative for Major General
Plan Amendments
November 6, 2014
Prepared By:
The WLB Group, Inc.
4444 East Broadway Blvd.
Tucson, Arizona 85711
Contact: Paul Oland
520.881.7480
gpoland@wlbgroup.com
WLB No. 110028-A-002
&199032-A-008
Casas Adobes Baptist Church
10801 N La Cholla Blvd.
Tucson, Arizona 85742
The Kai Family
2305 W Ruthrauff Rd., Unit B9
Tucson, Arizona 85705
The Lin Family
c/o Greg Wexler
6088 W Arizona Pavilions Dr Ste 1
Tucson, Arizona 85743
T/F Naranja Group LLC
PO Box 31987
Tucson, Arizona 85751
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Project Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
B. Property Data .................................................................................................................. 1
C. General Plan Amendment Criteria .................................................................................. 2
D. General Plan Policy Conformance .................................................................................... 8
Exhibits
Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Pima Association of Governments – Transportation Analysis Zones
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use Master Plan
1
A. Project Summary
The La Cholla Commons property is located along the west side of La Cholla Boulevard between
Glover Road and Lambert Lane. The General Plan currently contemplates a mix of uses including
5 RAC residential, commercial/office, and public/semi-public facilities. The proposal is to
comprehensively plan this 1.5 mile frontage of La Cholla Boulevard. The designation of the entire
corridor is proposed as Master Planned Community, with the intention of allowing future
rezoning for a mix of residential, neighborhood commercial, and office uses. Future uses would
be oriented to provide convenient and appropriate services to the surrounding neighborhood as
well as future residents.
This amendment proposal is to change the designated land use from Medium Density Residential
(MDR), Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR), Public/Semi-Public (PSP), and Neighborhood
Commercial/Office (NCO) to Master Planned Community (MPC). The Master Planned Community
Designation is best suited for this location because it will allow a complimentary mix of uses and
ensure cohesive, well planned development along length of La Cholla Boulevard
The proposed amendment in land uses is supported by several factors, including its location on
La Cholla Boulevard (a major, regional arterial roadway with future widening to a four -lane
divided arterial with sidewalks and multi-use paths), location adjacent to two major signalized
arterial intersections, and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The General Plan envisions this area as a mix of residential densities and commercial uses. The
Master Planned Community will continue that vision but in a comprehensive manner.
B. Property Data
Location: The property is located immediately west of La Cholla Boulevard, south of Glover Drive,
and north of Lambert Lane.
Area of Properties/General Plan Amendment:
North of Naranja Drive: 8± acres.
South of Naranja Drive: 186± acres
Assessor Parcel Numbers:
North of Naranja Drive: Portions of 224-11-061J, 224-11-061H, 224-11-061G, 224-11-
060A, A portion of 224-11-038C
South of Naranja Drive: Portions of 224-20-001B, 224-20-001C, 224-20-002B, 224-20-
002D, 224-20- 002E, 224-23-001A
2
Existing Land Uses: The proposed development surrounds the Casas Adobes Baptist Church and
school, which will serve as a core for future development. The remainder of the site is vacant.
Existing Zoning: The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District, R1 -144.
Existing Oro Valley General Plan Designations: Various portions of the property are designated
as Rural Low Density Residential (R-LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Public/Semi-Public
(PSP), and Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO).
Requested Oro Valley General Plan Designations: The requested land use designation for the
property is Master Planned Community (MPC).
C. General Plan Amendment Criteria
In accordance with Section 22 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, t he disposition of the
General Plan amendment proposed shall be based on consistency with the vision, goals, and
policies of the General Plan, with special emphasis on compliance with the following criteria:
1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community changed to the
extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
In the subsequent year following the approval and adoption of the Town of Oro Valley
2005 General Plan, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) was formed as part
of the 2006 Pima County Transportation Bond initiative. The RTA is currently in the
Design Phase to improve La Cholla Boulevard to a four-lane desert parkway between
Overton Road and Tangerine Road. The La Cholla Corridor , as it is referenced, is one
of the Region’s key north-south corridors presented and approved in the 2006 Pima
County, Transportation bond initiative passed by the voters; connecting Tangerine
Road to Interstate 10 (through an improved connection at Ruthrauff Road). In 2013
the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts were approximately 7,400 along La Cholla
Boulevard between Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane. Future Traffic Conditions (2040),
established by the RTA, place the ADT counts for La Cholla Boulevard between Naranja
Drive and Lambert Lane at 21,830, and 23,164 for La Cholla Boulevard between
Naranja Drive and Tangerine Road. The formation and implementation of the RTA,
and the changing transportation condition of La Cholla Boulevard to a major north-
south corridor, will increase the viability and accessibility of the site, creating demand
for a variety of uses along its route.
The Town of Oro Valley is growing, not only in size but also in desirability. Since the
year 2000, the population of Oro Valley has increased 25%, to just over 40,000
residents (Source: US Census). The rise in popularity, and the increased desire for
communities to establish a live, work, play environment, leads to the need to adjust
land uses to allow for flexibility and variety in each land use aspect. Locating
neighborhood scale commercial in close proximity to residential users can encourage
3
more walking and biking, reducing vehicle miles traveled in the community, and
increasing employment opportunities.
An in-depth residential market analysis, demonstrating the changing market
conditions, is further explained within the section of criteria #3 of this narrative.
A market study has been prepared, analyzing the current and expected viability of the
various land uses proposed. A draft of the study is attached to this document as an
appendix.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment
of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.
If approved, the property will be designated as a Master Plan Community. The Master
Plan will set standards and themes to ensure that the development is compatible with
the surrounding uses. It is anticipated that Naranja Drive on the north and Lambert
Lane on the south will be improved as part of the project. La Cholla Boulevard
improvements are planned as part of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority’s
(RTA) initiative which once completed will adequately accommodate traffic
associated with the proposed land uses. Public facilities and infrastructure already
exist, and/or are planned to be constructed nearby, thus accounting for the additional
burden on public infrastructure that may be associated with this project. T his
development will contribute to the long-term socio-economic betterment of the
community by providing convenient retail and offices uses close to existing consumers
and future residents.
This proposed development will achieve community and environmental compatibility
by providing open space in and along the washes and recreational areas throughout
the site. Connections to the proposed trails through the development and connecting
to the existing trail/path system will be provided. It is intent of the owner that future
development fully comply with the requirements outlined in the Environmentally
Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO). The development will also include landscape
buffers to further soften the appearance of future development from neighboring
residents. The proposed natural and functional open space trails combined with
walkable land uses will result in synergy, and the promotion of the desired live, work,
play environment.
The Master Plan will include aesthetic themes and standards which will ensure future
development is compatible with its surroundings.
The Master Plan provides a transition in density from east to west. On both the south
and western boundaries larger lots, a buffer yard, or a combination of both will
provide a transition from this development to the larger lot developments nearby.
4
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general
community acceptance.
The Town of Oro Valley is growing, not only in size but also in desirability. Since the
year 2000, the population of Oro Valley has increased 38%, to just over 40,000
residents (Source: US Census). Along La Cholla Boulevard, residential developments
are in various stages of construction and platting, including the neighboring
developments of Saguaros Viejos (118 lots) on the north side of Naranja Drive,
Meritage on Naranja (120 lots) on the south side of Naranja Drive, and Rancho de
Plata (50 lots) and Rancho del Cobre (68 lots) to the north near Glover Rd. Over the
last 12 months (August 2013 to July 2014) over 180 residential building permits have
been pulled within Town limits, which is in line with the average of 183 per year over
the last decade (Source: Orange Reports, The Sales and Permit Report – August 2014,
Volume 319).
The market area applicable to this project has an expected annual growth rate of
roughly 2% (Source: Valbridge Property Advisors, Draft Market Demand Report –
October 2014). This number is derived from analyzing growth over a period of 10
years, 2000 -2010, and establishing a trend projection. During this time period, the
country experienced an economic recession and real estate bubble, which
contributed to the low growth rate projection. The graph below measures modeled
demand for production type housing at an annual growth rate of 5%, against
production home inventory that is known to exist or be in the platting process and
assumed to be absorbed at a rate of 2 homes per month, per community phase
(currently absorption rates are around 3 homes per month). The table clearly shows
that a supply shortage will likely exist starting in 2020.
5
Given that the land planning, design, platting, and construction process typically takes
3-4 years in Oro Valley, it is imperative that additional home sites be planned for now
in order to avoid a shortage. The graph below shows the anticipated housing supply
with this project’s anticipated start of 2018. Supply needs to stay slightly ahead of
demand, and this project will accomplish this goal for a couple more years, but
demand is still anticipated to outpace supply by 2022 even with this project.
Real Estate websites such as Zillow and Movoto, show home prices having increased
5-7% over the last 12 months (Source: www.zillow.com – 9/19/2014); coupled with
The Town of Oro Valley recently being ranked as one of the top 10 safest suburbs, and
continually providing a nationally ranked education system, it is clear that increased
market demand within the community will need to be addressed through land use
amendments to the General Plan.
As part of 2006 Pima County Transportation Bond, approved by the voters, the Pima
Association of Governments (PAG) modeled future trends to determine the
transportation needs of the region. In 2005, the use of census information along with
conventional transportation models led to the development of Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZ). Pima County was divided into 859 TAZ’s. Using historical trends
in housing, employment, and land use, PAG anticipated the needs for the year 2040
for each TAZ. Between Overton Road and Moore Road, along La Cholla Boulevard,
there are 8 zones (Refer to Traffic Analysis Zones Exhibit). The table below displays
each of the 8 TAZ, their respective 2005 population, their expected 2040 population,
their respective 2005 employment total, and their expected 2040 employment total:
6
Zone # 2005 – Population 2040 – Population 2005 –
Employment Total
2040 –
Employment Total
689 178 3,286 4 1,051
681 291 446 46 6
656 104 811 169 278
651 2,576 2,311 85 49
621 78 508 1 642
617 2,634 2,928 305 512
584 2,745 3,057 214 307
564 1,459 2,291 151 182
Source: Pima Association of Governments
The data above demonstrates that total housing along the La Cholla Corridor
between Overton Road and Moore Road is anticipated to increase over 55%, while
total employment is anticipated to increase almost 210% along the same stretch.
The proposed Master Planned Community site is within Zone #621. This zone in
particular, shows significant increases in both housing and total employment by the
year 2040.
The proposed change in land use accurately reflects the anticipated demand that will
follow the future development of the La Cholla Corridor as demonstrated in the
planning models conducted by the Pima Association of Governments. The
transformation of La Cholla Boulevard into a major north-south arterial will lead to
increased viability of the site, and demand a variety of uses, both residential and
commercial, to not only serve those residents within the immediate vicinity, but
those traveling both north and south to other destinations.
Section C-1 of this document provides statements and a graph regarding market
supply and historically modeled demand.
A market study is being prepared, analyzing the current and expected viability of the
various land uses proposed. A draft of the study is attached to this document as an
appendix.
4. 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 process.
This General Plan amendment request seeks to change the existing land use
designation to Master Planned Community, allowing for neighborhood scale flexibility
and innovative planning of a mix of residential and commercial uses. The site is
located along a future north-south corridor, La Cholla Boulevard, and between two
7
major arterial roadways, Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive. Specific impacts along the
projects perimeter will be addressed during the rezoning phase of the entitlement
process or during subsequent detailed development proposals.
This property is ideal and appropriate for neighborhood scale commercial and
residential development with the location between two major arterial roads.
The General Plan envisions this area as a mix of non-low density residential and
commercial uses. The Master Planned Community will continue that vision but in a
comprehensive manner.
Amphitheater School District has funded plans to construct a new elementary school
in the southwest portion of Rancho Vistoso. This, along with the significant increase
in education-related property taxes that this development will generate, will allow the
School District to continue to provide the high quality of education that Oro Valley
residents have come to expect.
8
D. General Plan Policy Conformance
A number of Oro Valley’s General Plan policies will be met by this development. Below are a
few key points:
1. Land Use
This proposed commercial development will not encroach into the wash areas and
leave these areas as natural undisturbed open space. (Policy 1.1.3)
This development will be low scale, neighborhood oriented, and compatible with
surrounding current and future residential uses. La Cholla Boulevard is proposed to
be improved by the Regional Transportation Authorit y (RTA) to a four lane desert
parkway. These improvements have the ability to support the human -scale
commercial development proposed, while providing the Town with sales tax revenue.
(Policy 1.2.1)
The area surrounding the subject property has been lar gely developed with single
family residential uses. Locating compatible activity centers and residential
neighborhoods are encouraged. (Policy 1.3.1)
The southeastern and northeastern corners of the site are located at two major
intersections along the La Cholla Boulevard arterial. The General plan encourages the
development of commercial and higher density residential units near major arterials.
(Policy 1.3.2)
The General Plan encourages the clustering of commercial development at specific
nodes or villages. The location of the site at the intersection of La Cholla Boulevard
and Naranja Drive would provide an ideal location for neighborhood oriented
commercial development. (Policy 1.3.4)
The Town encourages the use of Master Planning. This request is part of a larger
overall area to be designated as Master Planned Community. The location, fronting
1.5 miles along La Cholla Boulevard, is ideal for the use of comprehensive planning
consistent with the General Plan. (Policy 1.3.5)
The project will decrease density from east to west. The project will include buffer
yards, larger lots, or a combination to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties
to the west and south across Lambert Lane. (1.4.7)
The Town will require master planning for projects which exceed 40 acres in size.
(1.4.11)
2. Community Design
Once the land use is designated as a Master Plan Community, the use of a Planned
Area Development (PAD) zoning designation will be pursued. The purpose of
Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning is to improve and protect the public health,
safety, and welfare by pursuing unified planning and development and provide for
development proposals, which are superior to that which may occur under
9
conventional zoning regulations. Elements associated with a PAD include
architecture, landscaping, and site design standards to ensure a consistent and
quality design along the corridor and through out the site. The designs will take into
consideration the surrounding neighborhoods, and current Town of Oro Valley
Design Guidelines to ensure that future development is compatible. (Policy 2.1.1)
3. Economic Development
With the location along La Cholla Boulevard, and proximity to established residential
units, the proposed neighborhood oriented commercial development will not only
help to prevent expenditure leakage, but also provide local options for residents (both
current and new) to obtain basic services without the need for a vehicle. (Policy 3.1.1)
4. Cost of Development
The dedication for right-of-way along La Cholla will be donated for the La Cholla
corridor improvements. As previously mentioned, the RTA will improve the La Cholla
Boulevard corridor. The development will provide required widening and
improvements along both Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane. (Policy 4.1.1 and Policy
4.1.4)
5. Public Facilities, Services, and Safety
Municipal facilities are already located nearby, and therefore able to service this
development without imposing a significant burden. (Policy 6.1.1)
o Below are the driving distances to public facilities from the subject property:
Fire Stations
1.3 miles southeast - Golder Ranch Fire Station 376
2.1 miles northwest - Northwest Fire Station 339
2.7 miles northeast - Golder Ranch Fire Station 375
Police Stations
1.0 mile east - Oro Valley Main Police Station
Schools
0 miles - Casas School
0.3 miles northwest - Wilson K-8 School
0.5 miles west - Ironwood Ridge High School
1.6 miles east - Copper Creek Elementary School
2.8 miles northeast - Painted Sky Elementary School
10
Town Hall
1.0 mile east
Parks
0.5 miles east - Lambert Lane Park (undeveloped)
1.5 miles south - Linda Vista Neighborhood Park
1.8 miles east - Naranja Town Site Park
2.0 miles east - CDO River Front Park
2.8 miles southwest - Arthur Pack Regional Park
o Additionally, utilities are already available to the property.
o Efficient and safe vehicular and non -motorized traffic circulation is a primary
design consideration and amenity to the proposed master planned
community. (Policy 5.1.5)
o The Town encourages development design and orientation that promotes and
facilitates multi-modal transportation access, particularly in and around major
activity centers. The proposed Master Plan will promote multi-modal
transportation access by providing a walking and biking friendly community.
Facilities such as sidewalks, trails, bikes lanes and paths will be evaluated with
the plan.
6. Open Space and Natural Resources Conservation
The site designates the multiple washes as Critical Resource areas. The remainder of
the site is designated Resource Management Area Tier 2 or is already developed. The
site will comply by leaving the washes and additional areas on-site as natural
undisturbed open space. (Policy 11.2.7)
The future development will locate buildings, parking, and associated amenities
outside of the wash areas to the greatest extent possible. Other open space areas
will be provided and will enhance the pedestrian mobility of the Master Plan
Community area. (Policy 11.2.9)
The future development will comply with the requirements contained in the ESLO, by
providing adequate buffers consistent with the site characteristics. (Policy 11.2.12)
The future development will only use vegetation on the Recommended Plant List and
prohibit certain invasive, allergenic, and nuisance species within the development.
(Policy 11.2.15)
This development will meet the Native Plant Preservation Plan guidelines from the
Town. (Policy 11.2.16)
To protect the views on Naranja Drive and La Cholla Blvd., both of which are
designated scenic corridors by the Town of Oro Valley, the future building masses and
heights will be evaluated to ensure view protection is consistent with Town policies.
(Policy 11.3.1)
11
This proposed development maintains the character of the views along Naranja Drive
and La Cholla Boulevard by providing landscape buffers and underground utilities.
(Policy 11.3.2)
To ensure the proposed development blends and/or enhances the natural
environment, all utilities will be placed underground. This will help protect the views
from surrounding properties and roads. (Policy 11.3.3)
To protect the scenic night sky in the community, the proposed development will
meet the requirements established in the Town of Oro Valley Outdoor Lighting Code.
To control obtrusive aspects of outdoor lighting usage, this proposed development
will have reduced and/or shielded lighting. Additionally, the surrounding public will
benefit from portions of the open space on-site not receiving active illumination at
night. (Policy 11.4.2)
7. Water Resources
The wash areas on the site will be designated as open space in compliance with the
ESLO. (Policy 12.1.1)
This development will be served by Oro Valley Water Utility, which participates in the
Central Arizona Project (C.A.P.) and other regional groundwater protection initiatives.
(Policy 12.2.1)
Future development will include water conservation features, including water
efficient irrigation system and drought tolerant vegetation. (Policy 12.3.2)
8. Housing
Under the heading of encouraging and maintaining a range of housing opportunities,
the General Plan states the following, which aligns very well with this proposal, “The
Town shall encourage the development of a variety of types of homes to
accommodate the varied needs of residents, including single -family attached and
detached, townhomes, small apartments (3-4 units), condominiums, active
retirement communities and congregate care housing…” (Policy 7.2.1)
“The Town shall allow and encourage master planned communities that offer high -
quality neighborhoods with a variety of residential densities and appropriately located
commercial uses to serve the community.” (Policy 7.2.3)
12
APPENDIX:
MARKET ANALYSIS
Neighborhood Demographics
Neighborhood Population Growth Projection:
2000
2010
2013
2018
Population
Year
2000 2010 2013 2018
30,000
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
23,768k
26,420k 26,685k 27,230k
Neighborhood Population Summary Compared to Tucson MSA:
Population Neighborhood Tucson MSA
2010 Census 26,420 980,263
2013 Estimate 26,685 1,003,140
2018 Projection 27,230 1,032,970
Gross Population Change
2010 - 2013 1.0%2.3%
2013 - 2018 2.0%3.0%
Average Annual Population Change
2010 - 2013 0.3%0.2%
2013 - 2018 0.4%0.6%
Median Age (2013)47.1 38.0
Households
2013 Estimate 10,572 397,760
2018 Projection 10,816 410,226
Avg. New HH/Year 2013-2018 49 2,493
2013 - 2018 % Change 2.3%3.1%
Avg. Annual Change 2013 - 2018 0.5%0.6%
Average Household Size (2013)2.52 2.46
Source: U.S. Cenus Bureau, Cenus 2010
Population Summary
Neighborhood Projected Household Growth:
2000
2010
2013
2018
Households
Year
2000 2010 2013 2018
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
8,799k
10,421k 10,572k 10,816k
Neighborhood Income Statistics compared to Tucson MSA:
Neighborhood Tucson MSA
Average HH Income $95,350 $60,355
Median HH Income $77,834 $43,502
Per Capita Income $38,013 $24,459
Household Income
$0 - $15,000 6.2%15.4%
$15,000 - $24,999 5.4%12.1%
$25,000 - $34,999 6.0%12.6%
$35,000 - $49,999 11.3%15.2%
$50,000 - $74,999 18.7%18.8%
$75,000 - $99,999 16.1%10.3%
$100,000 - $149,999 22.2%9.9%
$150,000 - $199,999 7.3%3.0%
$200,000 +6.9%2.6%
Source: U.S. Cenus Bureau, Cenus 2010
Income
Neighborhood Growth:
Household Income:
2013-2018 Annual Growth Rate
Population Households Median Household Income Owner Occupied Housing Units
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.41 0.46
3.79
0.57
2013 Household Income
<$15K
6.2%
$15K - $24K
5.4%
$25K - $34K
6.0%
$35K - $49K
11.3%
$50K - $74K
18.7%
$75K - $99K
16.1%
$100K - $149K
22.2%
$150K - $199K
7.3%
$200K+
6.9%
% Owner Occupied 75.1%55.0%
% Renter Occupied 17.8%34.0%
% Vacant 7.1%11.0%
Median Home Value $224,073 $146,486
Source: U.S. Cenus Bureau, Cenus 2010
Housing (2013)
2013-2018 Annual Growth Rate
Population Households Median Household Income Owner Occupied Housing Units
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.41 0.46
3.79
0.57
<$100K
$100-199K
$200-299K
$300-399K
$400-499K
$500K+
2013 Home Value
3.2%
37.2%
34.4%
15.7%
5.1%
4.4%
• • • • • •
Employment Demographics
Neighborhood Employment
Total Businesses:1,227
Total Employees:4,610
Total Residential Population:26,685
Employee/Residential Population Ratio:0.17
Source: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
Number
90
364
130
48
23
10
156
688
19
186
36
9
108
42
74
215
423
60
24
31
307
2,388
77
49
157
194
24
382
1,505
291
4,610
Businesses Employees
Source: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
Employment by Industry
Government 4 0.3%6.3%
Totals 1,227 100%100%
Education Institutions & Libraries 21 1.7%8.3%
Other Services 592 48.2%32.6%
Motion Pictures & Amusements 29 2.4%3.4%
Health Services 54 4.4%4.2%
Legal Services 9 0.7%0.5%
Services Summary 720 58.7%51.8%
Hotels & Lodging 5 0.4%1.7%
Automotive Services 10 0.8%1.1%
Insurance Carriers & Agents 17 1.4%0.7%
Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment 104 8.5%6.7%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Summary 138 11.2%9.2%
Banks, Savings & Lending Institutions 8 0.7%1.3%
Securities Brokers 9 0.7%0.5%
Eating & Drinking Places 22 1.8%1.6%
Miscellaneous Retail 54 4.4%4.7%
Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto 3 0.2%0.2%
Apparel & Accessory Stores 9 0.7%2.3%
Furniture & Home Furnishings 15 1.2%0.9%
Home Improvement 7 0.6%0.4%
General Merchandise Stores 5 0.4%4.0%
Food Stores 11 0.9%0.8%
Wholesale Trade 43 3.5%3.4%
Retail Trade Summary 126 10.3%14.9%
Transportation 13 1.1%1.0%
Communication 7 0.6%0.5%
Utility 2 0.2%0.2%
Agriculture & Mining 34 2.8%2.0%
Construction 104 8.5%7.9%
Manufacturing 36 2.9%2.8%
Number Percent Percent
Net Worth and Age Cohorts
Percentage
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Average Net $960,806
Median Net $278,009
$250,000-$500,000 1,836 17.4%
$500,000+3,780 35.8%
$100,000-$149,999 744 7.0%
$150,000-$249,999 990 9.4%
$50,000-$74,999 530 5.0%
$75,000-$99,999 432 4.1%
$15,000-$34,999 476 4.5%
$35,000-$49,999 321 3.0%
Total 10,572 100.0%
<$15,000 1,462 13.8%
Wealth People
Neighborhood Net Worth Profile
75+
78
24
12
84
69
145
898
1,309
$250,001
$1,008,277
Net Worth by Household Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Average Net Worth $50,051 $165,872 $284,084 $923,231 $1,200,203 $1,205,730
Median Net Worth $15,548 $28,882 $64,905 $250,001 $250,001 $250,001
$150,000-$249,999 5 58 150 247 273 113
$250,000+1 98 316 1,307 1,646 1,350
$50,000-$99,999 16 128 263 213 139 118
$100,000-$149,999 6 76 125 165 137 167
$15,000-$34,999 27 117 148 80 56 24
$35,000-$49,999 5 47 113 70 47 26
Total 117 861 1,488 2,349 2,553 1,894
<$15,000 57 338 372 267 253 97
<25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Median Household Income -$77,834 $93,730 $15,896 3.79%
Median Household Income for Householder 55+-$70,385 $89,107 $18,722 4.83%
Median Home Value -$224,073 $245,839 $21,766 1.87%
Average Home Value -$254,609 $278,344 $23,735 1.80%
% Householders 55+51.0%54.5%58.0%3.5 1.25%
Owner/Renter Ratio 4.8 4.2 4.3 0.1 0.47%
Median Age 46.0 47.1 48.3 1.2 0.50%
Households 10,421 10,572 10,816 244 0.46%
Total Population 26,420 26,685 27,230 545 0.41%
Population 50+11,361 12,213 12,979 766 1.22%
2013- 2018 2013- 2018
Demographic Summary Census 2010 2013 2018 Change Annual Rate
75+1,835 6.9%2,003 7.5%2,311 8.5%
65+4,571 17.3%5,139 19.3%6,077 22.3%
85+414 1.6%481 1.8%533 2.0%
80-84 604 2.3%618 2.3%662 2.4%
75-79 817 3.1%904 3.4%1,116 4.1%
70-74 1,127 4.3%1,328 5.0%1,635 6.0%
65-69 1,609 6.1%1,808 6.8%2,131 7.8%
60-64 2,084 7.9%2,249 8.4%2,414 8.9%
55-59 2,264 8.6%2,414 9.0%2,433 8.9%
50-54 2,442 9.2%2,411 9.0%2,055 7.5%
Total(50+)11,361 43.0%12,213 45.8%12,979 47.7%
Census 2010 2013 2018
Total Population Number % of Total
Pop
Number % of Total
Pop
Number % of Total
Pop
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Average HH Income $107,326 $91,934 $53,622 $90,044
Median HH Income $88,236 $76,230 $38,605 $70,385
6.4%
$200,000+249 9.8%107 5.6%23 1.8%379 6.6%
$150,000-$199,999 221 8.7%120 6.3%25 1.9%366
14.4%
$100,000-$149,999 645 25.3%391 20.6%124 9.5%1,160 20.2%
$75,000-$99,999 408 16.0%353 18.6%67 5.1%828
12.5%
$50,000-$74,999 424 16.6%433 22.9%216 16.5%1,073 18.6%
$35,000-$49,999 252 9.9%173 9.1%297 22.7%722
6.9%
$25,000-$34,999 124 4.9%84 4.4%210 16.0%418 7.3%
$15,000-$24,999 91 3.6%138 7.3%170 13.0%399
100%
<$15,000 140 5.5%94 5.0%178 13.6%412 7.2%
Total 2,553 100%1,894 100%1,309 100%5,756
2013 Households by Income and Age of Householder 55+
55- 64 Percent 65- 74 Percent 75+Percent Total Percent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Average HH Income $125,455 $108,636 $68,934 $106,335
Median HH Income $103,545 $90,717 $47,055 $89,107
8.2%
$200,000+274 10.6%144 6.5%39 2.7%457 7.3%
$150,000-$199,999 275 10.6%191 8.6%49 3.4%515
19.1%
$100,000-$149,999 853 33.0%618 27.8%264 18.1%1,735 27.7%
$75,000-$99,999 524 20.2%550 24.7%123 8.4%1,197
8.7%
$50,000-$74,999 282 10.9%365 16.4%215 14.7%862 13.7%
$35,000-$49,999 156 6.0%125 5.6%267 18.3%548
3.9%
$25,000-$34,999 84 3.2%69 3.1%206 14.1%359 5.7%
$15,000-$24,999 44 1.7%84 3.8%116 7.9%244
100%
<$15,000 95 3.7%78 3.5%180 12.3%353 5.6%
Total 2,588 100%2,223 100%1,460 100%6,271
2018 Households by Income and Age of Householder 55+
55- 64 Percent 65- 74 Percent 75+Percent Total Percent
Total
$66,339,358
$29,263,457
$3,744,785
$5,972,262
$726,509
$944,887
$2,264,313
$206,623
$1,670,706
$1,740,655
$7,196,668
$1,004,468
$1,238,730
$1,248,091
$335,145
$70,165
$899,450
$37,075,901
$11,781,133
$7,021,068
$5,977,735
$7,492,424
$1,588,431
$3,215,110
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Medicare Payments $708.70
Long Term Care Insurance $150.25
Other Health Insurance (3)$304.12
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $1,114.37
Commercial Health Insurance $664.12
Health Maintenance Organization $565.43
Other Medical Supplies (2)$85.08
$3,506.99Health Insurance
Eyeglasses and Contact Lenses $118.06
Hearing Aids $31.70
Medical Equipment for General Use $6.64
Prescription Drugs $680.73
Nonprescription Vitamins $95.01
Medicare Prescription Drug Premium $117.17
Convalescent or Nursing Home Care $19.54
Other Medical services (1)$158.03
Nonprescription Drugs $164.65
Eyecare Services $68.72
Lab Tests, X-Rays $89.38
Hospital Room and Hospital Services $214.18
$2,768.02
Physician Services $354.22
Dental Services $564.91
Medical Care
Average Amount Spent
$6,275.01Health Care
Medical Expenditures
2013
2018
Population by Age
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 11 -11 ., • •
Multifamily Supply
Supply:
Property Location Total Units Year Built Unit Types Avg. Rent Units Overall Occ.
Golf Villas 10950 N La Canada 231 1999 1BR/1BA $957 50 90%1.25 mi 1.1 mi
2BR/2BA $1,082 140
3BR/2BA $1,297 41
La Reserve Villas 10700 N La Reserve 240 1988 1BR/1BA $725 64 92%3.55 mi 3.6 mi
2BR/2BA $825 148
3BR/2BA $925 28
Oro Vista 1301 W Lambert 138 2006 1BR/1BA $719 32 93%1.15 mi 1.6 mi
2BR/2BA $852 82
3BR/2BA $1,104 24
Catalina Crossing 9095 N Oracle 97 1985 1BR/1BA $565 66 92%3 mi 3.65 mi
2BR/1BA $785 1
2BR/2BA $809 18
3BR/2BA $950 12 TH
Push Ridge 9901 N Oracle 144 1998 1BR/1BA $729 48 85%2.8 mi 3.15 mi
2BR/1BA $889 8
2BR/2BA $864 60
3BR/2BA $959 28
Rock Ridge 10333 N Oracle 319 1995 1BR/1BA $710 96 89%3 mi 3.15 mi
2BR/2BA $808 192
3BR/2BA $995 31
Villas at San Dorado 10730 N Oracle 274 2014 1BR/1BA $1,000 102 35%
2BR/2BA $1,242 136
3BR/2BA $1,490 36
Le Mirage 9777 N Thornydale 168 1995 1BR/1BA $624 60 96%2.2 mi 2.7 mi
2BR/2BA $744 76
3BR/2BA $919 32
Total/Average 1,611 1BR/1BA $754 84%
2BR/2BA $903
3BR/2BA $1,080
Existing Multifamily
Lambert Naranja
Demand:
Households 10,572
x Current Renter rate x 25%
2,643
x .95 frictional vacancy x.95
Rental Unit Demand 2,511
Existing Units 1,611
Residual Demand for Rental Units 900
Household Growth Projection 2013-2023 1,750
x Projected Renter rate x 30%
Renter Growth Projection 525
x .95 frictional vacancy x.95
Future Renter Demand 499
Total Rental Units Demanded 2013-2023 1,399
Multifamily Projects Under Construction 0
Residual Demand for Multifamily Units Thru 2023 1,399
Multifamily Residual Demand
Conclusion:
Demand is strong
However, scale and market demand is not met by complexes under construction.
Area has seasonal empty-nesters in a population weighted to older age cohorts.
Recommend casita apartments such as Tucson Rental Homes and Avilla, NOT stacked 2 and
3 story garden units with higher density.
Single Family
Housing Price $250,000 $500,000
20% Down $50,000 $100,000
Loan Amount $200,000 $400,000
30 year loan,4.25%$984 $2,460
Taxes, Ins.$350 $700
Monthly Payment $1,334 $3,160
Ann. Inc. Req. at 33%$48,509 $114,909
% of the Area Population With
Sufficient Income for Housing
Price Range 71.20% Approx. 35%
Single Family Demand Analysis
Name Builder Location Total Lots Lots Remaining Months on Market Absorption Per Year Price:
Uplands AF Sterling La Canada & Lambert 14 2 18 8 300K+
Rancho de Plata Meritage La Cholla & Tangerine 50 32 8 27 280-350k
Desert Sky Dorn NW of Desert Sky & Oracle 40 1 60 7.8 210-240K
Sunset Canyon Copper Canyon SWc of Tangerine & Vista del Oro 15 549-700K
Rancho de Cobre Maracay 11752 N Mabini 68 50 8 27 380k+
Total/Average 172 100 17.45
Shannon Estates Shannon & Magee 55 28 12 27 270-400K
Cortina Terrace Miramonte Shannon & Magee 12 9 60 0.6 200-250K
La Cholla Vista Pulte Magee & La Cholla 42 8 12 34 250-325K
Total/Average 109 45 20.53
Overall Total/Average 281 145 18.99166667
Single Family Existing Supply
Outside Neighborhood Boundary
Name Builder Location Total Lots
Saguaros Viejos AF Sterling Near NWc of La Cholla & Naranja 118
Meritage on Naranja Meritage SWc of Naranja & La Cholla 120
Total Approved Lots 238
Name Builder Location Total Lots
OVTC AF Sterling Oracle & Pusch View Lane 60
River's Edge Davis Development Naranja & Pusch Ridge Vistas
55
SEC Lambert & La Cholla N/A Sec of Lambert Ln. & La Cholla Blvd 154
Meritage on First Meritage Nec of 1st & Palasades 255
Total Proposed Lots 524
at 50% for risk and unknown 262
Single Family Approved Lots (In Platting Process)
Single Family Proposed Lots (Submitted for Approval)
x Owner Occupancy rate x 70%
Demand 2013-23
- Existing Supply
- Planned Supply
Net Demand 2013-23 625 Homes
1750 Households
1,225 Households
2013-2023 Household Growth Projection:
100 Homes
500 Homes
Remarks:
The market is currently coming out of a recession and STDB growth projections are under-
represented. Our projections are based on historical 2000-2010 household growth rates
which equally rate the growth cycle and the recession in that decade.
Owner occupancy rates projected to decrease from 75% to 70% as the area matures.
Price range is $250,000 to $500,000 move up segment.
Given age cohort information, low maintenance for sale units would meet needs on this market
niche.
Retail
Center Name Location Total S.F. Year Built Vacancy Asking Rents/ S.F.
Shoppes at Thornydale Crossings Tangerine & Thornydale 158197 2007 8.0%$18-$28
Thornydale Plaza 9665-9725 N. Thornydale Rd. 76,975 1997 9.3%$23
Thornydale Village Thornydale & Overton Rd 57,612 1995 56.7%$16
Mercado at Canada Hills La Canada Dr. & Lambert Ln 54,517 2008 3.6%$19
Strip Retail Center La Canada Dr. & Naranja Dr. 13,527 2003 0.0%N/Ap
Shops at Oro Vista La Canada Dr. & Lambert Ln 59,017 2002 20.0%$17
Strip Retail Center La Canada Dr. & Lambert Ln 23,022 2000 18.8%$20-$21
Strip Retail Center 10420 N. La Canada Dr.75,333 1993 2.9%$17
Placita del Oro Tangerine & 1st Avenue 63,891 2002 17.0%$21
Safeway Vistoso Center Tangerine & Rancho Vistoso 100,363 1999 0.0%N/Ap
Target/ Home Depot 10775-10885 N. Oracle Rd. 609,385 1993 0.6%N/Ap
San Jose Plaza 10110 N. Oracle Rd.13,785 2000 21.3%$16-$20
Total S.F.1,305,624 6.9%$16-$28
*Excluding Thornydale Village, due to inferior appeal and functionality, the overall vacancy rate is reduced to 4.4%, which is below frictional vacancy
Shopping Center Retail Supply
Demand:
Businesses
118
110
8
Source: Dun & Bradstreet
Total Retail Trade $337,381,202 $70,095,500 $267,285,702 65.6
Total Food & Drink $36,480,053 $5,692,062 $30,787,991 73.0
Industry Summary
Total Retail Trade and Food & $373,861,255 $75,787,562 $298,073,693 66.3
Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage
Retail Surplus/Leakage Analysis Summary
IL"-_" --.~
.\ •
7
m ..... Poe. /1" f0"""'--------1--~
I rot m _ ...... e
P J.()'--, "'"
I
i
Name Location Approx. Planned S.F.
Mercado Mandarina Near NWC of La Cholla & Naranja 50,000
Rancho del Cobre SWc of Naranja & La Cholla 50,000 - 60,000
Total Proposed S.F.100,000 - 110,000
Proposed Shopping Center Developments
Total 10,572 100.0%
Household Disposable Income Profile (2013)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Median Disposable Income $62,015
Average Disposable Income $77,128
$150,000-$199,999 336 3.2%
$200,000+392 3.7%
$75,000-$99,999 1,781 16.8%
$100,000-$149,999 1,812 17.1%
$35,000-$49,999 1,603 15.2%
$50,000-$74,999 2,321 22.0%
$15,000-$24,999 696 6.6%
$25,000-$34,999 864 8.2%
<$15,000 767 7.3%
Number Percent
Conclusion:
The area has a significant retiree and seasonal population
There is significant discretionary income for food, services, and medical services
Centers with higher vacancy lack curb appeal and inviting attractive architecture to create a
sense of place. The area is not overbuilt. Higher vacancy centers have design and/or
functional obsolescence issues.
There is household and income growth demand for a planned center in 2 years but likely
with a 5 to 7 year delivery.
Despite demand, immediate construction would not take place for at least 2 years due to
planning/entitlement time as the market is still coming out of a recession and development
is less risky with strong pre-leasing.
Assisted Living
Supply:
LEGALNAME ADDRESS CAPACITY
CLARE BRIDGE OF ORO VALLEY 10175 NORTH ORACLE ROAD 42
FAIRWINDS - DESERT POINT 10701 NORTH LA RESERVE DRIVE 75
2ND BEGINNINGS CARE HOME 5331 WEST EAGLESTONE LOOP 4
DESERT OASIS ADULT CARE HOME 5260 WEST GREENOCK DRIVE 10
FEEL AT HOME 2 ASSISTED LIVING 3530 WEST SAHUARO DIVIDE 5
FEEL AT HOME ASSISTED LIVING 4671 WEST CAMINO DE MANANA 10
FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, LLC 4021 WEST HARDY ROAD 5
GRAMA'S HOME, LLC 9950 NORTH WILD CREEK DRIVE 5
MOM AND DAD PLACE, LLC 9980 NORTH SHANNON ROAD 10
Total 166
Existing Assisted Living Beds
Population:
75+1,835 6.9%2,003 7.5%2,311 8.5%
65+4,571 17.3%5,139 19.3%6,077 22.3%
85+414 1.6%481 1.8%533 2.0%
80-84 604 2.3%618 2.3%662 2.4%
75-79 817 3.1%904 3.4%1,116 4.1%
70-74 1,127 4.3%1,328 5.0%1,635 6.0%
65-69 1,609 6.1%1,808 6.8%2,131 7.8%
60-64 2,084 7.9%2,249 8.4%2,414 8.9%
55-59 2,264 8.6%2,414 9.0%2,433 8.9%
50-54 2,442 9.2%2,411 9.0%2,055 7.5%
Total(50+)11,361 43.0%12,213 45.8%12,979 47.7%
Census 2010 2013 2018
Total Population Number % of Total
Pop
Number % of Total
Pop
Number % of Total
Pop
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Affordability:
75+
78
24
12
84
69
145
898
1,309
$250,001
$1,008,277
Net Worth by Household Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2013 and 2018.
Average Net Worth $50,051 $165,872 $284,084 $923,231 $1,200,203 $1,205,730
Median Net Worth $15,548 $28,882 $64,905 $250,001 $250,001 $250,001
$150,000-$249,999 5 58 150 247 273 113
$250,000+1 98 316 1,307 1,646 1,350
$50,000-$99,999 16 128 263 213 139 118
$100,000-$149,999 6 76 125 165 137 167
$15,000-$34,999 27 117 148 80 56 24
$35,000-$49,999 5 47 113 70 47 26
Total 117 861 1,488 2,349 2,553 1,894
<$15,000 57 338 372 267 253 97
<25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
Demand:
2013 Age Income Health 2018 Age Income Health
75-84 1,522 1,370 343 75-85 1,778 1,600 400
Change 256 230 57
85+481 433 217 85+533 480 240
Change 52 47 23
TOTAL 560 640
Assisted Living Demand
Inputs:
75-84 85+
Affordability 90%90%
Health 25%50%
Conclusion:
Population age cohorts and income cohorts intersect to infer considerable demand.
Balancing development of targeted medical and wellness services with assisted living
development appears to have strong demand.
Conclusions
The district boundaries utilized were designed to emphasize the immediate area. This included a
district of at least 1 mile up to 3 mile boundaries. District lines were set with the intent to
provide an accurate depiction of the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, regional retail such as
the Walmart anchored retail center at Tangerine and Oracle, which serves a larger trade area
much farther north, luxury homes against Pusch Ridge, older dwellings to the south, and higher
density merchant built housing to the west were specifically excluded.
A review of population statistics indicated excessively optimistic projections in 2008 based upon
a high growth housing bubble. The 2013 projections tend to understate growth due to
projections made during a recession. Therefore, I reviewed growth rates from 2000 to 2010,
which included five years of recession bracketing five years of expanding economy. The
usefulness of this time period is derived from its balance of both strong and weak economies.
The growth projected based on 2000 through 2010 would be over 1,900 units. I back this off to
1,750 housing units. As the area matures and given current trends, there’s likelihood of more
rather than fewer renters. So I reduced the home ownership components from 75% to 70%.
However, I only used a 25% rental component for rental housing because of the age cohorts
within this neighborhood, thereby allocating approximately 5% to senior housing.
Household income is over 50% higher in the neighborhood than the Tucson MSA. Employment
demographics likely infer a considerable seasonal resident, empty nester, and family
components, based upon the .17 employee/residential population ratio.
Over 60% of the residents have net worth of above $150,000, with the majority concentrated in
the 45 year and older age cohorts. Moreover, about 55% of householders are 55 years or older.
In conclusion, this is a moderately affluent neighborhood, with many residents at or just past
their peak earning years based upon these statistics. Housing that is easier to maintain,
adaptable for greater accessibility and flexible for varied occupancy by different generations, will
generate greatest demand.
For Sale Residential Conclusions:
Owner occupancy rates are forecasted to decline from 75% to 70% due to age cohorts in
the neighborhood and due to changing market preferences.
A likely price range is $250,000 to 500,000 which is a move up segment and also
accounts for both low and medium density development.
Based upon neighborhood demographics including wealth and age, for sale units that
emphasize low maintenance, adaptability to meeting physical needs, and inter-
generational use would attract broader demand.
Even with planned developments in the neighborhood, there appears to be additional
demand of 600+ for sale residential units.
It is important to be aware of the gradually changing age of the neighborhood
population, whereby, ease of using housing will attract demand. Therefore, this
inherently infers some demand for attached products such as townhomes. The current
develop pipeline of townhomes and condominiums is quite shallow, which is typical in
recessionary periods. There is a demand for about 100 to 200 townhomes or casita style
apartments.
Multi-Family Conclusions:
Demand for multi-family is strong with residual demand of about 1400 units.
Traditional garden apartments of two to three stories is inconsistent with scale of the
existing neighborhood.
Multi-family use should be limited to a combination of one and two stories designed to
attract the market segments typically found within casita projects such as those
developed by Avilla and Tucson Rental Homes.
The market segments consist of seasonal visitors, empty nesters, a few families in modest
segments of larger units, and single employed professionals. Single employed
professionals, particularly females, are attracted to this product’s lower density, low
maintenance, and greater similarity to living in owner occupied residence whether it be a
townhome or single family home.
Retail Conclusions:
The area has a significant retiree and seasonal population
There is significant discretionary income for food, services, and medical services
Centers with higher vacancy lack curb appeal and inviting attractive architecture to
create a sense of place. The area is not overbuilt. Higher vacancy centers have design
and/or functional obsolescence issues.
There is household and income growth demand for a planned center in 2 years but likely
with a 5 to 7 year delivery.
Despite demand for about 200,000 S.F., immediate construction would not take place for
at least 2 years due to planning/entitlement time as the market is still coming out of a
recession and development is less risky with strong pre-leasing.
Medical expenditures infer demand for supporting services oriented to 55+ age cohorts,
included in the retail demand.
Observing retail development, Oracle Road, La Canada, and Tangerine Road have
attracted retail development but, there is a hole in the center of the immediate
neighborhood in the area along La Cholla, primarily at Lambert Lane but secondarily at
Naranja Drive.
Assisted Living Conclusions:
Population age cohorts and income cohorts intersect to infer considerable demand.
Balancing development of targeted medical and wellness services with assisted living
development appears to have strong demand.
There are 166 senior care beds in the immediate area. For assisted living, mobility is less
important though a sense of place for a senior resident is also important. Moreover, this
neighborhood is proximate to the Town hall, Town library, and parks without having to
navigate the heavy traffic on Oracle Road. Even assuming dislocation out of the
immediate area, there is unmet assisted living demand for over 200 beds, increasing by
80 more beds over the next 10 years.
EXHIBITS
32
"111 III
11111111111111111
i IIIIIII11
iiil! IIIIIII111
".
I
I I
II
~, I, I,
I II
". "---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
Tll •.... ,. .., LA CHOLLA COMMONS SOUTH _ I iI'.!;~p __ ~ TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES WlBNo 110"""'" rn N.T.S
"---------------------------------------------------------------------------""
'. :.
:1 ,
MPC-.-
I~~ ________ ~~==~~~~~ ____ -L~====~~~~'.;:::~
RURAL LOW
DENSITY
MPC-LDR
CASAS CHURCH
MPC-MDR
MPC-NC/O
..
\ ~
.J: ..
i -: .,
MPC-HDR
(ll d.u./ ac.)
NEIGH
COMMERCIAL I
~----~----f ••• __ -~lrIAM1.YI~.Y. ___ •• -___ -•• ~------------~
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 2
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 1
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
S
t
a
t
u
s
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
t
s
To
t
a
l
L
o
t
s
(U
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
)
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
AF
S
t
e
r
l
i
n
g
'
s
L
a
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
V
i
l
l
a
s
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
4
0
4
0
12
24
4
40
Do
r
n
H
o
m
e
s
'
D
e
s
e
r
t
S
k
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
4
5
9
4
5
9
Ri
v
e
r
'
s
E
d
g
e
Z
o
n
e
d
5
5
5
5
6
12
12
12
12
1
55
Vi
s
t
o
s
o
P
a
r
c
e
l
1
0
A
Z
o
n
e
d
2
9
2
9
6
12
11
29
SE
C
L
a
m
b
e
r
t
&
L
a
C
h
o
l
l
a
R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
1
5
4
1
5
4
12
24
24
24
24
24
22
15
4
Me
r
i
t
a
g
e
o
n
F
i
r
s
t
-
S
o
u
t
h
Z
o
n
e
d
4
4
4
4
6
12
12
12
2
44
Me
r
i
t
a
g
e
o
n
F
i
r
s
t
-
N
o
r
t
h
R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
2
1
1
2
1
1
6
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
13
21
1
Am
e
r
i
c
a
B
u
i
l
t
'
s
L
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
R
i
d
g
e
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
3
3
3
3
6
24
3
33
Mi
l
l
e
r
R
a
n
c
h
40
0
Vi
s
t
o
s
o
P
a
r
c
e
l
1
0
T
Z
o
n
e
d
1
9
19
19
Me
r
i
t
a
g
e
o
n
N
a
r
a
n
j
a
P
h
.
1
A
Z
o
n
e
d
7
2
7
2
8
24
24
16
72
Me
r
i
t
a
g
e
o
n
N
a
r
a
n
j
a
P
h
.
1
B
Z
o
n
e
d
4
7
4
7
8
24
15
47
Le
n
n
a
r
'
s
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
a
t
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
2
7
2
7
24
3
27
Sa
g
u
a
r
o
s
V
i
e
j
o
s
Z
o
n
e
d
1
1
8
1
1
8
24
24
24
24
22
11
8
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
1
P
h
.
1
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
5
0
12
24
14
50
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
1
P
h
.
2
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
3
1
3
1
10
21
31
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
2
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
3
9
3
9
12
24
3
39
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
3
P
h
.
1
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
4
2
4
2
12
24
6
42
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
3
P
h
.
2
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
5
9
5
9
18
24
17
59
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
4
P
h
.
1
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
3
1
3
1
12
19
31
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
4
P
h
.
2
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
4
3
4
3
5
24
14
43
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
e
B
l
o
c
k
5
P
l
a
t
t
e
d
4
7
4
7
21
24
2
47
Ma
t
t
a
m
y
'
s
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
P
h
a
s
e
1
A
Z
o
n
e
d
5
0
5
0
6
24
20
50
Ma
t
t
a
m
y
'
s
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
P
h
a
s
e
1
B
Z
o
n
e
d
5
0
5
0
6
24
20
50
Ma
t
t
a
m
y
'
s
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
P
h
a
s
e
2
A
Z
o
n
e
d
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
24
24
24
24
10
0
Ma
t
t
a
m
y
'
s
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
P
h
a
s
e
2
B
Z
o
n
e
d
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
24
24
24
24
10
0
Ol
s
o
n
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Z
o
n
e
d
7
5
7
5
24
24
24
3
75
Ma
r
a
c
a
y
'
s
R
a
n
c
h
o
d
e
l
C
o
b
r
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
8
51
10
24
17
51
Me
r
i
t
a
g
e
'
s
R
a
n
c
h
o
d
e
P
l
a
t
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
32
25
7
32
Ri
c
h
m
o
n
d
'
s
T
o
r
r
e
n
o
a
t
R
a
n
c
h
o
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
8
20
14
6
20
AF
S
t
e
r
l
i
n
g
'
s
U
p
l
a
n
d
s
a
t
O
r
o
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
1
4
9
7
2
9
DR
H
o
r
t
o
n
'
s
S
t
o
n
e
f
i
e
l
d
a
t
R
a
n
c
h
o
V
i
s
t
o
s
o
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
9
2
2
2
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
s
:
19
1
0
16
7
0
62
10
2
19
4
29
2
31
0
25
1
15
6
11
9
96
46
24
24
13
0
0
0
0
0
16
8
9
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
R
u
n
n
i
n
g
T
o
t
a
l
s
:
10
2
29
6
58
8
89
8
11
4
9
13
0
5
14
2
4
15
2
0
15
6
6
15
9
0
16
1
4
16
2
7
16
2
7
16
2
7
16
2
7
16
2
7
16
2
7
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
/
M
D
R
P
h
.
1
13
5
12
24
24
24
24
24
3
13
5
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
/
M
D
R
P
h
.
2
19
0
21
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
19
0
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
M
D
R
P
h
.
1
66
12
24
24
6
66
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
M
D
R
P
h
.
2
37
18
19
37
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
M
D
R
P
h
.
3
57
5
24
24
4
57
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
L
D
R
P
h
.
1
47
12
24
11
47
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
L
D
R
P
h
.
2
38
13
24
1
38
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
L
D
R
P
h
.
3
56
23
24
9
56
La
C
h
o
l
l
a
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
T
o
t
a
l
s
:
62
6
0
0
0
0
36
72
72
72
72
72
57
28
24
24
24
24
24
25
62
6
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
s
:
62
10
2
19
4
29
2
34
6
32
3
22
8
19
1
16
8
11
8
81
52
37
24
24
24
24
25
23
1
5
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
R
u
n
n
i
n
g
T
o
t
a
l
s
:
10
2
29
6
58
8
93
4
12
5
7
14
8
5
16
7
6
18
4
4
19
6
2
20
4
3
20
9
5
21
3
2
21
5
6
21
8
0
22
0
4
22
2
8
22
5
3
An
n
u
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
O
V
L
a
s
t
1
0
Y
e
a
r
s
:
18
2
.
8
18
3
19
2
20
2
21
2
22
2
23
3
24
5
25
7
27
0
28
4
29
8
31
3
32
8
34
5
36
2
38
0
39
9
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
R
u
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
:
18
3
37
5
57
6
78
8
10
1
0
12
4
3
14
8
8
17
4
6
20
1
6
22
9
9
25
9
7
29
1
0
32
3
8
35
8
3
39
4
5
43
2
5
47
2
4
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
:
10
5
%
*
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
2
h
o
m
e
s
/
m
o
n
t
h
a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
0
50
0
10
0
0
15
0
0
20
0
0
25
0
0
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
S
u
p
p
l
y
/
D
e
m
a
n
d
o
f
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
H
o
m
e
s
i
n
O
.
V
.
Su
p
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Su
p
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
De
m
a
n
d
CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST
(OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003)
Attachment 6
r-----r=::I ............
~f'bn,.....~
E;3 "'-a.----Of'OIdiIMI
urm.. s.rwIcA ~
0etwnI riM""""" ~ lift.
~ ~w Dauit, Rm-'lllllltJ.lil to • u 0UJ..Aq
L..-OeI'IMr p "F Ii .. (ILt -. J DU(Aq
~~ F'ft.r'll"hI (1,,) -LV UUlAq
Nriut t t : If Cwn, .... ""· ... 11 Officr.e.
P\JbIIO J 5_...f"\mIIe
e:ac=_*t J ~ Cca,.:_chl
c ........ I Office. P".1I ........
ap.n5'~ ,..,.
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
LA CHOLLA NARANJA SOUTHWEST / NORTHWEST
(OV1114-002 & OV1114-003)
Attachment 7
RURAllOW
OEN'>ITY
"
-.- -.
, , -.~"
:: -
COMMERCIAl/
---"J'L
lOW D£tf'>lTY
RE'>IDUffiAl2
LOWOEN$ITI'
R~D£NTlAL 1
I '" WLB la Cholla Commons • ~! Proposad Ganaral Pl an l and Usa Da Slgnatjon •.•• ~ _-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ESL PLANNING MAP
LA CHOLLA / NARANJA (OV1114-002 & OV 1114-003)
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria Analysis, Section 22.2.D.3
General Plan Amendments are evaluated for consistency with the General Plan Amendment criteria in the
Zoning Code. It is the burden of the applicant to present facts and other materials to support these criteria.
The applicant’s response to each of the criteria is provided below in italics followed by staff’s analysis of each
criterion:
1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the
extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
Applicant’s Response – See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 5
Staff Comment:
The funding of the planned expansion of La Cholla Boulevard to a four lane desert parkway is a change in
conditions which support reconsideration of the planned density and intensity along this corridor. Voter
authorization of the Regional Transportation Authority Plan occurred in 2006, after the 2005 ratification of the
Oro Valley General Plan. The timing of the expansion is currently planned for 2021, but the Town is now
working with the RTA to move the planned expansion up to accommodate the additional projected traffic
volume of this roadway.
Expanding La Cholla Boulevard to a parkway will provide another important major north–south transportation
corridor within the community and warrants re-evaluation of the planned land uses. A moderate increase in
density / intensity is supported by the General Plan policy which provides that higher density uses should be
located near major arterial streets. Increasing the planned density and intensity of development based on the
expansion of La Cholla Boulevard represents an efficient use of public infrastructure, a concept which is also
supported by General Plan policy.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the
community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.
Applicant’s Response – See Page 3 of Attachment 5
Staff Comment:
The planned variety of residential uses, supported by retail and office development contributes to the overall
socio-economic opportunities within this area. A balanced land use plan reduces vehicle trips on adjacent
roadways and reduces traffic congestion. Nearby commercial services also creates walkable neighborhoods by
promoting non-motorized travel to access goods and services. Employment opportunities also contribute to
the socio-economic betterment of residents through reduced traffic impact and transportation costs.
The proposed concept plan achieves environmental compatibility through conformance with the Town’s
adopted Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance and preservation of the natural wash corridors through the
site.
In terms of neighborhood compatibility, a number of mitigation measures have been included in the proposals:
• The proposed Low Density along the western boundary of the property address compatibility with the
3.3 acre lots to the west.
• Open space and one story residential building height limitations on the west and south boundaries to
reduce the impact on adjacent areas.
• Elimination of the planned apartments which had been the major concern of a majority of residents who
spoke at the neighborhood meetings and the October 7th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
The plan now proposes townhouse/condominium uses limited to 12 homes per acre in the center
portion of the property.
• Establishment of a maximum unit cap of 778 units which will result in an overall density that is
comparable with the density of the residential area to the east.
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community
acceptance.
Applicant’s Response – See Pages 4 - 6 of Attachment 5
Staff Comment:
General Plan policy states that the Town “reasonably” wishes to be satisfied that market demand exists for the
land uses proposed in the application. It should be acknowledged that market demand beyond the 2-3 year
timeframe is difficult to predict. It also should be noted that demand and supply in a free market economy are
never perfectly synchronized and a margin of supply above demand is normal.
Residential
As of 2013 the Town was approximately 80% built out for single family residential development. Of the
remaining vacant land left in the Town, this area represents one of the few remaining large tracts of vacant
land. This condition has resulted in a significant amount of recent growth and development pressure in this
specific area. Recent medium density residential development activity along the La Cholla corridor includes the
subject property, Rancho de Plata, Rancho de Cobre, Saguaros Viejos, Meritage at Naranja and a rezoning at
the southeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. This recent and focused development activity demonstrates
there is current market demand in this area for medium density residential.
To compare supply of medium density residential in relation to demand, staff refined the numbers provided in
the October 7th staff report to delete areas which were not comparable (e.g. Stone Canyon) and to reflect
actual proposed development totals. For vacant areas, density assumptions were reduced to the midpoint of
the density range which is more reflective of actual development densities based on the Town’s
Environmentally Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code. This refined analysis resulted in a reduction of
the supply numbers from the previous reported number of 2,420 down to 1,993 units. A breakdown of these
supply units is as follows:
Category Number of Lots
Vacant lots in actively selling subdivisions 222
Projects approved since 2013 655
Projects Proposed Since 2013 900
Vacant Zoned & General Plan 216
Total 1,993
The revised application submitted by the applicant contains additional analysis relative to market absorption
over time of this projected supply of medium density residential units. Included within the revised submittal is
conclusions derived from a draft market demand report which is being prepared by Valbridge Property
Advisors. The applicant has provided a supplemental analysis projecting future growth of medium density
residential based on assumed timeframes of development by community, assumed rate of growth of the
market and an assumed absorption rate by community. This analysis is provided in Attachment 5.
It should be noted that the full market analysis has not been completed nor reviewed by staff and therefore
definitive conclusions cannot be reached. It also should be reinforced that an empirical market study is not
required by the General Plan which requires only that the Town wishes to be reasonably satisfied that a market
exists for the proposed land uses. Based on the information supplied, several observations are noted:
• The analysis submitted by the applicant includes most of the supply numbers listed above, with the
exception of the 216 vacant / zoned units.
• The analysis reflects 626 units for the subject property, not the 778 units proposed by Special Area
Policy.
• The analysis uses an expected annual growth rate of 5%, which in staff’s opinion is optimistic and
conflicts with the conclusions of Valbridge Property Advisors which suggest a more modest 2% annual
growth rate.
• The analysis assumes an absorption rate by community of 2 homes per month. The current absorption
rate by community is actually higher at 2.5 – 3.0 homes per month, dependent on the specific
community.
• The draft market demand study submitted by Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there is
demand for approximately 100-200 townhouses, although the study is general in nature.
With the noted discrepancies, the analysis generally shows a reasonable relationship between supply and
demand of medium density residential units. Correction of the unit totals will result in a longer supply horizon
beyond the applicant’s forecast of 2022. Given the generalized nature of the General Plan policy and the
evaluation criteria, staff is reasonably satisfied that a market exists for the medium density land use with the
observation that absorption of the supply medium density will extend beyond the applicants forecast of 2022.
Commercial
In regard to the market to support the amount of commercially designated land in the plan, Valbridge Property
Advisors concludes that there is a market for approximately 200,000 additional square feet of retail space in
the neighborhood. The conclusions do not appear to account for the existing commercial zoning at the
northeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. The back-up analysis supporting the market study conclusion for
200,000 sq. ft. of additional retail demand is general in nature. It is reasonable to anticipate additional
commercial will be needed, although the timeframe is uncertain and tied to residential growth.
Senior Care
The market demand study submitted by Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there is demand for
approximately 200 new assisted living units in the neighborhood, although the study is general in nature. This
study notably does not account for all planned facilities in the Town including La Posada at 1st Avenue and
Naranja and All Seasons Care on Innovation Park Drive, north of Tangerine Road which are outside the study
area of the market study. The applicant has indicated that they will be seeking a niche of senior care not
currently addressed by the above referenced planned facilities.
4. 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.
Applicant’s Response – See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 5
Staff Comment:
The General Plan supports higher density development near major arterial streets and the proposed moderate
increase in density is consistent with this policy. Measures incorporated into the proposals to reduce impacts
on adjoining areas and the school district, including:
• The proposed plan internalizes the higher density and intensity land uses away from the lower density
areas to the west.
• To address compatibility concerns raised by residents to south along Lambert, the revised plan
extended the 300 foot single-story residential building height limitation along Lambert Lane.
• The modified plan eliminates the planned apartments which had been the major concern of a majority
of residents who spoke at the neighborhood meetings and the October 7th Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. The plan now proposes townhouse / condominium uses limited to 12 homes per
acre.
• The applicant has established a maximum unit cap of 778 units which will result in an overall density
that is comparable with the density of the residential area to the east.
• The applicant has met with Amphitheater School District who have provided a letter indicating that with
the applicant’s commitment to complete a donation agreement, the school district anticipates that they
will be able to serve the expected enrollment generated from the project. (Attachment 14).
General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies Analysis
General Plan Amendments are also evaluated for consistency with the Vision, Goals and Policies of the
General Plan. The following is an analysis relative to the amendments consistency with the Vision and key
Policies in the General Plan.
General Plan Vision
To be a well planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today against the potential
impacts to future generations. Oro Valley’s lifestyle is defined by the highest standard of environmental
integrity, education, infrastructure, services, and public safety. It is a community of people working together to
create the Town’s future with a government that is responsive to residents and ensures the long-term financial
stability of the Town.
The Vision Statement from the General Plan emphasizes the need to carefully balance land use decisions
which respond to current conditions, against the long term impact to the community. The amendment provides
for an efficient use of planned infrastructure and addresses the socio-economic goals expressed in the Vision
Statement through the provision of nearby services in proximity to residential.
General Plan Policies
The applicant has provided analysis of the amendments conformance with adopted General Plan policies,
which is provided in Attachment 5.
Staff has evaluated the amendment against all General Plan policies, with notable polices identified below.
Policy 1.3.2 The Town shall encourage new development to locate uses that depend on convenient
transportation access (e.g. higher density residential and commercial) near major arterial
streets.
Policy 1.2.1 The Town shall maintain Oro Valley’s predominately low-density character while considering the
needs of financial stability and infrastructure efficiency.
The proposed density / intensity of the planned development is consistent with the policy supporting higher
density residential and commercial uses near major arterial streets. The planned expansion of La Cholla to a
four lane desert parkway represents a significant public investment in infrastructure to serve this area. The
proposed increase in planned intensity will promote the efficient use of this expanded infrastructure, in
conformance with the General Plan policy.
Policy 1.3.1 The Town shall encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity centers
compatible with residential uses, and vice versa.
The proposed plan provides commercial uses and services in proximity to residential neighborhoods,
consistent with this policy.
Policy 1.4.3 The Town reasonably wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before authorizing a
higher land use intensity than the present zoning permits.
The applicant has generally demonstrated demand exists for the proposed single family residential uses,
although the timeframe for absorption of the supply will more than likely significantly longer than suggested by
the applicant based on discrepancies noted. The market study concludes there is additional demand for retail
and assisted living, although these conclusions cannot be independently verified by staff.
Policy 1.3.5 The Town shall encourage master planning that looks comprehensively at the subject properties
and all adjacent areas.
Policy 1.4.11 The Town shall establish procedures to ensure the coordinated development of vacant areas of
40 acres or more either under multiple or single ownership by requiring the development of
master plans for those areas. These master plans must consider and seek to minimize the
impact of development on all adjoining properties.
The applicant proposes a Special Area Policy requiring master planning of the property through the use of a
Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning application.is to comprehensively plan the property through the use
of master planning at the rezoning stage of development. This PAD will provide a coordinated and cohesive
circulation, utility, infrastructure phasing, land use, landscaping, recreational areas and architectural standards,
consistent with this policy.
Policy 5.4.1 The Town shall maintain a harmonious relationship between urban development and
development of the transportation network.
The proposed moderate overall density provides a complementary relationship between the planned
development and the transportation network. Expansion of La Cholla to a four lane parkway supports a
moderate increase in density along this corridor, but not at the density proposed by the applicant.
Policy 7.2.3 The Town shall allow and encourage master planned communities that offer high-quality
neighborhoods with a variety of residential densities and appropriately located commercial uses
to serve the community. In these developments, ensure there are adequate transitions and
buffers between uses.
The proposed amendment to master planned community would establish a variety of residential densities
along with support commercial and non-residential uses, consistent with this policy.
Policy 8.1.2 The Town shall identify and work to acquire a La Cholla corridor park site.
The current General Plan includes an open space designated property north of the northwest corner of La
Cholla and Lambert. The applicant has retained this parcel as a private recreational area to serve the planned
neighborhoods. The Town has analyzed this parcel and concluded that is too small to accommodate
community level park facilities.
Policy 6.1.2 The Town shall continue to require that all new developments be evaluated to determine
impacts on all public facilities within the Town, including but not limited to schools and roads.
Such impacts shall be used as criterion in deciding the approval or denial of land use rezoning
proposals.
As previously stated, the school district has provided a letter indicating that with the applicant’s commitment to
complete a donation agreement, the school district anticipates that they will be able to serve the expected
enrollment generated from the project.
Major General Plan Amendment
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
CASE NUMBER: OV1114-002 and OV 1114-003
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2014
AGENDA ITEM: 2A and 2B
STAFF CONTACT: Chad Daines, Principal Pl anner
cdaines@orovalleyaz.qov (520) 229-4896
Applicant: Paul Oland of WLB Group
Requests:
Agenda It em From : T o:
Case #2A Rural Low Density Residential Master Planned Community comprised of:
OV1114-002 Low Density Residential Open Space
Neighborhood Commercia l Office Neighborhood Commercial! Office
La Cho ll a! Public! Semi Publi c Low Density Residential
Naranja Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
So uth west Open Space Hi gh Density Residential
Significant Resource Area Senior Care Facility
Deletion of Significant Resource Area
Adoption of Special Area Policies
Case #2B Medium Density Master Planned Community comprised of:
OV 1114-003 Sign ifi cant Resource Area Neighborhood Commercia l ! Office
Medium Density Residential
La Cholla! Deletion of S ignificant Resource Area
Naranja Adoption of Special Area Policies
Northwest
Location: Southwest! Northwest corne r of La Cho ll a Boulevard and Naranja Drive
Recommendation: Recommend approval to Town Counci l
SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes two Majo r General Plan Amendments to Master Planned Commun ity for 194
acres located at the southwest and northwest corners of La Chol la Boulevard and Naranja Drive
(Attachment 1). Th e proposed Master Planned Community contains a variety of residential and non-
resident ia l land uses as depicted on the applicant's Concept Plan (Attachment 2), including:
• Low, Medium and Hi gh Density Residential
• Open Space
• Senior Care Facility
The applicant also proposes Special Area Policies to guide future development of the property
(Attachment 3). The applicant's narrative , response to Code evaluation criteria and market study are
OVl114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja Page 2 ofl4
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
provided as Attachments 4A and 4B. The current and proposed General Plan Land Use Maps are
provided on Attachments 5 and 6.
Following the October 7t h Commission public hearing, another neighborhood meeting was held on
October 20th In addition, the applicant also met recently with a smaller group of residents to hear their
concerns. As a result, the proposed amendment has been modified by the applicant as follows:
• Elimination of apartments from the Master Planned Community and replacement with
townhouses { condominiums wi th a density not to exceed 12 homes per acre
• Narrowing the range of allowed uses in the High Density area to townhouses {co ndominiums,
medium density residential and senior care
• Elimination of the southern "flexible zone", replacing it with medium density residential
• Provision for a maximum 778 dwelling unit cap on the entire project area.
• Extending area of the one-story home restriction along the southern border
• Amended Special Area Policies to address previously raised staff issues
• Amended general plan amendment criteria and submittal of a market study
The above issues will be addressed in greater detail in the balance of this staff report.
In summary, conditions in the community ha ve changed which warrant reconsideration of the land use
densities and intensities along this corridor, specifically the funding of the expansion of La Cholla
Boulevard to a four lane parkway. The planned expansion of La Cholla will establish this roadway as a
primary north-south route through Oro Valley. General Plan policies support the location of higher
density { intensity uses along or near major arterial streets. The function and future traffic volume of this
major arterial roadway supports reconsideration of the existing land use designations and a moderate
intensification of land use along this corridor.
As a result of neighborhood input, the applicant has made significant modifications to the amendments
which reduce the impa ct of the planned development on adjacent areas. These modifications include
deletion of the planned apartments, removal of the church expansion, reduction in the range of uses
allowed on specific parcels and the inclusion of open space buffers and building height restrictions.
The proposals are consistent with the major general plan amendment re view criteria and general plan
goals and policies.
BACKGROUND:
Land Use Context
LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Attach ment 1) (Attachment 5)
SUBJECT Vacant Various designations
PROPERT\
NORTH Vacant and Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes {acre)
Hiqh School School
SOUTH Single-family Residential Low Density Residential (1.3 -2.0 homes {acre)
.5 to 3.3 acre lots
EAST Single-family Residential 7 ,000 sq. ft. lots Medium Density, Low Den s ity and Neighborho od
and Vacant Commercial Office
WEST Single-family Residential and Rural Low Density (0-0.3 homes {acre )
Vacant
OVll14-002 and OVll14-003 La ChoUa and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 3 of 14
Approvals To Date There ha ve been no approvals to date on the subject property. The property was
annexed into the Town in 2002.
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation s (Attachment 5) The current Oro Valley General Plan
designates the property as follo ws:
Agenda Item 2A
• Rural Low Density Residential (0.0 -0.3 homes per acre)
• Lo w Density (0.4 -1.2 homes per acre)
• Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes per acre)
• Neighborhood Commercial /Office
• Public / Semi-Public
• Open Space
• Significant Resource Area
Agenda Item 28
• Medium Density Residential (2 .1 -5.0 homes per acre)
• Significant Res ou rc e Area
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designati on (Attachment 6)
The proposed amendment is to Master Planned Community, w hich is described as follows:
Master Planned Community: This land use designation refers to areas w here large multi-use
developments should be planned and developed in a comprehensive manner.
The proposed Master Planned Community is comprised of:
Agenda Item 2A
• Open Space
• Neighborhood Commercial /Office
• Low Density Reside ntia l (1.3 -2.0 homes per ac re)
• Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes per acre)
• High Density (Up to 12 homes per acre)
• Senior Care Us es
Agenda Item 28
• Neighborhood Commercial/Office
• Medium Density Residential (2.1 -5.0 homes per acre)
En vironmentally Sensiti v e Lands (ESL) Conservation Categories (Attachment 7)
Th e property conta in s the foll owing ESL conservation categories:
• Critical Resource Area (CRA) Resources including was hes and riparian areas with a
95% open space requirement
OV1114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 4 of14
• Resource Management Area (RMA) Tier I: Lower re source value lands with lower intensity
growth expectations in the General Plan , such as Low-Density residential , and includes a 66%
open space requirement
• Resource Management Area (RMA) Tier 2: Lo we r resource va lue lands with lower intensity
growth expectations in the General Plan , such as Lo w-Density residential, and includes a 25%
open space requirement
The ESL conservation system protects critical open space systems and linkages throughout the Town.
ESL provides strict requirements for h ighest value resources and more flexible ones in areas of lower
resource value. Riparian areas or very significant habitat features ha ve the highest conservation
requirements.
On the other end of the spectrum, lands designated as Resource Management Area (RMA) are
important but have the lowest resource value and lower conservation requirements. Unlike higher
resource val ue categories, including Major Wildlife Linkages (MWL), Critical Resource Areas (CRA),
and Core Resource Area (Core), the RMA designation is driven by growth expectations of the General
Plan. Each Resource Management Tier aligns with the anticipated level of growth reflected in the
General Plan. In other words, the General Plan designation determines the RMA Tier and subsequent
amount of conservation (open space).
Based on the proposed amendment, if approved, areas outside Critical Resource Area's will be
designated RMA Tier 2 and require 25% open space conservation. Previously, staff had indicated that
the area proposed on the western boundary as Lo w Density should be designated RMA Tier 1 and
require 66% open space conservation. After further analysis relati ve to the existing classification for the
other existing Master Planned Community areas, staff has concluded that this Lo w Density area should
be classified as RMA Tier 2 and require 25% open space. This determination is based on the overall
medium density character of the de ve lopment and that the Tier 2 classification would be consistent with
the other Master Planned Community referenced in the Environmentally Sensiti ve Lands section of the
Zoning Code.
Significant Resource Area Deletion
The applicant proposes to delete the Significant Resource Area designation on the southern portion of
the property. Thi s designation, adopted w ith the original General Plan in 2005, pro c eeded the To wn's
adoption of the En v ironmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations in 2011. The ESL ordinance
establishes comprehensive environmental conservation standards and regulations.
From a land use standpoint, retention of the SRA designation wi ll ha ve th e effect of limiting density to
the lowes t end of the density range (e.g. areas designated Lo w Density wo uld be limited to 1.3 homes
per acre and areas designated Medium Density would be limited to 2.1 homes per acre), which would
have a reduced environmental impact on the property. Beyond the density limitation , the Significant
Res ou rce Area designation does not provide any additional measure of environmental protection when
co mpared to the Tow n's ESL regulations. As the comprehensive standards established by the
En vironmentall y Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code provide for a s uperior level of resour ce
protection, staff is supportive of the applicant's request to delete the Significant Resource Area
designation .
OV1114-002 and OVl114-003 La ChoUa and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
Land Use Plan Analysis
Page 5 of 14
The proposed Concept Plan (Attachment 2) provides for a range of single-family residential land uses,
townhouses/co ndominiums, parks and non-residential uses . The Concept Plan is pro vided for
illustrative purposes and wi ll not be formally adopted as part of the General Plan . The proposed master
planned community wraps around the existing Casas Adobes Baptist Church and incorporates the
existing Cross Road as the primary internal access to the development. A total of three access pOints
are proposed from La Cholla Boulevard and one access drive is provided from Lambert Lane.
A significant concern of staff and the neighborhood with the earlier proposa l was the inclusion of
apartments in the center portion of the property. Based on staff and neighborhood input, the applicant
has now eliminated the proposed apartments and replaced this use with townhouse/co ndominium
de velopment not to exceed 12 homes per acre.
Along the western boundary, the applicant proposes Low Density Residential with a maximum density
of 2.0 homes per acre to provide lower densities adjacent to the 3.3 acre lots to the west. A 200 foot
open space buffer and 300 foot one story home restriction along the western boundary adjacent to
existing homes w ill provide additional buffering to this lower density area. Based on neighborhood
input, the 300 fo ot one story single-family residential height restriction has been extended along the
southern boundary (Lambert Lane).
Neighborhood Commercial / Office parcels are proposed at the northwest and southwest corners of
Naranja Dri ve and La Cholla. Additionally , the applicant proposes an expansion of the existing
Neighborhood Commercial / Office property at the northwest corner of Lambert and La Cholla . The
proposed commercial parcels are consistent w ith General Plan polici es which support the location of
higher intenSity uses near major arterial streets. A Special Area Policy has been included providing a
back-up designation of Medium Density Residential within these commercial areas once all other
res idential areas ha ve developed. Discussio n relati ve to the market for future commercial is addressed
in the criteria analys is section of this report.
A number of previous concerns with the proposals have been addressed as follows :
• The applicant has modified the amendments to significantly red uce the amount of va riation in
land use. The southern "flexibility" area has be e n eliminated and now only permits medium
density residential. Furthermore, the ce nter area is now restricted to townhouse/co ndominiums,
senior care and medium density residential.
• The back-up designation for the commercial areas of medium den sity residential wou ld result in
the co mmercial areas being de ve loped as residential based on the typical market sequence
w hich prioritizes single-family residential, followed by commercial development. The applicant
ha s addressed this concern with a Special Area Policy which allows residential development on
the commercial parcels only after all other residential development within the property occurs.
• The lack of market analysis supporting the senior care uses within the property is addressed
under the criteria analysis sectio n of this report .
• A Special Area Polic y has been included requiring the recreation a l areas to be improved w ith a
commensurate level of amenities required by the Zoning Code . The Park s and Recreati o n
Director has reviewed th e site and determined that the size of the rec reati on areas is not
conducive t o a dedicated To w n park and therefore the recre ation al areas sho uld remain private.
OVl1l4-002 and OV1114-003 La C holla and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 6 of 14
In s ummary, th e moderate in cre ase in inte ns ity is co n sistent w ith the General Pl a n policies with re ga rd
to lo ca ting hi gher inten s ity use s ne ar major arterial streets. The mod e rat e intens it y w ill re su lt in an
efficient use of infra struct ure and comp lement th e planned expansion of La Cholla Bou levard . The
planned com mercial a reas are consistent w ith General Plan policies on loca tio n and scale of
comme rcial deve lopment. The appl icant has in corporated measures to address some ne ighborhood
co nce rns as f o llows :
• Estab li shed a maximum unit cap of 778 units w hi ch wi ll result in an overa ll density that is
comparable w ith the density of the residenti a l a re a to the east.
• Modified the proposed am e ndments to respo nd to neighborhood co nce rn s through the
elimination of the apartment use and church expansion and limiting the den s it y of the
to w nh ouses/cond omin ium s to 12 homes per acre .
• In cluded an ope n space buffer on the western bo un dary a nd building he igh t re strictions o n the
west and so uth which wi ll redu ce the imp act of deve lopment on th ese a reas.
Special Area Policy Analysis
The app li cant proposes a num ber of Special Area Pol icies to impleme nt the proposed Master Pl an ned
Commun ity (Attachment 3). Nota bl e e lements of th e Special Area Pol icie s are discussed in th e
preced ing Land U se Analysis section. Previous concerns with the policies ha ve been addressed as
follows:
• All la nd use designations w ill utilize General Plan land use descriptions
• A requ irement to ma ste r plan the property through th e use of a Planned Area De ve lopm en t
• Open space buffe r on th e west and s ingl e-story height restriction s on the wes t and south have
been inco r po rated
• Apartme nts have been deleted and replaced with townh ouses /condominiums not to e xcee d 12
homes per acre
• Medi um density development on comme rcia l parce ls ca n only occu r after all other reside ntia l in
the m aste r planned community a re developed
• A maximum of 778 residential dwelling units can be b uilt in the master planned community
• Clarification with re gard to th e a men it ies within the Park areas .
General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria Analysis, Section 22.2.0.3
General Pl an Amendments are evaluated for consistency w ith the General Plan Amendment crit eria in
th e Zoning Code. It is the burden of the app lica nt to present facts and othe r materials t o support these
criteria. Th e app li cant's response to eac h of the crit eria is provided be low in ita li cs followed by staff's
ana lysis of eac h criterion :
1 . The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to
the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
Applicant's Response -See Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 4
Staff Comment:
T he funding of the planned expansion of La Cholla Bou leva rd to a fou r lane desert parkway is a change
in conditions which su pport reconsideration of the planned den sit y and intensity along th is corr idor.
Vo ter authorization of the Regional Transportation Authority Plan occurred in 2006, after the 2005
OVl1l4-002 and OV1l14-003 La ChoUa and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 7 of14
ratification of the Oro Valley General Plan. The timing of the expansion is currently planned for 2021 ,
but the Town is no w working with the RTA to move the planned expansion up to accommodate the
additional projected traffic volume of this roadway.
Expanding La Cholla Boulevard to a parkway will provide another important major north-south
transportation corridor within the community and warrants re-evaluation of the planned land uses . A
moderate increase in density / intensity is supported by the General Plan policy which provides that
higher density uses should be located near major arterial streets. Increasing the planned density and
intensity of development based on the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard represents an efficient use of
public infrastructure , a concept which is also supported by General Plan policy.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the
community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.
App/icant 's Response -See Page 3 of Attachment 4
Staff Comment:
The planned variety of residential uses, supported by retail and office development contributes to the
overall socio-economic opportunities within this area. A balanced land use plan reduces vehicle trips
on adjacent roadways and reduces traffic congestion. Nearby commercial services also creates
walkable neighborhoods by promoting non-motorized travel to access goods and services.
Employment opportunities also contribute to the socio-economic betterment of residents through
reduced traffic impact and transportation costs.
The proposed concept plan ach ieves environmental compatibility through conformance with the Town's
adopted Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance and preservation of the natural wash corridors
through the site.
In terms of neighborhood compatibility , a number of mitigation measures have been included in the
proposals:
• The proposed Low Density along the western boundary of the property address compatibility
with the 3.3 acre lots to the west.
• Open space and one story residential building height limitations on the west and south
boundaries to reduce the impact on adjacent areas .
• Elimination of the planned apartments which had been the major concern of a majority of
residents who spoke at the neighborhood meetings and the October 71h Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. The plan now proposes townhouse/condominium uses limited to 12
homes per acre in the center portion of the property .
• Establishment of a maximum unit cap of 778 units which will result in an overall density that is
comparable with the density of the residential area to the east.
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community
acceptance.
Applicant's Response -See Pag es 4 -6 of Attachment 4
OV1114-002 and OVll14-003 La ChoUa and Na ranja
Planning and Zoning C ommission Staff Report
Staff Comment:
Page 8 of14
General Plan polic y states that the Tow n "reasonably" wishes to be satisfied that market demand exists
for the land uses proposed in the application. It should be acknowledged that market demand beyond
the 2-3 year timeframe is difficult to predict. It also should be noted that demand and suppl y in a free
market economy are never perfectly synchronized and a margin of supply above demand is normal.
Residential
As of 2013 the Town was approximately 80% built out for single family residential development. Of the
remaining vacant land left in the Town , this area represents one of the few remaining large tracts of
vacant land . This condition has resulted in a significant amount of recent growth and development
pressure in this specific area. Recent medium density residential development activity along the La
Cholla corridor includes the subject property, Rancho de Plata , Rancho de Cobre , Saguaros Viejos,
Meritage at Naranja and a rezoning at the southeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. This re ce nt and
focused development activity demonstrates there is current market demand in this area for medium
density residential.
To compare supply of medium density residential in relation to demand, staff refined the numbers
provided in the Octobe r 7 th staff report to delete areas which were not co mparable (e .g. Stone Canyon)
and to reflect actual proposed de velop ment totals. For vaca nt areas , density assumptions we re
reduced to the midpoint of the density range which is more reflective of actual development densities
based on the Town 's Environmentally Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code . This refined
analysis resulted in a reduction of the supply numbers from the previ ou s reported number of 2,420
dow n to 1,993 units . A breakdown of these supply units is as follows :
Category Number of Lots
Va cant lots in ac tive ly se lling subdivisions 222
Projects app roved s ince 20 13 655
Projects P roposed Sin ce 201 3 900
Vac ant Zoned & General Plan 2 16
Total 1,993
The re vised application submitted by the applicant contains additional a nal ysis relati ve to market
absorpti o n over time of this projecte d supply of medium den si ty resid e ntial units. Included w ithin the
revised s ubmittal is co nclusion s derived from a draft market demand report which is being prepared by
Valbridge Property Advisors. The applicant has provided a s upplemental analysis projecting future
growth of medium density re s idential based on assumed timeframes of development by community,
assumed rate of growth of the market and an assumed absorption rate by com mun ity. Th is analysis is
pro vi ded on Attachment 4B.
It should be noted that the full market analysis has not been completed nor re v ie wed by staff and
therefore definitive co nclusion s ca nnot be rea c hed. It also s hould be reinfo rced that an empirical
marke t stud y is not requ ired by the General Plan wh ic h requires only that the To wn wishes to be
rea sonab ly satisfied that a market ex ists for the proposed land u ses. Ba sed on th e information
supplied, several observations are noted:
• Th e analysis subm itted by th e applicant include s most of the s upp ly num be rs listed above , wi th
the exceptio n of the 216 vac ant I zoned units.
OV1l14-002 and OV1l14-003 La Cholla and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 9 of 14
• The analysis reflects 626 units for the subject property, not the 778 units proposed by Special
Area Policy.
• The analysis uses an expected annual growth rate of 5%, w hich in staff's opinion is optimistic
and conflicts with the conclusions of Valbridge Property Advisors w hich suggest a more modest
2% annual growth rate .
• Th e analysis assumes an absorption ra te by community of 2 homes per month. The current
absorption rat e by community is actually higher at 2.5 -3.0 homes per month, dependent on the
specific community.
• The draft market demand study submitted by Valbridge Property Advisors concludes that there
is demand for approximately 100-200 townhouses, although the study is general in nature .
With the noted discrepancies, the analysis generally shows a reasonable relation shi p between supply
and demand of medium density residential units. Correction of the unit totals will result in a longer
supply horizon beyond the applicant's forecast of 2022. Given the generalized nature of the General
Plan policy and the evaluation criteria, staff is reasonabl y satisfied that a market exists for the medium
density land use w ith the observation that absorption of the supply medium density will extend beyond
the applicants forecast of 2022.
Commercial
In regard to the market to support the amount of commercial ly designated land in the plan, Valbridge
Property Advisors concl udes that there is a market for approximately 200,000 additional square feet of
retail space in the neighborhood . The conclusions do not appear to account for the existing commercial
zoning at the northeast corner of Lambert and La Cholla. The back-up analysis supporting the market
study conclusion for 200,000 sq . ft. of additional retail demand is general in nature. It is reasonable to
anticipate add ition al commercia l wil l be needed, a lthoug h the timefram e is uncertain and tied to
resident ia l growth.
Senior Care
Th e market demand study submitted by Val bridge Property Advisors concludes that there is demand
for approximately 200 new assisted living units in the neighborhood, although the study is general in
nature . This study notably does not account for all planned facilities in the Town including La Posada
at 1st Avenue and Naranja and All Seasons Care on Inno vation Park Dri ve, north of Tangerine Road
wh ich are outside the s tudy area of the market study. Th e applicant has ind icated that they wi ll be
seeking a niche of senior care not currently add ressed by the above referenced planned facilities .
4. 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.
Applicant 's Response -See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 4
Staff Comment:
Th e General Plan supports higher density deve lopme nt near major arterial streets and the proposed
moderate increase in densi ty is consistent wi th this policy. Measures in corpo rated into the proposals to
reduce impacts on adjoin ing areas and the schoo l district, including:
• The proposed plan internalizes the h igher density and intensity land uses away from the lower
density areas to the west.
OVI114-002 and OVll14-003 La Cholla and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 10 of 14
• To address compatibility concerns raised by residents to south along Lambert, the revised plan
extended the 300 foot single-story residential building height limitation along Lambert Lane.
• The modified plan eliminates the planned apartments which had been the major concern of a
majority of residents who spoke at the neighborhood meetings and the October 7 th Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting . The plan now proposes townhouse I condominium uses limited to
12 homes per acre.
• The applicant has established a maximum unit cap of 778 units which will result in an overall
density that is comparable with the density of the residential area to the east.
• The applicant has met with Amphitheater School District who have provided a letter indicating
that with the applicant's commitment to complete a donation agreement, the school district
anticipates that they will be able to serve the expected enrollment generated from the project.
(Attachment 10).
General Plan Vision, Goals and Policies Analysis
General Plan Amendments are also evaluated for consistency with the Vision, Goals and Policies of the
General Plan. The following is an analysis relative to the amendments consistency with the Vision and
key Policies in the General Plan.
General Plan Vision
To be a well planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today against the
potential impacts to future generations. Oro Valley 's lifestyle is defined by the highest standard of
environmental integrity, education, infrastructure, services, and public safety. It is a community of
people working together to create the Town's future with a government that is responsive to residents
and ensures the long-term financial stability ofthe Town.
The Vision Statement from the General Plan emphasizes the need to carefully balance land use
decisions w hi ch respond to current conditions, against the long term impact to the community. The
amendment provides for an efficient use of planned infrastructure and addresses the socio-economic
goals expressed in the Vision Statement through the provision of nearby services in proximity to
residential.
General Plan Policies
The applicant has provided analysis of the amendments co nformance with adopted General Plan
policies, which is provided in Attachment 4.
Staff has evaluated the amendment against all General Plan policies, with notable polices identified
below.
Policv 1.3.2 Th e Town shall encourage new development to locate uses that depend on convenie nt
tran sportation access (e.g. higher density residential and commercia/) near major
arterial streets.
Policv 1.2.1 The Town shall maintain Oro Valley's predominately low-den sity character while
conSidering the needs of financial stability and infrastructure efficiency.
The proposed density I intensity of the planned de ve lopment is consis tent with the policy suppo rting
higher density residential and commerc ial uses near major arterial streets. The planned expansion of
La Cholla t o a four lan e desert parkway repre sen ts a significant public in vest ment in infra st ru cture to
OVI114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 11 of 14
serve this area . The proposed increase in planned intensity will promote the efficient use of this
expanded infrastructure, in conformance with the General Plan policy.
Policy 1.3. 1 The Town shall encourage the location of residential neighborhoods close to activity
centers compatible with residential uses, and vice versa.
The proposed plan provides commercial uses and services in proximity to residential neighborhoods,
consistent with this policy.
Policy 1.4.3 The Town reasonably wishes to be satisfied that sufficient demand exists before
authorizing a higher land use intensity than the present zoning permits.
The applicant has generally demonstrated demand exists for the proposed single family residential
uses, although the timeframe for absorption of the supply will more than likely significantly longer than
suggested by the applicant based on discrepancies noted . The market study concludes there is
additional demand for retail and assisted living, although these conclusions cannot be independently
verified by staff.
Policy 1.3.5 The Town shall encourage master planning that looks comprehensively at the subject
properties and all adjacent areas.
Policy 1.4.11 The Town shall establish procedures to ensure the coordinated development of vacan t
areas of 40 acres or more either under multiple or single ownership by requiring the
development of master plans for those areas. These master plans must consider and
seek to minimize the impact of development on all adjoining properties.
The applicant proposes a Special Area Policy requiring master planning of the property through the use
of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zoning application.is to comprehensively plan the property
through the use of master planning at the rezoning stage of development. This PAD will provide a
coordinated and cohesive circulation, utility, infrastructure phasing, land use , landscaping, re creational
areas and architectural standards, consistent with this policy.
Policy 5.4.1 The Town shall maintain a harmonious relationship between urban development and
development of the tran sporlation network.
The proposed moderate overall density provides a compleme ntary r e lationship between the planned
development and the transportation network. Expansion of La Cholla to a four lane parkway supports a
moderate increase in density along this corridor, but not at the density proposed by the applicant.
Policy 7.2.3 The Town shall allow and encourage master planned communities that offer high-quality
neighborhoods with a variety of residentia l densities and appropriately located
co mmercial uses to serve the community. In these developments, ensure there are
adequate transitions and buffers between uses.
The proposed amendment to ma ste r planned community would establish a variety of residential
densities along with support commercial and non-residential uses , consistent with this poli cy.
P olicy 8.1.2 Th e Town shall identify and work to acquire a La Cholla corridor park site.
Th e current General Plan includes an open space designated property north of the northwest co rner of
La Cholla and La mb ert. The applicant has retained thi s parcel as a private recreational area to serve
OV1114-002 and OV1114-003 La Cholla and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Page 12 of 14
the planned neighborhoods. The Town has analyzed this parce l and concluded that is too small to
accommodate community level park facilities.
Policy 6. 1.2 Th e Town shall continue to require that all new developments be evaluated to
determine impacts on all public facilities within the Town , including but not limited to
schools and roads. Such impacts shall be used as criterion in deciding the approval or
denial of land use rezoning proposals.
As previously stated, the school district has provided a letter indicating that with the applicant's
commitment to complete a donation agreement, the school district anticipates that they will be able to
serve the expected enrollment generated from the project.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Summary of Public Notice
Th e following public notice has been provided:
• Notification of all property owners within 1,000 feet
• Notification to additional interested parties who signed in at neighborhood meetings
• Homeowners Association mailing
• Advertisement in The Daily Territorial and Arizona Daily Star newspapers
• Post on property
• Post at Town Hall and on Town websi te
• Outside review agencies
The applicant conducted three neighborhood meetings and an open house on the proposals as follows:
• April 15, 2014, with approximately 75 interested parties attending the meeting.
• August 13, 20 14, with 65 in terested parties attending the meeting
• An open house was held September 10,2014 with approximately 90 interested parties
attending the meeting.
• October 20th with approximately 40 interested parties attending the meeting.
A number of issues were discussed at each meeting, summarized as follow in g:
• Concern over proposed apartments
• Access to schools
• The proposed uses are not appropriate adjacent to the high school
• Impact to water resources
• Impact to the environment
• Impact to habitat
• Accommodation for pedestrian I bicycle traffic
• Concerns over pub li c safety
• Lighting and noise impact
• In creased drainage in the area
• Capacity of schools to handle the additional students
• Impact to taxes to address additional school impact
• Traffic impact
• Negative impact to property values
OV1114-002 and OV1114-003 La ChoUa and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
• Lack of market demand for additional residential
• La ck of market demand for additional commercial
• Increased air pollution
Page 13 of 14
The summary notes from all neighborhood meetings and the open house are atta c hed as Attachment
8. Letters, emails and/or comment cards from area residents have been submitted and are attached as
Attachment 9. As a result of neighborhood input following the October 7 th Commission meeting, the
proposed amendment has been modified by the applicant as follows :
• Elimination of Apartments from the Master Planned Community and replacement w ith
townhouses / condominiums wi th a density not to exceed 12 homes per acre
• Narrowing the range of allowed uses in the High Density area to townhouses /co ndominiums ,
medium density and senior care
• Elimination of the southern flexible zone, replacing it with medium density residential
• Provision for a maximum 778 dwelling unit cap on the project.
• Exte nsion of the one-story home restriction along the southern border
• Amended Special Area Poli cies to address previously raised staff issues
• Amended general plan amendment criteria and submittal of a draft market demand study
SUMMARY
The proposed amendment has been evaluated using the general plan amendment criteria and applicable
General Plan goals and policies as well as neighborhood and outside agency input. Following is a
summary of the factors for and against the proposal:
Factors For :
1. The General Plan policies support the location of higher density / inten s ity along or near major
arterial streets.
2. The amendment will provide for the efficient use of the planned infrastructure expansion of La
Cholla Boulevard. A moderate increase in density and intensity of deve lopment will provide an
appropriate relationship with the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard.
3. The overall residential density proposed by the applicant is generally compatible with the moderate
density to the east along La Cholla.
4. The Low Density area, open space and one-story residential building height restri ct ion wi ll pro vide
compatibility with the lower density area to the south and east
5. The proposed development provides nearby commercial services and employment to area
residents.
6. The applicant has addressed the primary co ncerns of the neighborhood .
7. The proposals are consistent w ith the General Plan re v iew criteria
8. The proposal are cons istent with the V ison , Goals and Policie s of the General Plan.
Factors Against:
1. Compatibility concerns have been rai sed by the re sidents to the east and south of the property.
2. Ma rket viability of commercial and senior ca re use s has not been c learly demonstrated by the
applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
OVll14-002 and OVll14-003 La ChoUa and Naranja
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Based on the findings that the request is supported by the Factors For list above, it is
recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the following action:
Recommend approvat to the Town Council of the requested Major General Plan
Amendment under OV1114-002 and OV1114-003.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Agenda Item 2A
Page 14 of 14
I move to recommend approval of the Major General Plan Amendment requested under case
OV1114-002, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 6, deletion of the
Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 3,
based on the findings contained in the staff report.
OR
I move to recommend denial of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case OV
1114-002, based on the finding that _______________ _
Agenda Item 2B
I move to recommend approval of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case
OV1114-003, specifically the land use map as shown on Attachment 6, deletion of the
Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special Area Policies shown on Attachment 3,
based on the findings co ntained in the staff report.
OR
I move to recommend denial of the Major General Plan Amendments requested under case O V
1114-003, based on the finding that ________________ _
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Concept Plan
3. Proposed Special Area Policies
4A. Applicant Market Study and Response s to Criteria
4B . Applicant Housing Demand Study
5. Current General Land Use Plan
6. Proposed General Plan Land Use Plan
7. Environmentall y Sensitive Lands Planning Map
8. Ne ig hborh ood Meeting Summary Notes
9. Letters I Em ai ls Received
10. Amphitheater School Distri ct Letter
October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 6
MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AMENDED AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION
October 7, 2014
IRONWOOD RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL - CAFETERIA
2475 W. NARANJA DRIVE
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cox called the October 7, 2014 session of the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Session to order at 6:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Don Cox, Chairman
John Buette, Vice-Chairman
Greg Hitt, Commissioner
Bill Leedy, Commissioner
Frank Pitts, Commissioner
Bill Rodman, Commissioner
EXCUSED: Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Hornat, Council Member and Council Liaison
Lou Waters, Vice - Mayor
Paul Keesler, DIS Director
Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pledge of Allegiance was not said, due to no flag being present.
CALL TO AUDIENCE
There were no speaker requests.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
Council Member Hornat updated the Commission on the following items:
Miller Ranch, decrease lot width was denied by Town Council
October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 6
Olson Property Rezoning was approved by Town Council 7-0 with some changes
Stone Canyon Clubhouse was approved by Town Council
REGULAR AGENDA
1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 REGULAR
SESSION MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Buette and seconded by
Commissioner Rodman to approve the September 2, 2014 Regular Session meeting
minutes.
MOTION carried, 5-0. with Bill Leedy, Commissioner abstained.
*2. PUBLIC HEARING: SHANNON ROAD SOUTH OF IRONWOOD RIDGE HIGH
SCHOOL MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RURAL LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCE AREA TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.4-1.2 HOMES/ACRE)
AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) FOR A 77
ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHANNON ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER (1/4) MILE SOUTH OF NARANJA DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS DELETION OF THE SIGNIFICANT
RESOUCE AREA DESIGNAITON AND INCLUDE THE PROPERTY IN THE
URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY, OV1114-001 (ITEM HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA PER APPLICANTS REQUEST)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
SOUTHWEST AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
NORTHWEST
A. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE), LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.4 TO
1.2 HOMES/ACRE), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE),
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC, OPEN
SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE,
PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE, SENIOR LIVING USES CASAS
CHURCH EXPANSION AND OPEN SPACE FOR 202 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD, BETWEEN NARANJA DRIVE
AND LAMBERT LANE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DELETE THE
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL
ARE A POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY,
OV1114-002
October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 6
B. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA
TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 8 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD
AND NARANJA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DELETE THE
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL
AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY,
OV1114-003
Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following:
- Applicant's Request
- Public Participation/Outreach
- Location
- Current & Proposed General Plan
- Concept Plan
- Development Potential
- Special Area Policies
- Significant Resource Area
- Environmentally Sensitive Lands
- General Plan Evaluation Criteria
- Conditions in community have changed?
- Socio-economic betterment/community and environmental compatibility?
- Reflects market demand?
- Will Not adversely impact community without mitigation?
- Neighborhood Meetings
- Summary/Conclusion
Paul Oland, of WLB representing the applicant, presented the following:
- Aesthetics - level of quality that would be required
- La Canada Drive (from Lambert to Naranja) - Land Uses along corridor
- Plan Policies
- Effects of the RMA
- General Plan Criteria
Chair Cox opened the public hearing
Adrianne Caldwell, Oro Valley resident, stated she was opposed to the proposed
application and questioned where is the hard evidence that there is a demand or will be
a demand in the near future for apartments.
Bill Boull, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern for 5 additional plans for high
density sites in Oro Valley and stated his opposition to high density housing.
October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 6
Don Burdick, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern with zone number 621 referred
to in the applicants market data and questioned what information or data was
provided for Council to support an increase in growth. In the current General
Plan, covered is twice of people that are supposed to more into Oro Valley, there is no
need for an increase for housing whether it be low or high density.
Betty Danker, Oro Valley resident, expressed her concerns with the following:
commercial being built in the area, the dark sky will be impacted, access off of La Cholla
with Divot Drive being the only access and making left hand turns. Ms. Danker went on
to ask the Commission to consider an access lane.
Roslyn Nemke, Oro Valley resident, stated she is an advocate for the Citizen Advocate
for Oro Valley's General Plan and went on to ask the Commission to not recommend
the amendments and leave the General Plan as is. Amendments should be based on
significant change and there seems to be more concern with owners, developers and
future residents than there is for the current residents who are adversely impacted.
John Lay, Oro Valley resident, stated he is opposed to high density and is open to
change in plans, just not high density. Maybe graduate to two acre lot and he doesn't
care much for the apartment idea.
Tom Myatt, Oro Valley, resident, stated he is opposed to the significant resource
area deletion. The current designation is consistent with the existing development to
the south of the property and should remain as is. A lower density area to the south
should be considered and the existing walking paths in Oro Valley are being used as
recreational purposes and don't believe they are being used to access commercial. Mr.
Myatt doesn't believe there is a support for any additional commercial development on
this property.
Joe Bailes, Oro Valley resident, stated he is pro-business and pro- development and he
does not like high density. When the apartment get older and in order to be competitive
the rent will be lowered. The Commission needs to take responsibility and turn this
around and not let it happen.
Don Bristow, Oro Valley resident, stated that everything in Oro Valley is in a
convenient distance of residential areas. Mr. Bristow went on to question, is there
really a demand for commercial/professional offices? The applicant has not
submitted any facts that support the need for additional multi-family homes in Oro
Valley. Mr. Bristow commented that he did some research and the Town has not
documented to support the claim that the Vantana Medical Center requires high end
housing units for their employees.
Karen Stratman, Oro Valley resident, commented that Ironwood Ridge High School is in
the middle of the proposed development. Students and educators travel along La
Cholla which is already overcrowded. Ms. Stratman agrees with keeping the area
October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 6
residential and low/medium density and allowing th e environmental sensitive lands
ordinance to guide development will result in people coming to this area.
Gary Meyers, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern with traffic, water and
drainage. Mr. Meyers also commented that he didn't like the format of the
neighborhood meeting held on September 10th. Attendees of the meeting were not
able to hear all the questions/answers. He opposes the proposed amendments and is
proud of the members of this community for standing up for the character of Oro Valley.
Rick Harris, Oro Valley resident, commented that the proposal is going to make this
community look like any other community. The Planning Department cannot prove that
it is required to change the General Plan. Mr. Harris choose to live in Oro Valley
because of the schools. The developer needs to go back and look at this proposal.
Connie Inboden, Oro Valley resident, commented that her idea of well planned
community is to have separate residential, commercial and open space as a
buffer. The owners of the property have a right to make a profit on their investment, but
would make a tidy profit for single family homes. Ms. Inboden is asking the Commission
not to approve the proposed amendment.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented on community acceptance. Mr. Adler went
on to comment about targeting specific uses and neighbors having the right to know
what a commercial piece of property will provide. Apartments are not desirable and do
not provide any architectural or visible appearance that is desirable.
Eric Kleil, non-Oro Valley resident, stated to compare La Cholla to La Canada is unfair
because what is already there is completely different. In the proposal the buffer to the
west should be larger and what is already here needs to be factored in. People need to
live in apartments, but apartments make no sense on this property.
Chair Cox closed public hearing.
4. REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INITIATION OF A
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY SIGN
ALLOWANCES FOR BUSINESSES IN AREAS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Bayer Vella, Planning Division Manager, presented the following:
- Construction along Oracle Road
- Banner/Signs
- Brought forth by the Community
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, commented that Rancho Vistoso HOA should provide
some guidance to staff. Care should be taken to avoid creating a safety problem. A
decision needs to be made on which business need a sign. All business don't need or
want a sign. Travelers need to be able to read the sign.
October 7, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 6
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rodman and seconded by
Commissioner Leedy approve to initiate a Zoning Code Amendment to Section 28.6 B
(Temporary Signs in a Commercial/Industrial Zoning District) to provide a special sign
type for businesses in road construction areas.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)
Bayer Vella, Planning Division Manager, presented the following:
- 10/21 Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
- 11/03 Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
- Upcoming Neighborhood Meetings
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rodman and seconded by
Commissioner Hitt to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:21
PM.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
MINUTES
ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL SESSION
November 20, 2014
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Cox called the November 20, 2014 session of the Oro Valley Planning and
Zoning Commission Special Session to order at 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Don Cox, Chairman
John Buette, Vice-Chairman
Greg Hitt, Commissioner
Bill Rodman, Commissioner
Bill Leedy, Commissioner
Frank Pitts, Commissioner
Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner
ALSO PRESENT:
Joe Hornat, Council Member and Council Liaison
Lou Waters, Vice - Mayor
Mary Snider, Council Member
Greg Caton, Town Manager
Bayer Vella, Interim Planning Manager
Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney
Paul Keesler, Director/Town Engineer - Development & Infrastructure Services
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Cox led the Planning and Zoning Commission members and audience in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
CALL TO AUDIENCE -
There were no speaker requests.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
Council Member Hornat had no updates to present this evening.
SPECIAL SESSION
1. REVIEW AND/OR APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 7, 2014 REGULAR
SESSION AND OCTOBER 21, 2014 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Leedy and seconded by Commissioner
Rodman to approve the October 7, 2014 Regular Session and October 21, 2014
Special Session meeting minutes.
MOTION carried, 6-0. with Tom Drazazgowski, Commissioner abstained.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
SOUTHWEST AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE
NORTHWEST
A. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RURAL LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (0-0.3 HOMES/ACRE), LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.4 TO
1.2 HOMES/ACRE), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE),
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC, OPEN
SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA TO MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL OFFICE, SENIOR CARE USES, AND PARK FOR 186 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD, BETWEEN
NARANJA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE. THE APPLICANT ALSO
PROPOSES TO DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA
DESIGNATION AND ADOPT SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY, OV1114-002
B. MAJOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (2.1-5.0 HOMES/ACRE) AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA
TO MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND/OR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 8
ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LA CHOLLA
BOULEVARD AND NARANJA DRIVE. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO
DELETE THE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREA DESIGNATION AND ADOPT
SPECIAL AREA POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY, OV1114-003
Chad Daines, Principal Planner, presented the following:
- Request
- Current & Proposed General Plan
- Concept Plan
- Special Area Policies
- Significant Resource Area
- Environmentally Sensitive Lands
- Amendment Evaluation
- General Plan Vision
- Notable Genera Plan Policies
- General Plan Evaluation Criteria
- Conditions in community have changed?
- Socio-economic betterment/community and environmental compatibility
- Reflects market demand
- Will not impact community without mitigation?
- Neighborhood Meetings
- Changes in request since October 7th
- Amendment Evaluation
- Summary/Conclusion
- Recommendation
Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the applicant, introduced the following:
Greg Wexler representing the Kai Family
Mike Naifeh of Valbridge Property Advisors.
Dean Munkachy of Suite 6 Architecture and Planning
Greg Wexler, representing the Kai Family, presented a brief history of the property.
Paul Oland, WLB Group, representing the applicant, presented the following
- Conditions have changed since General Plan was last adopted
- The proposed change
- Market Demand
- The subsequent rezoning process
- Land Use
- Low Density Residential
- Medium Density Residential
- Neighborhood Commercial/Office on Naranja
- NC/O Expansion on Lambert
- Open Space Recreation Area
- Open Space
- General Plan Policy Conformance
- Viewshed Analysis from west
- Viewshed Analysis from south
- Special Area Policies
Mike Naifeh, Valbridge Property Advisors, representing the applicant, presented the
following:
- Market Study
- Income
- Single Family Demand Analysis
- 2013-2023 Household Growth Projection
- Conclusions
- Multifamily Residual Demand
- Senior Housing
- New Worth by Household Age
- Retail Surplus/Leakage Analysis Summary
- Conclusions
Dean Munkachy, Suite 6 Architecture and Planning, representing the applicant,
presented the following:
- Location Map
- Scale of overall development
- Project Goals
- Boundaries
- Washes
- Connections
- Roadways
- Uses
- Linkages - non-automotive
- Open space
- Pathways
- Concept Study north east corner Commercial Land patterns
- Concept Study south east corner Commercial Land patterns
- Paseo character
- Entry character
- Intersection character
- Attached residential character
- Commercial character
Chairman Cox opened the public hearing.
Roslyn Nemke, Oro Valley resident, asked the Commission to deny the amendments
and to leave the General Plan as is. Ms. Nemke voiced her concern with commercial in
the area along with safety issues for students. Assisted living and senior care facilities
might be needed in Oro Valley, but these uses would exacerbate traffic
problems. Townhomes and commercial in the middle of a single family residential area
does not seem like sound planning. After speaking to a number of residents, the
consensus was that no one is willing to walk to shopping and traveling by car will be
more difficult.
Richard Tracy, Oro Valley resident, voiced his concerns with traffic, population and
safety. Mr. Tracy still remains undecided until he becomes better informed.
Donald Bristow, Oro Valley resident, commented that the Town's economic strategies
specify that the Town shall continue to attract new high end retail and service
businesses, especially those in underrepresented categories in order to help
reduce expenditure leakage. The Commission needs to take a closer look at the zoning
requirements and the way this land is addressed in the General Plan.
Bill Ball, Oro Valley resident, echoes what Roslyn Nemke has to say about the
proposed commercial. The applicant's documents on pages 59-60 refers to strip
commercial. Mr. Ball indicated that he is not against commercial, but he is against
veering from the Town's plan as approved by the voters.
Tom Danker, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concern with the egress and ingress
from La Cholla into Canada Hills at Catalina Drive. He was concerned with being
blocked from making a southbound turn onto La Cholla. Mr. Danker would like to be a
part of a task force that looks at the egress and ingress from La Cholla. Another
concern of Mr. Danker is whether La Cholla can handle all the projected traffic.
Betty Danker, Oro Valley resident, voiced her concern with making a left hand turn onto
La Cholla from her street. Ms. Danker is asking the Town to look at a possibility of an
access road.
Gary Meyers, Oro Valley resident, commented that the request does not address the
concerns of the neighbors. He was concerned with the level of density proposed. The
Town seems more responsive to the developer than with its current residents.
Larry Hudson, Oro Valley resident, questioned how La Cholla would be realigned and
whether it would require an elevated roadway over the wash. Mr. Hudson expressed his
concern with the medium density housing and how close homes will be built to the wash
area. He asked the Commission to vote no.
Joe Snapp, Oro Valley resident, commented that he feels like the silent majority of the
Town that don't get involved. What is being proposed makes sense and revenue is
needed to drive the growth of a town and improve the roads. People need to drill down
to the specifics and this is what the people need to focus on. Mr. Snapp commented
that he is favor of the proposed amendments.
Darin Hoffmann, Oro Valley resident and representing the Casas Church Leadership,
commented that he is favor of the proposed amendments to the General Plan. It
creates options that will allow Casas Church utilize their property in the future. This
proposal has produced a good compromise that creates opportunity for taxable revenue
and space for new people to join our beautiful city.
Bruce McDaniel, Oro Valley resident, expressed his concerns with the traffic studies
and drainage.
Karen Stratman, Oro Valley resident, stated there are still a number of problems with
this proposal that have not been addressed. In the past, there have been a lot of
promises made by developers to create the perfect vision, only to fall through on those
promises. Ms. Stratman sees no need for senior care on this property and there is no
market demand for it. There is no community acceptance of the
amendments. Increased commercial at Naranja and La Cholla needs more study.
Jeff Grobstein, Oro Valley resident, stated that the owners have owned the property for
a long time. He is excited about a more diverse master plan that will bring a great vision
to a great property within a great community. The planning that is proposed will raise
everyone's property values. The positive economic impact coupled with the smart
planning and growth and layered with the rigid constraints of the policies fully supports a
change to the General Plan.
Bill Adler, Oro Valley resident, stated that he is not opposed to the development, but he
expects good development and he expects developments to comply with the rules. Mr.
Adler expressed his concern with the failure of the neighborhood meeting process and
with the failure to achieve community acceptance.
Dave Perry, Oro Valley resident, stated that the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of
Commerce's is in support of the proposal. The character around La Cholla is going to
change because the RTA will build a four lane divided desert parkway. It makes sense
to concentrate impacts along La Cholla with some higher density housing, office and
commercial uses clustered at major intersections and near the roadway. There is
greater community concern at play, Oro Valley needs wise growth which includes
neighborhood, commercial, retail and office uses along busy roadways. These general
plan amendments represent a reasonable and intelligent, considerate, forward thinking
way to develop Oro Valley's dwindling supply of land.
Ron Bliss, Oro Valley resident, stated his opposition to the proposal because it doesn't
meet the legal standards required of a major amendment to the General Plan. In order
for this amendment to be adopted, it has to meet the four criteria. The only things we
have heard today is that the demand is not here but it’s coming, and a bigger roadway
is planned which justifies a bigger population.
Trace Paulette, Oro Valley resident, stated that the requested plan is very reasonable
and should be approved. Development like this is important to Oro Valley's future
economic welfare.
Chairman Cox closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Buette and seconded by
Commissioner Leedy to Recommend Approval of the Major General Plan Amendments
requested under case OV1114-002, specifically the land use map as shown on
Attachment 6, deletion of the Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special
Area Policies shown on Attachment 3, conditioned upon the expansion of the Casas
Church continuing as an allowed use, based on the findings contained in the staff
report.
MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Pitts opposed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Leedy and seconded by Commissioner
Drazazgowski to Recommend Approval of the Major General Plan Amendments
requested under case OV1114-003, specifically the land use map as shown on
Attachment 6, deletion of the Significant Resource Area and adoption of the Special
Area Policies shown on Attachment 3, based on the findings contained in the staff
report.
MOTION carried, 6-1 with Commissioner Pitts opposed.
PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)
Bayer Vella, Interim Planning Division Manager, indicated that the Planning Update will
be postponed until next week.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Commissioner Pitts requested the following be added to a future agenda:
- Neighborhood meeting procedures
- Advertising in the Explorer vs. Daily Territorial
- New homes built in Oro Valley require roof top solar
- New construction tax (this item was withdrawn)
Commissioner Drazazgowski requested the following be added to a future agenda:
- Presentation on low density vs. high density in regard to transportation infrastructure
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rodman and seconded by
Commissioner Drazazgowski to adjourn the Special Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting at 9:16 PM.
MOTION carried, 7-0.
Attachment 12 – Neighborhood Meeting Summary Notes
Kai 311/ Lin-La Cholla Major General Plan Amendments
Neighborhood Meeting
April 15, 2014
Approximately 75 neighbors were in attendance, including Council Member Joe Hornat and
Planning and Zoning Commission Members Bill Leedy, Bill Rodman and John Buetee.
Planning Manager David Williams facilitated the event that included a brief presentation by
Town staff discussing the General Plan Amendment process, followed by a presentation by the
Applicant. A question and answer session followed the Applicants presentation, which is
outlined below.
Transportation/Traffic
1. A question was asked concerning La Canada as the “designated truck route” for Oro
Valley
a. Why was La Cholla being considered for a similar level of service?
2. A comment was made concerning southbound traffic on La Cholla, and that future
development was only go to make it go from bad to worse.
3. A question was asked about the timing of development in relation to the future
expansion project on La Cholla.
4. A comment was made emphasizing commercial should be located at arterial
intersections.
5. A question was asked about any future plans to expand Lambert Lane.
6. A comment was made about concerns moving traffic from east to west.
7. A question was asked about the anticipated size of the La Cholla right-of-way. Where
would the land come from?
Land Use
8. A comment was made that commercial along the La Cholla street frontage was a bad
idea.
9. The applicant asked what the residents would like to see on the vacant property. Several
suggestions were:
a. School expansion
b. Linear Park
c. Senior Living
d. Condominiums
10. Numerous comments were made that “Core Area”, as proposed by the applicant, was
too vague. What does it mean? What is it going to be? ( 3 total)
11. A comment was made concerning nearby neighborhood commercial, followed by a
question of how much neighborhood commercial do we need?
12. A question was asked about the anticipated population and proposed density in the
area.
13. A question was asked about the developer’s motivation for the new proposal.
14. A question was asked specifically about plans for the north proposed core area.
15. A comment was made indicating the project known as Kai Naranja was already
approved and construction traffic would be increasing very soon.
16. A comment was made concerning existing vacant commercial properties. Do we really
need to be adding commercial when so many sit vacant?
17. A comment was made about proposed commercial at the intersection of Glover Rd and
La Cholla Blvd. being a bad idea.
18. A comment was made against future apartments in the area.
19. A comment was made about the opportunity for the Town to establish a linear park or
community garden.
20. A question was asked whether any viability studies had been conducted to determine
what type of commercial was needed.
21. A question was asked whether there was any desire for the Town to promote affordable
housing.
Neighborhood Impacts
22. A comment was made about light pollution concerns.
23. A question was asked about future plans for a screen wall to be included during the La
Cholla expansion.
24. A comment was made about the current level of construction, and the impact additional
construction would have on the area.
Schools
25. A question was asked about neighborhood school capacity and whether or not the
additional development could be accommodated.
26. A comment was made concerning school traffic and that adding higher density
development would overwhelm the system.
General Plan
27. Several comments were made in support of the current General Plan designations. (3
total)
28. A question was asked about the relationship between General Plan Amendments and
the General Plan Update process.
29. A comment was made indicating preference for the property to remain Low Density.
Following the end of the question and answer period, Planning Manager David Williams closed
the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance.
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
La Cholla & Naranja Southwest and Northwest
Major General Plan Amendments
August 13, 2014
6:00 – 7:30 PM
Casas Church, 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd.
1. Introductions and Welcome
Meeting Facilitator Bayer Vella introduced the Oro Valley staff Paul Keesler, DIS Director and
Chad Daines, Principal Planner. Approximately 65 residents and interested parties attended the
meeting, including Vice Mayor Waters and Council Members Snider, Zinkin, and Hornat. Also in
attendance were several Planning and Zoning Commission members.
2. Staff Presentation
Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included:
• Area development activity
• Existing General Plan land use designations
• Applicant’s request
• Development potential of property under existing and proposed land use
designations
• Review process
• Public Participation Opportunities
• Review tools
Bayer Vella outlined the issues raised at the previous neighborhood meeting issues, which
included:
• Lack of definition in land uses
• Increased traffic on La Cholla and Naranja
• Impact of commercial on La Cholla
• Lack of demand for more commercial
• Concern over proposed apartments
• Opportunity for linear park
• Area should remain low density
Mr. Vella then asked the audience for any additional issues which should be added to the list.
Audience members offered the following additional issues:
• Accommodation for pedestrian / bicycle traffic
• Access to schools
• The proposed uses are not appropriate adjacent to the high school
• Impact to water resources
• Impact to the environment
• Impact to habitat
• Concerns over public safety
• Lighting and noise impact
• Increased drainage in the area
• Capacity of schools to handle the additional students
• Impact to taxes to address additional school impact
• Traffic impact to Shannon and Lambert
• Negative impact to property values
• Lack of market demand for additional residential
• Lack of market demand for additional commercial
• Increased air pollution
3. Applicant Presentation Paul Oland from the planning firm WLB addressed the following
issues from the April 15th neighborhood meeting and the issues raised at tonight’s
neighborhood meeting.
• Overview of project, including location and existing and proposed General Plan land
use designations
• Open space buffers
• One story restriction along the western border
• Traffic impact on La Cholla
Paul Keesler, DIS Director and Town Engineer provided an overview on planned improvements
to La Cholla Boulevard, Naranja Drive and Lambert Lane.
4. Public Questions & Comments
Following is a summary of additional comments made at the neighborhood meeting:
• Need for additional open space
• Building heights
• No need for additional apartments
• Open space blocks commercial visibility
• Concern over deletion of the Significant Resource Area
• Impact on quality of education
• Oro Valley revenues received from development
• Need to maintain rural character
• Request to have Water Resources Director at next neighborhood meeting
Mr. Oland addressed some of the questions related to land use flexibility, variety in
residential land use designations, justification for commercial designations, financial
contributions to the school district, possibility for a linear park system and traffic impact.
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
La Cholla & Naranja Southwest and Northwest
Major General Plan Amendments
September 10, 2014
6:00 – 7:30 PM
Ironwood Ridge High School – Library Lecture Hall
5. Introductions and Welcome
Approximately 90 residents and interested parties attended the meeting, including Vice Mayor
Waters and Council Members Snider, Zinkin, and Hornat. Two Planning and Zoning
Commissioners were also in attendance.
Meeting Facilitator Bayer Vella welcomed the residents. Mr. Vella explained the purpose of the
neighborhood meeting and outlined several objectives which were intended to be accomplished.
The previous neighborhood meetings were very productive in hearing resident concerns.
Tonight’s format was designed to allow for Town staff to cover the “givens” with the review of
any development application; specifically traffic, drainage, water and schools. The applicant will
then present their revised plan and respond to issues raised at the earlier meetings. The
meeting will then transition into an open house format where residents can visit stations
covering water, traffic and drainage, general plan and public participation and applicant. The
goal is to allow for residents to be able to ask focused questions and receive detailed answers.
Each station has a note pad for residents to write specific comments, which will be reflected in
the summary notes for the meeting.
6. Staff Presentation
Chad Daines, Principal Planner, provided a presentation that included:
• Current designations and allowed density/intensity
• Context Area including existing density/intensity
• Proposed Master Planned Community
• Traffic Overview
• Drainage Overview
• Water Overview
• Review tools including amendment review criteria
7. Applicant Presentation James Kai, Applicant, provided an overview of his family’s
involvement as a property owner in the area over the years. Mr. Kai provided comments
relative to the role of the Kai family in bringing sewer into this area in conjunction with the
construction of Ironwood Ridge High School and Wilson Elementary and his family’s
commitment to responsible growth within the community.
Paul Oland from the planning firm WLB provided an overview of the revised development
plan including changing the western boundary to low density, reduction of the northern
parcel to eliminate the flex zone north of Naranja, reduction in the allowed flexibility in the
core and flex areas, and provision for recreation areas on La Cholla and the main wash
corridor along Cross Road. Mr. Oland addressed the following summary issues from the
earlier neighborhood meetings:
• Lack of defined land uses
• Maintain rural / low density
• Traffic / Drainage
• No commercial / Apartments
• Need for parks, open space and trails
• Water Availability
• Environmental impact
• Noise, light and air pollution
• Visual impacts
• Public safety impacts
• School impacts
• Lack of market demand
8. Open House Stations were staffed for Water, Traffic and Drainage, General Plan and
Public Participation and Applicant. The following comments were recorded at each station:
Land Use Comments
• Leave the land from Glover to Naranja along La Cholla designated as rec area and
open space. No building at all, except the already designated corner on Naranja
and La Cholla.
• Keep flex land in the center of the property off Lambert. Senior Living and
apartments will be an eyesore if allowed on Lambert.
• Apartments and 2 stories will destroy views.
• No Senior Living.
• No apartments – No pride of ownership.
• Keep all apartments and townhomes to 2 stories only to maintain views.
• No apartments – the residents are not vested in the community.
• Enough commercial is available one mile to the north, east and south.
• No commercial at La Cholla and Naranja.
• No apartments.
• No commercial at La Cholla and Naranja.
• 100 yard buffer on west side is inadequate (ditto).
• Too many people for unit of land as a result of apartments. We are not Scottsdale.
Apartments encourage transiency. Let’s keep our beautiful desert as open as
possible.
• We have enough apartments in Oro Valley.
• Transitions among designations are erratic with core and flex areas.
• No apartments. Renters do not have a vested interest in property and they don’t
take as good care of it as someone who owns it.
• Transition from La Canada to Shannon is not consistent.
• One row of one story homes is not enough to not destroy views.
• Apartments destroy the view and feel of Sonoran Desert as stated in the Oro Valley
vision.
• Oro Valley will become like the Foothills area which people moved to Oro Valley to
get away from.
• Better definition of flex and core areas in Master Planned language – not made up.
• Objection to increasing commercial. Use property at La Cholla and Naranja.
• Who determines what kind of business is permitted on the commercial property?
What is the criteria? A carwash? A Circle K? 24 hour liquor store?
• Object to commercial at Naranja. One mile in three directions has commercial on
the current General Plan.
• Safe means to me: No commercial, knowing my voter approved General Plan is
going to be.
• No apartments – they don’t have a vested interest in the community.
• No apartments.
• Area removed from application – Glover to Naranja – please leave it a park or rec
area.
• Lighting issue southeast to homes.
• Commercial property value to homes.
• No apartments.
• No retirement.
Environment
• Not consistent with Oro Valley Sonoran Desert protection.
• How are the plans addressing the SRA and ESL Ordinance.
• Not enough open space.
• Oro Valley is a beautiful area and developing this plan will destroy the desert area.
Traffic
• Naranja access – Par Drive – No left turn?
• La Cholla access – Divot Drive – No left turn?
• Additional traffic lights between Lambert to Naranja.
• Traffic on Shannon needs to be addressed. Shannon and Lambert traffic issues are
already horrible at Ironwood Ridge High School start and stop hours.
• Par Drive needs street sign at entry from Naranja.
Water
• Just because we have water available doesn’t mean we have to use it up.
General Plan Criteria and Process
• No one showed what major changes (other than widening La Cholla) have occurred
to make it necessary to amend the General Plan.
• Wait for General Plan revisions.
Other
• The residents should know if it would be positive. Did anyone from the Town or
WLB ask about how we feel? Not that we remembered.
• The format tonight seemed too chaotic.
• Not a neighborhood meeting. Next time allow group questions and answers.
• Current owners bought residences because of current zoning – why should they be
subject to the financial interest of developers?
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
La Cholla & Naranja Southwest and Northwest
Major General Plan Amendments
October 20, 2014
6:00 – 7:30 PM
Casas Church, 10801 N. La Cholla Blvd.
9. Introductions and Welcome
Meeting Facilitator Bayer Vella welcomed the audience. Approximately 40 residents and
interested parties attended the meeting, including Vice Mayor Waters and Council Members
Snider, Zinkin, and Hornat.
Mr. Vella discussed the opportunity tonight to identify areas where the application could be
improved. The format tonight would be to hear from the applicant and then focus on areas of
agreement and areas where the application could be improved.
10. Applicant Presentation Paul Oland from the planning firm WLB outlined the main areas
he understood were an issue from previous neighborhood meetings. Mr. Oland indicated
that the applicant has listened and presented the following changes to the application.
• Elimination of apartments from the Master Planned Community
• Open space buffers
• One story restriction extended along the southern boundary
• Replacement of the multiple uses in MPA-2 with medium density
• Focusing uses in the center HDR parcel to allow townhouses or condominiums,
senior care or medium density residential
• Allowing medium density residential development in NC/O areas
11. Public Questions & Comments
Mr. Vella asked for input and comments from the audience. Comments were placed under four
headings on the wall: “Got it Right” “Improve”, “Protest” and “To Do”. The comments provided
by category were as follows:
Got it Right
Removal of Apartments
Improve
Change commercial at Lambert Lane and La Cholla from commercial to medium density
residential
Low Density Residential area should provide 66% open space
Cap density in MDR areas at 2.5 homes per acre
No drive-thru’s or fast food in commercial areas
Address cut-through traffic into neighborhoods to the east
Cap density to no greater than the density to the east
The western boundary should include a berm, wall or elevation change as a buffer
Carmel Point should be used as a model for the townhouse area
Protest
Too much senior care already in the Town
Concern over conversion of townhouse to rentals
Keep current General Plan designations
Commercial not viable
To Do
School Impact
Drainage
Traffic
Address General Plan Amendment criteria
Mr. Oland addressed some of the questions related to the amended land use plan, planned
townhouse development, commercial uses and school district impact. Mr. Vella and Mr. Daines
answered questions relative to the Town process, existing general plan designations, cut-
through traffic and the upcoming Commission hearing.
September 4, 2014
Mr. Chad Daines
Principal Planner
Town of Oro Valley
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
Dear Chad,
We are writing in response to the Town of Oro Valley's request for comment on the proposed
development near La Cholla and Naranja Dr. We own a property that we purchased for our part-
time enjoyment and future retirement in the Chaparral Heights subdivision near the intersection of
La Cholla and Lambert Lane. The proposed development directly impacts our subdivision.
We are very much against the proposed development including apartment and commercial
development in the areas broaching La Cholla and Lambert. Frankly, we are becoming concerned
about the direction we see Oro Valley taking. Oro Valley was and is still known to be a more
upscale area in the region surrounding Tucson. We are aware of the large number of new
apartment homes recently constructed off of Oracle Road and the additional commercial
development in that area. We are also aware that existing commercial is not fully occupied and
has struggled so the call for more commercial development is frankly mind boggling. In addition,
the construction of more apartment homes is beginning to make Oro Valley appear to be no
different that any other location in Tucson and the resulting traffic impacts to existing residents
have been ignored in the development equation. The traffic and the continued development of
lower income (yes ... we are aware they are supposed to be lUxury apartments but they appear no
different than any other apartment) cheapen the reputation of the community and potentially
negatively impact all property values. It brings to the town an entirely different resident that also
contrasts with the family environment many new and younger residents seek . Will Oro Valley
continue to be a desirable place to locate?
In regards to the LambertlLa Cholla development there is no way to convince existing residents
that you are not devaluing their properties. Firstly, to put apartments and commercial next to
homes that are considered upscale and cost residents from over $500,000 to in excess of
$800 ,000 in some cases immediately devalues the rural nature of the subdivisions they bought
into and their own personal property value. Many of these folks are people that work hard or have
worked hard to purchase this kind of property. Apparently they don't matter to the Town or Oro
Valley and this is a slap in the face to them . Secondly, the traffic situation and impacts have not
been at all thought through or addressed. There is absolutely nothing about traffic mitigation in
what have been residential areas in the plan as proposed . Third, there is a blatant ignoring of what
many thought was a protected desert riparian area. The proposed development completely
disregards the existing residential character of the neighborhood . We are aware that other
residents are upset and will probably be submitting more formal documentation as to the potential
overbuilding of properties generally in Oro Valley (m an y homes are sti ll for sa le and property
valu es hav en't even come close for many properties to the earlier peak prices) and th e lack of
need for thi s proposed development over th e for eseeab le future .
When we purchased our home we were aware of the ex isting zon ing called for med ium density
reside ntial and a small zo ne for commercial on the northeast side of La Cholla . The proposed
development goes far beyond what our initial concep t of development in IIlis area would be and is
extre mely disappointing . Tile question we have is what kind of a town does Oro Vall ey want to
be? If th e direction is to 1001< lik e any other part of Tucson along Oracle Road or to attempt drive
city tax reve nu e at th e expense of th e character of th e Town, th en perllap s we Ilave made an er ror
in wanting to be more permanent residents at some point in th e near futur e.
Rr1i :;:;£r
Kathleen McCarty and Dale Merrill
10350 N. Wild Creek Dr.
Oro Valley, AZ 85742
Daines. Chad
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Curt Adams <
Sunday, August 10, 2014 4:40 PM
Daines, Chad ; Spaeth, Michael; Vicens ,Wiliiam
Neighborhood Meeting for La Cholla and Naranja Drive
Chad Daines cdaines@orovalleyaz.gov
Michael Spaeth mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov
William Vicens wvicens @orovalleyaz .gov
Neighborhood Meeting for La Cholla and Naranja Drive Northwest Major General Plan Amendment 19 acre
property on the west side of La Cho lla Boulevard between Glover Road and Naranja Drive OVI 1 14-003
We will not be able to attend the neighborhood meeting on August 13 concerning the proposed changes to the
master plan for La Cholla Boulevard between Naranja Drive and glover Road. We did attend the previous
meeting.
At the earlier meeting justifications and reasons for the proposed changes were not given other than this is the
last strip of land in Oro Valley that can be developed commercially. I assume the reasons are: a higher sa le price
to the land owners if the land is zoned commercial; more jobs and income to the planning company; and
eventually sa le s tax revenue to Oro Valley.
But, Oro Valley already has numerous undeveloped or only partially developed commercial properties , some of
them very close to La Cho lla and Naranja. There are at the present time several unoccupied commercial
buildings, buildings for lease or for rent. And most of our shopping areas have ample room for expansion. Why
do we want more undeveloped or partially developed commercial comers and mini strip malls? Why do we
want more empty buildings?
The letter accompanying the meeting announcement gave possible land use as open space, neighborhood
commercial/office, single family residential , multifamily residential, professional/medical offices, and senior
living. Commercial zoning is a very broad category that may encompass many types of businesses including
drug stores, nail salons, restaurants, or car care centers. During the previous meeting it was stated that
convenient stories, fast food establishments , and filling stations were also possible uses. Do we really want
these, on a narrow strip ofland between two schools, surrounded by medium density neighborhoods?
We don't want these and we oppose these changes to the master plan. The parcel of land is presently zoned
residential. The location between two schools shou ld make it desirable for fami ly home sites.
1
Daines. Chad
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Paul ,
Chuck Sweet <
Friday , August 08 , 2014 11 :04 AM
gpoland@wlbgroup .com
Daines , Chad; Spaeth , Michael
Lambert and La Cholla Proposed Rezoning
First of all Thank You and the TOV staff for holding the Public Meeting on this proposed rezoning on Wednesday evening
August 6, 2014 at the Casas Adobes Church. It was very helpful to get more detailed information with respect to what
the land owner and future developer would like to do with the property.
My wife and I live in the Rancho Feliz subdiv ision east of this project and will obviously be affected by its eventual
de ve lopment. Although our property does not border the subject property we would like to provide our input on the
following subjects :
Lambert Lane and La Cholla Improvements:
We understand that the land owner is going to be required to do a traffic impact ana lys is as part of their rezoning
application. With that said, we have lived in the Rancho Feliz subdivision since 1993 and travel the Lambert Lane and La
Cholla streets on a daily basis. Our concerns are proper site distance at intersections, installation of left & right turn
lanes for residents turning into and out of this new subdivision. Without these kinds of road improvements on Lambert
Lane and La Cholla as part of this development, the unsafe condition that exists today on these two roadways w ill only
become worse . We understand there are future road improvements planned for both La Cholla and Lambert Lane by
the RTA and TOV , however we have lived here long enough to experience what government says they PLAN to do, and
what actually get done in a timely manner.
Drainage :
We are concerned about how the drainage will be addressed during and after construction so there is no impact to the
existing home owners to the east and south of the proposed project.
Conceptual Site Plan:
We question the need for the project to place the eight homes proposed near Lamb ert Lane. The elimination of these
eight homes from the project would still give the developer a little over one hous e per acre, which reflects exact ly the
density of the Rancho Feliz subdiv isi on.
Thank you for taking these comments into consideration as the project moves forward in the rezoning process .
Chuc k & Wendy Sweet
10332 N. Pla cita Lujoso
Oro Valley , Arizona 85737
1
Daines. Chad
From:
Sent:
To:
Bev Van Horn <
Fr iday, September 12 , 2014 3:57 PM
Daines , Chad
Subject: La Cholla & Naranja Dr .
Dear Mr. Daines,
I have lived on La Tanya Dr. 14 years and go to La Cholla via of Glover where the school light is
located.
I have watched La Cholla get busier and busier since Ironwood Ridge High School was built and of
course Wilson is also there.
Now we have two housing developments near Tangerine, Meritage and Marakay which will make
that road even more busy.
And you are wanting to add more developments near Naranja and La Cholla.
I didn 't think I would be able to turn left yesterday at Glover because there is no left turn arrow and
school was out. I don 't know how many light changes
we had to wait on before I fmally got to turn .
When will La Cholla be widened there?
I rather like the desert myself.
Thanks for listening.
Bev
Bev Van Horn
Chartered Real Estate Consultant
Tierra Antigua Realty
Phone 520-403-5931
Bev @BevSelisTucson.com
www.BevSellsTucson.com
1
TO: Chad Daines, Principal Planner, Development and Infrastructure
Services
FROM: Don Nemke
11068 N. Divot Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
DATE : 8/8/2014
RE: Input to 8/13/14 Neighborhood Meeting Regarding Two Proposed
Developments (near the intersection of la Cholla Blvd . and Naranja)
that Require Changes to the Oro Valley land Use Plan
The following will confirm our 8/6/14 telephone conversation. Since I will not be
able to attend the 8/13/14 Neighborhood Meeting, please submit this into the
meeting records .
OVERVIEW
My general comments covering both proposed developments are:
1)
2)
Maintain the existing land Use Plan with the possible exception of allowing .
increased residential develoRment density.,... .... dll4, ~"ovid ~"G"-Ol~ pc ·/e!,hocl W'imn1tv
base ;lItJ ''''prwe. f(b,hl(r~ ~,.. /Ol¥-V ./eIUrv1, Ilveo 2.c JM1f-rCldL deO'iloptYlcrrt,
Retain maximum integrity, functionality, and safety of the existing major
arterial streets plan (la Cholla) by limiting the number and location of
traffic access points .
Specific comments follow:
LA CHOlLA BLVD AND NARANJA SOUTHWEST OV1114-002
1) land Use
Continue the existing land Use Plan con si sting primarily of residential
development with a small commercial area at the northwest quadrant of la
Cholla and Lambert Lane. Given the areas established residential character, major
school locations and favorable transportation infrastructure, increasing the
allowable residential development density would appear to remain consistent
with the overall Land Use and Major Street Plans.
2) Major Streets Plan
The development should provide an internal streets plan that has the vast
majority of development traffic directed to Naranja or Lambert so that access to
and from La Cholla is via traffic controlled intersections for safety and maximum
efficiency.
Allowing multiple minor street access points to a major arterial street (La Cholla)
undermines the very purpose of a major arterial which is to accommodate large
traffic volumes as quickly and efficiently as possible. Multiple minor access points
also reduce major arterial safety due to excessive amounts of vehicular turning,
decelerating and accelerating activity. It can also increase development costs due
to the need for additional turn lanes and more substantial right-of-way widths.
LA CHOLLA BLVD AND NARANJA NORTHWEST OV 1114-003
1) Land Use
Continue the existing Land Use Plan for residential development but increasing
the allowable density would still be consistent with the established residential
character and street infrastructure.
The much more appropriate area for commercial development in the area is the
intersection of La Cholla and Tangerine (as shown on the existing Land Use Plan).
That area is far better suited for a fuller range of commercial developments due
to its location on the highest traffic volume arteries extending in all directions, a
key consideration/necessity for many types of commercial uses. The larger and
potentially better shaped parcels also increase the efficiency of needed public
infrastructure and potentially provides a much broader range of development
types and scale.
Commercial uses near La Cholla/Naranja conflict with established residential
character and may adversely impact the two major schools in the neighborhood.
2) Major Streets Plan
To the extent possible, development access traffic should be directed via Naranja
or Glover. See above for additional comments regarding minimizing minor street
access to La Cholla.
Commercial traffic in this area will also significantly increase safety risks for the
large volumes of pedestrian traffic consisting of school children attending the two
nearby schools and citizens utilizing the walking/bike paths in the area.
My comments are based primarily on the observations and concerns of an 18-
year local resident. My understanding of the numerous public and private issues
underlying these development proposals is based on hands-on experience from
multiple perspectives including :
a) 20 years as a bank officer which included underwriting all types of
development proposals that were seeking financing.
b) 7 years as an urban planning consultant dealing with land use,
transportation, public infrastructure, etc . types of planning and
enforcement legislation
c) Degrees in construction administration and real estate appraisal and
investment analysis .
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed developments and
amendments to the Land Use Plan .
Don Nemke
Mr. Michael Spaeth
Mr. Matt Michaels
Mr. David Williams
Oro Valley Town Planners
11000 N. La Canada Blvd
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
Gentlemen:
11487 N Ironwood Canyon PL
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
August S, 2014
I am writing to express my strong displeasure with the proposed amendments to the Genera l Plan
for land use on LaCholla Blvd. A lth ough I am oppo sed to any commercial or high density
residential development on La Cho ll a Blvd north of Overton Road , I am especia ll y concerned
that this type of development is being considered for the westside portion between Naranja and
G lover Roads. Any such development is entirely dangerous and unsuitable for an area between
two large public schoo ls. I walk in the early morning a lm ost daily on the multiuse path there,
and I frequently see students walking, biking, or skateboarding their way to schoo l along that
section. In addition it is a popular area for those walking for exercise, with or without dogs, and
wi ll become even more popular as the new homes are occupied. It is an attractive stretch ofland
with lush desert vegetation, one of the few remaining in this town that should not be destroyed.
I have been a resident of Oro Valley for 12 years and regularly patronize the existing businesses
in the town, which are more than adequate for the needs of a growing population. Furthermore
there is an abundant supp ly of vacant space for both offices and small businesses that is a lread y
completed and avai lable to lease . I refer specifically to developments at LaCanada and Lambert,
Tangerine and First, and severa l locations along Oracle Road. Since Oracle Road, La Canada
Blvd, Lambert Lane, Naranja Blvd , and Tangerine Road in Oro Valley and Thornydale Rd in
Marana are already built with commercial property and high density residential ; there is no need
to also develop the residential area alon g LaCholla Blvd in that manner.
I know you are aware that there are three large housing developments cun'ently being built or
approved for building near the La Cholla/Glover intersection that will greatly increase traffic
a long those streets . We don't need commercial developments to nuther increase traffic. I realize
that re s idential development doe s not directly result in sales tax income for the town , but it
celtainly does increase the population that patronizes the existing businesses in the area so will
indirectly increase that revenue.
Those attending the neighborhood meeting in April were unanimous in voicing their disapproval
for thi s type of development. As a board member of the Ironwood Canyon HOA , I know I am
representin g most of the propelty owners in this neighborhood who are in agreement with these
opinions. Although we realized that the vacant land around us would eventually be developed
when we bought our homes here , we did expect that the town planners and council wou ld protect
COMMENT CARD
Name: 0'/1-(>r.i--:;;X/f?Jl/ CJ'!.
Email Addre ss: l'iIr G w t1t1fJRL7
Address : 1 ~ 't ' .v t1 C1T91le
6V .g'>7<;:~
bu g) 7t;f
COMMENT CARD
COMMENT CARD
Comments: R. ':;;-J.-(O if C;
Name: (;it.-A(_2>(!1;JyEfi
Email Address:~iI..A/..c.)(g c(.coM
Address: I~ itt. t.J HttpRc 0 v
-
TO: Chad Daines
FROM: Diane Peters and Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan
DATE: September 16,2014
TOPIC: September 10 th Neighborhood Meeting
We wanted to make you aware of our feelings on the Open House format at Wednesday night's
Neighborhood Meeting.
Positioning town staff, the applicant, and the landowner at various stations around the room is
a terrible format for a variety of reasons which we will outline below. Also, we understand that
the town staff has already been made aware in the past (by Bill Adler) that this format is not
conducive to residents' active participation in the process, which is the whole point of the
Neighborhood Meeting.
The Open House format forces residents to stand in line for a long time in order to ask their
question. I stood in line for over 20 minutes to ask just ONE QUESTION of James Kai. After
that, I wasn't about to spend another 20 minutes standing in yet another line.
Additionally, with this format, the other 70-100 people in attendance don't get to hear the other
residents questions or the answers. Part of the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance is that
citizens are allowed to SHARE their questions and concerns with the other residents in
attendance. The Open House format violates that portion of the ordinance. In the "Purpose"
section of the ordinance, #2 states that there must be an "open dialogue between stakeholders,
applicants, staff ... " While a "dialogue" might just be between two people, an "open dialogue"
refers to the entire audience. The questions and answers must be open to the entire room.
A member of Citizen Advocates told me that she spoke with you (Chad Daines) about her
displeasure with the Open House format. You told her that at the other two Neighborhood
Meetings with the Q&A format, many people were frustrated that they had to wait so long to
ask their question.
How is that worse than residents having to stand in line-after-line for 20 minutes each to get
their questions answered? At 20 minutes per station, it would take a person an hour to get
three questions answered at three separate stations. In my experience waiting to talk with
James Kai, the person in front of me asked about 10 questions. T11is was unfair to me who had
only one question. With the Q&A format, each person is allowed to ask one question at a time.
We believe that the town and Oland deliberately circumvented us by changing the format and
that it was done by design because it's easier for the developer. We all saw how heated the last
two Neighborhood Meetings were and how Paul Oland was worn down towards the end of the
last meeting.
Another member of Citizen Advocates spoke with both Oland and Daines after the meeting and
was told by both that they didn't receive our memo/ questions until late in the afternoon and
therefore they weren't prepared to address them at the meeting. We feel compelled to point out
that in the Q&A format of the previous meetings, Oland did not receive the questions from the
audience in advance yet he was still expected to answer them during the meeting.
In fact in the SOP section of the ordinance, under III. Guidelines, #2 Applicant's Role, it says
that the applicant must "be prepared to respond to questions about how the project meets
specific general plan policies and review criteria." THAT was the exact content of our memo,
yet Oland was allowed to dodge those questions that evening, in yet another violation of the
ordinance.
We understand that the "Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance" was created b y the Planning
Administrator and Bill Adler and that it was approved along with a Standard Operating
Procedure document that describes the approved format and content of these meetings. Why
did the town staff ignore the SOP? Inconvenience for the staff? Inconvenience for the
applicant?
Feedback from some of the members of our citizens group:
Something didn't smell right about that session. Wh oever designed it was brilliant. .. divide
everyone into groups, lon g waits to dis c uss each topic, and w h en you get to the head of the line,
the expert would filibu ster on one topic. [mentioned to Oland and Daines that this meeting
was not going to cut it. We want a separate meeting with them. -Mr. Rick Hines
I didn't lik e the format, the way the y broke up th e groups. Cowardly m ove on th e ir part.
Questio ns and answers sho uld be h ea rd by everyone. -IVfs. Carol Sapo ne
Last rLight's Neighborh ood Meeting was totally one-s id ed, all advantaged to the "sell er " h aving
the floor. It was arranged for the WLB to do a ll the talking as opposed to a n yone in th e
audience being able to confront them on anything. -Mr. Jim Dixon
I was so disappointed in the meeting. This was not a Neighborh ood Mee tin g. I t did n ot mee t
the r eq uirement for neighbors to SHARE th eir co ncerns and questions. It was more of a
presentation and th e n divide and deflate th e audience. It \Nas a waste of tim e . Tinl e in line fo r
o n e question \-vas of ten 20 aunutes or lncre. --Anony nl ous
Last night's meeting was sh·a tegic. Having us ask our questions to various individuals
sta ti oned at variou s locations in th e room was a divide-and-conquer tactic. No on e knows
what's goi n g on because no one can hear the questions and answe rs. -Mr. Cameron Servick
H earing th e qu es tions and ansvvers fro111 other attendees is as important as having your own
qu es tions answered . I also believe th at th e Open Hous e format was d ecided upon when it vvas
learn ed that an orgcuLi ze d g roup had questions and were d e lna nding specific ans\,vers. -Ms.
Ro sly n Ne m ke
Th ere were some n ew r es idents a t the meeting who were h ea rin g th e proposal for th e first time.
We d idn't get a chan ce to hear th eir q u estions and concerns. -Mr. Don Burdick
Staff changed the fo rm a t to e a s e press ur e w hich vio lates th e Neighbo rh ood Ordinan ce . No
e du cati o n. No information s harin g . -Bill A dl e r (adv iso r )
R es id e nts have goo d r eason to be upse t w ith the T o wn. They were comp le te l y blinded-side d b y
s taff. This statio n-format mee ting was the la st public meeting before going to the P & Z, and a
co mple te ly n ew plan was inh'oduced, and th e public wasn't allowed to h ave a n open Q & A
session. To be fair, the r esiden ts s hould be allowe d another Town mee ting regarding the n ew
proposal.
The break-o ut stations format doesn 't a ll ow all th e res idents to equally participate in all Q & A
sessions. A ppare ntly, the a ss umpti o n by s taff is that not all residents are interes ted in th e total
pic ture, jus t certain e le m e nts. W ith this fo rmat, residents leave wi th limite d kno wl e dge. This
fo rmat res ults in a lack of h'ansparenc y fo r the resid e nts and bene fits onl y the applicant. It also
makes it seems that each station is alrea dy fina li zed for pres entation to the P & Z.
The staff spends unlimite d tim e with the applicants, but a l w a ys want to r es tri c t allowable time
fo r the res id ents' m ee tings. -Don Bristow (advisor)
TO: Chad Daines, Bayer Vella
Town of Oro Valley Planning Department
FROM: Roslyn Nemke
RE: La Cholla Commons Amendments
DATE: November 10, 2014
I am a current resident of Oro Valley living at 11068 N. Divot Drive.
I ask you to not recommend the La Cholla- Naranja Boulevard amendments and leave the General Plan
as is.
In 2005 except for an area at the Lambert-La Cholla intersection, the General Plan designated this area
medium density residential. The developers claim that major changes have occurred that justify their
amendments. I disagree.
Amendments should be based on significant change. In the 2005 Oro Valley General Plan, La Cholla
Boulevard was designated as a major arterial. The RTA reconfirmed the designation as a major arterial
in 2006. This proposed amendment should not be based on something that has not been altered. Even
if the widening is considered to be New development, RTA expansion for La Cholla from Lambert to
Tangerine is not scheduled to begin until 2021. Development of La Cholla Commons before and during
the road improvements will be an extra burden to those living nearby.
Oro Valley is a desirable area in which to live, shop, and work, and I’m sure market demand has
increased. But that doesn’t mean that all parts of Oro Valley are equally suited for all purposes. Oracle
and Tangerine Roads are better suited and have the infrastructure in place for apartments or
townhomes, and especially for commercial development. The area under discussion and the nearby
subdivisions (except for the Casas Church) is 100% single family housing. Before building a home in this
area 18 years ago, we looked at the surrounding environment and information available at the town
hall. We expected the area to grow and develop, but grow with additional single family homes. It
seems that there is more concern for the owners, developers, and future residents than there is for
current residents who are adversely impacted.
If townhomes are determined to be appropriate for this area, please add conditions so that the CC&Rs
must be written to allow only a small percent of units be rental units. Owner-occupied units will better
blend with the single family nature of the area. This is important for the same reason that the developer
determined that apartments were not appropriate for this development.
It is optimistic to think that close commercial development will lead to residents walking and therefore
reducing the travel on nearby roads, but what evidence is there to suggest that people will walk carrying
packages…especially in the high temperatures of summer. If commercial needs to be included, offices
or low traffic business are preferable to grocery stores or other commercial that requires large parking
lots and night lighting.
A Senior Living complex that includes assisted living and possibly skilled nursing care may be needed in
Oro Valley as baby boomers age, but the increased traffic at the 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. shift changes
will exacerbate the traffic problem with students going to or leaving the schools that are close to La
Cholla Commons. Other Oro Valley locations do not have this added problem.
It seems that so many changes have been made since the original amendment that perhaps the
developer has not done his due diligence. The changes have not been to accommodate the
wishes/needs of nearby residents. If amendments to the General Plan are necessary, I ask that they be
included in the next scheduled revision of the General Plan which can be voted up or down by Oro
Valley residents.
I would like to thank the members and staff of the Planning and Zoning Committee for your service to
Oro Valley. Keeping in mind the concerns of all interested parties and the community as a whole is a
difficult and demanding position.
Sincerely,
Roslyn Nemke
TO: Chad Daines, Bayer Vella
Town of Oro Valley Planning Department
FROM: Robert and Diane Peters
RE: LaCholla General Plan Amendments
DATE: November 7, 2014
Please include this letter in the P&Z Meeting of November 20th and the Town Council Meeting of
December 10th.
We didn’t just move here because we wanted to live in the Southwest geographically. We also moved
here because we wanted to “visually” live in the Southwest. We chose a property that gave us
mountain views, desert views, a lot of natural desert left in between each home, and an abundance of
wildlife. We also chose a neighborhood with larger lot sizes (2-3 homes per acre) and no mass grading.
When we purchased our home, all of the undeveloped land surrounding us was zoned for rural low
density residential with 3.3 acre sized lots. For example, the parcel at the end of our street (now known
as Rancho del Cobre) was originally planned for only 9 homes. It was later rezoned to medium density
residential and we currently have 68 homes going up and the land was mostly clear-cut. We have
already seen a drastic reduction in the number of coyotes and bobcats that once frequented our
property. We do not wish to see a repeat of this type of development all along LaCholla.
We may not own the land in question, but since the view is factored into the price of every home (it’s
called a “view premium”) all of the people living in this area paid a premium for these views and as such,
we collectively own the view! We paid for it…we should be allowed a huge say in what happens to it.
“The landscape belongs to the person who looks at it.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
A huge issue that came up during our 4-hour long meeting with Paul Oland and James Kai on November
3rd was the town’s preference for clustering homes on one portion of the property in order to leave a lot
of open space on another portion of the property. Oland explained that when the open space is
factored in, the remaining built portion will look like a high density development because the homes will
be clustered on the buildable NET portion of the property.
The Low Density Residential portion will have only 8,000-10,000 square foot lot sizes. From a visual
standpoint, that is not low density by any stretch of the imagination. The Medium Density Residential
portion will have only 6,000-9,000 square foot lot sizes. Neither of these is compatible with the existing
properties on the western and southern portions of the property.
We believe that instead of turning the net acreage of the property into smaller lot sizes in order to
accommodate the number of homes that could have been built if they were building on the entire
property, the LDR and MDR lot sizes should remain the same and they should build less homes on the
net acreage. The formula for clustering homes along the western and southern portion of the property
does not work because VISUALLY, we will end up with high density housing adjacent to estate sized lots.
Although technically, the land will still be considered LDR and MDR, visually, it will be high density.
Visually is what we see. Visually is what counts.
Additionally, and we would say this about any developer, not just Paul Oland, there is something we
would like the town staff and the town council to consider…and we suspect that they do not. Mr.
Oland’s fiduciary responsibility is to his boss (The WLB Group) and to the landowner (The Kai Family.) It
is not to the town of Oro Valley nor to the residents who live in the area of the proposed development.
If this project is approved, his boss is happy, he gets to keep his job and maybe he also gets a nice bonus.
If he makes the property owner happy, that landowner will hire the WLB Group again when they have
another parcel to develop.
Oland is a salesman first (as is any developer) and as such, much of their sales pitch and spin, while
claiming to be beneficial to the town, is in reality, beneficial to them and the landowner.
During questions and answers, answers that are vague should not be allowed by Town staff. Your
responsibility is to insist upon clarity. We don’t always feel that you do that. When the applicant
dodges a question by stating that that will be discussed during the rezoning phase, it needs to be
pointed out to them that the rezoning criteria is different from a Major GPA criteria and requires only 4
votes on council. This is a MAJOR request that will greatly impact the residents in this area. Specifics
must be given, clarity must be expected.
The lands along LaCholla are the last pieces of undisturbed natural desert in Oro Valley. We have an
opportunity to make it something special. Let’s not turn it into another homogenized neighborhood. As
we previously stated in our position paper on opposition to apartments, submitted by Citizen Advocates
of the Oro Valley General Plan, the town owes the homeowners in this area some allegiance to what we
bought and what we have.
We realize that adjacent neighbors will take one perspective and the developer will have another. But
residents views (both figuratively and literally) are as valid and legitimate as any other.
It comes down to a simple question. Why should the desires of one land owner supersede the desires of
hundreds of property owners whose homes surround the property in question?
Respectfully submitted,
Robert and Diane Peters
11553 N Kelly Rae Place
Our Conditions
~ Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan ~
Although our citizens group is advocating for the current voter-approved General Plan designations, we
are aware that many proposals are passed with conditional approval. Therefore, we have prepared the
following list of conditions for the staff to consider.
General Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria, Section 22.2.D.3, Adoption of Amendment
“The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community
acceptance.”
In order to achieve community acceptance, if these Major GPA’s are approved, we strongly
recommend that the following conditions be met:
RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONS
Population growth must be limited to meet the capacity of our schools and roads.
No high density residential. There is already an area near the NE corner of LaCholla/Lambert that is
hard-zoned for apartments.
One story single-family detached residential only.
Minimum lot size must exceed 15,000 square feet and no mass grading of those lots. General Plan
11.2.17
Minimum one-acre lots next to any existing housing on the west side of the property (not including the
open space requirements, roads, buffer yards, and other setbacks).
To shield glare and other visual impacts, a guaranteed 200-foot undisturbed buffer next to current
housing on the west side.
Scenic Corridor View Protection/General Plan 11.3.2. A 75-foot undisturbed buffer (beyond where the
RTA widening project ends) to minimize view disruption for residents living on the east side of LaCholla.
We paid a premium for desert views and an asphalt road does not provide a natural buffer. Also, the
addition of an earthen berm 6-8 feet high where necessary with desert trees and shrubs to shield any
other visual impacts. Trees must be given a deep watering on a weekly basis.
New residential uses to be adjacent to existing residential uses.
If townhouses are approved, condos similar to those at Carmel Point with 2-attached single
story units with garages is preferable. No mass grading and minimum 50 feet of natural desert
open space between each building/unit and no connecting walls.
Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan Page 1 of 3
If 2-story townhomes are approved, maximum of two-attached townhomes and maximum
height limited to 24 feet. Minimum 25 feet natural desert open space between each townhouse
and no connecting walls.
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AT LACHOLLA AND NARANJA (Southwest)
The views, privacy, and peacefulness that we cherish must be protected. We believe that the proposed
uses are inconsistent with the adjacent uses.
Neighborhood Commercial/Office on the NW corner of LaCholla/Lambert only as is currently designated
in the General Plan.
No supermarkets as this requires a large area of mass grading, a large asphalt parking lot, and high-
intensity lighting.
No convenience stores, no alcohol or tobacco sales, no drug stores, gas stations, fast food, or drive-thru.
All businesses close by 10 PM. A small restaurant (similar to Harvest), or bakery is acceptable. Offices
for doctors, dentists, or physical therapy are acceptable.
Small commercial building footprints, similar in size to those on the SW corner of
LaCanada/Naranja.
No multi-family residential.
Medium Density Residential, one-story single-family detached homes only on lots exceeding
15,000 square feet with no mass grading. General Plan 11.2.7
No senior care facilities since the demand, viability, and community acceptance has not been
established. The Town Staff report of October 7th is in agreement with us. It states, “The applicant has
also not supplied any data supporting the senior care facility use. There are a number of senior care
facilities currently under construction and/or in the planning process and the applicant has not
demonstrated that a market exists for additional acreage designated for senior care uses.”
Minimal lighting and no 24-hour lighting to protect our Dark Skies.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE AT LACHOLLA AND NARANJA (Northwest)
We strongly believe that this amendment request should be withdrawn or rejected for the following
reasons:
There is a complete service center a mile away at LaCanada/Lambert with a grocery store, two gas
stations, hardware store, restaurants, hair salons, etc. Additionally, the NE corner of LaCholla/Lambert
is already zoned for commercial and Mercado Manderina at the NE corner of Tangerine and LaCholla has
already been approved for development of 2 drive thru restaurants, 1 drive thru pharmacy, 90,000
square feet of Senior Living, and additional commercial and office space. This area is saturated and
there is no correlation in the General Plan amendment criteria that supports the need for more
commercial at this time.
Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan Page 2 of 3
Should the Town Council approve this request despite our objections, our conditions are as follows:
No supermarkets as this requires a large area of mass grading, a large asphalt parking lot, and high-
intensity lighting which will all combine to create a major intrusion on the views of the residential area
directly across the street on the east side of LaCholla. General Plan 2.1.4.
No convenience stores, no alcohol or tobacco sales, no drug stores, gas stations, fast food, or drive-thru.
All businesses close by 10 PM.
Small commercial building footprints, similar in size to those on the SW corner of LaCanada/Naranja.
Commercial buildings limited to a maximum height of 24 feet.
MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS
Building of residential and/or commercial should not begin until after LaCholla road widening is
completed between Overton and Tangerine.
An off-street bike path (similar to Lambert and Tangerine) with a connection to the other bike paths.
Having it off the street is critical to safety, especially where we have a major roadway planned in the
near future.
Great care must be taken to protect our Sonoran Desert views and our scenic drive into and out of town.
General Plan 11.3
The Town of Oro Valley designates LaCholla Blvd. as a “scenic corridor.” View protection must be an
essential part of this development. General Plan 11.3.1
Details must be provided of buffer widths and type of screening to be used. No small nursery
trees that take years to replace the shade and wildlife habitat that will be lost due to grading.
No compromise on Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert and Diane Peters, Chair
Jerry & Patricia Donegan Frank and Carol Sapone
Don Burdick Karen Stratman
Bill Gross Jim Dixon
Bill & Cindy Senn Jeff and Karen Carlson
Cameron Servick Rick and Janna Hines
Mitch & Erin Entrican Jim and Pat Krueger
Gary Meyers Connie Inboden
Steve & Lois Roth Betty Danker
Roslyn Nemke Steve Kraft
Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan Page 3 of 3
Hello Bayer and Chad,
Our group met for four hours with Paul Oland and James Kai yesterday to discuss
conditions. One thing that came up that we were not aware of was that when we asked for
minimum lot sizes of greater than 15,000 square feet (so there would be no mass grading)
and minimum lot sizes of one acre on the western portion of the property, Paul told us that
this couldn't be done because the town prefers clustering of homes (which I believe is in the
General Plan).
He said that in order to leave a lot of natural open space in other areas, the homes must be
clustered together on smaller sized lots. He said the lot sizes would end up being 6,000-
9,000 square feet even though the designation is MDR or LDR.
Is this correct? A medium or low density residential area can actually end up with lot sizes
that small?
I knew that clustering was planned for the parcel at the SE corner of LaCholla and Lambert
which is not part of this proposal and that it was being done due to the topography of the
land with all the rolling hills. I wasn't aware that the topography was the same on these
WLB proposals, so I'm not clear on why clustering is the preferred method for development
here.
The residents of this area would prefer that the natural desert landscape be protected
through the use of larger lot sizes rather than through the use of clustering all the homes in
one area which involves mass grading of that area with homes built on postage stamp sized
lots. Large lots is the plan for Saguaro Viejos at LaCholla and Glover. Why is this not the
plan for the parcels between Naranja and Lambert?
Can you please advise?
Thank you.
Diane Peters
Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rick Hines [
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:51 AM
To: Gustav Paul Oland
Cc: Dean T Gehr; Ron Bliss; Bill
Adler; James M. Kai LEED AP ( ; Diane Peters
(
Subject: Re: La Cholla and Lambert Application
Hi Paul, sorry it's taken so long to get back and thanks for returning my and Dean's emails.
A separate meeting isn't necessary. I (we) will be at the Nov 3rd meeting and we can discuss the issues
below then. I know you're busy. We are part of the Diane Peters group and support the communities
concerns. Note that most on my distribution live on or at Lambert. Obviously, they will prioritize issues
somewhat differently. There are issues that are important to them.
As an example, the land designated as MD right on Lambert that you have mentioned below. This is a
show stopper for us. It doesn't fit. We all know that once open space is factored in, this will look like a
high density development. Doesn't fit.
Another concern, and this is universal, you have areas in the development, most internal to the site, that
are flex or wildcat or....... but they are categorized HD and not defined. There needs more definition.
This area is where I suggested high end town-homes. And conditions to ensure that is what go there. A
CarmelPoint at Canada Hills is what I envisioned. Spacious and well planned. At least we, the community
would know what the developer has proposed. As I've mentioned in other emails to the community.
Under your current plan, a developer could put in a motor home park now. We don't know.
I know you are planning to resubmit your application shortly. These changes can be made by WLB now,
in their plan. I also realize that these issues can be addressed with conditions on the property. Why
wait.
However, if this application is approved, I believe it is our obligation to get the best, highest quality
development we can. Get top notch commercial, if that is in the plan. And guarantees. I'm hoping that
this is what we all want. This is a large area. If the development is something that the community desires
to live next to, an area the town can be proud of and something the developers can point to as an
example of what they can do to enhance communities and their value, we all win.
Personally, I'm hoping as many of us come together so we can support a development, assuming that
WLB supports the required burden stipulated by the GP.
By the way, I had a difficult time with the pics you enclosed.
These are just my thoughts. See you next week. Best regards, Rick
Sent from my iPad
From:
To: bvella@orovalleyaz.gov
CC:
Subject: La Cholla and Lambert Application
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:43:13 +0000
Dear Bayer,
After the last neighborhood meeting, I thought I would pass on my thoughts to the town staff. Although
I don't believe the "required" clause of the GPA can be met by WSL (widening a road from 2 to 4 lanes is
hardly a reason and certainly does not substantiate a requirement to change and build 600-1000 more
homes on top of the 300 plus already planned); however, I'm assuming that this development will
precede forward because there is a lot of $$ at stake for the town and developer. Thus the need, not the
"required" obligation.
In any case, I'm concerned with the process as are most of my neighbors. I'm referencing neighborhood
meetings in particular and the process afterwards. They are near pointless. Many questions and
concerns are discussed with no answers and no development change. I'm assuming that the P&Z
meeting will proceed per the current WSL proposal. All the questions, the concerns of the community,
etc., mentioned at the last meeting remain in place. No change, no answers to the community concerns.
I'm sure the Planning Response will mention some of them, maybe recommend some.
Bayer, I know this is not a Planning Department undertaking, yet as a resident of this town, I'm lost in
this process. A logical person would think that the neighborhood meetings would or could be used as a
mitigation tool. Maybe a means to get the community and developer together via separate smaller
meetings. I think that's the intent, I just don't think it happens. Maybe a representative group of locals
and the developer to resolve any open issues prior to the P&Z.
Instead, WSL is trying to mitigate the issues by making a big "concession" and leaving all else basically
unchanged. That's their shtick. To be frank, since the very start of the first neighborhood meeting
forward, Mr Oland knew that apartments did not belong here, knew OV was building a massive amount
on Oracle and the local community would not accept them. He knew that. But as a chip to show how
compassionate the builder is, he tossed them out. That was always the plan to get the remainder of the
application accepted. I believe that. He's now made "concessions". The act he put on the other night on
how disappointed he was that the community didn't embrace him was pure theater.
In any case, I don't think that's going to work. I'm sure the P&Z will get an earful on Nov 3. Mostly, from
angry homeowners. It didn't have to be that way. It may not be to current protocol, but it would be nice
to have some of the local community in support of the application. As it is, I don't think there will be
any. Many will stand firm on the lack of WSL to support their "required" obligation.
With that said,
Here are the primary issues I and my immediate neighbors took out of this last neighbor meeting should
this development proceed (this is not the Peter's group, but the people in the Chaparral Heights area).
1) The Roads, drainage, environmental and water issues will be resolved. These are
engineering issues and can be addressed adequately.
2) However, with over 300 more homes currently planned for the NW and this
development adding 2x-3x more residential housing, a plan by the Amphi School
district needs to submitted that addresses the increased population. We cannot
ruin the great schools we have here by overcrowding and lack of planning. Putting
a bond issue on the ballot is not an option. Not one more home should be built
anywhere in the NW until this is addressed.
3) No senior living. These are merely more apartment like dwellings. OV has plenty
of senior living.
4) Townhomes only if luxuary, spacious single story with no more than 2 adjacent.
5) Consistency with existing homes in the surrounding areas. That means the plots
adjacent to Lambert Lane should be revised to Low density, single story to be
consistent with the other properties along the south of lambert. This was a
question asked during the Neighborhood meeting and I later discussed with Mr
Oland and WSL management. They listened and shook their heads. I don't know
what that means.
6) The buffer areas and setbacks should be addressed to minimize impact to views.
Maybe added grading.
7) A condition that ensures quality commercial development will go in at the La
Cholla corners.
If these were addressed, I know I for one would be in support. I truly believe that we
could convince others that this is the best development for this area. As mentioned, I
agree with many in attendance that WSL cannot come close to supporting their
"required" obligation, but it would be nice if several in the community would be in
support of the "need" for change. I don't think any will now.
My best to you,
Rick Hines
____________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Bayer Vella, Chad Daines, Paul Oland
FROM: Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan
DATE: October 20, 2014
RE: Thoughts on Townhouses ~ Neighborhood Meeting
Please include the attached document in tonight's Neighborhood Meeting.
During a phone conversation I had with Mr. Oland last week, he informed me that they were
thinking of revising the proposal from apartments to townhouses and he asked me if the
residents in this area would be agreeable to that change. I surveyed the members of our
citizens group over the weekend.
Attached are the responses I received from the group.
Additionally, two members stated that they would only agree to townhomes if there were a
75 foot natural desert buffer shielding the view of the townhomes from the other residents
in the area. They would also want not more than 2-3 connected townhomes in each section
(rather than 6-10 townhomes in a row) and they would want a lot of natural open space in
between each section of townhouses.
The thinking in this regard was that if there are 6-10 connected townhomes in a row, this
would still have the appearance of an apartment building with a large footprint.
Respectfully,
Diane Peters, Chairperson
Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan
Why we oppose Townhouses / Condos
~Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan~
(1) Paul Oland stated that, “there is as much demand for townhomes as there is for apartments.”
However, at a Neighborhood Meeting a few months ago when he was pitching Saguaro Viejos (one-
story single family residential at LaCholla and Glover) he stated that there was a demand for single
family residential as evidenced by the fact that “Rancho de Plata and Rancho del Cobre are selling out
faster than expected.”
What we’ve seen is that when they want to build SFR, we’re told that SFR is in demand. When they
want to build apartments, we’re told that apartments are in demand. Now they want to build
townhomes and we’re told that townhomes are in demand. We’re now skeptical of the reasoning
behind the sales pitch.
(2) Per the current U.S. Census, 55 years of age and older is the fastest growing segment in Oro Valley.
Most people in this age group prefer one-story homes. As such, how can 2-story homes meet market
demand?
(3) Multi-connected townhomes are still considered high-density. We have previously stated that we do
not want any high-density housing sandwiched between medium density and rural low density.
(4) During the peak of the last housing demand, apartment complexes were upgraded and marketed as
condos. When the housing market weakened, they were again marketed as rental units. Boulder
Canyon is an example of an Oro Valley complex that went through this cycle. What guarantee do we
have that these townhomes won’t become rental units during the next housing downturn?
(5) The building of a high-density development will strengthen their position that more commercial
development will be needed/wanted later because those residents will want shopping within walking
distance to their homes. We do not want any development along LaCholla that will necessitate more
commercial later. We wish to keep the low to medium density character of our neighborhood.
(6) Mr. Oland often refers to LaCanada as the model for what LaCholla will look like once the road is
widened by the RTA. Using LaCanada as a model, the apartments on LaCanada are surrounded by
medium density and commercial. Conversely, the land nearby the proposed apartments or townhomes
on LaCholla includes low density residential and rural low density residential. Therefore, LaCanada and
LaCholla are not the same.
Again, using LaCanada as the model, Carmel Point has duplex type condos, they’re one-story, gated,
upscale, and have space between the units. Why are they not considering this type of development if
LaCanada is the model?
Why We Oppose Apartments
~ Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan ~
At the October 7th P&Z Hearing, the applicant (Paul Oland) of the WLB Group stated: “There’s a stigma
that surrounds apartments that I’ve never understood.” He asked, “What do apartments do to Oro
Valley that is objectionable?” Below is our response.
Allegiance to current residents: We moved here to be surrounded by the peaceful desert landscape
and to enjoy the wildlife, quiet nights, and dark skies. If we wanted to be surrounded by apartment
buildings and parking lots, that’s what we would have purchased. The land all around us was zoned
for rural low density 3.3 acre lots, meaning that even after it was developed, we would still have our
residential neighborhood with large lots and unobstructed desert views. Our lifestyle and everything
we cherish about this area would not change. It’s a stress reliever just to drive through the desert and
mountain scenery on LaCholla, Naranja or Lambert after a long day of work.
We believe that the land owner, the developer, and the town all owe us some allegiance to what we
have and what we bought. We don’t believe that the desires of one landowner should supersede the
desires of dozens of homeowners whose properties surround the property in question. This is OUR
home and OUR neighborhood after all. We live here. They don’t.
Vested Interest in the Property: Renters do not have a vested interest in the property. In general,
they do not take as good care of it as someone who owns their home. Because of high turn-over,
apartments are in need of constant maintenance and become unsightly more rapidly. Owners of
apartment buildings are notorious for ignoring the required upkeep not only of the interior of the
building, but also the exterior. As the apartment buildings deteriorate, so does the neighborhood and
our property values.
Vested Interest in the Town: Renters also do not have a vested interest in the town. As such, they
don't bother to get involved in town politics and development issues. It’s easier for new developments
to get approval when few people are paying attention and speaking up. We need to attract people who
will be here for the long-term, who will care about the town and cherish their surroundings as we do.
Crime: Crime statistics are generated based on the population of an area. More people means more
crime (and more police needed). Apartment dwellers are transient in nature and therefore less likely to
get involved in neighborhood watch programs or other crime prevention efforts.
Demographics: The applicant said that we didn’t need to worry about crime because these apartments
would be taken by temporary white collar workers from Ventana Medical who don’t wish to purchase a
home since they’ll be employed here only temporarily. Aren't there about 700 apartments being built
along Oracle Road now? We haven’t been told the exact number of Ventana transitional/contract
personnel requiring apartments nor what their specifications are for high-end apartments.
The applicant has offered no proof of the Ventana Medical claim. No letters of interest from VM were
provided in the applicant’s proposal. A Public Records Request with the Town revealed that no letters
requesting apartments were submitted by VM. With nothing in writing from Ventana Medical, what
GUARANTEE do we have that all of these apartments will be taken by their white collar professional
employees?
Additionally, the nature of tenants runs a wider range of age, occupation and education, which is
inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods.
Wrong Location: Ventana Medical is on the other side of town. If these apartments are for them,
shouldn’t they be closer to their workplace? A bike path can be included so they can walk or bicycle to
work. There are already restaurants, shopping, a movie theater, and a playhouse in that area for them
as well. Everything they need or want would be close by.
Saturation: There is an abundance of new apartments on Oracle Road that are in a very convenient
location for all of the short-term Ventana Medical employees and others who choose to rent instead of
own (eg. San Dorado at First and Oracle, Steam Pump Village at Steam Pump Way and Oracle, and El
Corredor at Linda Vista and Oracle.)
Views / Character of Neighborhood: Most apartment buildings are two-story and would impede our
mountain and desert views. Since the view is factored into the price of every home, the residents in this
area paid a premium for those views. Apartments add visual density which is out of character with our
single-family residential neighborhood.
Transitioning: Although the General Plan talks about transitioning from Low Density uses to Higher
Density uses, we do not believe the property has the SPACE to make this an effective transition.
Whether we have a 50 foot or 150 foot natural open space buffer, we will still be living next to high
density housing.
High Density: Apartments are high density housing. Sandwiching high density residential in between
upscale medium density residential and rural and low density residential is not sound planning.
Schools: School boundaries shift based on enrollment numbers. Apartments would increase school
enrollment by a factor much greater than that of single family homes. Taxpayers will have to foot the
bill for new schools.
Some people bought homes in our area specifically so their children could attend Wilson K-8. Their
children could now be forced to enroll in a different Amphi school if Wilson enrollment is maxed out due
to the number of new students from the apartments.
Higher Temps, Air Pollution, Noise, Light Pollution: There would be a large paved area for parking.
Whenever the natural desert landscape is replaced with more buildings and asphalt, the hotter the
temperatures become. More vehicles means more air pollution and more traffic at all hours. There
would be light pollution from the outdoor lights, parking lot lights, and from all the windows. There will
be more roadside trash. There will be more noise in general, especially if the apartment complex
includes a swimming pool/Jacuzzi.
Traffic: Multi-unit apartments will increase traffic many more times than traffic from single family
homes. We’re told by the town that traffic won’t be a problem once LaCholla is widened but the
applicant stated that they plan to begin development BEFORE the widening of LaCholla is complete.
This is a single-family residential neighborhood. Whether we have 20,000 cars per day traveling down a
2-lane road or 20,000 cars per day traveling down a 4-lane road, we would still have 20,000 cars per day
driving through our neighborhood.
Engineers believe that all that matters is that with more lanes, the traffic moves along at a better pace
with less backups and congestion, but that’s not the only issue. We’d still be dealing with more traffic
NOISE, more AIR-POLLUTION, hotter temperatures, more road hazards for wildlife and a more
dangerous situation for all the school children who have to cross LaCholla twice per day.
Traffic figures from 2013 comparing LaCanada to LaCholla reveal that:
Between Lambert and Naranja there are approx. three times the amount of vehicles on LaCanada vs.
LaCholla (21,100 vs. 7,366)
Between Naranja and Tangerine, there are approx. 1.5 times the amount of vehicles on LaCanada vs.
LaCholla (13,194 vs. 8,723).
After LaCholla is widened, assuming approx. half the motorists switch from LaCanada to LaCholla
(heading to Foothills Mall, LaCholla Corporate Center, medical facilities at LaCholla and Orange Grove,
and all points west of LaCholla) we could have an additional 10,000 cars per day in this area of LaCholla
on top of the 7,000-9,000 that we have already. Apartments and commercial development will only add
to those figures.
Considering that General Plan Policy 1.4.7 states that “the town shall ensure that increased densities
approved for high density residential projects are based on reducing the negative impacts on adjacent
lower density residential projects…”
It bears noting that apartments that would have an exit onto Lambert will increase traffic on rural low
density Shannon Road because with the traffic backups on LaCholla every day during the morning rush
hour, it will be easier for students to make three right hand turns to get to IRHS (right turns on Lambert,
Shannon, and Naranja) than to make three left hand turns (left turns on Lambert, LaCholla, and
Naranja). The same would be true for apartments with an exit on the west side of LaCholla.
I'd like to summarize what I feel can gain community acceptance.
In the commercial section restaurants, no take out or drive through, for early morning coffee, light
breakfast, and a restaurant that is fine dinning and some light entertainment. Bank with ATM, dry cleaner,
interior decorator, household accessories, bike sales & repair, Electronics,-computer repairs. Can include
medical offices, professional offices include attorney, real estate., printing stationary, business cards,
invitations.
The residential areas, limit to one acre lots closest to the boundaries of the large lot home owners, no two
stories near the western boundary, If there is a need for smaller lots interior to the property, create a
community of town homes or Loft homes with a unique live - work at home floor plan.
LaCholla is designated in the General Plan as a Scenic Corridor, and should be treated similarly with
greater setbacks from the road and with heavier landscaping.
I believe that if the development supports this arrangement or something close to it the Community
acceptance will come along with it.
Considerable work must be put into the buffer between the west and balanced with the west of the
property to provide distance, and an earthen berm of nearly 8' high with a three foot stone wall on top with
colorful plants and trees might obscure visual impacts a s well as audible and block visual impacts, This is
to separate one life style on larger lots from the life style in the newer section on smaller lots. I think the
combination of large lots adjacent to the western border with larger single story homes on smaller lots will
give each their own opportunity to create a suitable life style privately with in each neighborhood.
Buffering on the property lines must feature a 8' earthen berm with a three foot stone wall on top, and
desert plantings throughout. To create an attractive screen that is easy to look at but also obscures the
glare from headlights, noise from vendor making deliveries, and kids playing in the streets. Its large
enough to screen visual buildings that may be a design very different from the homeowners next
door These are special area policies that I can see being applied to the development ,, and being
accepted by the neighborhood,
If the developer feels that there is a good prospect for assisted living - not independent- that cold be
considered more of the center of the property, Assisted living is where the greater need is. Splendido is
jammed in their department and LaPosada plans four levels of assisted living to handle the market as I
they see it. Assisted Living is a more care intensive service, but the margin is far larger.
Bill
Hi Bayer,
Attached below is a summary of the ideas and thoughts exchanged by the local community
surrounding the LaCholla Commons area (the prior emails regarding the discussion are
attached for reference only). This was sent to me by Karen Stratman today. Karen is heavily
involved with the local neighbors in our area but did not attend the meeting with WLB.
However, I think it is a good place for me to start in addressing the issues discussed with
WLB last Monday afternoon since all of these issues were discussed in detail with WLB. I
have commented on Karen's input in blue reflecting what I believe came out of the
Monday meeting. I'm sure Diane Peter's has more which I'm sure she will submit ASAP.
Hopefully, through WLB's revised application, your recommendations and added
conditions placed on this development, the
Please note that there are a substantial number of residents who still believe that there is
no justification/proof that the GP should be changed. However, I realize that the GP
change issue is very subjective to the reviewer. Some chose not to attend Tuesday
because discussing application change and conditions are not required. In any case,
should this proceed through our Planning Department, P&Z and council, these are
issues and concerns that the community shares and hopefully get mitigated with
hope that you will incorporate into the Planning response and recommendations. I
believe that much of the local community is hoping that what was discussed Tuesday
becomes part of WLB revised application and conditions placed on the property.
I believe that Paul Oland has been down to see you and some of us would also like to stop
by and meet with you and staff to discuss the results of our meeting. If you need to discuss
further, there are several of us who would be available.
Best Regards,
Rick Hines
LaCholla Commons
General Plan Criteria
Karen Stratman
The subject property is located in an area that has seen moderate growth and development
over the last few years following the General Plan Guidelines without exception.
These are the existing conditions for the Western boundary to Oro Valley. Not only is this
the Western boundary for Oro Valley but it is the Amphi School Boundary for Ironwood
High School and the town limits.
• La Cholla is the “Gateway” to 3 Schools. This unique stretch of Roadway is the
carrier for nearly 4000 of the most precious of commodities, the Children of Oro
Valley.
This was discussed in detail with both Paul Oland and James Kai. They fully
understand that the current infrastructure will not accommodate more
enrollment without substantial harm to the quality of these schools. Currently,
Amphi has no plan to build and even if they did, it would take years, land and
roadways. Our schools are one of the jewels of Oro Valley. I don't think we can
sacrifice that just to build more homes. WLB mentioned that they are in
discussions with Amphi and will advise.
• Nearly 4000 Children are brought to LaCholla to enter either Wilson K-8 on Glover
or Ironwood Ridge High School on Naranja. Also discussed and understood in our
meeting. Lambert has not been discussed much, but high schoolers use this
road to avoid traffic on Naranja everyday by going this "back way". It is
congested at the start and end of each day. The back-up on some mornings is
sometimes 30-40 cars deep. Furthermore, this development will add
substantial traffic as a outlet for the internal development. As far as anyone
knows, there is no plan to widen Lambert. WLB acknowledged these issues
and would address. Maybe in LDR housing, no senior care.....to minimize traffic
on this road.
• Additional children attend school at Casas Adobes Church, also entered off La Cholla
with an additional entrance on Lambert Lane. See above.
• Commercial Zoned Land of 27 acres at Tangerine Road and LaCholla on the NE
corner for 2 drive thru restaurants, Senior Living, Drive Thru pharmacy, and
additional Commercial uses. This could be the single most troubling issue for the
community as a whole. Many are opposed to any commercial development as
it is currently out of character for the immediate area. There is neighborhood
commercial retail within a mile in most directions and Tangerine and La
Cholla will also be developed in the future. If developed, there are deep
concerns about what will be built on Lambert and La Cholla and Naranja and
La Cholla. It doesn't seem appropriate on a High School main outlet (Naranja)
to allow certain kinds of retail. WLB mentioned they would look at this and
address our concerns. Diane Peter's conditions address some of the conditions
that might be appropriate.
• Commercial Zoned Land of approximately 8 acres on the NE corner of La Cholla and
Lambert.
• Commercial Designated Land of approximately 11 acres on the NE corner of La
Cholla and Lambert.
• Commercial Designated Land on the SE corner of LaCholla and Tangerine
• Commercial Designated Land on the SW corner of LaCholla and Tangerine
• The remaining area is dedicated to Single Family Detached Residential Homes on 3.3
acre lots. Rural Low Density Single Family Detached Residential.
• Homes on the North side of Naranja are ? Single Family Detached residential
development zoned. ???
The Oro Valley Zoning Code states that “the disposition of the General Plan amendment
proposed shall be based on consistence with the vision, goals and policies of the General
Plan, with special emphasis on the following criteria. The applicant for the amendment has
the burden of presenting facts and other materials to address these criteria.”
1. The propose change is necessary because conditions in the community have
changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification. This
was discussed at lengths with WLB.
There is no documentation or information provided that supports the proposed
increased in market demand beyond that which is supported by the current General
Plan. In fact the current General Plan will accommodate the Pima Association of
Government (PAG) historical trends in housing and land use anticipated to the year
2040
(See Criteria 3. TAZ 621 508 homes) of the WLB amendment.
Regardless of how market demand may be calculated, community acceptance requires
specifics of protection of life style, privacy(2.1.4).
This is a condition to approval now; not later. Details of Land Uses along with details such
as buffer widths and type of screening, for example need to be detailed now.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
No retirement facility or apartments. We believe that WLB understands that this is
currently a poor fit for this area and the town has ample facilities now. WLB will
address in their application.
One acre or larger residential lots (LDR-1) over any residential area. This was heavily
discussed with WLB and they understand that there are several issues associated
with building more densely packed homes
1) population increase in the area and schools.
2) the surrounding areas (west border and along Lambert) would be inconsistent
with surrounding residential. West border are all homes on large lots an
S/Lambert is all larger homes on larger lots, one story only. Anything put along
these borders should be consistent with what is there. WLB understood this and
I believe WLB was receptive to a LD designation with consistent setback along
the these borders (200'-same as currently fixed to the west border).
3) Even with the LDR designation (MDR 6000-8000), WLB reminded all attendees
that, due to "clustering" and the open space requirement, lot sizes in the LDR areas
would be around 10,000 Sq. Ft. The attendees were very surprised. The
conditions discussed by the community was to have all housing be single story and
have
a minimum 15000 Sq Ft net lot. WLB's counter argument was that the Canada
Hills are MDR and therefore, this development should be the same.
WLB was reminded that all other perimeter sides are very Low Density (every
lot was larger than 1000 Sq Ft). That should remain throughout
(remains "consistent" with the area).
No retail uses other than breakfast/luncheon restaurant. (no drive-thru, fast food or
takeout). Exercise facility, bank, medical services. Professional offices limited to real estate,
legal, accounting, insurance, home accessories. Again, commercial which was heavily
discussed and a primary community concern.
New residential uses to be adjacent to existing residential uses. No two story construction
adjacent to La Cholla, Lambert or buffer area. Height limit of 24’ on all development.
The recommendation by the community, to protect views, was to build one story
surrounding the property whenever adjacent to the four main roads. WLB certainly
accepted the limitation on the West side and Lambert but paused on La Cholla and
Naranja. They said they would think about it. It was discussed that if any 2 story
built, limit it to the internal part of the property next to Casas Adobes.
General Plan Vision
To be a well planned community that uses its resources to balance the needs of today
against the potential impacts to future generations. Oro Valley’s lifestyle is defined by the
highest standard of environmental integrity, education, infrastructure, services and public
safety. It is a community of people working together to create the Town’s future with a
government that is responsive to residents and ensures the long-term financial stability of
the town.
Policy 1.2.1 The Town shall encourage the location of residential neighborhoods
close to activity centers compatible with residential uses, and visa versa.
Policy 1.3.6 The Town shall encourage new developments to incorporate
accommodations for non-motorized travel in their design.
Policy 1.4.2
The Town shall continue to ensue that zoning near natural open space, parks,
washes, trails, trailheads, schools, recreation areas, Tortollita Mountain Park,
Catalina State Parks and Pusch Ridge Wilderness provides adequate buffers and
compatible uses.
These ideas were all discussed with WLB. All agreed that this should be the
responsibility of the community, town......and developer.
From: Don and Val Edwards [
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 12:14 PM
To: Hiremath, Satish; Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin,
Mike; Vella, Bayer
Subject: Oro Valley La Cholla & Lambert Residential Densification Initiative
Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley,
I have reviewed the requested changes to the General Plan for the area of La Cholla
Boulevard and Lambert Lane. I have also seen some of the comments for and against
this proposed change.
I am against this change. The impact on this community would be devastating and
irreversible in my opinion. I believe the Oro Valley we know and love would become
something quite different than that envisioned (and enjoyed) by most of the residents.
Thank you for your consideration,
Don Edwards
11060 N Divot Drive
------ Original Message ------
From : Karen Stratman
Subject : PZ Commission Staff report
Bayer Vella,
Criteria for Community Acceptance has not been met for the Proposed Major General Plan
Amendment.
Many of the items discussed by the Citizens of Oro Valley have been left out of the staff report and
application including limiting the uses in Commercial areas to no drive thru, no liquor or tobacco
sales, no grocery and no fast food, height limits over all limited to 24 feet and reducing the Senior
Care to Duplex ( 2 attached maximum)type configurations.
One item that is obviously not Acceptable is in the Staff report.
The staff report trumpets the final application (without apartments) as reducing the proposed
density when the opposite is true. When apartments were on the table the maximum dwelling units
proposed was 753 , now it is 778.
Does this maximum dwelling units include the Senior Care? This use was only addressed by the
citizens to be a duplex type, not 12 units per acre. This was part of the overall conditions that were
found acceptable. Many items have been left out that relate to specifics of the proposed Master
Plan and are key to the project from the Citizens perspective.
Without these conditions there is no Community Acceptance.
Please include my email/letter in packet to staff.
Concerned Oro Valley Citizen
Karen Stratman
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 12:52 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mr. Oland
Well, there is another way to analyze this than the response from Ms. Hynd. The applicant is requesting
Master Planned Community, which "may" include various uses and densities. That is what is determined
at a re zoning. Right now, approval of a General Plan Amendment is based upon consistency with
code criteria. That is it.
What neighbors are offering are conditions in exchange for approval of the General Plan Amendment.
One condition may be consistency with what achieves Community Acceptance, minimal disruption of
surrounding property values, and that condition might be one acre lots adjacent to the western and
southern boundaries. The one acre lots would apply, per this condition, on the space available after
Environmentally Sensitive Land is set aside.
Bill Adler
From: Ann Iselin [
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:01 PM
To: Hiremath, Satish
Subject: LaCholla development
The application should be denied as unsupported. I disagree that the proposed changes
to the application have met our concerns of the neighbors with whom we are in
contact. If this should be agreed upon by the board I will be among the hundreds of
neighbors who have gathered to vote all out of office, even if they are in separate years.
Sincerely,
Ann G. Iselin
From: anil srivastava [
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:32 PM
To: Hiremath, Satish; Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin,
Mike; Vella, Bayer
Subject: Proposed Major Amendment to the 2005 land use plan (approved by voters and Council) on the
land to the northwest of La Cholla and Lambert from between 124 - 319 dwellings to 778 dwellings.
We have reviewed the aeded appicati ad the St aff recedati The
appicati shud be deied as usupprted We dis agree that the prpsed chages
t the appicati have et ur ccers r the c cers f the eighbrs with wh
we are i ctact
Ai &Taua
1915 W Caada His Dr
r Vaey A 85737
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:37 PM
To: Hiremath, Satish; Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin,
Mike; Vella, Bayer
Subject: Rezoning issue
Mr. Mayor and honorable council members,
Although we are unable to attend the meeting on the above subject, please be advised
that rezoning of the La Cholla/Lambert area would adversely affect the environment,
quality of life in Canada Hills, the local schools and infrastructure of the area. Please,
PLEASE do not pass this rezoning. Oro Valley is growing--FAST--too fast--with the
additional high volume building on Oracle and more houses on La Cholla. Do not ruin
the idyllic nature of out beautiful desert areas as well as the peaceful nature of our area
with overcrowding, traffic and noise. Its time to say ENOUGH.
Susan and Rodger Scheuing
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:47 AM
To: Vella, Bayer
Subject: recommendation
We have reviewed the amended application and the Staff recommendation.
The application should be denied as unsupported. We disagree that the
proposed changes to the application have met our concerns or the concerns
of the neighbors with whom we are in contact.
Thank you for you time
Bruce & Brenda Richards
1496 W Carmel Pointe Drive
Oro Valley
Chad Daines, AICP
Principal Planner
Town of Oro Va lley
11000 N. La Canada Dr
Oro Valley , AZ 85737
RONALD L. BLISS
BARBARA E. HOTH
10336 N. Wild Creek Dr.
Oro Valley AZ, 85742
(
November 13 ,2014
Re: Propo sed La Cholla Bl v d . and Naran ja Dr. Major General Plan Amendments
Dear Mr. Daines,
We live on the South side of Lambert in Chaparral Heights Subdivision and are writing in opposition to
th e proposed Gen eral Plan Amendment. In bri ef our reasons are:
1. The existing General Plan is sensib le, we ll considered, and approved by both voters and the
Council. It is intended to be difficult to amend. People rely upon it. Th ere is plainly no adequate
legal basis for this proposed amendment. Nothing prohibits the property owner from
developing the property under the existing General Plan.
2. The proposed amendments ha ve a single purpose, to increas e the va lue ofthe applicant's
landholdings wh ich they openly admit they intend to sell to other developers . Th eir stake is in
th e dollars, not in the neighborhood. The opposition has been overwhelming because the effect
is to diminish the va lue and enjoyment of adjacent properties. This loss of value, and diminished
enjoyment of life in this community would be fundamentally unfair to existing neighbors.
3. The processing of this proposal ha s been see n by many, including us, as manife st ly unfair and
appears clearly to violate the law .
1. The Minimum Requirements for Major Plan Amendment are Missing
The Oro Valley Zon ing Code Revised 22.2 (D)(3)(d) requires the applicant for the amendment to meet
"the burden of pre se nting facts and other materials to support" four specific criteria in w ritin g, "prior to
any public hearings ." Those four are:
a. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to
the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification; and
Chad Daines, AICP
November 13, 2014
Page 2
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.
a. The Proposed Change is Not Necessary.
The applicant advances four arguments. The first is that LaCholla will be widened in the future, and
projected traffic increase will "increase the viability and accessibility of the site, creating demand for a
variety of uses along its route." This argument has no place here, demand is a separate requirement
under the third prong. This prong requires a showing that "conditions in the community have changed
to the extent that the plan requires amendment .. " Projected future growth of traffic does not meet the
requirement that conditions have changed. Nor does it reasonably show the plan requires amendment.
All hypothetical future traffic could easily exist compatibly with the existing General Plan, which already
allows development of the land, just not at the densities most lucrative to the applicant.
The second argument is that Oro Valley is popular, and growing, and the proposed development would
be compatible with the live/work/play community style which is popular today. Nothing about this
argument even superficially supports the applicant's burden of showing that an existing change in the
community requires a major amendment to the General Plan.
The third argument is that an "in-depth market analysis" demonstrates a "changing market." Again,
market demand is a separate burden for the applicant and is not relevant here. Certainly the market
analysis provided, which is undated, unsigned, and of unknown credibility, does nothing to show that an
existing change in the community requires a major amendment to the General Plan. If this property
were developed under the existing General Plan the projected excess housing demand would go to
another site.
The fourth argument is that the new market study indicates the proposed land use is viable. We accept
the applicant must believe that, or it would not be seeking higher density development. Viability does
not prove the proposed amendment is necessary as the code requires. If it did, then every increase in
demand would require a Town to re -subdivide and develop to the maximum possible density. That is
manifestly not what the Code envisions.
c. The Evidence of Market Demand is Dubious and Community Acceptance is Entirely Absent
Chad Daines, AICP
November 13, 2014
Page 3
Whatever may be said about the evidence of market demand, the community acceptance does not
exist. Staff made clear at the final neighborhood meeting that the message of community disapproval
was heard loud and clear and should not be further voiced.
The Code requires the applicant to prove the proposed change reflects market demand, as a foundation
for viability and acceptance. The purpose is to protect the community from the possibility of a
permanently blighted area-built, but worse than useless and a drag on the public. This applicant has
turned that around and argues the change must follow demand. That is clearly not the point of this
requirement.
We do not know if the market demand exists for the proposed radical increase in population density.
The Staff report refers to the proposal as a "moderate increase in density and intensity." To be clear, the
change would be from a range of 124-319 dwelling units to 778 dwelling units. Under the current plan it
would be difficult to reach the 319 number according to Staff. The real change is on the order of three
times the density.
The only market demand evidence was provided for the first time on November 7th, one day before the
Staff issued its report. It is an anonymous, unsigned, unsupported draft report which speaks only to a
projection of future demand . To reach its conclusions it tossed out the most recent market data and
resorted to quoting the notoriously unreliable website Zillow. No prudent person would rely upon such
a document in the ordinary conduct of its affairs. Moreover, it appears disconnected from reality .
Long Realty's November Housing Report for Oro Valley tells a different story. There are 5.9 months of
inventory on the market, unchanged from a year ago. The median price of houses sold in October 2014
was down 11% from a year ago .
d . The Amendment Will Adversely Impact the Community, as a Whole and a Portion of it
The properties bordering the proposed project are broadly opposed because of the clear and probable
negative impacts upon their lives. The efforts to buy community acceptance by withdrawing some of the
controversial aspects of the proposal has not worked. My subdivision is, I think, entitled to be bordered
on the north by low density residential development. It is currently zoned Rural Low Density , but the
General Plan calls for it to become Low Density. Nothing can mitigate the effect of the increase in traffic,
noise, pollution, crime risk and aggravation which comes with the radical increased population density
proposed by the applicant.
The community engaged in a balanced and thoughtful process to achieve acceptance of this General
Plan. People do genuinely rely upon it in making choices of which neighborhood to reside in. Certainly
my family did.
Chad Daines, AICP
November 13, 2014
Page 4
2 . The Proposal is Not Fair to Neighbors, Only to the Applicant
It is no secret that this proposal is wide ly opposed. Each family has its own reasons and particular
concerns. Beyond that, the integrity of the community planning process is ve ry important to uphold and
preserve.
The General Plan states in its Preamble:
The purpose of the Plan is to provide basic direction and guidance to all elected and appointed
officials, employees, and residents of the Town in their decision making process. We intend that
the Plan be followed and consistently applied unless and until conditians in the community
have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
Nothing has changed that would "require" any amendment. The property is subjec t to reasonable
development under the Plan. The Plan is meant to guide officials and residents in their decision making
process. When we bought our property we were entitled, absent a change (which has not occurred). to
believe the property would be developed under the Plan.
The General Plan is grounded in foundational concepts that support this view . Examples include:
A general plan is essentially a community's "blue print" for land use and development; it serves
as the basis for rational decisions regarding a community's long-term development. The
general plan expresses the community's development goals and embodies public policy relative
to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private.
As its name suggests, the general plan pravides guidance for the future, particularly regarding
growth and development.
The generol plan takes immediate concerns into consideration, but focuses primarily on the
future, particularly potential build out scenarios (i.e., the maximum size and population of the
community).
The idea of a General Plan is to look to the future, establish a community identity, and integrate a host
of issu es (environmental, water, economic, etc.) into something people could rely upon. Changing it
piecemeal for the benefit of a narrow interest is supposed to be difficult. If the character of the subject
property is to be changed it should be done in conjunction with the next General Plan update, which w ill
Chad Daine s, AICP
No ve mber 13, 2014
Page 5
account for all of the essential ingredients and be subject to citizen input and voter approval. These
concepts are written into the Plan :
Amendments to the General Plan should never be alia wed to occur in a haphazard manner.
Th e Gene ral Plan specifically acknowledge s the intere sts we urge be protected :
MAINTAINING LOW-DENSITY CHARACTER WHILE PERMITTING DIVERSITY OF DEVELOPMENT
TYPE S
Ora Valley residents value the low-density residential character of the Planning Area to provide
buffer zones and recreation areas and maintain natural topography and connec ted natural open
sp ace. However, Oro Valley's predominant development pattern provides for large areas of
homogeneous housing separated from services and other types of housing.
COMMUNITY IDENTITY
1.2 To maintain Oro Valley's distinct identity consiste nt with community values .
1.2.1 The Tawn shall maintain Ora Valley's predominantly low-density character while
considering needs of financial stability and infrostructure efficiency.
The deve loper cites the preference for master planning, but ignores the r equireme nt to look at ad ja cent
properties :
1.3.5 The Town shall encourage master planning that loo ks comprehensively at the subject
properties and all adjacent areas.
The suggestion that development of La Cholla Blvd . is a major change requiring amendment of the
General Plan seems to be an excus e for what the developer wants, not a v alid rea so n. La Cholla was
identified in the text of the plan when it was ado pted . The proposed expan sio n of La Cholla is a r espo nse
to County planning and is not a reason to override the Tow n plan.
3. The Processing of the Application Has Been Flawed
Indi vidua l s in the neighborhood w ith whom we have spoken , are disappointed in the apparent lack of
eve nh and e dn ess and integrit y in the process . Several things are troubling .
Fir st, but not most important, we did not receive the mandatory notice of thi s process until afte r both of
the required ne ighborhood me etings and the first Planning & Zoning Commi ss ion meetings had been
Chad Daine s, AICP
November 13, 2014
Page 6
concluded. At the supplemental neighborhood m ee t ing, for which we did have notice, Staff st r ong-
armed the attendees to avo id any di scussio n on the merit of the application . Inde e d Mr. Ve lla openly
stated that the application failed to meet the statutory requirements and the subject should not be
discussed until they submitted their amended application. The pressure on attendees to compromise
with the developer made it appear the Staff was tiltin g the process to favor the applicant. Once th e
applicant amended his application on November 7th the Staff approved it in one day, w ithout allowing
the publi c any opportunity to re v iew or comment.
Second, the extra time allowed the applicant to change hi s application had th e sa me flavor. The
extension was supposed to "allow resident s ample time to re v iew the amended application (once
resubmitted)". In reality, the applicant was allowed to delay submission until Frida y November 7 and
the Staff issued its report the follo wing business day . That report was apparently pre-prepared.
Ine x plicably the report re ve rsed Mr. Vella's assessment of October 20 that the application failed to meet
the criteria for approval. No resident was allowed sufficient time to re view any newly submitted
evidence, or to submit a reasoned response for inclu sion in the official packet sent to Commi ss ioners.
Third, the appearance of a bribe ofthe sc hool district has an unsavory flavor. As late as the Octob er 20th
meeting th e school district had stated it could not accommodate the probable increase of enrollment
generated by the proposed increa se in population density . Now, in its No vember 7th amended filing th e
applicant has provided a letter from the school d ist rict w hich re verses that po sit ion and heaps praise on
the "Kai companies". That letter reveals the existence, but not the terms, of a donation agreement . The
terms are plainly concealed, by design of the writer. The public is entitled to know what "donations" this
applicant and its principals are making in an effort to influence the decisions made by government and
its officials.
The impac t of this approach should not be ignored. People think the "fix" is in on this project. Ne ig hbors
talk, and the prevailing belief is that it is useless to oppose this application on it s merits because the
Town wants the projected increased in ta x revenue, the officials enjoy the political donations from the
developers, and the Staff is in league with the applicant.
As often is true th e law is designed to be fair to all concerned . Here, the design of the law is evenhanded
but it was simply not followed in the processing of this application. Specifically:
1. The Oro Valley Zoning Code Re v ised 22.2 (0)(3) requires the applicant to bear the burden of
presenting facts and other materials to support the criteria in writing, prior to any public hearings . The
first public hearing occurred on October 7th and that was after one amendment of the applic atio n. As
Mr. Vella observed at the October 20th supplemental neighborhood meeting, called to allow commen t
on th e first amended application, the ap plicant had not met the burden of suppo rting the application .
The second amended application --in other words, the on ly application now und er co nsiderati o n-was
Chad Daines, AICP
November 13 , 2014
Page 7
submitted November 7th after one P&Z Commission meeting and after all of the neighborhood
meetings. Thi s does not meet the standard of the l aw, and as discussed above does not meet the
sta ndard of fairness. Residents have been denied the process which the law guarantees them.
2. The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 22.2 (D)(2)(b)(iv) addresses the Neighborhood Meeting process.
It requires all property owners within 1000 feet of the applicant property be notified in writing. This did
not occur. We learned of the process through the grapevine in time to attend the October 20th meeting
only. We do not know ho w many other persons entitled to notice failed to receive it. Mr. Daines added
us to the li st at the eleventh hour of this application process.
3. Th e Oro Va lle y Zoning Code Re vised 22 .2 (D)(2)(b)(iv) also provides if there are any substantive
changes to the application after formal submittal , an additional neighborhood meeting w ill be required .
The November 7th amended submitta l is plainly a substantive change of the application .
4. Conclusion
This amended application is fundam en tally flawed. It fails to meet the applicant's burden to make the
strong showing required for a Major Amendment to the General Plan. The property at issue is already
we ll planned and subject to development. If anything ha s changed it is th e very real possibility the entire
region is in the midst of a long term water shortage that is irrevers ible . News headlines report the
problem, peoples we lls are drying up. Broad iss ues like these affect planning . Th ey counsel in favor of
long term planning, not the narrow and flawed process ex hibited here.
If any chan ge were desired by the comm unity that change shou ld be debated and voted on during the
upcoming cycle of General Pla nning. Nothing about the development of LaCholia Blvd or the desirability
of Oro Val le y as a place to live meets the requirements for Plan Amendment. Those of us who have
already invested ourselves in this community deserve some consideration over those who might make
up future demand.
Very truly yours,
~ ~~ "-' rJlfL
Ronald L. Bliss
Barbara E. Hoth
Fr ae darrah >
Subect RE Reig
Date veber 20 2014 at 21217 P ST
T shireath@rvaeyagv
Dear Mayor,
As a resident of OV for 25 years
I am very opposed to the plan for
housing and retail shops along La Cholla.
How can the streets and water support
this growth? OV is developing in a very
unfavorable way…
I would like its beauty and peace to be
protected and maintained….DO not let
$$$ signs dissuade from the truth
and wellbeing of our community.
Please vote NO tonight.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Jane E. Darrah
From: Joseph W. Snapp [
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:07 PM
To: Daines, Chad
Subject: La Cholla & Lambert General Plan
Mr. Daines,
My family and I have lived Oro Valley for the past 4 years, choosing to
locate their from our home in Tucson foothills after 8 years. My wife is a
Tucson native and both of us are very active in our community. I have a
child that attends Casas School and we often use La Cholla and Lambert Rd
on a daily basis. We have reviewed the General Plan amendment for the
property at La Cholla and Lambert and we believe the proposed General
Plan amendment represents smart growth in the town of Oro Valley. The
amendment takes into consideration the existing neighbors and also Oro
Valley’s environmental policies. It is important that our growth be planned
and resources like the expansion of La Cholla Road be utilized effectively
to help Oro Valley grow and thrive. We ask that Oro Valley Planning and
zoning approve this request and that the town council please do the
same.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Joe and Kate Snapp
7435 N. Oracle Rd., Suite 107
Oro Valley, AZ 85704
P: 520.297.2191
F: 520.742.7960
orovalleychamber.com
................................................................................................................................................
Nov. 20, 2014
Members of the planning commission
Town of Oro Valley staff
Citizens of Oro Valley
Ladies and gentlemen,
On Nov. 12, directors of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of
Commerce board voted without dissent to support the 2 La
Cholla general plan amendment proposals before you today. In
the interest of full disclosure, the applicant and its representatives
are members of our Chamber.
Our board voted to endorse these amendments for a number of
reasons. Among them:
* The character of the community around La Cholla is going
to change, because RTA plans to build La Cholla into a 4-lane,
divided desert parkway with more traffic and higher speeds.
Growth is already rolling south down La Cholla from Tangerine,
with 356 houses approved, built or under way from Tangerine
south to Naranja. Additional housing is in the pipeline.
Development along the corridor is inevitable.
It makes sense to concentrate impact along La Cholla, with at
least some higher-density housing, office and commercial uses
clustered at major intersections and near the roadway, consistent
with the general plan;
* This is a master-planned community, with an array of
appropriate uses and agreed-upon amenities such as parks,
feathered density from east to west, underground utilities,
recreation paths and much more. Long-term, coordinated vision
on one of Oro Valley’s largest remaining undeveloped parcels is a
smart way for the community to continue its maturation.
Additionally, this project can be constructed in conjunction
with the road improvements. La Cholla can stand in contrast
with La Canada south of Calle Concordia, where rural residents
had a higher-speed 4-lane plunked directly into their previously
Chairwoman
Cathy Workman
Workman Insurance
and Investments
Chair-elect
Alan Dankwerth
Market Considerations
Secretary
Marcia Ring
Tohono Chul Park
Past chair
Sarah Ritchie
Pitcher of Nectar
Distributing
Directors
Ron Janicki
Arizona Small Business
Association
Kay Williams
Oro Valley Community
Foundation
Wendy Wise
State Farm / Wendy Wise
Bruce Baca
Pima Federal Credit Union
Randy Karrer
Golder Ranch Fire District
Amy Lee
Arizona Daily Star
7435 N. Oracle Rd., Suite 107
Oro Valley, AZ 85704
P: 520.297.2191
F: 520.742.7960
orovalleychamber.com
................................................................................................................................................
Page 2
rural midst. That’s difficult. We don’t have to repeat that along La Cholla;
* The La Cholla GPA process began months ago, and has gone through several
neighborhood meetings and hearings, with significant town staff and private sector
time spent.
I have attended 2 of those meetings. At each, neighbors have voiced their concerns.
After each, the applicant has made concessions. No apartments. Greater buffer
zones along the property’s southern and western perimeters, and a transition in
density from east to west. Building height limitations. And significant open space at
37 percent. Protection of more than 1/3rd the total space in a planned development
certainly exceeds any reasonable expectation.
We recognize the neighbors don’t want to see change from rural low-density
residential development, and we respect their opinions. That said, there is a greater
community concern about smart growth, which includes neighborhood commercial,
retail and office uses along busy roadways; town homes and condominiums that help
diversify Oro Valley’s housing inventory; improvements to Naranja and Lambert,
streets already impacted by existing activity; along with parks, paths and protection of
a portion of our lovely desert.
The neighbors have been heard, and the applicant has responded. The process is
consistent with Oro Valley’s heartfelt value of neighborhood involvement. And
they’re not done. As you all know, these amendments are but a step along the way.
We’ve not yet reached the rezoning phase, where plans are refined and the neighbors
heard once more. We’ll plan to speak up again as well.
These general plan amendments represent a reasonable, intelligent, considerate,
forward-thinking way to develop Oro Valley’s dwindling supply of land, and we
believe the proposals deserve your approval this evening.
Respectfully submitted, on behalf of our board,
Dave
Dave Perry
President / CEO
Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce
From: Glen Frederick [mailto:glen.frederick@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:31 PM
To: Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike; Vella, Bayer
Subject: FW: Oro Valley La Cholla & Lambert Residential Densification Initiative
Ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for allowing me to forward my email that I sent to Mayor Hiremath to
you and I would appreciate it if you would vote down this proposed change.
From: Glen Frederick [mailto:glen.frederick@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:04 PM
To: 'shiremath@orovalleyaz.gov'
Subject: Oro Valley La Cholla & Lambert Residential Densification Initiative
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am writing to oppose the proposed amendment to the 2005 land use plan (approved by voters
and Council) in which a developer seeks to triple the allowed residential construction density on
the land to the northwest of La Cholla and Lambert from 124-319 dwellings to 778 dwellings.
Further, the proposed amendment would triple the amount of allowed commercial acreage along
the west side of La Cholla Road from 13 acres to 41 acres. I have reviewed the amended
application and the Staff recommendation and firmly believe it should be denied as unsupported.
I disagree that the proposed changes to the application have met our concerns or the concerns of
the neighbors with whom we are in contact. The proposal and the process followed thus far by
the Staff of the Planning Commission is not only illegal but also would deliver a plan that
violates the rights of current residents in the area in order to add to the profits to be realized by
the developer at the expense of current residents. I live in the Canada Hills area just east of La
Cholla and Canada Hills drive and a development of this scope would be extremely detrimental
to our fine neighborhood and would dramatically increase traffic flow throughout our housing
area. I urge you and all council members to vote against the approval of this amended plan and
consider the consequences if this plan is allowed to go through. Thank you for your time
------ Original message ------
We have reviewed the amended application and the Staff recommendation. The application
should be DENIED as UNSUPPORTED. We strongly disagree that the proposed changes to the
application have met our many concerns or the many concerns of the neighbors with who we are
in contact.
Sincerely,
DeDe and Saul Betten
1908 W. Muirhead Loop
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
From: Benjamin Jones [
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:17 PM
To: Hiremath, Satish; Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin,
Mike; Vella, Bayer
Subject: Proposed Major Amendment to the 2005 Land Use Plan (land northwest of La Cholla and
Lambert)
Dear Town Council Members,
I am writing to you today concerning the proposed amendment to
the 2005 Land Use Plan for the area NW of La Cholla and
Lambert. As you can see in my signature, I live in Canada Hills and
will be very much affected by this proposed land use change. I
have reviewed the amended application and staff recommendation
in detail. I am very disturbed at what I have discovered in my
review of this proposal. I am of the strong opinion that
this application should be denied as unsupported. I passionately
disagree that the proposed changes to the application have met my
concerns and the concerns of my neighbors with whom I have had
several discussions with. I will tell you that I have not spoken to
nor heard of even one (1) resident that is in favor of this
proposal. In fact, I believe this proposal could even be illegal. The
fact that it is even being considered is very disconcerting and
suggests there is some sort of favoritism toward the powerful land
developers being played out. I sincerely hope this is not the case.
This proposed amendment is very much counter to the interests of
those who voted you into office with the core belief that you would
represent and look out for our best interests. I would hope you will
all do the right thing and vote down this proposed amendment.
Thank You for your time and consideration,
Benjamin Jones
1951 N. Wildomar Loop
From: Kent Bauman [
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:24 PM
To: Hiremath, Satish; Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin,
Mike; Vella, Bayer
Cc: Hynd, Jessica
Subject: Vote NO on Proposed La Cholla Residential Land Use Densification Application
Members of the Oro Valley Town Council,
We have reviewed the amended application and the Staff recommendation.
The application should be denied as unsupported. We disagree that the
proposed changes to the application have met our concerns or the concerns
of the 100+ neighbors with whom we are in contact.
We are particularly concerned about how the campaign contributions of the
Kai Family and Greg Wexler may influence the outcome of the council vote.
Please side with those of us who already live here by voting “no” to the
amended application that triples the residential construction density and
triples the space allotted for commercial development.
Kent & Stephanie Bauman
10880 N. Canada Hills Ct.
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
From: Terry W Enright [
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 7:10 PM
To: Vella, Bayer
Subject: Lambert and La Cholla
To whom it may concern,
I stand in favor of the La Cholla & Lambert Residential Densification Initiative. As a
twenty year resident of this great Town of Oro Valley, I support the change. It's
very sad to find people complaining about zoning, because of their lack of
investigation into property zoning for property around them when they purchase.
Please move forward and approve this initiative.
Respectfully,
Terry Enright
Cell:
______________________________________________________________________________
------ Original message ------
Pease vte "" t the reig fr apartets abert & a Cha
Elaine Gamberg
-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Bissing [
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:06 AM
To: Hiremath, Satish; Burns, Brendan; Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat, Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin,
Mike; Vella, Bayer
Subject: Say no to rezoning
I am against the proposed changes to the zoning plan. Any change that allows more homes and business
hurts all existing Oro Valley residents. This will reduce existing home prices and add more of a burden to
the existing infrastructure. It will also hurt the quality of life for all Oro Valley residents. In my opinion
anyone who would vote for this type of change should be investigated. If this is approved, I will work to
make sure any who supported this change will not remain in any Oro Valley government position.
Approving this change is the same as stealing money from all existing residents!
Sincerely,
Vic Bissing
20 year+ resident.
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
, .Todd A. Jaeger, J.D.
Associate to the Superintendent
,(520) 696-5156
FAX (520)696c5074
AMPHITHEATER
p, ubI i,' S t' h 0' d I " 701 W. Wetrnore Road. Tucson, AZ85705. roo (520)696-5055
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS
SUPERlNTEI'jDENT
Pati'ick Nelson
Susan Zibrat' '
President
James M. Kai, LEED-AP
VP Operations/Finance
Deanna M. Day, M.Ed.
Vice President
November6; 2014.
'Kai Ente1'prises/JMKFaIhilyProp yrtjesiKaiMotelsInc.
P.O. Box 2305
COlimo, AZ 85652 -,2305,
" I "
Kent Paul Bal1'abee, Ph.D. J1,llie Cozad,M.Ed.
REi PI~nning and Zoning Application Process for OV1114~002; School Enrollment
Capacity ", ' '
Dear Mr. Kai:
", '" ,
I would like to again thank you, ,and Messrs. Wexler and Olancl, for meetingWithJi~ Bums,
and I last week to' discuss your planned project. I appreciated, very ~uch, the opportunity to
get some additional clarification on yom'plans:' ,
, ,
I also appreciate and commend you' and your company for yourcommitlhentto tIle
community andyout sincere SUppOlt of our public schools. Our discussions included a
commitmentfi'om the Kai companies to enter ipto a,donation,agreementtllat would greatly"
ameliorate the enrollrnent impact we might expect from yoW: residential p1'Oject. With CU11"ent
enrollment capacity at each affected school, the support provided by your firm through the
donation agreement we still. must finalize, and the existing commitments' of pther developers
of asimilar nature, we do anticipate that.we will be able to serve the enrollment we would
expect from your project' ',' , ,
Thank you again for your interest and concernfo1' our schools. I I06kforward to concluding'
, our agreement vmy soon.
Todd A.'Jaeger; J.D. , '
, Associate to the Superintendent & General Counsel
Amphitheatei'lIigh. Canyon del Oro High'lrQnwoodRidge High
. Aniphitheater Middle School· Coronado Ke8 School' Cross Middle School • La Cima Middle School· Wilson K·8 School '
Copper Creek Elementmy· Donaldson Elementaty • Harelson Elemenhuy • Holaway Elementmy • Keeling Eiementaiy
. Me~a Verde Elementary. Nash Elementmy· Painted SkyElementalY' Prince Elementmy· Rio Vista Elementary· Walke!' Elementary
, Rillito Centel: • El Hogar: ' '
JoGrant