Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (141) Standish, Michael From: Bower,Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:34 PM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW:Vote of change to General Plan for NW COrner of La Cholla and Naranja These have all gone to Council Sent from my Windows Phone From: Daines, Chad Sent: 12/10/2014 2:20 PM To: Bower,Julie Subject: FW:Vote of change to General Plan for NW COrner of La Cholla and Naranja Chad Daines, AICP Principal Planner 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone(520)229-4896 cdaines@orovalleyaz.gov From:Vella, Bayer Sent:Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:31 AM To: Daines, Chad Cc: Caton,Greg; Keesler, Paul Subject: FW:Vote of change to General Plan for NW COrner of La Cholla and Naranja From: Sent:Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:23 AM To: Daines, Chad;Vella, Bayer; Hiremath,Satish;Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner,William; ihornat orovalleyaz.gov; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Cc: Subject:Vote of change to General Plan for NW COrner of La Cholla and Naranja We are writing to you concerning the proposed amendment to the General Plan for the property at the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja. We urge you to vote against this amendment to the plan as it is presently written. Our home directly borders the property in question on the west side. This plan allows for high density, multi-story development in an area that is currently zoned for R-144. This area is also designated as a "Significant Resource Area." We are particularly concerned with proposed zoning allowing for multi-story homes on the west side of the development. This will greatly impact our views, quality of life and subsequently our property values. Multi-story homes are not at all in concert with the homes presently in the area. When we purchased this land and built our home 10+ years ago not only did we pay a premium for this property, we were limited to a single story home, 1 ! ti.- rl and had significant restriction on what could be done with grading and vegetation. For every Ironwood tree that had to removed we were required to replace with two. We gladly abided by these rules to maintain the beauty and character of the area. We believe this change will destroy that beauty and character. We will not bother to address the many other concerns regarding drainage, traffic, schools, etc. The developer has claimed that he has gained community acceptance of this change which for the vast majority of the residents in the area is not true. Thank You for your time. Jeff and Karen Carlson 2575 W Desert Splendor Ct Oro Valley, AZ 85742 2 y -1 Standish, Michael From: Bower,Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:33 PM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: La Cholla and Naranja General Plan amendment Sent from my Windows Phone From: Daines, Chad Sent: 12/10/2014 2:21 PM To: Bower,Julie Subject: FW: La Cholla and Naranja General Plan amendment Chad Daines, AICP Principal Planner 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520)229-4896 cdaines orovalleyaz.gov From:ANDREW [ Sent:Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Hiremath,Satish Cc:Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner,William; Hornat,Joe; Snider, Mary;Zinkin, Mike; Daines,Chad;Vella, Bayer Subject: La Cholla and Naranja General Plan amendment Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I am writing you concerning the general plan amendment that will be presented to you tonight. My wife and I have lived in Oro Valley for 10 years. We originally moved to Oro Valley to be close my daughter and our grandchildren. In addition, the reputation of Oro Valley being a safe community was a very important factor in helping us decide to move here. After moving here we have enjoyed the wonderful amenities that a community like Oro Valley provides. We have enjoyed having many amenities nearby including shopping, our church and the great schools for our grandchildren. In addition we enjoy the numerous recreational options available including hiking trails, River Front park, Naranja park and the aquatic center to name a few. The advantages of having these choices, give us many opportunities to watch and participate in the lives of our grandchildren. This could include taking them to the aquatic center, watching them play La Crosse and going to Ironwood Ridge to watch our granddaughter play volleyball. , ,1 We cannot holdback progress but we can set standards and plans for future developments. think this is a well thought out plan and represents a lot of great things that we enjoy about Oro Valley. Since this is one of the few remaining pieces of land in Oro Valley it is important that this plan bean economic benefit to the town and not a burden. This future development will allow for more revenue to go to support our schools, add additional tax revenue and also provide more recreational area for the town. I support and appreciate your vote to approve this plan. Thank you very much for your time, Andrew Tesler 2 Standish, Michael From: Bower,Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:33 PM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW:Vote tonight to the General Plan fo the NW Corner of La Cholla and Naranja Sent from my Windows Phone {A': +1CH\.:.,..... .....::::.. ::::.....: ':::tt:'lF:�aww'faxl:eC!?.Pah.Att?Ae.?:Nn.tlM'+..wrA'sK+aab'?:NMV,A:..:.!l:nWx4wN :MA:?4K`%!<:StlWGttKR�•?iN'MCCW:.fRu.NcQtT'4'::WKwtaNn.K.a?a'!KK4S�<Miet `4cKi!R+'.P.:.a.K:'. .. ... .. ..... From: Daines, Chad Sent: 12/10/2014 2:21 PM To: Bower,Julie Subject: FW:Vote tonight to the General Plan fo the NW Corner of La Cholla and Naranja Chad Daines, AICP Principal Planner 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520) 229-4896 cdainesorovalleyaz.gov From: Lee Higginbotham [ Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:15 PM To: Daines,Chad;Vella, Bayer; Hiremath,Satish; Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner, William; ihornat@orovalleyaz.gov; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Subject:Vote tonight to the General Plan fo the NW Corner of La Cholla and Naranja We are writing to you concerning the proposed amendment to the General Plan for the property at the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja. We urge you to vote against this amendment to the plan as it is presently written. Our home directly borders the property in question on the west side. This plan allows for high density, multi-story development in an area that is currently zoned for R-144. This area is also designated as a "Significant Resource Area." We are particularly concerned with proposed zoning allowing for multi-story homes on the west side of the development and only a 200 ft buffer between my property line and this property and allowing more than one home per acre on the west boundary of the property. This will greatly impact our views, quality of life and subsequently our property values. Multi-story homes are not at all in concert with the homes presently in the area. When we purchased this land and built our home 15 years ago not only did we pay a premium for this property (3.3 acre lot minimum), we were limited to a single story home, and had significant restriction on what could be done with grading and vegetation. For every Ironwood tree that had to removed we were required to replace with two. We gladly abided by these rules to maintain the beauty and character of the area. We believe this change will destroy that beauty and character. We will not bother to address the many other concerns regarding drainage, traffic, schools, etc. The developer has claimed that he has gained community acceptance of this change which for the vast majority of the residents in the area is not true. Thank You for your time. Lee and Marilyn Higinbotham 2580 W Desert Splendor Ct Oro Valley, AZ 85742 2 Standish, Michael From: Bower, Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:26 AM To: Caton, Greg; kschwab@cgsuslaw.com; Sidles, Tobin Cc: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: La Cholla Commons Attachments: ov gpa Itr- kh.pdf Emails(below) & letter(attached) received by Council regarding tonight's meeting Julie K. Bower, MMC Oro Valley Town Clerk 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-229-4740 From:Amber Smith [ Sent:Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:05 AM To: Daines, Chad;Vella, Bayer; Hiremath,Satish; Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner, William; Hornat,Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Subject: La Cholla Commons Mr. Mayor- I am writing regarding the La Cholla Commons. I've been monitoring projects as they go through the process as part of the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance that is under review. Based on the feedback I've received from friends in the area, as well as in reading the materials on this project, I believe this to be a good example of how well the Neighborhood Meeting process works. Kudos to the developer in making several concessions to the neighbors, as well as proactively collaborating with the RTA to make sure transportation issues are addressed. This seems to be a good example of how working with residents early on is beneficial. Amber Smith From: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:23 AM To: Daines, Chad;Vella, Bayer; Hiremath, Satish; Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner, William; ihornat@orovalleyaz.gov; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Cc: kscarlson@raytheon.com Subject:Vote of change to General Plan for NW COrner of La Cholla and Naranja We are writing to you concerning the proposed amendment to the General Plan for the property at the northwest corner of La Cholla and Naranja. We urge you to vote against this amendment to the plan as it is presently written. Our home directly borders the property in question on the west side. This plan allows for high density, multi-story development in an area that is currently zoned for R-144. This area is also designated as a "Significant Resource Area." We are particularly concerned with proposed zoning allowing for multi-story homes on the west side of the development. This will greatly impact our views, quality of life and subsequently our property values. Multi-story homes are not at all in concert with the homes presently in the area. When we purchased this land and built our home 10+ years ago not only did we pay a premium for this property, we were limited to a single story home, and had significant restriction on what could be done with grading and vegetation. For every Ironwood tree that had to removed we were required to replace with two. We gladly abided by these rules to maintain the beauty and character of the area. We believe this change will destroy that beauty and character. We will not bother to address the many other concerns regarding drainage, traffic, schools, etc. The developer has claimed that he has gained community acceptance of this change which for the vast majority of the residents in the area is not true. Thank You for your time. Jeff and Karen Carlson 2575 W Desert Splendor Ct Oro Valley, AZ 85742 2 a Kevin M. Henry , 1935 West M u i rhead Loop Oro Valley, AZ 82737 December 10, 2014 Oro Valley Mayor&Town Council VIA EMAIL Re:General Plan Amendment La Cholla Blvd and Naranja Drive Southwest OV 1114-002 Mr. Mayor and Council Members: I have been a resident of Oro Valley since October 2007,and live in the Canada Hills Subdivision near the proposed Master Planned Community of 194 acres located at the southwest and northwest corners of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive,which requires a General Plan Amendment. I am writing in support of the General Plan Amendment and urge you to vote for approval as it has been submitted. My support for the project was not immediate,as I had concerns regarding the addition of over 700 new homes through the requested change to medium density for a portion of the property. My concern was that the current market would not support the increased inventory and would further decrease the median sales price of housing in the area. However,after discussions with Mr.James Kai, Mr.Greg Wexler,and Mr. Paul Oland, regarding the project timeline and their development intentions, I am confident that any residential construction on the property is not intended to start until market conditions improve and can support the project. Having worked with and financed developers and residential projects in my 25+years in banking, I know that most developers are keenly aware of market and inventory conditions, and seek to maximize their profits by building when the time is right.As the rezoning and platting stages will take at least two years to three years and the overall build-out is thought to be over 15+years, my concerns regarding the increased inventory have been resolved. In addition, I am a supporter of the Master Planned Community Concept. Having served on the Planning Commission in Sherwood,Oregon from 2001 to 2005, I saw first hand the advantages to the community that a Master Planned Community provided. It enables several properties to be tied together in a coherent and cohesive vision that provides a much greater benefit to the community,than would occur if the properties are developed separately with no overall plan to guide development. The development team has impressed me with their willingness to meet with the surrounding neighbors, listen to their concerns, and make changes or adjustments to attempt to address those concerns when they can.After hearing the concerns of the neighbors,they have the apartment and flex/core portions of the concept, reduced the number of potential residential units,worked with the School District to offset the impact of additional students, increased buffer space between existing low density uses and the project, included a linear park in the MPC,and will be working to address traffic and drainage issues during the rezoning phase of the request.Overall,they are the type of developer 4. the Town of Oro Valley should want to work with,and who should be supported.While gaining 100% approval and satisfaction by the community and neighbors is not attainable,they have shown their willingness to do as much as they can to reach that goal, and should be applauded for their efforts. For the reasons above, I again urge your support of the General Plan Amendment,as I am confident that the end product will be looked back upon as a benefit to the community once it is completed.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ---. / e Ke in M. Henry 1935 West Muirhead Loo Oro Valley,AZ 85737 ( Standish, Michael From: Bower, Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:23 AM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: La Cholla Commons Julie K. Bower, MMC Oro Valley Town Clerk 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-229-4740 From: Daines, Chad Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:22 AM To: Bower,Julie Subject: FW: La Cholla Commons Chad Daines, AICP Principal Planner 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520) 229-4896 cdaines(a�oroval leyaz.gov From:Amber Smith [ Sent:Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:05 AM To: Daines, Chad;Vella, Bayer; Hiremath, Satish;Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner, William; Hornat,Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Subject: La Cholla Commons Mr. Mayor- I am writing regarding the La Cholla Commons. I've been monitoring projects as they go through the process as part of the Neighborhood Meeting Ordinance that is under review. Based on the feedback I've received from friends in the area, as well as in reading the materials on this project, I believe this to be a good example of how well the Neighborhood Meeting process works. Kudos to the developer in making several concessions to the neighbors, as well as proactively collaborating with the RTA to make sure transportation issues are addressed. This seems to be a good example of how working with residents early on is beneficial. Amber Smith Standish, Michael From: Bower,Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:44 AM To: Caton, Greg; kschwab@cgsuslaw.com; Sidles, Tobin Cc: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: La Cholla Commons Council has already received this one. From: Robert Smith [ Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 4:17 PM To: Daines,Chad;Vella, Bayer; Hiremath,Satish; Waters, Lou; Burns, Brendan; Garner, William; Hornat,Joe; Snider, Mary;Zinkin, Mike Subject: La Cholla Commons To whom it may concern: I write in support of the project La Cholla Commons. As a parent of children that go to Casas Christian, how the surrounding property is built is of great concern. Based on the developer's comments, transportation issues will be remedied and the barren school surroundings will be filled in creating another layer of safety limiting access to the school campus. This project will be a good addition to the area with clearly a lot of compromises made by the developer trying to be a good neighbor to both local residents as well as the school district. Please support this project. Sincerely yours, Robert Smith 1651 W. Limewood Dr. 1 Standish, Michael From: Dave Perry <dave@orovalleychamber.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 5:54 PM To: Bower,Julie; Standish, Michael Subject: Chamber comments on La Cholla GPA 120914 Attachments: la cholla written comments 120914.docx Hello, Julie and Mike, I've pasted in, and attached, our Chamber's comment letter on the La Cholla general plan amendments coming before council this Wednesday, Dec. 10. Thanks for distributing it on our behalf. Take good care, Dave ••• Dec. 9,2014 Mayor Satish I.Hiremath Members of the Oro Valley Town Council Town of Oro Valley staff and citizens 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, decreased density from east to west, underground utilities, recreation paths and significant open space. 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 1 residents had a higher-speed 4-lane plunked directly into their previously 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. Each time, neighbors have voiced their concerns as well as support. After each, the applicant has made concessions. No apartments. Greater buffer zones along the property's western perimeter, 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. At the zoning level, consistently, government further restricts permissions, and seldom if ever expands them. The neighbors will be heard once more. 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 Dave Perry President and CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce 7435 North Oracle Road, Suite 107 Oro Valley,Arizona 85704 (p)520.297.2191 (0 520.742.7960 dave@orovalleychamber.com 2 7435 N. Oracle Rd.,Suite 107 G'R'EATER Oro Valley,AZ 85704 ORO YAL,L,E;Y ...�^ P: 520.297.2191 Chamber of CommerceF: 520.742.7960 orovalleychamber.com Chairwoman Cathy Workman Dec. 9, 2014 Workman Insurance and Investments Mayor Satish I. Hiremath Chair-elect Members of the Oro Valley Town Council Alan Dankwerth Town of Oro Valley staff and citizens Market Considerations Secretary Marcia Ring Ladies and gentlemen, Tohono Chul Park Past chair On Nov. 12, directors of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Sarah Ritchie Pitcher of Nectar Commerce board voted without dissent to support the 2 La Distributing Cholla general plan amendment proposals before you today. In Directors the interest of full disclosure, the applicant and its representatives Ron Janicki are members of our Chamber. Arizona Small Business Association Our board voted to endorse these amendments for a number of Kay Williams reasons. Among them: Oro Valley Community * The character of the community around La Cholla is going Foundation Wendy Wise to change, because RTA plans to build La Cholla into a 4-lane, State Farm/Wendy Wise divided desert parkway with more traffic and higher speeds. Bruce Baca Growth is already rolling south down La Cholla from Tangerine, Pima Federal Credit Union with 356 houses approved, built or under way from Tangerine Randy Karrer south to Naranja. Additional housing is in the pipeline. Golder Ranch Fire District Development along the corridor is inevitable. Amy Lee Arizona Daily Star 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, decreased density from east to west, underground utilities, recreation paths and significant open space. 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 7435 N. Oracle Rd.,Suite 107 GREATER Oro Valley,AZ 85704 ORO VALLEY l---� P: 520.297.2191 Chamber of CommerceF: 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. Each time, neighbors have voiced their concerns as well as support. After each, the applicant has made concessions. No apartments. Greater buffer zones along the property's western perimeter, 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. At the zoning level, consistently, government further restricts permissions, and seldom if ever expands them. The neighbors will be heard once more. 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 Standish, Michael From: Bower, Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:38 AM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: General Plan Amendment meeting tonight Attachments: Kai Support ltr 12-10-14.pdf;Jones email.pdf Julie K. Bower, MMC Oro Valley Town Clerk 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-229-4740 From: Bower,Julie Sent:Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:38 AM To:Town Council Cc: Caton, Greg; kschwab@cgsuslaw.com; Sidles,Tobin Subject: FW: General Plan Amendment meeting tonight Council, Attached are additional letters regarding tonight's meeting. Thanks,Julie Julie K. Bower, MMC Oro Valley Town Clerk 11000 N. La Canada Dr, Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-229-4740 1 Kit and Paula Donley 1237 W.Crystal Palace Place,Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 December 10, 2014 Via Email Dear Mayor,Vice-Mayor, and Council Members, Due to family issues Paula and I may not be able to attend your meeting tonight regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Kai property along La Cholla north of Lambert. If we are not present please know that the proposed amendment has our full support. We know only too well how hard some of the decisions you face are when you have to balance the wishes of neighbors with the welfare of the entire town, and we believe that the proposal before you tonight is respectful of both. The Kia family has addressed many of the neighbors' concerns such as: 1. Removed all apartments because of neighbor input. 2. Removed the Flex area to better control the future uses. 3. Reduced the max units by almost 300 units, again because of neighbor input. 4. Agreed to pay to Amphitheater. School District their requested fee for each home developed,to offset their cost of providing education for future students. 5. Enlarged the buffer and open space, for the residents on the west side. 6. Agreed to create a 7.9 acre park for the adjacent neighborhoods on the east side. We have been residents for almost 30 years and we feel that the future development of this property with these concerns addressed will be a benefit for our town. In conclusion the Kai family is one of the pioneering families of this area. They have always been respectful of the lands they own and the communities they have helped to build; therefore we support their request. Regards, Kit Don.l y Paula Donley w • Bower, Julie Subject: FW: La Cholla Commons-Lang Range Conceptual Master Plan From: Mike Jones [ Sent:Tuesday, December 09,2014 11:47 PM To: Daines,Chad Cc: Michael Jones Subject: La Cholla Commons-Lang Range Conceptual Master Plan Dear Mr. Daines I live at 2510 W. Lambert Lane. My property is adjacent to and directly west of the Kia's property. Our property has great views of the Catalina Mountains and the desert behind our property is pristine. There is a group of us that live on 3.3-acre lots that will be severely impacted by how the Kia property is planned and developed. Our main concern is our views and privacy. James Kai and Paul Oland took the time to meet with several of us at our homes. They had an individual from the WLB group placed a flag marker on the property were houses could be built under the new plan. We expressed our concern about the impact that 2 story homes would have on our views and privacy. The owners agreed that they would restrict the property between our property and Cross Road to single story not to exceed 20 feet in height. There plan also calls for Low Density Residential adjacent to our property. I believe that their current plan is a fair compromise between the Kai property owners and the people who live in my area. The Low Density Residential provides a buffer. This plan also provides a transition to the property to the east. It is respectful of the existing neighborhood that we live in. Oro Valley as a community should support responsible planning of the remaining vacant land in our town to allow for future growth. It is inevitable that this property will someday be developed. I ask that you approve and support the proposed Conceptual Master Plan. Sincerely Mike Jones 2 510 W. Lambert Lane Oro Valley,AZ 85742 1 ~ . Standish, Michael From: Bower,Julie Sent: Tuesday, December 09 2014 1:29 PM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Major General Plan Amendment Application: Lambert Ln. and LaCholla Blvd. Attachments: Bliss.Hoth letter.pdf Julie K. Bovver, MMC Oro Valley Town Clerk 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-229-4740 ----- From: Daines, Ched Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:07 PM To: Bower,Julie Subject: FW: Major General Plan Amendment Application: Lambert Ln. and LaCholla Blvd. Attached is another letter of protest against the amendment. I will also forward Bill Adler's email, which he already forwarded to Town Council. Thanks Chad DaiDes, AICP Principal Planner 11000 N. La Canada [)rive. Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520) 229-4896 cdaines@orovalleyaz.gov From:Vella, Bayer Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:06 PM To: Oaines, Chad Cc: Caton, Greg; Keesler, Paul Subject: FW: Major General P|an Amendment Application: Lambert Ln. and LaCholla Blvd. Chad, please forward to Town Clerk. Thank you, Bayer - - From: Ron Bliss [ Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 12:20 PM To: Hiremath,Satish; Burns, Brendan;Waters, Lou; Garner, William; Hornat,Joe; Snider, Mary; Zinkin, Mike Cc:Vella, Bayer Subject: Major General Plan Amendment Application: Lambert Ln. and LaCholla Blvd. • We are writing to urge disapproval of the referenced Major General Plan Amendment application. Please review the attached letter expressing our point of view. It appears plain to any objective observer that this application fails in every way to meet the criteria for amending the General Plan. Those criteria are designed by law to be difficult to meet, and the super majority required of the Council reflects the intent of the law that Major Amendments be sparingly approved. Approval of this application can only serve to deepen the cynicism felt widely in the community that the developers get whatever they seek, no matter the impact on existing homeowners.This pending proposal fails to meet the requirements of law so plainly that approval risks not only public ridicule but legal challenges. Thank you for your consideration of these issues, and thank you for your service to the community. Ronald Bliss Barbara Hoth 10336 N. Wild Creek Dr. 2 Standish, Michael From: Bower,Julie Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:29 PM To: Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Lacholla Amendment Julie K. Bower, MMC Oro Valley Town Clerk 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, AZ 85737 520-229-4740 From: Daines, Chad Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 1:08 PM To: Bower,Julie Subject: FW: Lacholla Amendment Chad Daines, A1CP Principal Planner 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520)229-4896 cdaines(a�orovalleyaz.gov From: stfatha@aol.com [mailto:stfatha@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 12:27 PM To:Town Council;Vella, Bayer; Daines, Chad Cc: poland@wlbgroup.com Subject: Lacholla Amendment I'm not expecting to be at the your Council meeting on the 10th. Not because it's my birthday, but because of medical issues and appointments. As I believe is supported by abundant written and vocal testimony, the criteria for approval of an amendment is not met. The reality is that development in this area is appropriate. I've encouraged neighbors to work towards achieving special area policies or conditions of approval that would enable an agreement.That hasn't been possible at this point. I believe it is possible within a relatively short time frame. I encourage a continuance to the second meeting in January or the first meeting in February to allow neighbors to continue to discuss resolution to incompatible land use and density questions.These questions have been presented, but need further negotiation. Although this is a General Plan Amendment and specifics of land use customarily are provided at the re zoning stage, the applicant has elected to propose MPC as a land use. Master Planned Community is poorly defined in the General Plan. It is unreasonable to expect Community Acceptance when a vague land use is proposed. 1 Among the uses suggested but undefined is "Senior Care". Senior Care is not defined in our General Plan or in the Code. Neighbors are entitled to more detail at this junction in terms of type and size of facility which, taken without definition, can be indistinguishable from an apartment complex. Similarly with Townhomes, for which the Town also doesn't have a clear standard. Some adjustments have been discussed with regard to buffering or screening of the smaller lot homes that will be near the western and southern borders, but I remain and others seem unclear exactly what visual protection can be expected. I've encouraged staff and the applicant to begin referring to "lot size" rather than General Plan terminology such as "medium density". Neither has done so, which continues confusion over exactly what size home and lot will be facing the rural low density homes on the west and south. So, I suggest giving the process begun time to continue for another four to six weeks predicated upon achieving agreement over the proposed conditions of approval from the neighbors. Bill Adler 2 . . RONALD L. BLISS BARBARA E. 10336 Wild Creek Dr. ()»` Valley AZ. 85742 ( Nnveniher ]3, 2O]4 [hadDaines,AICP Principal Planner Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Dr Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Re: Proposed La Cholla Blvd.and Naranja Dr. Major General Plan Amendments Dear Mr. Dames, We live on the South side of Lambert in Chaparral Heights Subdivision and are writing in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment. In brief our reasons are: 1. The existing General Plan is sensible, well considered, and approved by both voters and the Council. It is intended to be difficult to amend. People rely upon it.There 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 have a single purpose,to increase the value of the applicant's landholdings which they openly admit they intend to sell to other developers, Their stake is in the dollars, not in the neighborhood. The opposition has been overwhelming because the effect is to diminish the value 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 has been seen by many, including us,as manifestly unfair and appears clearly to violate the law. 1.The Minimum Requirements for Major Plan Amendment are Missing The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 22.2 (D)(3)(d) requires the applicant for the amendment to meet "the burden of presenting facts and other materials to support"four specific criteria in writing, "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 amend ment or modification; and . . Chad0aines, 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 markct.' 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. ^ ^ ChadOaines,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. TheStaffneportrehenstotheproposa| asa "rnoderatcincreeseindensityandintensity^Tobec|ear'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 Zi||ovv. 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 Danes, 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 widely opposed. Each family has its own reasons and particular concerns. Beyond that, the integrity of the community planning process is very 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 conditions 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 subject 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 provides guidance for the future,particularly regarding growth and development. The general 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 issues(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 will Chad Dairies,AICP November'13, 2014 Page account for all of the essential ingredients and be subject to citizen input and voter approvai. These concepts are written into the Plan: Amendments to the General Plan should never be allowed to occur in a haphazard manner. The General Plan specifically acknowledges the interests we urge be protected: MAINTAINING LOW-DENSITY CHARACTER WHILE PERMITTING DIVERSITY OF DEVELOPMENT TYPES Oro Valley residents value the low-density residential character of the Planning Area to provide buffer zones and recreation areas and maintain natural topography and connected natural open space. 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 consistent with community values. 12.1 The Town shall maintain Oro Valley's predominantly low-density character while considering needs of financial stability and infrastructure efficiency. The developer cites the preference for master planning, but ignores the requirement to look at adjacent properties: 1,3.5 The Town shall encourage master planning that looks 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 excuse for what the developer wants, not a valid reason. La Cholla was identified in the text of the plan when it was adopted.The proposed expansion of La Cholla is a response to County planning and is not a reason to override the Town plan. 3.The Processing of the Application Has Been Flawed Individuals in the neighborhood with whom we have spoken, are disappointed in the apparent lack of evenhandedness and integrity in the process. Several things are troubling. First, but not most important, we did not receive the mandatory notice of this process until after both of the required neighborhood meetings and the first Planning &Zoning Commission meetings had been a Chad Dames, AICP November 13, 2014 Page 6 concluded.At the supplemental neighborhood meeting, for which we did have notice, Staff strong- armed the attendees to avoid any discussion on the merit of the application. Indeed Mr.Vella 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 tilting the process to favor the applicant. Once the applicant amended his application on November 7th the Staff approved it in one day, without allowing the public any opportunity to review or comment. Second, the extra time allowed the applicant to change his application had the same flavor.The extension was supposed to "allow residents ample time to review the amended application (once resubmitted)'. In reality, the applicant was allowed to delay submission until Friday November 7 and the Staff issued its report the following business day.That report was apparently pre-prepared. Inexplicably the report reversed Mr. Vella's assessment of October 20 that the application failed to meet the criteria for approval. No resident was allowed sufficient time to review any newly submitted evidence, or to submit a reasoned response for inclusion in the official packet sent to Commissioners. Third,the appearance of a bribe of the school district has an unsavory flavor. As late as the October 20th meeting the school district had stated it could not accommodate the probable increase of enrollment generated by the proposed increase in population density. Now, in its November 7th amended filing the applicant has provided a letter from the school district which reverses that position 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 impact of this approach should not be ignored. People think the "fix" is in on this project. Neighbors talk, and the prevailing belief is that it is useless to oppose this application on its merits because the Town wants the projected increased in tax revenue, the officials enjoy the political donations from the developers, and the Staff is in league with the applicant. As often is true the 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: I.The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 22.2 (D)(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 application.As Mr.Vella observed at the October 20th supplemental neighborhood meeting, called to allow comment on the first amended application,the applicant had not met the burden of supporting the application_ The second amended application--in other words, the only application now under consideration-was " ChadCmines, AICP November 13, 2014 Page 7 submitted November 7th after one P&Z Commission meeting and after all of the neighborhood meet1ngs. This does not meet the standard of the law, and as discussed above does not meet the standard 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 201h meeting only. We do not know how many other persons entitled to notice failed to receive it. Mr. Oaines added us to the list at the eleventh hour of this application process. 3. The Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised 22.2 (D)(2)(b)(iv)also provides if there are any substantive changes to the application after formal submittal, an additional neighborhood meeting will be required. The November 7th amended submittal is plainly a substantive change of the application. 4, Conclusion This amended application is fundamentally 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 well planned and subject to development. If anything has changed it is the very real possibility the entire region is in the midst of a long term water shortage that is irreversible. News headlines report the problem, peoples wells are drying up. Broad issues like these affect planning.They counsel in favor of long term planning, not the narrow and flawed process exhibited here. If any change were desired by the community that change should be debated and voted on during the upcoming cycle of General Planning. Nothing about the development of LaCholla Blvd or the desirability of Oro Valley 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, � `\ 1.3ect,6a Ronald L. Bliss Barbara E. Hoth � r From: Polly Page [ Sent:Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:21 PM To:Vella, Bayer Subject: Propsed Amendments to General Plan for La Cholla/Naranja 13 November 2014 Dear Ms/Mr.Vella, I was distressed to hear through the grapevine that Oro Valley's Department of Infrastructure and Services Department is considering Major General Plan Amendments for the La Cholla/Naranja area. I am upset for many reasons including not being notified in writing that such amendments are being considered. I specifically chose to relocate to Oro Valley because I believed the local government's aims were progressive and protective- that the quality of life in a community is vastly more important than the"quantity of life"(the number of persons that inhabit that community). The greater the residential and commercial density, the less appealing that area becomes. Oro Valley still has a choice concerning the Naranja/La Cholla area. It's obviously too late for the Oracle corridor. Please do not allow the Oracle mistake to be repeated. Sincerely, Polly Page 1967 W.Muirhead Loop (Canada Hills) Oro Valley Az 85737 From:Jose Echeverri [ Sent:Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:31 PM To:Vella, Bayer Subject: La Cholla & Lambert Project Members of the Oro Valley Council & Mayor Hiremath: I have attended a few of the meetings conducted by the Planning Commission and do not believe that the voices of the majority of community members have been heard. I support the development of the La Cholla corridor in the manner specified in the 2005 master plan, and believe the proposed amendment does not meet the legal requirements specified by the Master Plan in order to be considered. A change of this magnitude should be put of for vote. The final public hearing was typical of the whole process by which this change has been railroaded through the community. Hours of time without constraint were granted to the applicant and Planning Commission staff to "sell"the plan to community members in attendance, with the last few minutes "given"to community members wearied by hours of listening and after many had already had to leave. Most of us had already read the plan posted on the OV website, and came to voice our concerns to a Commission that would be receptive to the feedback. This was clearly not the purpose of the meeting. We were told by one of your commissioners that the criteria required for a plan amendment was an impossible hurdle, and therefore wasn't relevant to this project. The 2005 Oro Valley Master Plan IS THE LAW, and as our elected officials, you are required to support it! If you do not, there is a citizen's initiative underway to consider legal options to stop the proposed amendment from becoming accepted as law, including law suits, and recall elections for those who vote in favor of it on December 10th Yours sincerely, Jose A. Echeverri. Canada Hills Resident. Original message Members of the Oro Valley Council & Mayor Hiremath: I have attended a few of the meetings conducted by the Planning Commission and do not believe that the voices of the majority of community members have been considered. First, I want to make it clear that I believe in economic development, so long as its done in a responsible manner. In my opinion, the 2005 Master Plan strikes the needed balance, as so many of us homeowners made decisions to buy our homes and live where we do based upon the assumptions contained in that plan. It is very clear to anyone able to objectively consider the facts that the proposed amendment does not meet the legal requirements specified by the Master Plan to be seriously considered. A change of this magnitude should really be put of for vote by the community in the master planning process. The final public hearing was typical of the whole process by which this change has been railroaded through the community. Hours of time without constraint were granted to the applicant and Planning Commission staff to "sell" the plan to community members in attendance, with the last few minutes "given" to community members already wearied by hours of listening and after many had already had to leave. Most of us present had already read the plan posted on the OV website, and came believing that the Commission was holding the meeting to listen to the concerns of the community. This was clearly not what happened. It's as though the members of the Planning Commission, the OV staff, and the developers have been drinking the same kool-aid that has blurred their ability to comprehend the purposes of a community master plan, and how it is there to protect the current residents from these kinds of special interests and political lobbying efforts. We were told by one of your commissioners that the criteria required for a plan amendment were "ambiguous" and "virtually impossible" for any proposed land use change to meet, and therefore "not relevant" to the consideration of this amendment! My friends, the 2005 Oro Valley Master Plan IS THE LAW, and as our elected officials, we expect you to support it! Please table the proposed La Cholla corridor amendment until it can be included in the next Master Plan update and put up for a community-wide vote. Yours sincerely, Kent & Stephanie Bauman 10880 N. Canada Hills Ct. Oro Valley, AZ 85737