Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (619)Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:59 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Shannon Road - Type 2 General Plan Amendment DO NOT APPROVE THE AMENDMENT From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:24 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Shannon Road - Type 2 General Plan Amendment DO NOT APPROVE THE AMENDMENT Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: Sandy Wilson - Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 5:58 PM To: Hiremath, Satish <shiremath@orovallevaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <ihornat@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Bill Rodman <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovallevaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovallevaz.gov>; Koepfer, Lynda <Ikoepfer@orovalleyaz.gov>; Sharp, Daniel <dsharp@orovallevaz.gov>; Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovallevaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Shannon Road - Type 2 General Plan Amendment DO NOT APPROVE THE AMENDMENT As a nearby resident to the Shannon Road site, I am OPPOSED to the requested General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Rezoning and development of the Shannon property will not be in keeping with the character of the residential properties around it. The community does not want this change, as evidenced by the continued opposition of the surrounding residents. Strong justification would be needed to amend the General Plan, so soon after it was ratified just last year. Such justification does not exist. Do not destroy the rural character of Shannon Road by approving the Amendment and Rezoning. Oro Valley, AZ 85742 Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:59 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Shannon Road - Type 2 General Plan Amendment and Rezoning - OPPOSITION From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:24 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Shannon Road - Type 2 General Plan Amendment and Rezoning - OPPOSITION Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: Ben Wilson Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 5:02 PM To: Hiremath, Satish <shiremath@orovalleyaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <jhornat@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Bill Rodman <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovalleyaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovalleyaz.gov>; Koepfer, Lynda <Ikoepfer@orovalleyaz.gov>; Sharp, Daniel <dsharp@orovallevaz.gov>; Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovalleyaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Shannon Road - Type 2 General Plan Amendment and Rezoning - OPPOSITION We bought our Oro Valley retirement home two years ago, north of Ironwood Ridge High. We left the San Francisco Bay Area to have a more rural lifestyle. We OPPOSE the General Plan amendment and Rezone request. Residents want the rural character of Shannon Road and the General Plan to remain unchanged. Unfortunately, there is increasing pressure from builders/developers to increase density. Oro Valley must not succumb, as many communities have. The "Estates at Capella" is a good example of the direction we should NOT go in Oro Valley. Don't make another mistake with the Shannon 76 acres. Ben D. Wilson, PE, SE Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:19 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Shannon Rd General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Attachments: Letter to Oro Valley Council & Staff.pdf From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:08 AM To: Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov>; Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Shannon Rd General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: Diana _ Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:39 PM To: Hiremath, Satish <shiremath@orovalleyaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <ihornat@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Bill Rodman <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovalleyaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovalleyaz.gov>; Koepfer, Lynda <Ikoepfer@orovalleyaz.gov>; Sharp, Daniel <dsharp@orovallevaz.gov>; Simms, Milini <msimms@orovallevaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovallevaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Shannon Rd General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Dear Oro Valley Council and Staff, Please find the attached letter regarding the proposed "Shannon 8o" rezoning and development and enter it into the official record of documents regarding this property. We would greatly appreciate any comments you might have regarding this letter. Thank you for your time! Brad and Diana Wood Brad eptember 27, 2017 Dear Oro Valley Town Council and Staff, We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the "Shannon 80" property. We feel this property should stay at the current zoning of R1-144 to maintain the character of the area. We are not opposed to development. We are just opposed to higher density development which would change the whole character of the area. All of the adjacent properties to the south and to the west are 3.3 acre parcels or greater and we feel it would be detrimental to our rural area to change that. Not to mention, bring down the value of our home and the surrounding properties. If this property were to remain at the current zoning and developed in the same way as all the properties to the south on Owl Vista and Desert Splendor it would keep the Shannon Rd. corridor intact with the rural feel. It would also preserve more of the rich desert flora that fills the property. The aerial photo that was presented at the last public meeting on 8/28/17 was disingenuous and an extreme misrepresentation of what the property would look like if it were developed at the current zoning. The aerial photo was of several properties on the west side of Shannon just north of Lambert. Those parcels were split and sold in the 70's, since they were not a part of a subdivision there were no grading restrictions like we have today. There are a lot of families like us that don't want to live in a housing development or near one for that matter. We purchased our property in 1994 and Shannon was a dirt road. The beautiful vegetation and rural feel is what attracted us to this area. Unfortunately there is not an abundance of rural properties available in Oro Valley zoned R1-144. It would be in the best interest of Oro Valley to keep that option available to t4ose who want to live in a rural area in Oro Valley. The Your Voice. Our Future General Plan was created and reviewed by residents during a multi- year process and ratified by voters on November 8, 2016 per the Oro Valley website. The Town of Oro Valley Land Use map is on page 51 of this plan. The property in question is shown R1-144 (Rural Low Density Residential). Why would it be reasonable or even considered at this time to change the zoning to a higher density when the residents voted on this less than a year ago? Once the natural desert is taken away, we cannot get it back. This is pristine land and it is our sincere hope that you would elect to keep it that way with Rural Low -Density development. It is our opinion that Twenty-four (3.3 acre) home -sites would be an asset to the Town and would be a win for both the neighbors and the land owner. In closing, we ask the town staff and Council to please reject the current proposal for rezoning. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 8:12 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Shannon 80 project Attachments: Letter from Eric Klein to the Oro Valley Staff and Council Regarding the Shannon 80 Project.pdf, Letter to OV City Officials 170911[6615].docx From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 2:54 PM To: Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov>; Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Shannon 80 project Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: Neil Chiarello Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 2:40 PM To: Hiremath, Satish <shiremath@orovalleyaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <jhornat@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Bill Rodman <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovallevaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Koepfer, Lynda <Ikoepfer@orovalleyaz.gov>; Sharp, Daniel <dsharp@orovalleyaz.gov>; Simms, Milini <m�imms@orovalleyaz.go_v>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovallevaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovallevaz.gov> Subject: Shannon 80 project Hello All, I am writing this letter in opposition to rezoning the Shannon 80 property. A petition in opposition of rezoning has been signed and submitted by virtually all of the surrounding neighbors. I am in agreement with the letters from Eric Klein and Vicki S. & Lawrence Stepp {copies attached} I would like to add my opposition to the proposed SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE. 1. This sidewalk would have to be constructed through the flood plain for no reason. 2. An easement already exists on the west side of Shannon road running up to Naranja road. 3. This proposed sidewalk would be out of place on rural Shannon RD. My neighbors and I have reported flooding and sediment transfer coming from up wash development many times throughout this and other proposed development meetings. We have asked for a study to be completed BEFORE approval of new development. This year alone the floodplain wash received a least 2 ft. of sediment filling in our washes. TO THIS DATE NO STUDY HAS BEEN PLANNED OR COMPLETED! Neil L. Chiarello me Oro Valley Staff and Council, I and the overwhelming majority of my neighbors along the Rural Shannon Corridor (roughly defined as the area within one-half mile to both the east and west of Shannon Rd and north of Lambert Ln) are deeply concerned about and strongly oppose the rezoning and development request for the "Shannon 80" property, which is located just south of Ironwood Ridge HS (see Figure 1 for a graphic of signed petitions in opposition). Figure 1. Map showing locations of Rural Shannon property owners who oppose the proposed rezoning and development plan as of Aug -2017. This 77 -acre property of pristine desert is the last remaining land available for development along a one mile stretch of the Rural Shannon Corridor between Lambert Ln and Naranja Dr (a 1 square mile area). Like every other property along this length of the Rural Shannon Corridor, the "Shannon 80" property is currently zoned R1-144, allowing for a maximum possible number of 23 homes on 3.3 acres each. It is located in the heart of our very desirable, rural community of already -developed single -residence 3.3 to 7.5 acre properties, each valued at $500,000 to $1,500,000, and has consequently been the subject of several rezoning and development requests over the past decade from various owners and developers who hope to capitalize on the unique beauty, location, and character of our homes. Maximizing the number and density of homes on the "Shannon 80" property is perfectly understandable from a purely economic perspective for the current owners and hopeful developers of that property (none of whom live in our neighborhood), who are now proposing to approximately double the number of homes on the Rural Shannon Corridor within an area of only —8% of the total area between Lambert Ln and Naranja Dr (Figure 2). If allowed to proceed, however, I believe this style and intensity of development would have a devastating impact on the character of our existing, well-established rural neighborhood. This belief is supported by the outcomes of the previous requests for higher -density and volume rezoning and development, each of which has been either denied or withdrawn (most recently in 2014) largely due to the inability of the developer or town staff to justify or support the significant impact that development of that type would have on the character of the existing, established rural community. Rural Shannon Corridor la Cholla Corridor (low density, rural character) (high density, urban character) Figure 2. Upper: Detail of the current proposed development plan for the "Shannon 80" property. Lower: View showing the above plan within the context of the surrounding community (Rural Shannon and La Cholla Corridors in green and blue boxes, respectively). Although previously planned developments of high density have continued along the La Cholla Corridor (defined as the area within one-half mile to both the east and west of La Cholla Blvd; see Figure 2), which I believe to be entirely appropriate and consistent with the character and needs of that area, since the time of the withdrawn 2014 rezoning and development request for the "Shannon 80" property no changes or development of any kind have occurred within the Rural Shannon Corridor. Consequently, I believe the previous arguments and recommendations against rezoning this property or developing it in the way being proposed must still apply, despite the positive attempts by the current owners/developers to make their proposal more palatable to the neighbors and Town by clustering the proposed homes and slightly reducing the total number compared to previous requests. I would also like to point out that the requested rezoning of the "Shannon 80" property from R1-144 to R1-36 for the currently proposed development, although technically correct, is extremely misleading since it implies a building density of about 1 acre per home for this 77 -acre property. The actual density of the 80 homes being proposed is, in fact, closer to R1-10 to R1-20 (80 homes clustered onto —30 acres), a density which is completely inconsistent with all of the neighboring properties along the Rural Shannon Corridor, each of which is truly R1-144. Although we strongly oppose the true density and volume of development currently being proposed, I and the majority of my neighbors also recognize that the "Shannon 80" property happens to be in a very unique location and that the best future development there will need to simultaneously meet the different characteristics of the neighboring properties (a large high school to the north, already - established rural properties to the south and west, and high-density developments and semi-public areas to the east - albeit with no connecting roads or walkways to the HS or developments to the east), and that this will inevitably require a zoning change. For example, a 16,000 ft2lot would be far more appropriate next to the HS and high density properties to the east than a 144,000 ft' (3.3 acre) property would be. Likewise, a cluster of 16,000 f12 lots would not be appropriate within sight of an existing community of 144,000 ftZ (and many larger) properties. Through many meetings and discussions with the owners, developers, town staff, and each other (meetings between neighbors), I have come to understand and appreciate that the most appropriate solution for future development on the "Shannon 80" property must take the each aspect of the unique context of the property into account. Consequently, we (the neighbors) have attempted to reach a compromise with the owners and developer of the "Shannon 80" property for development there that is neither rural in character (23 homes on 3.3 acre lots) nor urban (80 homes on 16,000 ft2 lots — double the total number of homes along the Rural Shannon Corridor and nearly I Ox the density). Despite our best efforts, we have not been yet been successful in reaching a compromise since the owners and developer of the "Shannon 80" property have not been willing to reduce the number of homes to a reasonable volume or density for the neighboring rural properties. Figure 3 illustrates what I believe to be a reasonable solution for all parties involved, including the Town, and one that I believe the vast majority of my neighbors could support. With this plan, I believe the owners/developers of "Shannon 80" could still profit on their investment (although likely not as much as they would like to), the existing rural land -owners would not be asked to sacrifice the rural character of their community, and the Town would see more new homes built while retaining and protecting more of our beautiful nature. Lr. - ->. r rir_r-aa �r� r:s�r. r • r `-fi-�. f I� �1 "Triptet" � r�i ZI Sagaro has to stay in place . ZI r / Q Road built on r r r •r r �- '" �' I 1 Mt rr rr existing trail to minimize impact —20 houses I ^r to desert —20 houses �.. n 1 /1 I __j Rural Shannon Corridor La Cholla Corridor (low density, rural character) (high density, urban character) Figure 3. Upper: Detail of my proposal for development on the "Shannon 80" property (adapted from the plan provided by the developer) that I believe would be congruent with the character of the surrounding communities in each direction. Lower: View showing the above plan within the context of the surrounding community (Rural Shannon and La Cholla Corridors in green and blue boxes, respectively). Specifically, rather than the currently requested "R1-36" zoning (permitting up to 92 homes), I propose rezoning to "R1-72" instead (permitting up to 46 homes - still double the number currently allowed by R1-144). Agreeing with the developer and town staff regarding the benefits of clustering on preserving the native desert, including wildlife, the 46 homes would be clustered into the NE corner of the property into 2 groups of -23 homes each, retaining the proposed buffer to the south and increasing the buffer to the 5 acre properties to the west. This clustering is not only consistent with modern, responsible community planning, but in this particular case also serves to simultaneously bridge the very different characters of the neighboring properties - maximizing protected desert on the "Shannon 80" property that borders the Rural Shannon areas, and allowing for lot sizes that are consistent with the neighboring HS and high density development to the east, all without significantly increasing the number of homes to a point that would interfere with the rural character of the Rural Shannon Corridor. With no development to the west of the central critical resource area (CRA), no changes to the existing drainage/flooding patterns would be expected for the residents to west of Shannon Rd (see Figure 3). Furthermore, the reduced number of homes would likely not necessitate traffic changes, specifically the need for a turning lane on Shannon Rd (discussed at the last public meeting), the construction of which would further disrupt the rural feel of Shannon Rd. In addition, the new road leading from Shannon Rd to the entrance of the new development could be placed onto an existing path that already leads diagonally across the NW corner of the property, further minimizing the impact to our nature. Finally, this plan would allow the gate for the new development to be out -of - sight from Shannon Rd, in character with the existing community - the road going into the new development would not look different from those of the adjacent and neighboring roads, each just having a regular green street sign (if that) and no gaudy marketing -inspired entrances, etc. Since the addition of the -40 homes would impact drainage to the south (Owl Vista PI), drainage improvements would have to be implemented at the expense of the owners/developer and in a specific mitigation plan agreed upon with the residents to the south. It is my sincere hope that each member of the town staff and Council will take the opportunity to visit the Rural Shannon Corridor (our neighborhood) to experience the rural feel of our community themselves. This is a very special place - one that is very different from the La Cholla Corridor, despite its proximity, and one that deserves to be respected and protected from exploitation as a profit -generating investment at the expense of the existing nature, homeowners, and community. I, like all of my neighbors, truly want to see the "Shannon 80" property developed the right way. We have one chance to get this right, and I ask the Oro Valley Council, as our elected representatives, to ensure the right thing is done by not supporting any proposal that is not in our nature and that clearly goes against the character and consistency of our community. Vicki S. Stepp and Lawren�j,,Stepp Peptember 11, 2017 TO: Town of Oro Valley - ATTN: Town Council 11000 N La Canada - Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Satish Hiremath - Mayor Lou Water - Vice Mayor Joe Hornat - Council Member Rhonda Pina - Council Member Bill Rodman - Council Member Mary Snider - Council Member Steve Solomon - Council Member Lynda Koepfer - Asst to Town Council Daniel Sharp - Chief of Police/Town Manager Milini Simms - Planner Bayer Vella - Oro Valley Planning Manager Michael Spaeth - Principal Planner SUBJECT: Letter of Opposition to Proposed Land Use and Re -Zoning on Shannon Road — "Manning Property" Proposed Development Project Dear Oro Valley Officials and Representatives, We sent you a letter July 15 explaining our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the "Manning Property" on Shannon Road. We are still opposed to the rezoning, but we are growing more concerned that Oro Valley planning staff seem to be siding with the developers, who want to build high-density housing on the subject property in a manner that would be completely out of character for this part of Oro Valley and would severely violate the Oro Valley General Plan. Tkerefore we are writing again to speak in opposition to some of the pro -development ideas presented by the OV planners and the developer's representative, and to discuss options that would lessen the negative impacts in case the Council is considering a compromise that would allow rezoning this property. Not opposed to development As we stated in our previous letter, we are not opposed to the appropriate development of this property. As long as the property is undeveloped, we who live in this area will be at risk of developers proposing inappropriate high-density rezoning. It appears these attempts to destroy our rural environment are now occurring approximately every couple of years. Our strongly preferred approach would be to develop the property as currently zoned, R1-144. This type of development, e.g., as on our street of W Desert Splendor Court, preserves the rural, desert living feel and provides an excellent environment that preserves native plants and animals. Alternative concepts proposed by the developer The developer has responded to concerns of adjacent home owners on Owl Vista, and to environmental concerns about the core area of desert plants rich in ironwood trees and saguaro cactus, by proposing to cluster the homes in the north half of the property. The idea of having an undisturbed corridor along the southern half of the property seems to appeal to the city planners. We understand the advantages of having contiguous native desert corridors, but the way this was presented by OV planner Milini Simms at the August 28 meeting was misleading, and frankly leads us to doubt her objectivity. She showed an aerial view of properties on the west side of Shannon, outside of Oro Valley, that have been largely bladed in the past to create horse properties. She made the point that the proposed wildlife corridor would do a better job of preserving the desert environment and would be better for wildlife. However, her comparison was misrepresentative, and was more like something we would expect from the developers than from a town official. Had she instead chosen to show an aerial view of the properties directly to the south of the Manning Property, it would be clear that responsible R1-144 development according to Oro Valley rules results in a much better environment to preserve native plants and wildlife than the horse properties outside the Oro Valley border. Having said that, we understand that the proposed southern buffer zone offers some advantages to the home owners living on Owl Vista, and we are not opposed to this concept if the other development details are reasonable. Shannon is not La Cholla or La Canada There seems to be a push to rezone the corridor along La Cholla for dense development. We find this regrettable. However, even if the Council feels it is appropriate to make La Cholla look more like Ina Road, that same logic should not apply to Shannon. The General Plan establishes the corridor along Shannon as a rural area. The current home owners bought our properties with that understanding, and until now that character has been preserved. If you look at a Google earth map of the area, its rural character is very clear. These properties are not dominos An argument has been presented that the intrusion of Ironwood High School and the Capella development justifies increasing the density of adjacent properties. We fundamentally reject this logic. If each rezoning to allow dense development justifies similar rezoning on the next property, our entire Oro Valley way of life will be destroyed. A row of closely spaced houses does much more to obliterate mountain views At the site visit meeting on August 9, the developer had erected poles to show the proposed height of houses, and tried to make the case that adjacent property owners would hardly see the houses because of the setbacks. Although we understand that such poles are a relatively standard visualization tool, they are deceptive. When the houses are 10 feet apart as proposed, they form a continuous wall to block the view, just as a Wal-Mart would. Looking at a couple of skinny poles doesn't convey the impact of the proposed dense development. What's in it for Oro Valley? We have been surprised at recent meetings that the city planners have expressed so much support for the proposed rezoning, even to the point of making some of the selling points for the developers. When we questioned this attitude at the August 28 meeting, we asked why the city would be in favor of dense development. We understand the developers, who don't even live in this area, want to make as much money as possible and don't really care how it affects our community. But we asked, "What's in it for Oro Valley?" We were surprised by the answer, which was, "Essentially nothing. The property tax goes to the county, and Oro Valley will only get a few fees during the construction." Considering this, it's hard to understand the enthusiasm shown by the city planners for the proposed rezoning. We understand that nearly 100% of existing property owners along both east and west sides of the Shannon corridor have expressed their opposition to it. Possible options and areas of compromise The developers would like to increase the density of housing on the property to an unreasonable level. They would make individual lots about 8000 square feet, instead of 144,000. Even counting the proposed set aside of the core environmental area, they are proposing an effective average zoning density equivalent to R1-36. This is four times the number of homes allowed by the current zoning, and the actual developed portion would be more than 15 times denser. This would violate the rural nature of our area and it is unacceptable. It would be best for the Council to reject this rezoning proposal. However, if the Council pushes for a compromise, the zoning should not change more than one category, to R1- 72. We could accept such a change, which would result in doubling the number of homes that the General Plan allows, to approximately 45, but only if the following conditions were locked in as part of the compromise. • The proposed environmental preserve in the southern part of the property must be under city control, with assurances it can never be developed in the future. • The developer must improve the runoff characteristics (as promised) to not only meet the requirement of not increasing down -stream runoff, but to improve the current problems created by the irresponsible development of the high school that are impacting the home owners on Owl Vista. • The closest homes to Shannon and to Owl Vista must be at least 500 feet from the roadways, to reduce the visual impact. • To reduce traffic backup at the entrance, northbound and southbound turn lanes must be added on Shannon at the intersection; and the gate, if there is one, must be far enough from Shannon to accommodate at least five cars waiting in line without extending onto Shannon. • Only single story homes no higher than 18 feet maximum (NOT the 22 foot height that would be otherwise allowed by R1-72 zoning). • The total graded area including roadways, playgrounds, etc., shall be no larger than 30 acres. • Preservation and re -use of the native vegetation in the graded areas should follow normal Oro Valley regulations. • No continuation of the sewer line beyond the property shall be allowed, now or in the future. • Lot size and setbacks shall meet the code requirements for R1-10 zoning, to reduce the wall -of -houses effect. • No street lights in the development. Please put the interests of Oro Valley residents above the profit motives of the developers and either reject this rezoning, or as a worst compromise ensure it complies with the sensible restrictions outlined above. Once the desert environment is destroyed we will never get it back. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:12 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:10 PM To: Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov>; Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: Eric Klein Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:06 PM To: Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Jade<tucsonrealestate@mindspring.com>; neil@pit tstonwarehouse.com; Nancy E <TreColnc@msn.com>; Paul Oland <gpoland@wlbgroup.com>; Agnes Klein <agnes.klein@icloud.com>; Hiremath, Satish <shiremath@orovalleyaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovallevaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <ihornat@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Bill Rodman <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovallevaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovallevaz.gov>; Koepfer, Lynda <Ikoepfer@orovallevaz.gov>; Sharp, Daniel <dsharp@orovalleyaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovalleyaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Jade, Thanks for sharing some of the details about your meeting with the owner/developer. It's good that they and the Town recognize that gates and neighborhood signs (like the types popping up in other places - the worst of all represented at Capella) have no place on the Rural Shannon Corridor. It would not be appropriate for the entrance to any new development on the Shannon 80 property to look any different than the entrances to any other street on Shannon, particularly compared to Sahuaro Divide. Any gate should be low-key and out of site - just like the only other example on the Rural Shannon Corridor (leading into Shannon View Ct). It looks like the most important outstanding issue remaining between any real agreement between the Rural Shannon neighbors and the developer, however, remains the total number of homes that will be permitted. This is where the developer stands to make the most money (by not compromising). Consequently, it is where we've seen the least movement from the developer toward compromise. Through our many discussions and meetings, the neighbors have almost all come to recognize and appreciate that 23 houses (allowed by current R1-144 zoning) is too low given the other considerations around this unique property (e.g. bordering a HS). We would now like to see the developer and Town recognize and appreciate the fact that 80 houses, which would necessitate changes to Shannon Rd and, by definition, change the character of the Rural Shannon Corridor, would be far too high. If the developer continues to not compromise on this, it is my hope that the Town of OV (Staff and Council) will not support the current proposal. We believe 46 is the appropriate number (allowable by R1-72 zoning) to support and the number that represents a real compromise between 23 and 80 Eric and A es On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleadz gov> wrote: Good morning all, Thank you for forwarding this information to the Town. Please see our responses to each item below. Let me know if you should have any questions about our comments. Thank you, Milini Simms and Bayer Vella 520.229.4836 From: Jade [mailto:tucsonrealestate@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 7:25 AM To: Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Begin forwarded message: From: Jade Subject: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Date: October 3, 2017 at 7:21:33 AM MST To: Eric Klein , Agnes Klein <agnes.klein icloud.co Neil Chiarello INEENNENOW, mowNancy E<msn.com>, gpoland_ m Hello, Neil Chiarello and I had a very productive meeting with Paul Oland of WLB Group yesterday. Paul Oland verbally agreed to the following: 1. The electronic entry gate to the community will be directly in back of lot 1, rather than on Shannon Rd. The Town will add this as a condition, in the event the application is approved. 2. The area between the western edge of the houses (lot 1 etc.) and Shannon Rd. will be a separate common area (Ex. Common Area A), with a deed restriction (CCR) stating no extension for wet utilities. In addition, the streets in the subdivision will be private. Therefore, the sewer line will end at lot 1 and there will be no legal easement, for a sewer extension to Shannon Rd. The is a privdte agreement between the owner and neighbors. The Town cannot legally be party to it so it will not be added as a condition for approval. 3. Paul is going to propose, the applicant pay Oro Valley for a future walking trail (to no where), rather than build one. If and when Shannon Rd. is ever widened, Oro Valley will have received the funds to put in a walking trail. This is the Town's standard operating procedure for such improvements. We are awaiting written confirmation on the above from Paul Oland and the applicant. Please communicate this information to the Rural Shannon stakeholders. Jade Bossert Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:12 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:10 PM To: Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov>; Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: Eric Klein Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:06 PM To: Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Jade <tucsonrealestate@mindspring.com>; neil@pittstonwarehouse.com; Nancy E <TreColnc@msn.com>; Paul Oland <Rpoland@wibgroup.com>; Agnes Klein <agnes.ldein@icloud.com>; Hiremath, Satish <shiremath @orovaI[eyaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <ihornat@orovallevaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Bill Rodman <brodman@orovalleyaz.Rov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovalleyaz.gov>; Solomon, Steve <ssolomon@orovallevaz.gov>; Koepfer, Lynda <Ikoepfer@orovallevaz.gov>; Sharp, Daniel <dsharp@orovallevaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovallevaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Jade, Thanks for sharing some of the details about your meeting with the owner/developer. It's good that they and the Town recognize that gates and neighborhood signs (like the types popping up in other places - the worst of all represented at Capella) have no place on the Rural Shannon Corridor. It would not be appropriate for the entrance to any new development on the Shannon 80 property to look any different than the entrances to any other street on Shannon, particularly compared to Sahuaro Divide. Any gate should be low-key and out of site - just like the only other example on the Rural Shannon Corridor (leading into Shannon View Ct). It looks like the most important outstanding issue remaining between any real agreement between the Rural Shannon neighbors and the developer, however, remains the total number of homes that will be permitted. This is where the developer stands to snake the most money (by not compromising). Consequently, it is where we've seen the least movement from the developer toward compromise. Through our many discussions and meetings, the neighbors have almost all come to recognize and appreciate that 23 houses (allowed by current R1-144 zoning) is too low given the other considerations around this unique property (e.g. bordering a HS). We would now like to see the developer and Town recognize and appreciate the fact that 80 houses, which would necessitate changes to Shannon Rd and, by definition, change the character of the Rural Shannon Corridor, would be far too high. If the developer continues to not compromise on this, it is my hope that the Town of OV (Staff and Council) will not support the current proposal. We believe 46 is the appropriate number (allowable by R1-72 zoning) to support and the number that represents a real compromise between 23 and 80 Eric and A es Klein No On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Simms, Milini <msimms a,orovalleyaz.gov> wrote: Good morning all, Thank you for forwarding this information to the Town. Please see our responses to each item below. Let me know if you should have any questions about our comments. Thank you, Milini Simms and Bayer Vella 520.229.4836 From: Jade [mailt Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 7:25 AM To: Simms, Milini <msimms@orovalleyaz.Rov> Subject: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Begin forwarded message: From: Jade < Subject: Rural Shannon NEW Verbal Agreements Date: October 3, 2017 at 7:21:33 AM MST To: lein , Agnes Klein Neil Chiarello ancy E Hello, Neil Chiarello and I had a very productive meeting with Paul Oland of WLB Group yesterday. Paul Oland verbally agreed to the following: 1. The electronic entry gate to the community will be directly in back of lot 1, rather than on Shannon Rd. The Town will add this as a condition, in the event the application is approved. 2. The area between the western edge of the houses (lot 1 etq.) and Shannon Rd. will be a separate common area (Ex. Common Area A), with a deed restriction (CCR) stating no extension for wet utilities. In addition, the streets in the subdivision will be private. Therefore, the sewer line will end at lot 1 and there will be no legal easement, for a sewer extension to Shannon Rd. The is a private agreement between the owner and neighbors. The Town cannot legally be party to it so it will not be added as a condition. for approval. 3. Paul is going to propose, the applicant pay Oro Valley for a future walking trail (to no where), rather than build one. If and when Shannon Rd. is ever widened, Oro Valley will have received the funds to put in a walking trail. This is the Town's standard operating procedure for such improvements. We are awaiting written confirmation on the above from Paul Oland and the applicant. Please communicate this information to the Rural Shannon stakeholders. Jade Bossert Arellano, Rosevelt From: Allan Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:19 AM To: Arellano, Rosevelt Subject: Big wash Let's leave a flood plain and wildlife habitat alone. No development in the Big Wash. Allan Cook amaw Sent from my iPhone Arellano, Rosevelt From: lynne cochran N � Sent: Monday, December, , 017 :25 AM To: Arellano, Rosevelt Subject: Big Wash rezoning Dear sir, We are deeply disappointed in the latest move to pave over our beautiful town by rezoning the Big Wash. The General Plan for Oro Valley was approved by a majority of Oro Valley residents because it was balanced between growth and protection of the natural resources like the Big Wash that drew us to Oro Valley in the first place. The proposed rezoning to medium and high density residential, and development of land that was designated as Open Space, would greatly increase the number of houses built in the Big Wash and result in significant increases in traffic, light and noise pollution, and water consumption as well as obvious visual effects. These actions indicate to prospective residents that the town now favors developers over the quality of life of residents and when people we know who are considering moving to Oro Valley, we discourage them, since it appears that the General plan is being ignored. t We are fortunate enough to be able to leave Oro Valley and are among many who are now considering a move to a town that shares our values. Lynne and Lee Cochran December 4, 2017 Dear Mr. Arellano, am opposed to the General Plan Amendment and PAD Rezoning for Big Wash for the following reasons: 1) Conflicts with General Plan - Oro Valley residents voted to retain a small town feel. This feel/character will cease to exist if developers are permitted to change density for every new housing project. Oro Valley is not preserving the character or scenic beauty of the town. It is wantonly being destroyed. 2) Environmental issues -The town's ESL provisions would prohibit development in the riparian areas of Big Wash if the property had not been permitted by Pima County 30 years ago. 3) Safety—The property is in a FEMA flood zone. 4) Water—We live in a desert. The common theme in the opposition letters (Attachment 6 of Agenda) was the community's desire to stop the over -development of Oro Valley and preserve the desert environment and wildlife corridors. I stand with my fellow citizens in opposition to the Big Wash GPA and rezoning. Shirl Lamonna Oro Valley resident Arellano, Rosevelt From: Dwight Conover Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 11:09 AM To: Hiremath, Satish; Waters, Lou; Hornat, Joe; Rodman, Bill; Snider, Mary; Solomon, Steve; Pina, Rhonda Cc: Arellano, Rosevelt Subject: Big Wash Attachments: Oro Valleys new Skyline (3).docx I am Dwight Conover, ro Valley. My wife and I bought 2 years ago a home by the Big Wash in Hohokum Mesa. We choose Oro because of the vistas and the realtor gave us a zoning sheet that said the only development planned for the Big Wash was a golf course. Wow, was that a lie. I believe most of us moved here because of open areas and wildlife, a life style that is in sync with nature. My sense of what you are doing is at odds with the citizens that elected you. I felt Prop 454 was about 50-50 in support in the beginning but then went more against. It ended up 4- 1 against) I I Or 72% that is a landslide against Prop 454. I have been asking neighbors/people on this rezoning of the Big Wash, and it's 100% against, which is 5- 0 against. Please do not rezone to High Density Residential. If we need to get 1000-2000-3000 signatures, we will get them. Everyone will sign. Who wants more stop lights and 6 lane highways? ................... No one I have talked with. Ps: We asked our exterminators why we are having more wildlife traffic and problems this fall. They say it's because the wildlife have been misplaced and must find new homes. That is sad. 431 202nd Street, Arnolds Park, IA Office: 712.262.4100 Dwight Conover Direct: 712.580.4156 Chairman Mobile: 515.480.5359 dconover(o)NWFinancialCorp.com NWFinancialCorp.com This electronic transmission and any documents accompanying this electronic transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender. This information may be legally protected. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient or receive this message in error, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on or regarding the contents of this electronically transmitted information is strictly prohibited. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 2:10 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Please forward to council members prior to tomorrow's town council meeting From: Kathy Boelte Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 6:36 PM To: Standishiiiwww alleyaz.gov> Cc: K Boelte Subject: Please forward to council members prior to tomorrow's town council meeting We oppose allowing housing in the Big Wash and Honey Bee Wash. We are concerned about the impact of development on wildlife. In addition, it concerns us to have increased housing and resulting increased traffic in Oro Valley. In particular, we are especially opposed to the town council changing the town's 10 year General Plan approved in 2016 by 70% of town voters. Kathy and Kenn Boelte Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:21 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: CSDP Correspondence: Tangerine North Gen Plan Attachments: 2017 12 4 CSDP OV MC Tangerine-Thornydale GPA FINAL w MAP pdf.pdf From: Carolyn Campbell Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:08 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov>; Stine, Michelle <mstine@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Hiremath, Satish <shiremath@orovalleyaz.gov>; Waters, Lou <Iwaters@orovalleyaz.gov>; Snider, Mary <msnider@orovalleyaz.gov>; Hornat, Joe <jhornat@orovalleyaz.gov>; Pina, Rhonda <rpina@orovalleyaz.gov>; Rodman, Bill <brodman@orovalleyaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovalleyaz.gov>; Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov>; David.Jacobs@azag.gov; Michelle Green <mgreen@azland.gov> Subject: CSDP Correspondence: Tangerine North Gen Plan Please see attached correspondence from the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection regarding an item on tomorrow's Mayor and Council agenda. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Carolyn Carolyn CampbellO Executive Director Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection 738 N. 5th Avenue, Suite 212 Tucson, AZ 85705 520-388-9925 www.sonorandesert.org Coalition for f ) Sonoran Desert Protection / 758 N. 5th Ave., Suite 212 1 Tucson, Arizona 85705 520.388.9925 sonorandesert.org December 6, 2017 Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest Mayor Satish I. Hiremath Arizona Native Plant Oro Valley Town Council Society Bat Conservation 11000 N. La Canada Dr. International Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Cascabel Conservation Association Center for Biological RE: TANGERINE -NORTH TYPE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: Planning Area Divers ity Boundary Extension and Application of Land Use Designation (enter ironmental for Ethics Defenders of Wildlife Dear Mayor Hiremath and Councilmembers: Desert Watch Environmental Law Society Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following comments and recommendations on Friends ofCabezaPrieta behalf of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection with regards to the Tangerine -North Type Friends of Ironwood Forest 1 General Plan Amendment on your agenda for December 6, 2017. Friends of Madera Canyon Friends of Saguaro National Park First, as background, this 300+ acre parcel in unincorporated Pima County lies in what is Friends of Tortolita commonly referred to as the "Tortolita Fan," an alluvial fan extending south and west from the Gates Pass Area Neighborhood Tortolita Mountains towards the Santa Cruz River. The Coalition has been working on issues Association in this area regarding conservation, planning and zoning, and open space acquisition for two Genius loci Foundation Native Seeds/SEARCH decades. The Tangerine -North parcel contains old growth Sonoran Desert saguaro -ironwood Protect Land and habitat that is important for many "Priority Vulnerable Species" and "Special Elements" Neighborhoods identified in Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). Ironwood trees can Safford Peak Watershed Education Team grow from 800 to 1,200 years of age and provide for over 600 species, as identified in Dr. Gary Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Paul Nabhan's book Ironwood: An Ecological and Cultural Keystone of the Sonoran Desert. Sierra Club — Grand Canyon Chapter The SDCP was also used in the development of the Town of Oro Valley's Environmentally Sierra Club — Rincon Group Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Sky Island Alliance Society for Ecological Restoration Under the SDCP, this parcel has multiple layers of conservation designations. Because of the Southwestern Biological high biological value of this habitat, this parcel has been identified and targeted for future Institute Tortolita Homeowners acquisition by Pima County as a "Habitat Protection Priority." While there is currently no Association avenue within the County to acquire this parcel, this designation speaks to its importance as a Tucson Audubon Society unique, biologically -valuable habitat. Tucson Herpetological Sodety Tucson Mountains This parcel also lies within the SDCP's "Conservation Lands System" and has been designated Association Wildlands Network as a Special Species Management Area with Important Riparian Areas (as is the State Land Department parcel to the immediate south). This again points to the high biological value of this parcel. Under Conservation Lands System guidelines, should a plan amendment and subsequent rezoning be considered, 95% of the Important Riparian Areas and 80% of the lands outside the Important Riparian Areas should be preserved as Natural Undisturbed Open Space. Second, both Oro Valley and Pima County recently underwent General and Comprehensive Plan Updates (respectively). Understandably, the Town did not pursue extending Oro Valley's planning boundary to this parcel during your General Plan Update since you had not been approached by the Arizona State Land Department to do so at that time. Pima County, for their part, did have discussions about up -planning parcels in the Tortolita Fan during its Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of those discussions, Pima County concluded that this parcel is appropriately planned for low-density development at 1 residence per 3 acres. Because of all the factors outlined above, the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection recommends a slow, strategic and thoughtful approach to up -planning of this parcel. The Town's staff report states that the recommended designation be considered a "placeholder" designation. The Coalition recommends that the "placeholder" designation be Rural Low Density Residential (0.0-0.3 DU/AC) to match Pima County's current land use designation of Low -Intensity Urban (0.0-0.3 DU/AC). This way, the parcel can go through a plan amendment in a deliberative process, after the Mayor and Council decide whether to extend the planning boundary to include this parcel. In summary, we make the following recommendations regarding the Tangerine -North Type 1 General Plan Amendment: Should the Mayor and Council support extending the planning boundary, this should be the only step taken at your meeting on December 6, 2017. Consideration of a Plan Amendment should proceed after inclusion of the parcel in the Town's planning boundary, similar to how annexation will be considered at a later date. 0 Special Area Policy #3 should be amended to read: The subject property will be mapped using the methods and standards of the Town's Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance to conserve sensitive resources, using the underlying Conservation Lands System categories as a baseline map. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations on the Tangerine -North Type 1 General Plan Amendment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, il'yrnCam7e'll Director Attachment: Puna County Habitat Protection Priorities for acquisition CC: Bayer Vella, Community Development and Public Works Michael Spaeth, Community Development and Public Works no, T Y •L O .% CL M IA d s OA 2 C f6 J Q) M 7 •L CL I v •L O CL c O v v M O L M. M M 41x u ro M N r_ L Q O a � O L L +T+ O •� v � v E E v � 00000 l Coalition for J Sonoran Desert Protection 758 N. 5th Ave., Suite 212 Tucson, Arizona 85705 520.388.9925 sonorandesert.org Arizona Center for Law in December 6, 2017 the Public Interest Mayor Satish I. Hiremath Arizona Native Plant Oro Valley Town Council Society Bat Conservation 11000 N. La Canada Dr. International Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Cascabel Conservation Association Center for Biological RE: TANGERINE -NORTH TYPE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: Planning Area Divers ity Boundary Extension and Application of Land Use Designation (enter ironmental for Ethics Defenders of Wildlife Dear Mayor Hiremath and Councilmembers: Desert Watch Environmental Law Society Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following comments and recommendations on Friends of Cabeza Prieta behalf of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection with regards to the Tangerine -North Type friends of Ironwood Forest Friends of Madera Canyon 1 General Plan Amendment on your agenda for December 6, 2017. friends of Saguaro National Park First, as background, this 300+ acre parcel in unincorporated Pima County lies in what is Friends of Tortolita Gates Pass Area commonly referred to as the "Tortolita Fan," an alluvial fan extending south and west from the Neighborhood Tortolita Mountains towards the Santa Cruz River. The Coalition has been working on issues Association Genius Loci foundation in this area regarding conservation, planning and zoning, and open space acquisition for two Native Seeds / SEARCH decades. The Tangerine -North parcel contains old growth Sonoran Desert saguaro -ironwood Protect Land and habitat that is important for many "Priority Vulnerable Species" and "Special Elements" Neighborhoods Safford Peak Watershed identified in Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). Ironwood trees can Education Team grow from 800 to 1,200 years of age and provide for over 600 species, as identified in Dr. Gary Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Paul Nabhan's book Ironwood: An Ecological and Cultural Keystone of the Sonoran Desert. Sierra Club — Grand Canyon Chapter The SDCP was also used in the development of the Town of Oro Valley's Environmentally Sierra Club — Rincon Group Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Sky Island Alliance Society for Ecological Restoration Under the SDCP, this parcel has multiple layers of conservation designations. Because of the Southwestern Biological high biological value of this habitat, this parcel has been identified and targeted for future Institute Tortolita Homeowners acquisition by Pima County as a "Habitat Protection Priority." While there is currently no Association avenue within the County to acquire this parcel, this designation speaks to its importance as a Tucson Audubon Society unique, biologically -valuable habitat. Tucson Herpetological Society Tucson Mountains This parcel also lies within the SDCP's "Conservation Lands System" and has been designated Association Wili lands Network as a Special Species Management Area with Important Riparian Areas (as is the State Land Department parcel to the immediate south). This again points to the high biological value of this parcel. Under Conservation Lands System guidelines, should a plan amendment and subsequent rezoning be considered, 95% of the Important Riparian Areas and 80% of the lands outside the Important Riparian Areas should be preserved as Natural Undisturbed Open Space. Second, both Oro Valley and Pima County recently underwent General and Comprehensive Plan Updates (respectively). Understandably, the Town did not pursue extending Oro Valley's planning boundary to this parcel during your General Plan Update since you had not been approached by the Arizona State Land Department to do so at that time. Pima County, for their part, did have discussions about up -planning parcels in the Tortolita Fan during its Comprehensive Plan Update. As part of those discussions, Pima County concluded that this parcel is appropriately planned for low-density development at 1 residence per 3 acres. Because of all the factors outlined above, the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection recommends a slow, strategic and thoughtful approach to up -planning of this parcel. The Town's staff report states that the recommended designation be considered a "placeholder" designation. The Coalition recommends that the "placeholder" designation be Rural Low Density Residential (0.0-0.3 DU/AC) to match Pima County's current land use designation of Low -Intensity Urban (0.0-0.3 DU/AC). This way, the parcel can go through a plan amendment in a deliberative process, after the Mayor and Council decide whether to extend the planning boundary to include this parcel. In summary, we make the following recommendations regarding the Tangerine -North Type 1 General Plan Amendment: • Should the Mayor and Council support extending the planning boundary, this should be the only step taken at your meeting on December 6, 2017. • Consideration of a Plan Amendment should proceed after inclusion of the parcel in the Town's planning boundary, similar to how annexation will be considered at a later date. • Special Area Policy #3 should be amended to read: The subject property will be mapped using the methods and standards of the Town's Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance to conserve sensitive resources, using the underlying Conservation Lands System categories as a baseline map. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations on the Tangerine -North Type 1 General Plan Amendment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Carolyn Cain ell Director Attachment: Pima County Habitat Protection Priorities for acquisition CC: Bayer Vella, Community Development and Public Works Michael Spaeth, Community Development and Public Works � asp N 1 Sr AV w� N � N RANCHO VISTDSO W z 4 r W 4� W � J H W � F �lO tlO INV3 tll N r y g T� O N LA CANADA OR C UU qa 4� 2 C C � w 2 tG pD � F N LA CHOLLA BL N LA CHOLLA BL N L Arellano, Rosevelt From: Spaeth, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:08 AM To: Arellano, Rosevelt Subject: FW: Big Wash planning and zoning redesignation Attachments: Figure 1 -Geologic Map Rancho Vistoso area and unit descriptions.pdf I have not responded to Ms. Dunalp. Best regards, Michael Spaeth, AICP, CPM Current Planning Principal Planner Community Development and Public Works Town of Oro Valley 520.229.4812 From: Pamela Dunlap Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:05 AM To: Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Big Wash planning and zoning redesignation Dear Mr. Spaeth, I oppose development on flood prone areas, and I oppose developments of more than a few homes that are accessible by a single entryway. If flooding obstructs the only access road to the development, what is the town's plan for evacuating these residents? The WLB Group's Parcels 5-H and 5-I are situated predominantly in flood prone areas (units Qyc, Qy, Qyt in Figure 1), and are planned as being accessible by a single entryway off of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. Spencer and Pearthree (2004) state that "Areas mapped as Qyc are flood prone unless engineering structures have been built to divert flow away from them," "Many areas mapped as Qy are flood prone," and "Qyt surfaces... generally are not subject to flood inundation." Their Parcels 5-W and 5-X are also situated in flood prone areas, located predominantly on unit Qy, intersected by a channel of unit Qyc. In their description of the two units, Spencer and Pearthree (2004) state that "Areas mapped as Qyc are flood prone unless engineering structures have been built to divert flow away from them" and that "Many areas mapped as Qy are flood prone." I attach a PDF showing the geology of the area and select map unit descriptions from Spencer and Pearthree (2004) as "Figure 1_Geologic Map Rancho Vistoso area and unit descriptions. pdf ' Reference Cited: Spencer, J.E., and Pearthree, P.A., 2004, Geologic map of the Oro Valley 7%2' quadrangle and the Pusch Peak area, northeastern Pima County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 21, ver. 2.0 (DGM- 21, v. 2.0), scale 1:24,000. (Also available at http://repository.azgs.az.gov/sites/default/files/dlio/files/2010/u15/dgm-2lv2map.pdf.) Sincerely, Pamela Dunlap Oro Valley resident c cu N L m v 0 O O 0 0 0 6 m t E m cu C: v U O cu 0- E E H L () O O O 2 v Ln a) H L O E 4- 0 E .j ro a) C v U _O O 2 T N L (B () O O O 6 Pi 2 v Description of geologic map units (from Spencer and Pearthree, 2004) Qyc Modern channel deposits (<100 years) Unit Qyc consists of deposits in active channels of the larger tributary drainages and the major washes. Channel deposits are mapped where they are extensive enough to represent at 1:24,000 scale. They were outlined using the 1997 digital orthophotos for the Oro Valley quadrangle. Deposits are composed of primarily of sand, pebbles, and cobbles; small to medium boulders are abundant in channels of larger tributaries of the Catalina piedmont. Channels are incised as much as several meters below adjacent Holocene terraces (units Qyt and Qy). Channels consist of single, relatively large channels and smaller branching channels in areas of channel expansions. Local relief within channels varies from minimal to more than 1 meter between low -flow channels and adjacent gravel bars. Vegetation generally consists of small bushes and grasses, although the channel banks are typically lined with trees including mesquite, acacia, and palo verde. Areas mapped as Qyc are flood prone unless engineering structures have been built to divert flow away from them. Qy I Holocene alluvium of tributary washes (<-10 ka) Unit Qy consists of young deposits in small channels, low terraces, and alluvial fans. Deposits vary widely in particle size. Qy deposits on the Catalina piedmont are typically quite coarse, locally including medium to large boulders, cobbles, pebbles, sand, and minor silt and clay. Qy deposits on the Tortolita piedmont are finer, consisting mainly of cobbles, pebbles, sand, silt and minor clay. Channels generally are incised less than 2 m below adjacent terraces and fans, but locally incision may be somewhat greater. Channel morphologies generally consist of a single -thread channel or multi -threaded channels with gravel bars adjacent to low flow channels. Fairly extensive distributary channel systems where channels branch and decrease in size downstream existed on the lower margin of the Tortolita piedmont. Many of these systems have been profoundly altered by channelization associated with development. Local relief on Qy deposits varies from fairly smooth channel bottoms to the undulating bar-and-swale topography that is characteristic of coarser deposits. Terrace surfaces typically have planar surfaces, but small channels are also common on terraces. Soil development associated with Qy deposits is weak. Soil clay accumulation is minimal, and calcic horizon development is typically stage I to 11 (see Machette [1985] for description of stages of calcium carbonate accumulation in soils). Terrace and fan surfaces are brown, and on aerial photos they generally appear darker than surrounding areas, whereas sandy to gravelly channels appear light-colored on aerial photos. Vegetation density is variable. Channels typically have sparse, small vegetation. The densest vegetation in the map area is found along channel margins and on Qy terraces along channels. Vegetation includes mesquite, palo verde, and acacia trees; smaller bushes and grass may also be quite dense. Many areas mapped as Qy are flood prone, including channels and overbank areas. Much of the area mapped as Qy on the Catalina piedmont has been subject to debris flow activity in the past 10,000 years. Qyt I Holocene alluvium of major washes (-4-90 ka) Unit Qyt consists of deposits of terraces found along Canada del Oro, Sutherland, and Big washes. Qyt surfaces are slightly higher and more vegetated than adjacent Qyc surfaces and generally are not subject to flood inundation. Surfaces are generally planar; local relief may be up to 1 m where gravel bars are present, but typically is much less. Qyt surfaces typically are about 2 m above adjacent active channels, but may be higher. Qyt deposits typically are composed of sand, silt, and fine gravel, but locally contain lenses or layers of coarser gravel. Qyt surfaces generally are fine-grained and lightly vegetated, but appear somewhat darker on aerial photos than Qyc surfaces. Qyt terrace surfaces support creosote and other small bushes, with some mesquite and palo verde trees along drainages. Qyt soils typically are weakly developed, with some soil structure but little clay and stage I to II calcium carbonate accumulation. Qm I Middle Pleistocene alluvium (--980 to 500 ka) Unit Qm consists of moderately to highly dissected relict alluvial fans and terraces with strong soil development found throughout the map area. Qm surfaces are drained by well-developed, moderately to deeply incised tributary channel networks; channels are typically several meters up to 10 m below adjacent Qm surfaces. Qm deposits typically consist of sand, pebbles and cobbles, but on the Catalina piedmont are quite bouldery. Qm surfaces are characterized by scattered cobble to boulder lags with moderate to strong varnish. Well-preserved, planar Qm surfaces are smooth with scattered pebble and cobble lags; surface color is reddish brown rock varnish on surface clasts is typically orange or dark brown. More eroded, rounded Qm deposits are less clay -rich and have some carbonate litter on the surface. Well-preserved Qm surfaces have a distinctive bright red color on color aerial photos, reflecting reddening of the surface soil and surface clasts. Soils typically contain reddened, clay argillic horizons (McFadden, 1978), with obvious clay skins and subangular to angular blocky structure. Underlying soil carbonate development is typically stage II to III, with abundant carbonate through at least 1 m of the soil profile, but indurated petrocalcic horizons were not observed. Qm surfaces generally support grasses, bursage, cholla, and small shrubs. QTs Miocene to Pliocene alluvlurn mantled by Quaternary slope deposits (Quaternary to late Tert€aryl Unit QTs consists of hillslope deposits formed on fine -to moderately -coarse, highly eroded alluvial fan deposits. QTs surfaces typically are alternating eroded ridges and valleys with ridgecrests typically 5 to 20 meters above adjacent active channels. QTs deposits are also exposed beneath overlying Quaternary deposits. The thickness of QTs deposits is not known. QTs surfaces are drained by deeply incised tributary channel networks. Even the highest surfaces atop QTs ridges are rounded, and original highest capping fan surfaces are not preserved. QTs deposits are dominated by sand and gravel ranging from pebbles to cobbles. Deposits are moderately indurated and are moderately resistant to erosion because of the clast size and carbonate cementation. Soils typically are dominated by carbonate. accumulation, which is typically cemented on ridgecrests, but areas of clay -rich soils are found locally on ridge flanks. Carbonate litter is common on ridgecrests and hillslopes. On aerial photos, QTs surfaces are generally gray to white, but include some dark reddish brown areas where clay is more abundant. QTs surfaces support creosote, mesquite, palo verde, ocotillo, and cholla. Exposures in stream cutbanks reveal that conglomerate clasts are 1-10 cm diameter, locally to 30 cm, and include abundant sand in matrix (east edge of SE %, NE %, sec. 13, T. 11 S., R. 13 E.). Unit is crudely to moderately well bedded, with beds typically 5-30 cm thick. Beds are generally planar over 1-3 m lengths, lenticular at larger dimensions. Mostly beds are poorly channelized and many appear planar. All or nearly all clasts are locally derived granite (Granite of Tortolita Mountains). Arellano, Rosevelt From: Spaeth, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:10 AM To: Standish, Michael Cc: Arellano, Rosevelt; Vella, Bayer Subject: FW: Case# OV1701699 and Case# OV1701068 Mike, Please forward the below email to Town Council for tonight's meeting. The email references both the Tangerine -State Land GPA and Big Wash GPA. Thank you. Best regards, �f I Michael Spaeth, AICP, CPM Current Planning Principal Planner Community Development and Public Works Town of Oro Valley 520.229.4812 From: Kathy Boelte �Ito�katk�yJae@gtal�GG�� Sent: Wednesday, December , 1:05 AM To: Spaeth, Michael <mspaethiiiiiiiiIiIIIIIiWelena Cc: savethecactus@gmail.com udee Wickersham loop", "e wl� Rutman pleyte goo Subject: Case# OV1701699 and Case# OV1701068 Mr. Spaeth, I am writing on behalf of a number of neighbors in Sun City Oro Valley who oppose the Coyote Crossing, Case* OV1701699 and the Big Wash Case* OV1701o68 development proposals being discussed at tonight's OV Council meeting. We feel that these plans will result in over development after the pubic has spoken to limit new development. We are also concerned about wildlife habitat destruction. Please present our objections to the council tonight. Kathy and Kenn Boete, Art and Judy Wickersham, Sherry and Gordy Rutman, Roe and Selena Pleyte. Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 2:03 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Case# OV1701699 and Case# OV1701068 From: Spaeth, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:10 AM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: Arellano, Rosevelt <rarellano@orovalleyaz.gov>; Vella, Bayer <bvella@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Case# OV1701699 and Case# OV1701068 Mike, Please forward the below email to Town Council for tonight's meeting. The email references both the Tangerine -State Land GPA and Big Wash GPA. Thank you. Best regards, Michael Spaeth, AICP, CPM Current Planning Principal Planner Community Development and Public Works Town of Oro Valley 520.229.4812 From: Kathy Boelte [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:05 AM To: Spaeth, Michael <mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov> Cc: savethecactus@gmail.com; K Boelte Judee Wickersham < Sherri Rutman Roe Selena pleyte Subject: Case# OV1701699 and Case# Mr. Spaeth, I am writing on behalf of a number of neighbors in Sun City Oro Valley who oppose the Coyote Crossing, Case* OV1701699 and the Big Wash Case* OV170lo68 development proposals being discussed at tonight's OV Council meeting. We feel that these plans will result in over development after the pubic has spoken to limit new development. We are also concerned about wildlife habitat destruction. Please present our objections to the council tonight. Kathy and Kenn Boete, Art and Judy Wickersham, Sherry and Gordy Rutman, Roe and Selena Pleyte. z Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 8:22 AM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Vote NO on December 6 From: Koepfer, Lynda Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 7:59 AM To: Hynd, Jessica <jhynd@orovalleyaz.gov>; Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: FW: Vote NO on December 6 Fyi Lynda Koepfer Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4714 All messages created in this system should be considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. 39-121) with no expectation of privacy related to the use of this technology. From: B Bmr Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:29 PM To: Town Council <council@orovaIleyaz.gov> Subject: Vote NO on December 6 Mayor and Council, You are supposed to represent us, not developers, and not your own views. So listen to We, The People. Stop paving our paradise. Vote NO: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED 131 -ACRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND WITHIN THE RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD LOOP A. RESOLUTION NO. (R)17-53, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE A RESORT/GOLF COURSE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND TO RECONFIGURE THE REMAINING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF OPEN SPACE, PARK AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL B. ORDINANCE NO. (0)17-09, REZONING REQUEST TO AMEND THE RANCHO VISTOSO PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT TO REMOVE THE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF COMMERCIAL (C-1), MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND RECREATION AREA/GOLF COURSE AND TO RECONFIGURE THE REMAINING ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF OPEN SPACE AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Brent Beamer Oro Valley property owner and Voter Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 5:01 PM To: Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: comment on Shannon Road GPA, Item 4 120617 Attachments: Shannon Road GPA letter 120617.docx From: Dave Perry [mailto:dave@orovalleychamber.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 4:57 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: comment on Shannon Road GPA, Item 4120617 Hi Mike, Another letter, this one on Item 4 tonight. I will speak to it as well. Your help in distribution is appreciated. Take good care, Dave Dec. 6, 2017 Mayor Satish Hiremath Members of the Oro Valley Town Council Town staff Ladies and gentlemen, Directors of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce express their support for a proposal to amend the general plan from rural low density residential to low-density residential, and to rezone from R1-144 to R1-36, a 76 -acre parcel east of Shannon Road and immediately south of Ironwood Ridge High school, Item 4 on your agenda this evening. This proposal, developed through extensive interaction with town staff and neighbors, is an outstanding example of community planning. If you approve this evening, 66 percent of this property would be protected, forever, as natural open space. A conservation easement would exist into perpetuity. A large tract of ironwood trees would be conserved. The developer has agreed to 80 clustered home lots with a minimum lot size of 8,750 square feet. Buffers with neighbors extend from 1 to 2 football fields on the south and west sides of the property, with larger lots on the western edge. All the homes will be 1 -story, protecting views. Traffic improvements along Shannon are being offered above what is required. The developer is going to mitigate storm runoff created by the construction of IRHS, again beyond requirements. We understand the neighbors may not want this project, we respect their opinions, and we understand the pressures they must feel as development approaches from seemingly every direction. That said, Amphi's decision years ago to build Ironwood Ridge High School to the north pre -destined that the subject parcel would be developed, in our view. As the record indicates, this is the third time a development proposal on this parcel has been brought forward. People familiar with all of them say this is by far the best one. With that, we encourage your favorable consideration this evening. My thanks for your time and service Respectfully submitted, Dave Perry President / CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce On behalf of our board of directors Dave Perry President / CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce 7435 N. Oracle, Suite 107 Oro Valley, AZ 85704 0:520.297.2191 F: 520.742.7960 D aveRorovalleyghamb er. com Chamber W Commerce go Corporate Partners: A&Ouwnstar Hilton TUCSON Et CONOUISTADC A AOIE & 7ENN6 RESmr Roche Acaciall NORTHWEST HEALTHCARE �• � - ) TUR COMM ocalmed�a Nonhuot}�WicolCenter Ore�alle ll+bpital� lillilft)U.ljlI %I- YOURCOMMUNITYDELIVERED �A:Dtti+D�+ MHughos ❑ 7UCSON '1 FVantageWest PeddalCreditUnion• cRt:Dirt�to�E[7ERAt .tet ECASACHek$ COLA+RITY de la Luz PkIlaca r-,, %Yr*"CWW HOSPICE' ' c—"'"'-- GtnZA�Tg� A LL 1� Chairman Toni Dorsey AAA Arizona Chair -elect Greg Durnan Acacia IT Treasurer Ghee Alexander The Hilton Tucson B Conquistador Golf & Tennis Resort Secretary Nancy Boyle Splendido at Rancho Vistoso Past chair EI Ndoye National Bank of Arizona 7435 N. Oracle Rd., Suite 107 Oro Valley, AZ 85704 P: 520.297.2191 F: 520.742.7960 orovalleychamber.com Dec. 6, 2017 Mayor Satish Hiremath Members of the Oro Valley Town Council Town staff Ladies and gentlemen, Directors of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce express their support for a proposal to amend the general plan from rural low density residential to low-density residential, and to rezone from R1-144 to R1-36, a 76 -acre parcel east of Shannon Road and immediately south of Ironwood Ridge High school, Item 4 on your agenda this evening. This proposal, developed through extensive interaction with town staff and neighbors, is an outstanding example of community planning. If you approve this evening, 66 percent of this property would be protected, forever, as natural open space. A conservation easement would exist into perpetuity. A large tract of ironwood trees would be conserved. The developer has agreed to 80 clustered home lots with a minimum lot size of 8,750 square feet. Buffers with neighbors extend from 1 to 2 football fields on the south and west sides of the property, with larger lots on the western edge. All the homes will be 1 -story, protecting views. Traffic improvements along Shannon are being offered above what is required. The developer is going to mitigate storm runoff created by the construction of IRHS, again beyond requirements. We understand the neighbors may not want this project, we respect their opinions, and we understand the pressures they must feel as development approaches from seemingly every direction. That said, Amphi's decision years ago to build Ironwood Ridge High School to the north pre -destined that the subject parcel would be developed, in our view. As the record indicates, this is the third time a development proposal on this parcel has been brought forward. People familiar with all of them say this is by far the best one. With that, we encourage your favorable consideration this evening. My thanks for your time and service. Respectfully submitted, Dave Perry President / CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce On behalf of our board of directors Stine, Michelle From: Snider, Mary Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 4:58 PM To: Carolyn Campbell; Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Subject: Re: CSDP Correspondence: Tangerine North Gen Plan Hello Carolyn, Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2017. The only action regarding the Tangerine -North Type I General Plan Amendment that may be acted on by Council is to place this parcel in the planning boundary for the Town of Oro Valley. No other action is possible. Mary Snider Councilmember From: Carolyn Campbell Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 3:08 PM To: Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Cc: Hiremath, Satish; Waters, Lou; Snider, Mary; Hornat, Joe; Pina, Rhonda; Rodman, Bill; Vella, Bayer; Spaeth, Michael; David.Jacobs@azag.gov; Michelle Green Subject: CSDP Correspondence: Tangerine North Gen Plan Please see attached correspondence from the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection regarding an item on tomorrow's Mayor and Council agenda. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Carolyn Carolyn CampbellO Executive Director Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection 738 N. 5th Avenue, Suite 212 Tucson, AZ 85705 520-388-9925 www.sonorandesert.org - Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection - A strong voice ... vvwvvsonorandeserLorQ Our support for aban ontrophy hunting ofArizona's wild cats - November 14,20l7.The Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection has formally endorsed enew ballot ... Stine, Michelle From: Standish, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 4:04 PM To: Dave Perry; Stine, Michelle Subject: RE: comment on Item 3 Wednesday 120617 Hi Dave, No problem. I'll forward this right now. Thank you. Mike From: Dave Perry [mailto:dave@orovalleychamber.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 3:50 PM To: Standish, Michael <mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov>; Stine, Michelle <mstine@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: comment on Item 3 Wednesday 120617 Hi Mike and Michelle, Pasted within and attached, please find a letter to mayor, council and staff regarding the extension of Oro Valley's general plan planning boundary, Item 3 on Wednesday night's agenda. If you can distribute it, I'd appreciate it. I know I'm tardy with this; even getting it into the record would be appreciated. I do plan to speak to the subject as well. If I can get it done, I'll also send a comment on another general plan amendment. My real thanks. Dave Dec. 6, 2017 Mayor Satish Hiremath Members of the Oro Valley Town Council Town staff Ladies and gentlemen, Directors of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce express their support for a proposal to extend Oro Valley's general plan planning boundary and apply a land use designation of master -planned community to a 302 -acre state-owned property immediately west of Oro Valley, Item 3 on your Wednesday, Dec. 6 agenda. The planning area extension makes sense for a number of reasons. Eventual development of the parcel — and it's a question of when, not if -- will impact the town, its infrastructure and its services. As growth continues on Oro Valley's western edge, the community must have a seat at the table, whether the Town of Marana, Pima County or Oro Valley have primary jurisdiction. 1 By extending its planning area boundary, Oro Valley would be in position to express to others its preferences for development — carefully planned communities with minimized mass grading, protection of contiguous open space and critical resources, and a process that listens to neighbors. If this parcel is developed under Oro Valley's direction, we believe the finished product will be excellent. It's also in the community's interests, both short- and long-term, to further interact with the Arizona State Land Department. Sometime soon, Oro Valley will run out of space, and the State Land Department manages a large acreage on Oro Valley's north border. Let's continue to build that working relationship. The item before you tonight is a step toward doing so. My thanks for your time and service. Respectfully submitted, Dave Perry President / CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce On behalf of our board of directors Dave Perry President / CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce 7435 N. Oracle, Suite 107 Oro Valley, AZ 85704 O: 520.297.2191 F: 520.742.7960 Dave(a)orovalleychamber.com Chbero�tca VwLtsr �--� COMM fL] Corporate Partners: Ar izz o u a .5a' r Hilton TUCSON EL CONOUISTADQR GOLF d TENNES RESORT EAcacialT Tucsonlocalmadia®NORTHWEST HEALTHCARE) Nonhik ot siedical C:entet (No \'311,1 Hh*pitol 1 I11 iTi f��l fr+� i l . YOUR COMMUNITY DELIVERED tV-1-01I I NL �N ' u�g�RVantag�W!utuwwFedertiiu� C as C.lr x,%10% d1—*� :MCASACHELS LARITY R��` dela Luz til .50.f\(. 1Etf r;_{\€t i{ PI(f11111�0 rt:ilAR[+. iS+rN 7.ar, HOSPICE- �4� Chairman Toni Dorsey AAA Arizona Chair -elect Greg Durnan Acacia IT Treasurer Ghee Alexander The Hilton Tucson EI Conquistador Golf & Tennis Resort Secretary Nancy Boyle Splendido at Rancho Vistoso Past chair EI Ndoye National Bank of Arizona A Ai Dec. 6, 2017 Mayor Satish Hiremath Members of the Oro Valley Town Council Town staff 7435 N. Oracle Rd., Suite 107 Oro Valley, AZ 85704 P: 520.297.2191 F: 520.742.7960 orovalleychamber.com Ladies and gentlemen, Directors of the Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce express their support for a proposal to extend Oro Valley's general plan planning boundary and apply a land use designation of master -planned community to a 302 -acre state- owned property immediately west of Oro Valley, Item 3 on your Wednesday, Dec. 6 agenda. The planning area extension makes sense for a number of reasons. Eventual development of the parcel — and it's a question of when, not if -- will impact the town, its infrastructure and its services. As growth continues on Oro Valley's western edge, the community must have a seat at the table, whether the Town of Marana, Pima County or Oro Valley have primary jurisdiction. By extending its planning area boundary, Oro Valley would be in position to express to others its preferences for development — carefully planned communities with minimized mass grading, protection of contiguous open space and critical resources, and a process that listens to neighbors. If this parcel is developed under Oro Valley's direction, we believe the finished product will be excellent. It's also in the community's interests, both short- and long-term, to further interact with the Arizona State Land Department. Sometime soon, Oro Valley will run out of space, and the State Land Department manages a large acreage on Oro Valley's north border. Let's continue to build that working relationship. The item before you tonight is a step toward doing so. My thanks for your time and service. Respectfully submitted, Dave Perry President / CEO Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce /* (,Old dA ' f�, � �,,, ✓cr> P> ray" 1 40�c 1� ro a ey, 5755 December 11, 2017 Mayor Hiremath and Oro Valley Town Council members 11000 N La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ, 85737 Dear Mayor Hiremath and Oro Valley Town Council members: I appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Town Council last Tuesday evening, Dec. 6, 2017, in regards to Agenda Item 5 regarding the rezoning of the area between Honeybee Wash and Big Wash. The anastomosing (braided) drainage pattern seen in bright yellow (labeled Qyc) in Figure 1 covers about half of the area now zoned for medium density residential development between Honeybee Wash and Big Wash (in section 30 and north). This type of drainage is not confined to a single channel, but rather represents sheet wash gathering into numerous rivulets and gullies down hillsides and across a broad area. The unit Qyc represents sand, gravel and cobbles that were deposited in active channels. And, it is flood prone, as are units Qy and Qyt, as noted by Spencer and Pearthree (2004, Geologic map of the Oro Valley 7%' quadrangle and the Pusch Peak area, northeastern Pima County, Arizona), a part of which is shown in Figure 1 below. Qv I I i 6� \ rA Y! 'i ! f '.. 1 .,1 -' i A - 1 !,/ i '1 /1 a't— Figure 1. Geologic map for part of the Oro Valley quadrangle, published by the Arizona Geologic Survey (Spencer and Pearthree, 2004). The proposed development covers areas mapped as Qyc (modern channel deposits, <100 years), Qy (Holocene alluvium of tributary washes, <-10,000 years), Qyt (Holocene alluvium of major washes (<-10,000 years), Qm (Middle Pleistocene alluvium (130,000 to 500,000 years), and possibly QTs (Miocene to Pliocene alluvium mantled by Quaternary slope deposits (Quaternary to late Tertiary, < 23 million years).